kdogg36 said: "veronicamae said: "Dialogue and scene-setting/transitions. You add 5-10 minutes to each song as we know it, it adds up. You can't get away with tap-dancing your way across the stage to change scenes in a film, or if a character has to go to another location it's not 4 steps to their left. If that makes sense!"
Respectfully, it doesn't really make sense. In a film it should be easier to change locations than it is on stage, not harder. More crucially,there aren't many musicalsthat have basically doubled in run time when going from stage to screen, so there must be something different about this one.
ETA: Do you think this movie is so much richer in plot and theme as to justify being twice as long as the first act of the stage version?"
I disagree; a scene changes in 10 seconds on stage. Yes, I'm aware that it can change that quickly in a film as well but instead of doing so, a person, for example, gets in a car and drives and more things are allowed to occur - like internal thoughts or environmental storytelling, rather than it just changing. Because the medium allows for it. But, you can see it for yourself and decide if you like it.
It didn't feel like it was long or boring - I don't know why it has to be "justified." If they tried to do the entire show in 1 movie and have it not be 3+ hours long, why even bother? Just go watch it on stage.
All that said, I don't want to debate run-time justification.