The saving grace of movie musicals....

[jaso_n]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 3:43am

I think what could re-introduce movie musicals into the mainstream are animated musicals like the ones Disney used to make before they teamed up with Pixar. I think the reason why movie musicals (The Producers, Rent, Phantom) didn't do well is because they are coming off the heels of...nothing. Chicago was good, but it was mostly successful because of the cast. Had that been a cast of relative no-names, it wouldn't have been as successful as it was. I think if more animated musical films were produced, the public would respond better to them. Parents would take their kids to see them and they could end up liking the music too.

[apdarcey]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 3:48am

as has been said for a long time. once on this island needs to be turned into a movie. animated would work. but more over, it would be the best if it were turned into disney's next live action tv musical. with very famous people as the 4 gods.

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 5:19am

I don't think your comment about Chicago is very fair, it was very well adapted and directed, and much more than just "names", they were actually good at it.
It's knowing how to translate from stage to screen where any musical can find success, but it takes a mature artist to understand that they are different art forms.

[jasonf]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 7:50am

The problem with Rent and the Producers in terms of finding mainstream success was actually the exact opposite thing for each movie. Rent became TOO much of a movie and lost what it had in the theater, the Producers took it too far in trying to preserve its theatrical nature and forgot it was a movie. Chicago was successful because it found that middle ground perfectly. Here's hoping Dreamgirls does the same...

[jonartdesigns]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 10:42am

you are absolutely right about rent especially, columbus made a great movie until they started singing, and then the decisions became severely bad at some moments (what you own anyone?)

[Ourtime992]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 12:32pm

As blaxx said, there just aren't enough great directors working with these properties. I don't think it's a matter of getting moviegoers accustomed to musicals. Moulin Rouge really kick-started the newest crop of movie-musicals, and Chicago pushed it into high-gear, but when Baz Luhrmann started Moulin Rouge there wasn't a recent precedent for it and many people thought he was nuts for wanting to do it. What he did was create a beautiful, moving piece. Rob Marshall did the same for Chicago after he languished for years in studio development. What these films have in common (and Rent and The Producers lacked) was a mature, visionary artist behind them. Marshall and Luhrman see movement and color and passion and comedy and know how to bring these to life on the screen. Stroman has done fine work on stage but she doesn't see how to make it happen behind the camera. Columbus may make all the statements he wants about understanding the bohemian life, but he didn't know how to transition between book and song. Vision. It's a rare quality and we don't have enough film directors to go around.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 2:28pm

Call me crazy, stupid, whatever -

(and before I say anything else, I have not seen RENT on Broadway) -

I'd rather watch the movie instead of seeing RENT on stage again. It was good, but the staging was just weird through parts, and I found it incredibly cheap.

My night with RENT was not my favorite.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 3:19pm

I had so much hope for RENT. I just felt like Columbus didn't have any sort of vision for the film. You can tell in Chicago that Marshall knew what he wanted to the movie to look like, etc. But Columbus somone got the rights to the film. How? He made Harry Potter and Home Alone?

[acrocksyo]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 8:05pm

RENT would have been a lot better had they not done the weird speaking of the sung lines. And if they had added all the scenes they deleted, it would have made the movie flow more and it would have ended up a better product.

[Jazzysuite82]

Posted: 5/1/06 at 9:29pm

Yeah I thought the Rent movie didn't ahve great direction. I think it would help if they chose timeless/good material. I think it has to be both. chicago had a great director, but it's also a great piece. It's set in the 20's so it's nor really close to us anyway we could believe it. Phantom is just ok theatre to begin with. Add people who can't sing and well you get Phantom. Rent was dated a bit. That kind of rock music is a little old. I personally don't like Rent, but it was as stated poorly directed. The Producers is just a bad piece of theatre in my opinion. I think Dreamgirls is going to be good. I mean the whole construction of the stage version is cinematic. It's a natural progression. I think they cast will be pretty good and since it's about the music business, there doesn't really need to be an "out there" concept (Another thing Chicago and Moulin Rouge had going for it).

[EdmundOG]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 12:41am

Personally, I think Avenue Q would make a great movie...

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 5/2/06 at 3:31am

i'd love to see aida, with jess simpson as amneris.