| Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 08:16 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| This seemed related to bearcat's post a bit earlier, but I did not want to hijack that with this... Does any of this actually represent some shift if\n the status quo sensibilities? I don't know, but it really seems that the Broadway musical exploitation of catchy movie properties feels cheaper to me than it used to. If nothing else, I think we have to wonder whether, as an example, Rocky really spoke to Ahrens and Flaherty the way that we kinda expect musical theatre creatives to be inspired to musicalize a source material. | |
| Link | Daily Beast |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 01:45 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 08:16 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| another thing to keep in mind is that it's not like folks aren't writing original musicals. those kids coming out of mfa programs, the majority of them aren't there to musicalize ROCKY. they're writing great, original, brave material no one, certainly no one on b'way, wants to touch because it doesn't come with a built in franchise. besides the fact that there's just too many of them - most of them boring - this is what i object to most about this endless parade of movies to musicals. the producers of if/then should be dancing on the aisles because of this piece. if i was them i'd make copies and paper the theater district with them. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 02:02 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - enoch10 01:45 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| What we see on Broadway is a cautionary tale for what you are saying about emerging writers. Do you think the folks who wrote Parade, Lucky Stiff, Once on this Island etc have "progressed" to writing Bridges and Rocky? What's happened is that they decided to lean to the green. I agree If/Then stands in stark contrast. If only people thought/think it was/is good, the would indeed have cause for celebration. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 02:09 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 02:02 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| >>If only people thought/think it was/is good, the would indeed have cause for celebration. i've thought from the beginning that IF/THEN bombs it won't exactly help the cause of original musicals on b'way. not that it's fair they should have to shoulder that kind of responsibility. if these endless threads that seem to start in july about who will win the tony are in any way correct and IF/THEN is considered a wildcard i hope - even if (maybe especially if) it's a bomb - the fact that it's an original work gets factored in and does it some favors. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 04:40 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - enoch10 02:09 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I understand everything you are saying and yet, as one of my wisest mentors tried to teach me, the cream really does rise to the top. I think you can have 10 shows that "prove" that new original musicals suck/are too risky/etc or 10 jukebox musicals that "prove" they connote the end of civilization, but it only takes one to disprove any theory. So I don't worry so much about the significance of If/Then or any other specific show. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 03:09 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - enoch10 02:09 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| If you want to look on the bright side: The creative team for IF/THEN is the same as the team for NEXT TO NORMAL, one of very few recent shows to prove it's still possible to have a Broadway success with an entirely original musical. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 04:44 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - Michael_Portantiere 03:09 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I have to reserve judgment on the show, but I am happy that Yorkey and Kitt have not yet succumbed to the same temptations we are seeing from Brown, Flaherty and Ahrens this season. Will it remain thus? (It didn't for the aforementioned.) Do they have the talent to reach beyond their one hit wonder? We shall see. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | bwaydiva1 04:54 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 04:44 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I don't care if someone 'succumbs to the temptations' of adapting a film (heck Sondheim did that) as long as it's good. Original doesn't always mean GOOD. And this is NOT good in my humble opinion. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 05:29 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - bwaydiva1 04:54 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| If it is not clear from what I have written, let me restate it: I have no issue with film adaptations. It is the cheap exploitation I have been consistently referring to and that are the "brain dead" specie. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | bwaydiva1 04:39 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - Michael_Portantiere 03:09 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I take it you haven't seen If/Then yet. I think this is really inferior to next to normal in the material, the book and the score. Next to normal took YEARS to develop. If/Then feels like it was slapped together and brought to Broadway in a haste. I usually love the music of Kitt and Yorkey but I really didn't like If/Then at all. (The lyrics were particularly atrocious.) I'm not convinced If/Then is the savior of the original musical. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is so full of errors-musicals from films | |
| Posted by: | NewtonUK 09:48 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 08:16 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| Last season's Breakfast at Tiffanys was not a musical. Matilda is based on the book, not on a movie. Charlie and the Chocolate factory is based on the book, not the movie. The reason Woody Allen didnt write the lyrics to Bullets is that the show uses pre-existing period songs. Hairspray started the trend of movie to musical in 2002? Hmmmm. (I include a couple of shows that say they were based on a book - cuz rights were cheaper than the film rights. But the film was on their minds IMHO) 42nd Street - 1980 A Little Night Music (Smiles of a Summer Night) 1975 Applause (All About Eve) - 1972 Big - 1996 Carrie - 1988 Georgy (Georgey Girl) 1970 Gigi - 1974 Grand Hotel - 1989 Henry Sweet Henry - The World of Hnery Orient - 1967 Heres Love (Miracle on 34th Street) 1964 Illya Darling (Never on Sunday) 1967 King of Hearts - 1978 La Cage Aux Folles - 1983 La Strada - 1969 Look to the Lilies (Lilies of the Field) 1970 Meet me in St Louis 1989 My Favorite Year 1992 Nick and Nora 1991 Passion - 1994 Promises Promises (The Apartment) 1968 Seven Brides for Seven Brothers - 1982 She Loves Me (Little Shop Around the Corner) 1964 Singin in the Rain - 1985 State Fair - 1996 Sugar (Some Like it Hot) 1972 Sunset Blvd - 1994 Sweet Charity (Nights of Cabiria) 1967 The Full Monty - 2000 The Lion King - 1997 The producers 2000 Victor/Victoria 1995 Woiman of the Year 1981 Zorba - 1968 Destry rides Again - 1959 Oh CAptain! - 1958 Silk Stockings (Ninotchka) 1955 | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is so full of errors-musicals from films | |
| Posted by: | JayBee 12:55 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is so full of errors-musicals from films - NewtonUK 09:48 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| The difference, as some else pointed out, was that those older musicals reinvented themselves; they used the plots for inspiration. In fact, they often tried to hide the fact that they were based on an old movie by retitling the show. They wanted to make it new and fresh. Today, it is all dumbed down - they practically slop their B-movie on the stage frame for frame with some songs thrown in but very little, or no, imagination. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is so full of errors-musicals from films | |
| Posted by: | Jonesy 11:16 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is so full of errors-musicals from films - NewtonUK 09:48 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Without getting into nitpicking, the big differences between the examples you've listed and the current trend is that those previous works' authors endeavored to create a new work out of the source material. These days, producers are very clearly banking on the popularity of the source material and are merely putting up a mediocre stage version of the movie. It's a cheap ploy, and while it makes money in the short run, it cheapens theatre as a whole and destroys the industry. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Broadway's affair with Musicals based on films | |
| Posted by: | NewtonUK ( ) 10:11 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is so full of errors-musicals from films - NewtonUK 09:48 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| The numbers tell it all - the increasing lack of imagination on Broadway as musicals based on movies - any movie - take over the Great White Way. In olden days, this only happened when there was (usually) a really good impulse: 81/2 became 9. Ninotchka became Silk Stockings. Smiles of a Summer Night became A Little Night Music; Nights of Cabiria became Sweet Charity. Here are the original musicals based on films by the numbers. 1970-1980 7 of 139 new musicals 5% 1980-1990 9 of 105 new musicals 8.5% 1990-2000 12 of 72 new musicals 16% 2000-2014 38 of 138 mew musicals 26% 15 of the 38 musicals in 2000-2014 were hits. That's 39%. About one third better odds than musicals success overall. This will not staunch the trend. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is so full of errors-musicals from films | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 10:06 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is so full of errors-musicals from films - NewtonUK 09:48 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| this is a quintessential example of missing the forest for the trees. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Oh pleaaaaaase. | |
| Posted by: | NewtonUK 11:08 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is so full of errors-musicals from films - ryhog 10:06 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Mr or Ms Ryhog, do you ever have a happy day? Ever? I was merely pointing out, thesis aside, that the Daily Beast article is full of factual errors. And as I later post, there have been many movie to musicals - successful ones, before Hairspray. Although it is a trend. Its hard to take from my post that the errors were mt ONLY problem with the Daily Beast piece. I'm sorry that, yet again, I don't live up to your inexplicable expectations. My life is shattered now and forever | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Oh pleaaaaaase. | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 11:20 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Oh pleaaaaaase. - NewtonUK 11:08 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I am having a happy day, thank you. Only warmer weather would make me happier. And I don't think there is anything life shattering in anything we discuss in this or most other threads. But I do think there are times that we learn something by standing back from the minutiae and assessing the state of an art form that we all obvious care about in broad terms. For someone (like the author of the article) who obviously is not inclined to bore down into the details, there is a notion-and not one that's especially pleasant-that musical theatre writing has become stupid. That ought to give you more pause than the miscellaneous errors you catalog, IMO. But I understand there were also folks rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 01:09 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 08:16 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| I agree with you. pardon me for any generalizations here - I think any discussion about this subject is going to invite that - but it does seem to me that "in olden days" the focus was on the writers, and their desire to adapt a certain property for the stage, and nowadays projects are more title-driven - it's a bit less important who writes it than that it gets written. Since Sunday In The Park was mentioned in this thread already, that was certainly a project initiated by Sondheim and Lapine after looking at the painting. THEY had the vision to do it, and getting backing from producers was a later step. But did Ahrens and Flaherty come up with the idea that Rocky would make great musical theatre, or were they approached by a producer who thought musicalizing the legendary movie would spell a sure-fire hit? (or, even if A&F did come up with the idea first, the general mentality today does seem to be "what will be an obvious sell" rather than "what would make a complelling musical on its own terms?"). Another change I feel, which may go hand-in-hand with the fact that Broadway musicals/composers are no longer a vital part of the pop music world the way they were before the advent of rock - musicals now seem to be marketed by genre rather than by composer or star. It used to be "what will Rodgers and Hammerstein come up with next?" or "What show is Porter working on now," or "what will Merman's next vehicle be?" - but now the questions tend to be more like "what will be the next rock group to be put into a jukebox show" or "what movie titles will we see on Broadway next season" etc. I tend to think the interest (at least in the way shows are marketed and produced) has gone from "who" to "what." So, in a way, no wonder Rocky might not have spoken to A&F the way their earlier shows did (many of which, to me, seem like they did have a vested interest in the subject on its own terms, familiar to the general public or not) - I tend to think that's not as expected of writers as much anymore. The brand name has become the goal, not the craft of the writers. (Or, the craft is taken for granted, but that "spark of creation" that comes from a true connection to the material is not considered as important.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 10:18 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - Chromolume 01:09 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I think there are shows that originate from producers, from writers and from an odd assortment of others. I don't think that has changed. I do agree that "branding" (a form of formula) drives things in an unfavorable way and, of course, about the displacement of popular music. I think another way of viewing some of this is by comparing it to the studio model of movie making. A&F were notable for having been hired in that style for Ragtime, and these mega-shows with heavy studio backing really seem to be vestiges of that sort of thing to the extreme. Ironically, film has moved in the opposite direction. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 03:01 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 10:18 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I agree with you - "branding" is a good term to use here. (As I said, I knew I was making a statement full of generalizations.) Also, maybe a sense that finding the "right" composer for the show is not perhaps as important as it used to be. A&F have plenty of cred and experience, but somehow I never thought from the beginning that they'd be the right fit for Rocky - though I hoped their professionalism and general expertise would be enough. But it sounds like it wasn't. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 04:12 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - Chromolume 03:01 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I think the "team" that was put together for Rocky looks like what a computer would come up with. But are A&F the people you'd think of when you hire AT and SH to direct and choreo? Not likely. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| If I remember correctly ... | |
| Posted by: | jdm 10:12 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - Chromolume 01:09 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| from a Chatterbox, Meehan introduced A&F to Stallone, who originally was looking toward Hollywood composers to write the score. They actually wrote some songs and "auditioned" in a way, and Stallone said that's his team. Or something like that. Jim | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| One thing to remember | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 05:28 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - Chromolume 01:09 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Several of the American musicals that are commonly regarded as among the greatest were projects that were not initiated by the writers, but by producers. My Fair Lady, Gypsy, Oklahoma! and a number of others were projects initiated by producers. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: One thing to remember | |
| Posted by: | Chromolume 08:55 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | One thing to remember - AlanScott 05:28 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Right - which is why I said that I was making generalizations. But even so, I just somehow tend to think the whole sensibility of those projects was different than many we see nowadays. (I also don't think any of those projects were really driven by the absolute popular name recognition of the subject matter - perhaps Gypsy.) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: One thing to remember | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 05:42 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: One thing to remember - Chromolume 08:55 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I think that when it comes to musicals, it really may have been more often than not during the Golden Age that producers bought the rights and then hired writers. But I agree that a major difference is that it was much less about name recognition than thinking something would make a good musical. The Pagnol trilogy was famous when Merrick set about trying to get the rights and putting together a team, but it shows the difference between then and now that Merrick went to a foreign-language trilogy for his first musical. It was believed that just doing a good show would lead to making money, which Merrick wanted to do (although he also really loved theatre). Nowadays a musical must run so long to make a real profit that it's believed a show must be a blockbuster, and that may be one factor pushing the tendency to adapt blockbuster movies much more often nowadays. The irony being, of course, that many of those shows flop. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: One thing to remember | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 06:01 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: One thing to remember - AlanScott 05:42 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| One way of looking at all of this is that theatre has almost always been a collaborative enterprise in which creatives and producers function together. A show is like a lobster pot-easy to get into, difficult to live it and virtually impossible to get out of. Film, by contrast, is usually a top down affair. Everyone can be fired by the producer (and in the end the product belongs to the producer). That makes the essence of projects very very different. New York is family; Hollywood is business. You won't always get along, but it is not the same. Some of these shows we are talking about are really a blending of these modi operandi. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| It's not where you start, it's where you finish... | |
| Posted by: | FriendofDorothy 10:56 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 08:16 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| The inspirational source is, I think, far less important to the ultimate quality of the finished musical than what you do with the inspiration. I have said before that the idea of a musical based on a century old painting would have caused me to be quite a bit more than skeptical, and probably be bored to tears in the theatre. Yet Sunday in the Park... was the best night I ever spent in a theatre. An inebriated monologue part sung in a musical ouvre not of my usual taste turned into one of the most stirring visions of humanity ever put on stage. Hedwig took a tragically absurd story and entertained the hell out of me while making me feel more than good about self-acceptance and the nature of sex and love. If creators of a show take a movie (or book or play) and simply set it to music and stage it, it becomes probably at best serviceable. But if they can find their own way to keep the charms of the source, while making it fresh and new and unique to the theatre, they can create something wonderful. I wouldn't care if every future musical came from a film, famous or obscure, if they work wonders with it. I just hope the producers say to the writers and directors, "Take this movie, understand the story, and then tell that story on the stage" rather than "Smoothly stage this movie." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: It's not where you start, it's where you finish... | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 10:08 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | It's not where you start, it's where you finish... - FriendofDorothy 10:56 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| "I have said before that the idea of a musical based on a century old painting would have caused me to be quite a bit more than skeptical, and probably be bored to tears in the theatre." But, in fairness, to say that SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE is "a musical based on a century-old painting" is misleading. The show is primarily about the man who created the painting, and about the creative process. "An inebriated monologue part sung in a musical o(e)uvre not of my usual taste turned into one of the most stirring visions of humanity ever put on stage." What show is that??!! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: It's not where you start, it's where you finish... | |
| Posted by: | FriendofDorothy 07:44 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: It's not where you start, it's where you finish... - Michael_Portantiere 10:08 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| The first part, I think the reality is between what I wrote and what you responded. The persons portrayed in the painting were transformed into the people of a fictional world of the painter. The second? Hedwig, of course! And Ouvre is the correct spelling. Barbera Streisand told me so. :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: It's not where you start, it's where you finish... | |
| Posted by: | wmgrad1976 05:27 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: It's not where you start, it's where you finish... - Michael_Portantiere 10:08 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| "An inebriated monologue..." I'm pretty sure it's "Finishing the Hat." "Second bottle, ah, she looks for me." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Looks like she left out Bull Durham: The Musical | |
| Posted by: | Ballerina56 10:19 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 08:16 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| Slated to premiere in Atlanta in September, with an eye on Broadway for Spring 2015. | |
| Link | BULL DURHAM Musical to Premiere at Atlanta's Alliance Theatre |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Not to mention "Pretty Woman"... | |
| Posted by: | garyd 11:54 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | Looks like she left out Bull Durham: The Musical - Ballerina56 10:19 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| which, forget the magnets, will recoup on Gold Circle condoms alone. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Looks like she left out Bull Durham: The Musical | |
| Posted by: | Ann 10:47 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | Looks like she left out Bull Durham: The Musical - Ballerina56 10:19 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| Every new musical has an eye on Broadway. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Looks like she left out Bull Durham: The Musical | |
| Posted by: | FriendofDorothy 10:35 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | Looks like she left out Bull Durham: The Musical - Ballerina56 10:19 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| I have no idea if Bull Durham will be any good, but it could be very good. Esoteric setting (underworld of minor league baseball), interesting and complicated characters, intelligent plot and great characters, sex and muscle. It could be something very good. I hope they get it right. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Perhaps a baseball field will slide into the orchestra section. | |
| Posted by: | garyd 10:58 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Looks like she left out Bull Durham: The Musical - FriendofDorothy 10:35 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| and the audience will be invited to slide from base to base in a pool of mud. I hope so. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Perhaps a baseball field will slide into the orchestra section. | |
| Posted by: | Ballerina56 11:05 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | Perhaps a baseball field will slide into the orchestra section. - garyd 10:58 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| Well, with 18 players ( nine on each team) it certainly has the potential for more eye-candy than two guys sucker punching. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Perhaps a baseball field will slide into the orchestra section. | |
| Posted by: | FriendofDorothy 11:10 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Perhaps a baseball field will slide into the orchestra section. - Ballerina56 11:05 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| The movie (although no one knows how close it will stick to it) does not mostly take place on the field. Perhaps they could retitle it "Leave Me Out". | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Looks like she left out Bull Durham: The Musical | |
| Posted by: | Ballerina56 10:45 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Looks like she left out Bull Durham: The Musical - FriendofDorothy 10:35 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| Well, it does have Josh Bergasse on board as choreographer , and I liked his baseball numbers on SMASH. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Looks like she left out Bull Durham: The Musical | |
| Posted by: | FriendofDorothy 11:06 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Looks like she left out Bull Durham: The Musical - Ballerina56 10:45 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| One thing that will be hard to stage are the very subtle movements and stares that play out in the film on the ball field. I don't envision Damn Yankees-style produtction numbers. It will be interesting to see what they do with it. I love the movie. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | singleticket 10:16 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 08:16 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| Yes, it’s quite possible we are only a few years away from Breaking Bad: The Musical. And that would at least be an innovative move that I wouldn't mind seeing. The Hollywood brand, the blockbuster movie, feels like its receding into collective memory. What's persistent are properties, music catalogues and copyrights held by corporations that represent opportunities for an industry food chain feeding frenzy. That's not going to change any time soon but I would imagine that the brand marketability of "Hollywood hits" isn't going to last much longer. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | charles1055 09:13 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 08:16 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| I don't disagree with most of this article, but I always think it's important to point out that a lot of these film-Broadway projects were based on films that weren't hugely successful. The original film Newsies bombed. Once and Kinky Boots weren't really mainstream films that got a ton of attention. I don't believe Hairspray was a huge blockbuster in the movies either. I find it very questionable to say that the popularity of those films drive audience behavior. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | perfectlyfrank 11:11 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - charles1055 09:13 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| I agree with you. I do think that a stage play or musical version has a better chance when the film is only a modest hit or is foreign rather than a cultural touchpoint (e.g. LA CAGE vs ROCKY). A lesser known film has name recognition but doesn't necessarily come with the expectations that a bigger hit brings. SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT was of course a famous foreign film but it was hardly the blockbuster that ROCKY was for American audiences. That gave Sondheim and company more room to play with their stage version. But a stage version of ROCKY is pressured to include beloved moments from the film or risk backlash from audiences (imagine a ROCKY without the words "Yo, Adrian!") Yet, there are ways around those moments too, as THE FULL MONTY musical so cleverly did with the film's most memorable "Hot Stuff" strut in the unemployment line. For the stage version they honored that famous moment but didn't mimic it exactly by moving it to the funeral section (minus the "Hot Stuff"). It worked without feeling like a carbon copy. So, I stand that most any property can be stage worthy if it receives an inspired adaptation. But I do agree that the more beloved the film, the harder any adaptation will be to succeed. But harder doesn't mean impossible. Sometimes a bit of distance helps (42ND STREET were hits on film and stage but the stage version didn't happen for nearly 50 years after the film's release. Thus, there were no overwhelming memories or desires to mimic any particular performance.) I understand a producers desire for "branding" but a little branding goes a long way. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | Michael_Portantiere 10:51 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - charles1055 09:13 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| Charles1055, your point speaks to the oft-heard theory that if you're going to adapt a play or a movie into a musical, it's usually best to choose a play or movie that is NOT regarded as perfect and/or was NOT extremely popular in its original form. Of course, there are, exceptions, but it does seem to be a good general rule. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 09:43 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - charles1055 09:13 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| As I said in my response just below, I don't think there is anything wrong with adapting a film into a musical, any more than any other source material. And I think the popularity of the film only relates tangentially. What I think to be at the root of the complaint is those adaptations that are (as I have said elsewhere) cheap, vapid, lazy and a host of other not-so-nice labels. I don't think anyone can watch Rocky and lump it in the same category as most of the other mentioned shows. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | owk 09:04 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 08:16 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| Well, let's at least take the Daily Beast to task for this sentence: "Remember the old days when it was the other way around? When Broadway shows were inventive, regularly breaking new ground, and then ultimately, became movies? West Side Story, Carousel, Oklahoma!, My Fair Lady, Chicago, Mame, Gypsy, How to Succeed In Business, and Cabaret all started on stage." Actually, not a single one of these projects "started on stage". They were all adapted from other media. They could hardly have picked a worse list in an argument for "original" musicals. It's true that Hollywood has begun to dominate the adaptation market, for the very reasons Margo Lion states in the piece. But let's not pretend there was ever a time, after Oklahoma!, when the street produced a lot of musicals that had no underlying source. It has happened, but it was never typical. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | AlanScott 05:24 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - owk 09:04 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| Maybe I'm misunderstanding. If I am, forgive me. But if West Side Story, Carousel, Oklahoma! and My Fair Lady were not based on projects that started on stage, where did the projects they were based on originate? Admittedly, My Fair Lady borrows a great deal from the 1938 film version of Pygmalion, to such a degree that it may fairly be said that the musical was adapted from the movie, but still the movie came from the play (and much of the expansion that the musical borrowed came from Shaw's screenplay). But the other three all came from plays exclusively (yes, Lilliom had been filmed twice, but I think the films had little influence on the musical), and even Cabaret came in part from I Am a Camera. In fact, I suspect that without the play, we would not have had the musical. Again, perhaps I'm misunderstanding. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | Kimmelhisway 02:00 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - owk 09:04 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| While they may not have started on the stage, you don't see one of the titles listed, with the exception of How to Succeed, that has its source title. Now it's all about branding and using the film title so people think they're getting the film on stage. In the old days that was never the case, which is why you have Promises, Promises instead of The Apartment, The Musical or Cabaret rather than I Am a Camera, The Musical and on and on. The new movie to musicals don't want there to be any mistaking that they ARE the movie onstage. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 10:33 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - Kimmelhisway 02:00 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I think it is fair to say that the branding is the fulcrum of these enterprises. That's not all that surprising in the extreme cases where the film folks are actively engaged in the stage show (Disney obviously being the ne plus ultra) but it seems to be standard even in the cases where the studio wasn't really active in the process (e.g., Bridges). And it is also fair, I think, to say that had it been thus when My Fair Lady was written, it would be Pygmalion the Musical. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | Alcindoro 03:33 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 10:33 am EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| I wonder if as many people would have known how to pronounce "Pygmalion" correctly. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 03:57 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - Alcindoro 03:33 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| isn't that what the show is about? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | Alcindoro 09:53 am EDT 03/19/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 03:57 pm EDT 03/18/14 |
|
| |
| Twoo, vewwy two. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | ryhog 09:38 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - owk 09:04 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| I think focusing on underlying source obscures the issue. I don't think sourceless originality is the objective; the "problem" is the vapid, lazy exploitation of the source material. That's not a description anyone would apply to West Side Story, et al. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | Zelgo 10:17 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - ryhog 09:38 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| It's very lazy to present a film as a stage musical when the songs and most of the script are basically the same. So many of the screen-to-stage adaptations do just that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | Ann 09:14 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - owk 09:04 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| I know this is brought up a lot, but I think there's a big difference between coming from a movie and coming from a book or novel. It's how it's brought to life. Neither may be original, but having an existing text or plot is not like having seen it on film, then putting it on stage. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? | |
| Posted by: | garyd 09:48 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - Ann 09:14 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| There are examples on both sides of this argument. Decent, even great, iconic, musical theatre has some basic, if not total, basis in film. "Purlie", "Promises, Promises', " A Little Night Music", "Sweet Charity", "Nine" and many others. And, as has been noted, there also exists an extensive list of dreck. As for spectacle, it has also been around forever. (think Ziegfield) While it seldom appeals to me, there is a place for it to exist. "Sweeney Todd", "Follies", and certainly POTO, all have elements of spectacle. I make the argument that in these three examples the spectacle elements serve the story and are not incorporated for simple entertainment value but maybe I am rationalizing. Though I find real pleasure in some productions I have witnessed of both Todd and Follies minus the original spectacle elements. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Golden musicals from movies | |
| Posted by: | peter3053 01:19 am EDT 03/18/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Daily Beast: Is Broadway Brain-Dead? - garyd 09:48 pm EDT 03/17/14 |
|
| |
| I think the difference is that the great movie-to-musical adaptations have been done by people who understood that the theatre is a more intensive word-, as well as imagination-, experience than visual one. Consider the literacy of A Little Night Music, and Nine, and even, arguably, Phantom of the Opera - there is a coherent theatrical dramaturgy grounded in language, a poetic heightening of the words. Musicals which take from the visual medium of film and then simply try to revisualise them on stage often come off as smaller in dimension and more simplistic. (Consider how the magic carpet ride in Aladdin the movie seemed larger than life but on stage seems trite). Somehow theatre shows up vacuousness of language, perhaps because it is staged on a platform, and whatever is on a platform, from earliest cultures, audiences attend to listen to more than to see. This does not mean that, once the fundamental difference in medium is acknowledged, a great designer and director and lighting and costume designer can't further enrich the experience visually. But the essential force at work will always be different, and straight movie-to-stage transfers will always wind up, erm, rocky. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
All That Chat is intended for the discussion of
theatre news and opinion
subject to the terms and conditions of the Terms of Service. (Please take all off-topic discussion to private email.)
Please direct technical questions/comments to webmaster@talkinbroadway.com and policy questions to TBAdmin@talkinbroadway.com.
[ Home | On the Rialto | The Siegel Column | Cabaret | Tony Awards | Book Reviews | Great White Wayback Machine ]
[ Broadway Reviews | Barbara and Scott: The Two of Clubs | Sound Advice | Restaurant Revue | Off Broadway | Funding Talkin' Broadway ]
[ Broadway 101 | Spotlight On | Talkin' Broadway | On the Boards | Regional | Talk to Us! | Search Talkin' Broadway ]
Terms of Service
[ © 1997 - 2014 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 2.902893 seconds.