Photos from Nine

some new photos from Nine, I love penlope's












If you want to see them bigger go to this link:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1874233600/tt0875034

I don't understand you how you can be so sure that something will suck based on things you have heard about the film. Granted I'm not saying you should blindly anticipate and support -- but give me a break... Film is a completely different medium. And while brilliant as a theater piece, NINE the musical isn't entirely filmic. Changes will be made but your certainty the the outcome will be utter FAIL seem just a tad bit unwarranted.

I would agree, if he hadn't cut that much of the score. That takes this from an adaptation to, "do your own film and leave the musical alone".

Not to say the film will be bad, but if you want to adapt a musical for the screen and you have to cut more than 75% of the score, why bother?

---

Cabaret also mostly cut songs from Fräulein Schneider, whose part in the film is significantly reduced and the romantic subplot gone to accommodate Liza's new numbers.

---

It worked although it was a shame the numbers went but at least it made sense & was not a wholesale bloodletting.

---

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I will stick with mine & respect yours although I disagree.

---

Susan Stroman had a bond with Mel Brooks.

I don't think a writer-director bond determines the success of a stage-to-screen adaptation.

Mel Brooks vs K/E?

Not exactly a fair fight.

---

what songs have been cut?

I know the title song is out, but that's all I know.

Maury Yeston was not only involved in full with this film adaptation but he wrote 3 new songs for it.

He didn't hand the score over and slowly walk away from it -- he is fully involved in every aspect of the film's score.

Any modifications not to your liking, take it up with him. ALL artists fully understand the term 'adaptation'... yes, even John Kander and Fred Ebb. Heck... even Marc Shaiman and Scott Whittman (and even Stephen Sondheim!).

I guess YOU don't.

Again, I'm not talking about the quality of the film - it might as well be incredible. But I think it was besty who in another post mentioned it shouldn't be called Nine, but Five or Four.

Perhaps I just don't personally believe that someone's vision should have more weight than the source material in an adaptation, but that there should be a balance.

If my vision of a musical adaptation required to cut 75% of its score, I wouldn't even bother, I'd be obviously doing something completely different from the original and might as well start writing my own scripts.

But obviously to Marshall, he could have one song left and still be Nine, Yeston's musical. It's the artistic integrity of the adaptation that I'm questioning, not the quality of the film, which I'm sure could be great.

And I'm not sure about Yeston being so content as Marshall does whatever he wants with his score, but taking the opportunity of watching his piece getting an adaptation and sitting quietly in the back.

Of course, if I don't like it I can just shut up and listen to my cast recording with the full score. My two cents.

---

I think the reactions (like the OP's) are because Nine is not as popular of a musical, so those who know the score and appreciate it can be more defensive about the cuts, and reject it just out of not getting (to be redundant) the music to the musical they like.

I'm sure most movie goers have never heard of Nine, and wouldn't have anything to compare it with. They will watch as if the film was an original.

As I said before, if Marshall was filming a show like Wicked and it was announced that only four songs made it to the film, this already would be the apocalypse.

---

I copied and pasted from imdb. Corrected.

---