What's necessarily wrong with musicals adapted from movies?

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.

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.

---

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 Sequences from the film have been replaced by new ones, but the familiar story is there.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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---