What's necessarily wrong with musicals adapted from movies?

[Jennifer Lynn]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 2:32pm

Comments on other threads have prodded me to ask this question. Some think it's a bad idea to adapt musicals from movies. I say...what's necessarily wrong with that? Is it inherently so much worse than adapting one from a play like Pygmalion or Green Grow The Lilacs, or a book like Tales from the South Pacific or The Secret Garden?

Besides, look at The King & I...doesn't the stage version owe at least as much to the non-musical movie Anna and the King (with Rex Harrison) as it does to the Landon book?

So...your thoughts? If you do think it's a bad idea, what's necessarily so bad about it? Personally, I don't mind just as long as the script is well-adapted and the music good.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 2:33pm

I dont think there is anything wrong with it in theory. They, so far, have just picked, for Broadway at any rate, mostly second rate films to musicalize - usually by second rate creative teams.

[Julian2]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 2:35pm

Its not that adapting from movies is a bad idea, its just that so many of them these days are pieces of crap that came from a marketing meeting. Honest and well done movie adaptations are wonderful, but there are very few these days.

Updated On: 12/14/06 at 02:35 PM

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 2:43pm

I feel like producing teams rarely look at a film and actually see the films they choose as something that would benefit from musicalization, but that it is a product with an already existing fanbase and name recognition and thus would just be a sure-fire moneymaker. Of course, it hasn't exactly been working out that way.

[laura is broadway]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 2:47pm

i think it can work sometimes, if done artistically.
i think that if the movie has a certain amount of fame that its a classic, it doesnt work, because it is already so famous in that form.

i dont think lord of the rings works- its already a classic novel and movie and can;t be done as a musical as well.
hairspray worked, because the movie was successful, but not enough to overpower the musical.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 3:04pm

The stage version cannot be a carbon copy of the original. Big, Urban Cowboy and Saturday Night Fever were essentially the films scene-for-scene. Many film-to-stage adaptations seem afraid to make changes that will work better on stage.

The new version must tell a familiar story better (The Lion King) or at least differently. Mary Poppins is a great example of the latter. Sequences from the film have been replaced by new ones, but the familiar story is there.

Many stage musicals of varying quality have been based of films or have had film versions of the source material made prior to musicalization. Promises Promises is a very funny version of a bittersweet film and has a terrific score. It is substantially different in tone from The Apartment.

High Fidelity, Wedding Singer and Lestat might have benefited from having a star in a leading role--a real star that sells tickets and sparks curiosity. Give the audience a reason to want to go other than a familiar story. Remember that Hairspray was not a big hit in theatres or even on video until the stage show. Neither was The Producers.

[MotorTink]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 3:12pm

A lot of good points have already been stated. I do not think that movie to musical is bad, but I just don't understand the way they determine which ones to use. I thought the Wedding Singer movie was ok, and LOVED High Fidelity. However, when I first heard that they were making it a musical I was puzzled. I would've thought maybe Cusack or Black may have come out in support of the play, maybe even show up at the premiere or something, but nadda (to my knowledge at least). I also think they are getting so much crap right now because of the sudden onset of how many are coming out. To a lot of people, it seems just people jumping on a bandwagon to make money (a la juke box musicals) and not thinking about intergrity or quality.

You can see the same trend in the film industry with the billions of "remakes" being produced each season.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 3:12pm

I agree with MB. So many are second-rate films to begin with.

And it at least appears to be musicalized for no other reason than it has a built-in fan base and a good "recognizability factor."

It's rare that you see something like "Grey Gardens" or "A Little Night Music." They were based on well-respected films, but they were never big fat hits like "Footloose" or "Legally Blonde."

I think it's easier to get backing for a show if people already know the subject matter. So it's not necessarily that writers are picking only the obvious (even low brow) choices... but those are the ones that are making it to Broadway, because they arrive with people knowing what it is... and more willing to buy tickets.

With prices over $100 now, it's risky betting on a show you know very little about. People are more likely to wait for reviews and word-of-mouth on original or unfamiliar material. Sometimes TOO long, and a show might close. With a high profile subject, there is a guaranteed "advance" to some degree.

[Julian2]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 3:13pm

There's a lot of "Put it on a t-shirt, theme it on an iPod, now musicalize!" going on. But I agree with colleen_lee, and a friend of mine put it this way. "Instead of actually doing an adaptation, and considering where songs would enhance the art, they simply tick-tack song in somewhat apropriate places."

[avab802]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 3:34pm

Nothing is necessarily wrong with it, as long as they are done well. Movie adaptations (along with jukebox musicals) seem to be the new "thing" on Broadway. It makes sense from a money point of view, because people are more likely to jump into seeing something they are already familiar with and know they like.

That said, it's probably less risky to musicalize a non-musical movie, because in those cases all of the music is new and just the story is familiar. When you get into musicalizing movies that already have music (like the Disney films), you walk a line between recreating the film verbatim which is probably easiest for an audience to accept, or deviating from it and risk alienating your audience. Hairspray works well I think because while the original film does have a lot of music, it's not a musical in which the characters sing the songs. Also, there are probably relatively few people who are familiar with the movie to the point of knowing the music. I hope the stage version of Crybaby makes it to NY eventually because I think it has the same type of potential.

Another movie-musical I know of that that I'd love to see is But I'm A Cheerleader. Now that could be a campy fun musical. I know there was a workshop of it a while back but haven't heard anything else recently.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 3:40pm

There is definitely a lack of imagination in doing these films-to-musicals. If it's a hit at the movies, do it seems to be the motto.
I wish I could remember who was being interviewed but it was some guy from the theater (Sooo specific I know, but for the life of me I can't remember who it was!)and he said that Hollywood used to follow Broadway for inspiration and now its the other way around.
Instead of SISTER ACT, why not musicalize Almodovar's DARK HABITS, the movie that inspired SISTER ACT? Obvious choices, no imagination.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 4:00pm

Remember that Hairspray was not a big hit in theatres or even on video until the stage show. Neither was The Producers.
Hairspray, like all John Waters's films, was definitely a cult hit. Just because it wasn't breaking box office records doesn't mean a lot of people weren't aware of it. Sure, a more mainstream audience might have been made aware of it through the musical, but there's nothing to suggest that the Hairspray musical audiences make up a larger number of people than everyone that's seen the film over the years. And unlike The Producers, the success of Hairspray on Broadway isn't anywhere near dramatic enough to make it a household name.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 4:07pm

I think the main problem with most movie to stage musical adaptations is that most characters are drawn in very broad strokes and everything seems to insanely cardboard.

[misshunter]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 4:25pm

Disregarding the fact that the major problem is usually that they aren't done well...

I think its the same thing that happens with actors: if you started in theater and moved to films you get a certain amount of respect, and if you're a successful film actor who then goes and does theater you have a very, very hard time getting any respect (warranted or not.) There's just something about art moving from a smaller more organic venue into a larger more mainstream one... and not the reverse.

[D2]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 4:45pm

In addition to all that has been stated above, the corporate mentality has never been one to embrace anything original, daring or creative. "The numbers don't support it." And since there appear to be a lot of corporations backing Broadway these days, I'm afraid it's going to be a long time before anything really changes, until the "numbers" catch up with them.

[luvliza89]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 4:50pm

I'm still waiting for the 1954 film version of "A Star is Born" to make it's stage premiere.

Come on, it would be AMAZING.

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 7:13pm

First off, Jennifer Lynn, I love you. I think the same thing all the time.

I think what happens is they just throw the movie up on stage, add a helicopter or something similar, maybe add a few catchy songs, and hope for the best....but all the people that work on the shows for years and years and cry themselves to sleep thinking about ways to fix the show would probably disagree with me...

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 7:26pm

I think another big problem is that most stage musicals can never live up to popular movies the general public have seen over and over and over.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 9:34pm

well brace yourself because they is currently a workshop production in london of despretly seeking susan using the songs of blondie!!!

[BreeDaniel]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 9:43pm

That's been kicking around for years, don't have too much faith in that but let's back up for a minute, WHY Cry Baby? That sounds absolutely horrible. Just because John Waters did Hairspray, doesn't mean there should be any sort of adaptation of what's basically a cult movie and not a very good one at that. Rotten idea.

[picturetaker9211]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 9:48pm

Lots of movies have been made into to musicals. But sometimes they just aren't good. Or it's a bad movie. I agree that many movies that are being made into musicals these days, aren't the best choices. It may just have to do w/ how the musical was done & all that. Could be the sets, the actors, the director, etc.
Sometimes movie-musicals just don't have the "magic" that happens on stage. I suppose it could be the way it's presented. But sometimes in the presence of real like actors standing & singing & possibly dancing before you doesn't have the same effect as it does on screen.

[Trekkie2]

Posted: 12/14/06 at 10:37pm

Nothing concerning this topic surprises me anymore, apart from the fact that they haven't made a harry potter musical yet. I thought that would be announced the day after the first movie came out.

[misshunter]

Posted: 12/15/06 at 12:12am

^Haha, this makes me think of the time a friend of mine wrote a Harry Potter musical and put it on at our college. It was very, very copyright infringing production... Very.