Posted: 4/5/22 at 3:36pm
Progress report from Platt and Blake Jenner is still attached.
Posted: 4/5/22 at 3:50pm
The Grammys.com article from which it is sourced has no mention of Jenner. The BroadwayWorld article mentions Jenner, but there hasn't been any indication that he is or isn't involved anymore.
https://www.grammy.com/news/vicente-fernandez-a-mis-80s-wins-best-regional-mexican-music-album-including-tejano-2022-grammys
Posted: 4/5/22 at 4:13pm
Fair, but still. If they had replaced him. I feel like they would have announced that by now.
Posted: 4/5/22 at 6:34pm
Got to say, I get what he’s doing, but I hate the long wait for this filming. With Boyhood, the entire project was designed around that. This is a known property that has functioned perfectly fine without this gimmick, you can easily just put the actors in makeup and as long as the talent’s strong, it’ll be just as good as it would be with them aging real time.
Posted: 4/6/22 at 8:43am
^
Me, too.
Odd thought, however...
By the time this movie actually comes out, there will be a different generation of audience who will not have had to wait. I imagine that their thoughts re: the wait will be completely different. Anything that's written *now* has the possibility of being completely irrelevant in the future.
As for me, personally, my thoughts in this moment will most definitely be irrelevant (at the very least, unable to be changed) as when this movie is completed and released, I will most certainly be dead.
Posted: 4/6/22 at 9:42am
Because this is such a lengthy process, I couldn't care less about it until it have a release date, and we are a year within that date. I don't need a press release or article written when they have completed a scene.
Posted: 4/6/22 at 2:43pm
fashionguru_23 said: "Because this is such a lengthy process, I couldn't care less about it until it have a release date, and we are a year within that date. I don't need a press release or article written when they have completed a scene."
Then maybe don't read the press releases/articles? I could not be more jazzed about this movie, am thrilled at the occasional updates and don't know what the naysayers can possibly be thinking. Of course this show -- which is literally about the aging/maturation of its characters -- will benefit from Linklater's treatment, just as "Boyhood" did. Weighing a 45-year-old Platt against the 30-year-old version will, without a word of dialogue, say so much more than painting on some crows' feet would about the dreams and disillusionment of "Merrily We Roll Along." If this works, it will be cinematic magic. Except it will be real.
Posted: 4/7/22 at 12:02pm
ATerrifyingAndImposingFigure said: "Got to say, I get what he’s doing, but I hate the long wait for this filming. With Boyhood, the entire project was designed around that. This is a known property that has functioned perfectly fine without this gimmick, you can easily just put the actors in makeup and as long as the talent’s strong, it’ll be just as good as it would be with them aging real time."
When you say that this is a "known property that has functioned perfectly fine without this gimmick," would you mind discussing in what way this show has ever functioned perfectly fine? It seems this particular property has a rather turbulent past. It was initially a huge flop for Prince and Sondheim. As a result, this show is rarely performed the same way twice. It has been rewritten with each major production, and yet it has never seemed to function "perfectly fine." Not with the original cast of very young performers, not with a cast of middle aged performers, and not with any of the rewrites.
It's a hard show for audiences and critics. Perhaps actually seeing the cast change as they age in reverse will work better than anything tried thus far, and perhaps it won't, but to say that this is a property that already functions perfectly fine seems to ignore the entire production history of this property.
Posted: 4/7/22 at 12:04pm
jimmycurry01 said: "ATerrifyingAndImposingFigure said: "Got to say, I get what he’s doing, but I hate the long wait for this filming. With Boyhood, the entire project was designed around that. This is a known property that has functioned perfectly fine without this gimmick, you can easily just put the actors in makeup and as long as the talent’s strong, it’ll be just as good as it would be with them aging real time."
When you say that this is a "known property that has functioned perfectly fine without this gimmick," would you mind discussing in what way this show has ever functioned perfectly fine? It seems this particular property has a rather turbulent past. It was initially a huge flop for Prince and Sondheim. As a result, this show is rarely performed the same way twice. It has been rewritten with each major production, and yet it has never seemed to function "perfectly fine." Not with the original cast of very young performers, not with a cast of middle aged performers, and not with any of the rewrites.
It's a hard show for audiences and critics. Perhaps actually seeing the cast change as they age in reverse will work better than anything tried thus far, and perhaps it won't, but to say that this is a property that already functions perfectly fine seems to ignore the entire production history of this property.
"
Or maybe it's a needless complication to an already tricky project that will only wind up a bigger fiasco that previous incarnations.
Personally, it seems like a needless gimmick to me.
Posted: 4/7/22 at 12:40pm
jimmycurry01 said: "ATerrifyingAndImposingFigure said: "Got to say, I get what he’s doing, but I hate the long wait for this filming. With Boyhood, the entire project was designed around that. This is a known property that has functioned perfectly fine without this gimmick, you can easily just put the actors in makeup and as long as the talent’s strong, it’ll be just as good as it would be with them aging real time."
When you say that this is a "known property that has functioned perfectly fine without this gimmick," would you mind discussing in what way this show has ever functioned perfectly fine? It seems this particular property has a rather turbulent past. It was initially a huge flop for Prince and Sondheim. As a result, this show is rarely performed the same way twice. It has been rewritten with each major production, and yet it has never seemed to function "perfectly fine." Not with the original cast of very young performers, not with a cast of middle aged performers, and not with any of the rewrites.
It's a hard show for audiences and critics. Perhaps actually seeing the cast change as they age in reverse will work better than anything tried thus far, and perhaps it won't, but to say that this is a property that already functions perfectly fine seems to ignore the entire production history of this property.
"
This is completely ignoring that the show has had several critically acclaimed, award winning productions since its infamous first one. It’s also ignoring that since the 1994 Off Broadway run the show has retained the structure of that production, it’s not like Chess where they’re still altering the plot and songs.
Updated On: 4/7/22 at 12:40 PM
Posted: 4/7/22 at 12:47pm
Some of these posts are cringeworthy. Richard Linklater is a brilliant director known for telling coming of age stories, most notably the Oscar-nominated, “Boyhood” which also won the Golden Globe and British Academy awards for best picture. He filmed “Boyhood” over a period of 11 years to capture the leading character’s real time experience of growing up. Calling this director’s method of filmmaking a gimmick or stupid is reductive and narrow-minded.
Posted: 4/7/22 at 1:01pm
ATerrifyingAndImposingFigure said: "jimmycurry01 said: "ATerrifyingAndImposingFigure said: "Got to say, I get what he’s doing, but I hate the long wait for this filming. With Boyhood, the entire project was designed around that. This is a known property that has functioned perfectly fine without this gimmick, you can easily just put the actors in makeup and as long as the talent’s strong, it’ll be just as good as it would be with them aging real time."
When you say that this is a "known property that has functioned perfectly fine without this gimmick," would you mind discussing in what way this show has ever functioned perfectly fine? It seems this particular property has a rather turbulent past. It was initially a huge flop for Prince and Sondheim. As a result, this show is rarely performed the same way twice. It has been rewritten with each major production, and yet it has never seemed to function "perfectly fine." Not with the original cast of very young performers, not with a cast of middle aged performers, and not with any of the rewrites.
It's a hard show for audiences and critics. Perhaps actually seeing the cast change as they age in reverse will work better than anything tried thus far, and perhaps it won't, but to say that this is a property that already functions perfectly fine seems to ignore the entire production history of this property.
"
This is completely ignoring that the show has had several critically acclaimed, award winning productions since its infamous first one."
Well, that's still not 100% true, though, is it. The Leicester production was seen as an improvement, but was still seen as faulty. Much has been discussed about that through the years. Maria Friedman's production is the best so far, yet the reviews still ran rather mixed. Brantley didn't care much for the City Center production, highlighting it's flaws in his review. Critics were also not particularly kind d to Fiasco Theatre's off-Broadway production. The property may have picked up some awards, but that does not stop it from being a historically troubled property that is rarely done the same way twice, which illustrates that it does not have a history of functioning perfectly fine.
Posted: 4/7/22 at 1:17pm
Some of you need to watch The Before Trilogy or Boyhood before calling this a gimmick. Film is different than theatre. I don’t want to see people in “older age” prosthetics singing show tunes. THAT sounds like a gimmick to me. This will be fascinating and thrilling when it finally comes together, unfortunately we just have to get through twenty years of whining first.
Posted: 4/7/22 at 3:16pm
I'll probably be dead and never see it, but I think the idea is inspired. As for those who have stated that they would rather see it filmed all at once with the actors wearing make-up to have them appear older, I suspect you were some of the same people who were opposed to the casting of Ben Platt in the DEH movie because he was older than the character and was wearing make-up to have him appear younger. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
Posted: 7/16/25 at 6:09pm
Lin-Manuel Miranda Joins Richard Linklater’s Two-Decade ‘Merrily We Roll Along' Experiment — World of Reel
https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2025/7/15/richard-linklaters-merilly-we-roll-along
Posted: 7/16/25 at 6:56pm
MezzA101 said: "Lin-Manuel Miranda Joins Richard Linklater’s Two-Decade ‘Merrily We Roll Along' Experiment — World of Reel
https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2025/7/15/richard-linklaters-merilly-we-roll-along"
Reminder that Jordan Ruimy is reliability-wise about the film equivalent of Sweaty Oracle. I'd wait before taking his rumors at face value - it's been a day since he posted that and so far none of the trades have corroborated or reported on the casting.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
