VARIETY on the state of movie musicals.

A "hip hop BYE BYE BIRDIE"??

Uhm... okay...

---

Well they seem to think Amy Adams is in Rock of Ages.. lol

What irks me about these articles from publications that mainly are for movies--they don't seem to differentiate. It's a bit like how Broadwayworld here went on and on about how Footloose would be a full on musical. I haven't paid any attention to Joyful Noise but from the very little I've gathered, it's a musical the same way, say, the movie Sister Act was, or Burlesque--hardly a risky full on musical in the way most of us would mean. (Speaking of Burlesque--it had a $50+ mill budget?? Really?)

And to be fair to Sweeney, even if I'm mixed on the adaptation, it was a very risky project, budgeted at--well the same as Burlesque (which shocks me) and only made about that much back domestically but made a strong, all things considered, $100 mill intrnationally. I don't think anyone, including Burton or the studio expected it to make as much as that wretched Alice in Wonderland.

I think Burton's SWEENEY TODD is fantstic, a near perfect adaptation. That being said, movie musical version of Sweeney (or probably any Sondheim) is never ever going to hit it big.

Movie musicals have nearly the same challenges as a Broadway musical: the original, the new, the daring are not as easy sells as MAMMA MIA.

Tim Burton trotted out a masterpiece with his film of SWEENEY TODD. That's all.

---

Especially considering SWEENEY was a triple niche-genre piece:

Musical
Gorefest
Hammer Horror pastiche

Although onstage, Sweeney is a fairly mainstream musical, as a film, it's not exactly mainstream popcorn fare.

The Producers didn't work because they did like a filmed versin of the stage show rather than adapting it to film. The more successful movie musicals work because they been adapted to fit the medium even if it means changes like Cabaret where most of the musical numbers are done in the Kit Kat Klub.

It'll be interesting to see how Les Miserables does because Phantom proved a successful stage musical does not translate into a successful film musical.

Can't believe RoA cost slightly less than Hairspray given that it has much bigger names in it, Hairspray was fairly successful. RoA should do okay but I don't expect it to be a blockbuster.

The article gave hardly any focus on the appeal of movie musicals to the overseas market. It might be key to the success of some future musicals. Consider the box office receipts of MAMMA MIA!, not exactly a critical stage hit but turned out to be the highest-grossing movie musical of all time --

Domestic (USA) - $ 144 million
Foreign - $ 466 million
Total - $ 610 million

What ingredients worked ??

*Known cast - Streep, Pierce
*Known music - ABBA, especially some of the single hits
*Subject/theme/story background -- Who can resist the glorious sun and beauty of Greece??

Will it work for Les Mis?

*Known cast - Jackman, Crowe, Hathaway
*Known music - show has supposedly been seen by approx 60 million and staged in many countries; some songs are individually popular ( I Dreamed A Dream/On My Own/Empty Chairs/maybe Bring Him Home...and some of the stirring ensemble songs)
*Subject/theme/story background - Based on a famous literary work/conflict between a hero and his protagonist and revolutionary fervor are familiar themes in quite a number of countries/ a period piece in 19th century France

We'll see.

Updated On: 1/5/12 at 08:16 PM

Mamma Mia was the most insufferable thing I've ever had to sit through. How this is the most successful movie musical of all time is beyond me. I'd rather see the Lucille Ball Mame abortion back on the big screen than that. At least Mame was an entertaining movie when Lucy wasn't singing.

Everyone I talk to about Nine said it was boring and the songs were terrible. I think it didn't work because Daniel Day Lewis was beyond miscast as Guido. He needs to be fun, not dark and brooding. Sucked all the fun out of the show. Marion Cotillard was stellar, as was Penelope Cruz, but the staging of some of their numbers damn near killed their performances. In fact, they needed to open the movie up a lot more. Considering all the numbers take place in this "brilliant" director's head, one could see why he's having such a hard time coming up with a movie idea...he's not very creative.

Sweeney, all things considered, was a nice movie. I enjoyed the visuals, the gore, the orchestrations, and a few of the performances. I don't get the whispering thing at all, either. I know they didn't want to make it as over the top as the stage show, but in a song like "A Little Priest", how else are you gonna perform it? I think they should have picked at least a few moments to just roll with it and not be afraid of looking a little larger than life.

Les Mis is still a toss up. With the new resurgence of love for "I Dreamed A Dream" thanks to Susan Boyle, they'd be stupid not to showcase that song the most in the trailers and with Hathaway singing that song, at least we know it'll be very well sung. I'd keep most of Swift's stuff on the downlown, just like they seem to be doing with Tom Cruise's vocals in the trailers for Rock of Ages.

And he looks pretty freaking hot in some of the stills.

---

I thought SWEENEY was almost perfect. Everything about it - the adaptation, the look - was amazing, except the cast. The cast is what makes it less impressive. I'll admit it, yes, I loved Johnny Depp's performance, but only for what it was. Bob Dylan-er-I mean Johnny Depp playing Sweeney Todd. There's only so much to expect from that. Helena was awful. The only person in that cast I'd keep would be Alan Rickman. Perfection. - But for them to even compare Sweeney to Alice in Wonderland is ridiculous. Alice in Wonderland was a FAMILY FILM, not to mention a DISNEY film. Of course it's going to make **** ton of money. And as stated, Sweeney actually surpassed expectations in the box office.

I love THE PRODUCERS so very much, and saw it four times in theatres, but it had problems. Really, I think they were trying to do an old-timey movie musical - like the show actually is - but it just didn't work for film. Their big mistake was having Susan Stroman (who's barely a stage director) direct the film. Not to mention Uma Thurman's awful, awful performance. Also, I think recasting Broderick with someone like Martin Short wouldn't have hurt. At the end of the day, it was the most expensive Lincoln Archives recording ever made. That works for some movie musicals (like 1776) but it hurts others...

I'm very interested in this WHOREHOUSE remake they speak of.... It could either be really good, or really bad...They forgot to mention Will Smith's production of ANNIE hitting theatres eventually.

If WICKED is not animated traditionally, someone should lose their job. SO much more can be done in animation, plus the music and subject matter are perfect for it.

Oh, and PITCH PERFECT isn't exactly a musical. I auditioned for the film, didn't get it, but a friend of mine got in. As a principal character. It's about a group of dueling a cappella singing groups at a college. (They filmed it at LSU in Louisiana) Stars Skylar Astin, Brittany Snow, Anna Kendrick - Jason Moore (Avenue Q, Shrek) is directing, Elizabeth Banks is producing. I heard some demos and rehearsal recordings, read some of the script. It's very GLEE/Van Wilder. Not exactly a musical. No more than this Parton/Latifah movie or Burlesque. It's a movie with featured music. Big difference.