New Producers Movie — Page 2

I do agree...If it is casted right, and a strong team is onboard than I think Wicked could turn out really good! They have to put Idina and Kristin in it though....it would seem imcomplete without them::

I agree with Master on Wicked.

---

I don't really see "Wicked" as a movie. I think "The Producers" would work wonderfully and MAYBE "Hairspray," but I think the magic of "Wicked" would be gone if it were made into a movie.

I'll stick to the original version with Zero and Gene thanks all the same.

I personally don't want a lot of musicals coming to the movies. I just think musicals are meant to be a live performance.

Bringing these shows to Hollywood simply injects them with botox, dyes their hair blonde, and gives them a set of Double D's.

In other words: the singers you hear in the movie have had their voices remastered and smoothed out to near perfection. They can make almost anyone sound wonderful. I can say that I did enjoy the newest big screen musicals 'Chicago' and 'Moulin Rouge', but I think we should cut back before there is a phenomenon of these movies. Look what happened to the comic book hero genre. Those movies are everywhere!

And Wicked as a movie musical? There are enough Wizard of Oz movies, sequels, and cartoons out there to last you people a life time. I loved Wicked, but don't ruin it by making it into a movie. Let the people spend $100 to see a stunning performance live on stage. That's my two cents!

Updated On: 1/6/04 at 09:35 PM

Some musicals benefit greatly being filmed--The Sound of Music is a perfect example. I think POTO (if done well) will also benefit greatly as a film.

Belasco07 wrote: "THE PRODUCERS is Mel Brook's "love letter" to the STAGE. Unless they seriously revamp the show and make it a love letter to old-time movie musicals, (a la MGM)I don't think it will work. What would THE PRODUCERS be like with out those mechanical pigeons??? Or Gary Beach sitting at the end of the stage doing Judy at the Palace?"

Well, the original film worked, and it was about producing a Broadway musical--no need to switch from stage musicals to film musicals. Of course, the stage production has wonderful theatrical moments--but that is the stage version. There will likely be some great things in the film version, particularly with Stroman at the helm. Why must there be puppet pigeons for the film to work--particularly when the original film didn't need them?

I guess I will never understand why so many people on this site are so negative about film musicals (or even stage musicals of films). Film musicals help promote musical theatre, while entertaining with the use of song in much the same way we enjoy the storytelling of a stage show. Most of us probably first encountered musical theatre because of a movie musical. For me, it was Annie. For others it was West Side Story, Cabaret, or even Chicago. Why are there so many dissenting opinions before the film has even been shot, let alone seen?

---

Musicals were meant to be on the stage? Well, tell that to the Golden Era of Hollywood which was full of musicals. The American musical pretty much grew up on stage and screen.

---

A lot of people on film and tv are singers today--started out on the stage.

---

THANK YOU, jrb. I didn't know everyone would be so negative about the whole movie musical thing. "Chicago" was amazing! Look at what the movies can do for some musicals! The musical Chicago is amazing, no doubt, but it helped the show's success as well as bringing us to another version of it that I enjoyed equally as much, if not more.
There is way too much negativity on this topic, I think. I'd love to have Nathan and Matthew's performance preserved on tape. In a movie, too, which will, I'm sure, be extremely similar, if not almost exactly the same to the stage production.

I personally don't think that temporal arts can be effectivley captured on film. The Producers is so good imho, I don't think it can top itself. Of course that is my opinion.

I want films and plays/musicals that are created with genuine intentions whether they are original or adaptations or even adaptations of adaptations. It just doesn't matter where the story comes from as long as it is told well.

Should I really have a problem with Zeffirelli's film of Romeo and Juliet just because it is a film based on a play adapted from an age old story? Should I also hate Kiss Me Kate because it is a film based on a musical adapted from a play adapted from an age old story?

Heck, even Wicked is a musical based on a book that borrows the characters and events from a book turned play, musical, film, etc.

---

Updated On: 1/6/04 at 10:19 PM

I want to add another thought(s) in the "remaking a classic" argument.

1. A remake isn't going to tarnish the original. If you don't want to see it, don't go--no worries, mate. =)

2. This is a "remake" that includes involvement from the original's creator (Mel Brooks) who also wrote the musical that the "remake" is adapted. I think these are very different circumstances from, perhaps, the Gus Van Sant PSYCHO.

=)

---

Updated On: 1/6/04 at 10:46 PM

I have always enjoyed the original movie, which still makes me laugh when I watch it. And though I was not overly fond of the musical (which I did not see with the original leads, however, going back to see them next week...), I did appreciate some of the changes that they made to fill out the plot.

The biggest drawback of this announcement, in my opinion, is that Susan Stroman will be directing. I hope that she has a good DP.

Interesting to me that in the wake of Chicago's boost in ticket sales after the success of the movie, people are touting that movie versions of shows will help theatre sales. Previously, most shows still playing when its movie version was released closed soon after...