Vanessa Williams in ‘Devil Wears Prada’ — Page 2

bway1430 said: "Dolly80 said: "Tag said: "She was on a morning show in Britain last month and hinted that she'd be playing Miranda again. So yes."

Vanessa is the only one who thinks that Broadway is happening. No one else involved in the show thinks it is.

Hmm...not what I have been hearing and I have some rather reliable sources.

"

We’ll see I guess.

This will get torn to bits in New York if it does happen. It’s just not a good show.

"The Devil Wears Prada" was so good as a movie because it was a movie.

Meryl Streep's and Anne Hathaway's entrances in the film - as only one "for instance" - are so exciting, and establish exactly who these characters are because of the direction and editing techniques used that are uniquely cinematic.

The casting was perfection, also. The performances created by Streep, Hathaway and Stanley Tucchi in particular are so perfect that even they, themselves couldn't recapture them for "...Prada 2". (IMO, they'd all "aged out" of the characters, and apparently their fictional characters hadn't benefited from any of the life experiences gained by living/working in the world for an additional 20 years.)

To try and recreate the same affection audiences have for the original movie, in a completely different medium, is a HUGE undertaking.

Whoever is cast in a staged version has to overcome the obstacle of making an audience forget enough about the original performances to accept what's currently on display as being at least equal to, or better. They also have to justify how singing and dancing their thoughts and dialog is an improvement over the cinematic version.

The same is true for the director of this musical, but they do not have the cinematic toolbox of techniques that David Frankel used to make the movie a success. The director of this musical version also has to create something that's equal to, or better than the original. It's not an impossible task, but if it fails to meet the brief, it comes off as hubris, or insulting.

Sometimes it's better to just leave what's good untouched.

John Adams said: ""The Devil Wears Prada" was so good as a moviebecauseit was a movie.

Meryl Streep's and Anne Hathaway's entrances in the film - as only one "for instance" - are so exciting, and establishexactlywho these characters are because of the direction and editing techniques used that are uniquely cinematic.

The casting was perfection, also. The performances created by Streep, Hathaway and Stanley Tucchi in particular are so perfect that eventhey, themselvescouldn't recapture them for "...Prada 2". (IMO, they'd all "aged out" of the characters, and apparently their fictional characters hadn't benefited from any of the life experiences gained by living/working in the world for an additional 20 years.)

To try and recreate the same affection audiences have for the original movie, in a completely different medium, is a HUGE undertaking.

Whoever is cast in a staged version has to overcome the obstacle of making an audience forget enough about the original performances to accept what's currently on display as being at least equal to, or better. They also have to justify how singing and dancing their thoughts and dialog is an improvement over the cinematic version.

The same is true for the director of this musical, but they do not have the cinematic toolbox of techniques thatDavid Frankel used to make the movie a success. The director of this musical version also has to create something that's equal to, or better than the original.It's not an impossible task, but if it fails to meet the brief, it comes off as hubris, or insulting.

Sometimes it's better to just leave what's good untouched."

So you haven't seen it, right? Because you don't mention that, and almost everyone on this board who has seen it talks about how good Williams is in the role, and that the show--while nothing special or original--is fun. Your theory of why adapting a movie to the stage often doesn't work is pretty spot on, but you aren't saying that you've seen this and it bears out your thesis. Sometimes things work out.

Jarethan said: "The fact that this was a hit in London, where it is much cheaper to mount a show and to make the weekly nut, is no predictor to me re NYC chances. I can't help thinking that this will go the way of Pretty Woman and Mr. Saturday Night and DBH and Beaches and Tootsie and Rocky and Almost Famous and all the other clones which never managed to deliver a decent score. I cannot imagine this having any chance of success, regardless of who is in the cast."



The difference with most of those is they are either quite niche titles, or old.

Devil Wears Prada as a brand is very much alive and has just had a massive sequel that has brought the IP back into the public eye. Its also a big part of pop culture thanks to memes, gifs etc that are used daily.

Don't get me wrong, I agree Broadway is still a risky move. But I dont think this is in the same situation as those shows mentioned.

bway1430 said: "The producers who have likely turned a sizeable profit from the London production alone might beg to differ[...]"

When you wrote the word, "alone" you were excluding only a singular run in Chicago that earned just shy of 6 million dollars over its 5-week run.

I don't know what the production budget was for the Chicago run, nor do I have any info re: earnings vs production costs for the West End production.

I do know, however, that The Devil Wears Prada [movie] grossed $326 million at the box office against a production budget of $35 million, making it a significant financial success. The film also contributed to a 300% increase in Prada's brand value since its release. (The info in italics is quoted from an AI query's response re: the movie's earnings.)

Do you mean to imply that the producers of the musical have had similar, or better financial success?