original cast in movie musicals...

[Mactor327]

Posted: 4/19/08 at 8:50pm

is this a good idea? or do u think, inorder for a movie musical to be sucessful, it needs the celebrity apeal? OR do u think celebrities ruin the essence and meaning of the show being made into a movie?

[shiz_student94]

Posted: 4/19/08 at 8:58pm

I'm not too fond of the idea of stunt casting to draw in a wider audience...the fact they cast Zac Efron in Hairspray extremley disappointed me, since he was so "popular" at the time...sure, he was adequate, sure, but I feel it brought in fans for the wrong reason.
I'm really glad they cast Amanda Seyfield (SP?) as Sophie in Mamma Mia! Most people haven't a clue who she is, so that makes me excited. I'm hoping Meryl Streep is wonderful, and not just an appeal/stunt act.
...I thought the OBC of Rent in the movie was great, I mean, aside from the fact they were a little too old for the parts...but I loved it! Anyway...I'm done rambling.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 4/19/08 at 9:01pm

Updated On: 5/6/09 at 09:01 PM

[KrissySim]

Posted: 4/19/08 at 9:03pm

Screen presence and stage presence are two very different things. Stage acting requires a different approach from acting for the screen. A film musical does not necessarily need "celebrity appeal" (which IMO is more a marketing/business decision than an artistic one) but actors who have a screen presence. Julie Andrews & Gordon MacRae are two classic examples of stage actors who successfully made the transition from stage to screen, but not all actors can. Some are better suited for one medium or the other.

A stage actor "projects" to the live audience, but a film actor is "projected to" the audience who can study the screen actor in minute detail. Nuances appear large on screen. - that's only the start - ...........................

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/19/08 at 9:13pm

Aside from box office, there's just the plain (unpleasant) truth that some stage actors just don't photograph very well.

This has nothing to do with acting style, presence or talent.

They just don't look good on film.

[jv92]

Posted: 4/19/08 at 9:46pm

There is a big difference between stage and film acting and some stage actors just don't translate to film. Certainly Julie Andrews, Liza Minnelli and some other stage stars made very good film musicals and gave excellent film performances, but some (i.e. Ethel Merman) did the opposite.
And frankly, while most movie musicals are quite entertaining, most of them don't work. Cabaret certainly did, Sweeney Todd as well. Chicago did to a degree too.
I'll agree with Sondheim on the fact that the most successful screen musicals are those directly created for the screen such as Love Me Tonight, Singin' in the Rain and Mary Poppins.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 4/19/08 at 10:43pm

In what way, shape, or form is casting Zac Efron, a professional actor who's starred in exactly two movies, both musicals, stunt casting?

[James885]

Posted: 4/19/08 at 11:33pm

I'm really not too keen on the idea of casting the OBC in movie versions of the their respective musicals. Stage acting and film acting are 2 different animals and Best12bars nailed it when he said that some stage very talented stage actors just don't make that transition to film very well (Adam Pascal comes to mind. His performance in the Rent film just fell completley flat IMO)

I think in some cases, "celebrity appeal" is needed not only to create a box office draw, but also to boost interest and buzz around the film. Dreamgirls is a great example. They could have cast unknowns for the roles of Deena, Effie, and Lorrell, Curtis, Jimmy, etc., but I don't think the movie would have had as much buzz prior to opening in theatres as it did. The Dreamgirls film IMHO, needed a certain amount of star wattage. Plus casting the OBC would have been ridiculous anyways since they're all way too old for the parts.

[Weez]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 6:35am

To make a musical into a movie, you need to treat the resulting movie as a movie in its own right. What works on stage won't work on film, what works on film won't work on stage. You need to be able to maintain the essence of the original musical but also be able to turn it into a movie in its own right. And if that means casting movie actors, then so be it. But if the stage actors work well for the movie in its own right, then go ahead and use 'em. I mean, 'Rent' and 'The Producers' stuck slavishly to stage actors and (while enjoyable enough) certainly faltered for it. Some movies ('Evita' and 'Dreamgirls' springing to mind) went for a bit of a mix, which was grand, but they only adopted stage actors who could work on film, and that worked in their favour. Then you get 'Hairspray', with its all movie-actor cast, and it worked.

Basically, the cast you end up with needs to be able to work on film. And if they don't, then it's a problem.

I've totally lost track of where I was going, so I'm going to shut up now. o_O

[shiz_student94]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 7:58am

"In what way, shape, or form is casting Zac Efron, a professional actor who's starred in exactly two movies, both musicals, stunt casting?"

Ok, maybe I worded that wrong. Not "stunt" casting. But I feel it did bring in a lot of tween girls and younger fans just because he was in it. Maybe the casting director didn't think so, but that is just my little thought on him being in it.

[Kasie]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 8:22am

I personally don't think the Rent cast looked too old for their parts...except for maybe Jesse L. Martin and Idina Menzel. I think it was a good decision to have most of the OBC in the movie and it certainly wouldn't have been as good without them.

Does anyone know why Daphne wasn't cast for the movie? I heard it was because she was pregnant, but never cared to research it any further.

[Weez]

Posted: 4/20/08 at 9:26am

She was pregnant, and while the rest of the cast were fine agewise (probably), she was finding it difficult to play 19 back in 1996, never mind a decade on. That's the official story, anyway. There may be other factors lurking under the surface, but that's all that's risen to the fore.