Who Should Direct MISS SAIGON - the Movie?

[Chason]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 12:53pm

You know the film version has got to be just around the corner. It's considerably more cinematic than a lot of recent Broadway to screen transfers. With the right director, cinematographer, and actors it could be emotionally scalding. It's my favorite musical ever. I'm going with Baz Luhrmann. His gorgeous Moulin Rouge proves (among other qualifications) that he's not afraid of sad endings (God forbid should Hollywood tack on a happy one). I can truly see it being nominated for 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. We'd be back in musical movies territory BIG time! :) What others directors would be a good candidate?

[BrianIdol]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 12:56pm

Julie Taymor.

[SueSnell]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 12:57pm

Oliver Stone.


And James Marsden has GOT to play Chris!

[ucjrdude902]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:09pm

Jimmy wont do another movie musical.

[JoMarch]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:14pm

About 10 years ago, Spielberg expressed interest in directing the film version.

[Chason]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:29pm

SPIELBERG would be an honor!
James Marsden might be a bit old to play Chris (though he's certainly good-looking enough).

[Rosalind]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:33pm

Why would James do another movie musical? To break free from a mold, or did he say this?

[americanboy99]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:34pm

I don't know if the material is strong enough. Although, this could be a nice new "star making" role for the young lady who lands Kim (ala Jennifer Hudson etc.).

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:36pm

Is there a film version in the works?

Wonder if Hytner has ever seriously been considered.

Updated On: 12/29/07 at 01:36 PM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:40pm

I wonder if they would re-structure the story, and eliminate the flashbacks and tell the story from A to B. The only reason it was ever done that way to begin with was because they didn't want to use their big effect (the helicopter) in Act 1.

[Chason]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:41pm

"Wonder if Hytner has ever seriously been considered".
________________________________________________________
He seriously SHOULD have considered it a long time ago.

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:43pm

Chason, was he offered a chance to direct the film years ago?

[jsg03jd]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:45pm

It should be Nicholas Hytner. He's gained a lot of experience in directing films since 1989.

[Chason]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:46pm

"I wonder if they would re-structure the story, and eliminate the flashbacks and tell the story from A to B. The only reason it was ever done that way to begin with was because they didn't want to use their big effect (the helicopter) in Act 1.
_____________________________________________________________
No no no. I don't believe that. The flashbacks are perfect - just the way they are. It gives the play/movie the dramatic effect it needs. The helicopter (itself) won't mean much in a movie version... it won't need special effects.

[musicaltheater1]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:52pm

I personally like the flashback as well. Adds a little twist to the presentation. I vote for Rob Marshall for set design and choreography. Direction...Spielberg, if he's still interested.

[BigFatBlonde]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 1:53pm

I don't agree. On stage the flash back was ackwardly shoe-horned in to the second act.

As a story telling device it made little sense.

It was so clearly a ploy to keep the audience looking forward to second act and the much tauted helicopter effect.

If a film version is made, I suspect they will put the helicopter scene in its proper chronological place.

****
Again... is there a film version in the works? Or is this wishful thinking?

Updated On: 12/29/07 at 01:53 PM

[Chason]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 2:13pm

"Again... is there a film version in the works? Or is this wishful thinking?"
_____________________________________________________________
I think it's a bit more than wishful thinking. With Hairspray, Rent, Phantom, Mama, Sweeney - Saigon has got to be soon. BTW, BigFatBlonde (change that name immediately - you're lovely) I think the flashback is not about the HELICOPTER at all! It's about the way Chris & Kim were seperated. It's one of the (though often used) plot points in which unusual circumstances keep two lovers from meeting as planned.

[Brave Sir Robin2]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 2:22pm

Speilberg should direct.

[MerMaggieGalinda]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 2:27pm

Jake Gyllenhaal for Chris!

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 2:30pm

"I think the flashback is not about the HELICOPTER at all! It's about the way Chris & Kim were seperated. It's one of the (though often used) plot points in which unusual circumstances keep two lovers from meeting as planned."

Onstage, that flashback was absolutely about the helicopter, whether that was the authors' intentions or not.

[Chason]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 2:42pm

"Onstage, that flashback was absolutely about the helicopter, whether that was the authors' intentions or not."
_____________________________________________________________
That just seems silly to me - so please EXPLAIN. The POINT of the flashback (helicopter or NOT) is to show how Chris & Kim were seperated - LOST - as in.... they could not LOCATE one another. That's the entire reason they weren't together. They LOVED each other. Maybe (in the movie) this "explanation" could be shown LATER in the story - but it's crucial to the story arc, and I don't think it would be NEAR as powerful if it were shown in chronological order. The whole POINT of the story is to show that things would have been completely different if Chris & Kim had BOTH borded that helicopter as planned.

[winston89]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 3:34pm

As soon as I saw the title to this thread my mind jumped to thinking Speildberg off the bat. But, that is just me.


I think that if you look byond the whole helicopter scene in act two and look at it as a story line it is a very important story line.

I just finished listining to the CSR of Miss Siagon. There is more to the fall of Siagon flashback then there is on the cast recording. Kim is having a nightmare where she hears Thuy's voice saying that Chris will betray her and forget about her. Then it goes into the helicopter scene.

I think that the point in which it comes in act two makes it even more important.

Yes, act two in Miss Siagon is all about the helicopter. Just like Les Miserables is about the barricade and Phantom has the Chandelier. But, all those things are important to the story line and they aren't there for the hell of it.

I also think Speildberg should direct because he is GREAT with war movies.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 4:15pm

"That just seems silly to me - so please EXPLAIN. The POINT of the flashback (helicopter or NOT) is to show how Chris & Kim were seperated - LOST - as in.... they could not LOCATE one another. "

You're not seeing my point....I understand what they were trying to show, but it became all about the helicopter. People looked forward to act 2 because they were going to see a helicopter land and take off onstage. It was their big moment.

"The whole POINT of the story is to show that things would have been completely different if Chris & Kim had BOTH borded that helicopter as planned. "

I would think that goes without saying. You don't need a flashback to realize that. I Still Believe does a fine job of showing that.

[COOOOLkid]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 6:30pm

I also think Speildberg should direct because he is GREAT with war movies.

winston, I'm always amazed by your stupidity, but wow...

Miss Saigon is NOT about the war. There's no Battle of Normandy in Miss Saigon.

Updated On: 12/29/07 at 06:30 PM

[B3TA07]

Posted: 12/29/07 at 6:40pm

George Lucas

LOL jk


I wanna direct it.