Sweeny Todd Debacle — Page 2

"Your post is too long and to be honest I can't be bothered to read it. "


If your avitar is anything like your personality... no wonder!
Hell - the woman couldn't even finish her piano recital. LOL

---

Folks.

No one has seen the movie yet. It might be great. It might suck. We can't be sure until we've actually seen the damn thing.

My fingers are crossed. I'm more optimistic after having seen the trailers. But it wouldn't be the first time that a promising trailer was made for a bad film.

---

The Washington Post is wrong. The film is about one hour and 50 minutes.

>I remember reading that Johanna was turned into a non-singing role so that eliminates "Green Finch and Linnet Bird", which is around 4-5 minutes.<

"Green Finch" is in the movie.

---

Good Lord - any way I can rent a time machine long enough to take back my entire post???


Show of hands?

---

If you want to see Sweeney Todd as it was written go ahead and pick up one of the two DVDs that already exist of the show. They are quite good, except for the screeching of Betsy. There is really no need to complain about a movie you haven't seen, and of corse it is going to differ a bit from the original, if you put 50 million in to a product wouldn't you want it to appeal to the masses. An opera on the big screen won't pay off. Theatre fans are a very small portion of the movie going public, and lets not forget what happens to faithful screen adaptions, Phantom really needed some more cuts and to be streamlined in order to do well here in the states, instead they stuck to the original pretty well and it almost tanked. Then there was Rent... they cut the heart out of the show, left the rest in tact rather than trying to adapt it properly for the screen. Broadway shows HAVE to be properly adapted to make it on the big screen. Rather than complaining before it comes out, wait and see if it works.

this is stupid. why can't a director re-interpret a story to be his own? when stephen sondheim wrote his version of the musical, it was his adaptaion of an already infamous folk-tale, or book, or whatever the hell it was before (i'm not quite sure) but i know he did not create the story of sweeney todd. so why when tim burton directs HIS version of the film, does he have to stick to everything stephen sondheim did in HIS version. it is stupid and selfish to expect the story of sweeney todd to have to stay exactly how it was interpretted in the musical version. john doyles revival was quite different from the original production as well. were you pissed about THAT production as well? or did you not care? or do you really not know what they hell youre talking about to begin with. youve never seen the movie or the stage version, so your arguments are in-valid. i am very excited to see what tim burton has done with the movie. he might take it in a vry different direction, but that doesnt mean it will be bad. plus, you complaiined that they dumbed it down by speaking more than singing. i dont see how that is dumbed down. some ppl would like that better. it is all to each's preference. if i liked dialogue more, i would be very offended if you called that being dumbed down. you are just ignorant and should stop now.

Smaxie thanks for the correction.

A friend of mine form the agency we are at together is in the film and shot for 24 of the filming days (its should have been longer but after the problems with depps daughter it was cut down)

They are huge sweeney fans and watched a lot of this been filmed and said that its very different from the stage show and a lot of the music has been cut,at the same time though they said it looks amazing.

---

Well when someone finally adapts this thread for the big screen, I know I want them to stick exactly to the hilarious source material.

---

How about we just forget movie musicals entirely. Is that what we want? Without reinterpretation or casting big stars, the average American, and by that I mean about 97% of us, WON'T SEE THE MOVIE! Do you think Hairspray was a hit because of the show? No, it was because of the cast! Did Chicago win the Oscar because it stuck so faithfully to the stage version? Hell no, if it did, even the die-hard fans would have fallen asleep! The Producers, which slavishly followed the show, bombed. Seriously, reimagining and recasting movie musicals are the life-blood of the art form as far as most of America goes (sad, but true). As long as a property isn't completely destroyed in the process, I say let a director do what they can. If it gets more people interested in theater, even if it's just a few, GREAT. If it pisses us, the theater geeks, off, oh well, we still have the stage version!

---

So you read another rumor that says the movie is 160 minutes and all of a sudden you're sure that this will be Burton's "masterpiece?" Seriously? I say go rent Sleepy Hollow and then tell me if you don't want to wait and watch the movie first before deciding it will be a masterpiece.

*head - - -> desk*