| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | RonAnnArbor 05:39 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - lowwriter 04:50 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| Hmm...I would bet 99 percent of people in the US under the age of 50 haven't heard of it, just like they had not heard of Scarlett Pimpernel... I think you have nothing to worry about if it is set to a musical score. Plenty of people enjoy shows like that. And maybe it will encourage a few 17 year olds to read the book. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | MockingbirdGirl 05:56 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - RonAnnArbor 05:39 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I would bet 99 percent of people in the US under the age of 50 haven't heard of it, just like they had not heard of Scarlett Pimpernel Except it's only a little over a decade since the last big-screen adaptation of Count, which earned $20 million over and above its budget in the U.S. alone... and Alexandre Dumas is a lot more widely known than Baroness Orczy. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| $50M in 2002 was probably considered a failure | |
| Posted by: | dramedy 06:47 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - MockingbirdGirl 05:56 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| It costs $35M to make the movie but they probably spent tens of millions on advertising. It was a Jan release, so the studio had little faith in the movie. I don't think i saw the movie and i see about 70 a year in the movie theaters. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Actually, it was considered a hit | |
| Posted by: | MockingbirdGirl 07:01 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | $50M in 2002 was probably considered a failure - dramedy 06:47 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| $20 above budget is a good take... plus it made another $20 million internationally. Out of the 479 movies released in 2002, it ranked #48 in domestic box office gross. TV viewers may also be familiar with the story from a more recent source: it was the basis for the current hit series Revenge. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Actually, it was considered a hit | |
| Posted by: | keikekaze 08:00 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | Actually, it was considered a hit - MockingbirdGirl 07:01 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I hope you're remembering the difference between movie grosses and movie net receipts. Producers and distributors of films never pocket the whole gross--they're lucky to get 50 percent of it, and it can be a lot less. Theater owners get the rest. I haven't looked up Count's box-office, but just as a hypothetical example, if a film costs $50 million to produce and it grosses $70 million, it's not making a $20 million profit. It's probably losing about $15 million, and that doesn't even factor in prints and advertising, which can run to many millions and is a separate item from production costs. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Actually, it was considered a hit | |
| Posted by: | MockingbirdGirl 09:11 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Actually, it was considered a hit - keikekaze 08:00 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I haven't looked up Count's box-office, but just as a hypothetical example, if a film costs $50 million to produce and it grosses $70 million, it's not making a $20 million profit. It's probably losing about $15 million Monte Cristo cost $35 million to produce and grossed $75 million, and was considered a modest hit at the time. A movie marketing budget is typically 50% of production's costs... but even if Disney spent $20 million on marketing, the movie would still have made $20 million -- a tidy sum. The claim that it was "probably considered a failure" is untrue. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Actually, it was considered a hit | |
| Posted by: | keikekaze 01:52 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Actually, it was considered a hit - MockingbirdGirl 09:11 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I'm afraid this is wandering off topic, but the figures you're giving me don't add up as you say, unless by "grossed $75 million" you mean "netted $75 million." If Monte Cristo cost $35 mil and grossed $75 mil, that means Disney netted, maybe, $37.5 mil on the production, but advertising costs, etc., would have more than wiped out the tiny apparent profit of $2.5 million. So, not a success from a box-office p.o.v. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Actually, it was considered a hit | |
| Posted by: | chrisampm 10:07 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Actually, it was considered a hit - MockingbirdGirl 09:11 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| Please check the e-mail above yours. Using your stats, the movie would have cost $55 mill. And, with the typical 50% take of gross, would have taken in only $37.5 mill. A $15+ mill loss that may have been covered later by ancillaries. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 06:10 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - MockingbirdGirl 05:56 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| i'd be interested to know, though, how the sales of the books differ. not interested enough to look it up but interested. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 05:49 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - RonAnnArbor 05:39 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| i wonder how long it's going to be? i'd wager more people (even in that age group) have heard of the scarlet pimpernel. i don't have as much of a problem with a musical version of this (even by him) as i would many other classics. it's a fun book and a great read but, really, it's never been (nor was it intended to be) anything more than a potboiler. that's no slam against it. it's an adventure story. a great one and well written but that's all it ever wanted to be. like everything else, it will come down to execution. i think a better argument could be made that a work as exquisite as ROMEO AND JULIET should be too sacrosanct to be turned into a musical. that one worked out ok. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| let's get something straight | |
| Posted by: | jero 06:12 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Frank Wildhorn ruins another classic - enoch10 05:49 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I never saw the scarlet pimpernel. I never heard of the scarlet pimpernel. I don't give a ** about the... sorry, couldn't resist and sorry for screwing that up... .but it's true. but i Love the count. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Scarlet Pimpernel a joy | |
| Posted by: | peter3053 04:14 am EDT 04/03/14 |
| In reply to: | let's get something straight - jero 06:12 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| For what it's worth, the first revised version of The Scarlet Pimpernel was the most joyous afternoon I have ever spent in the theatre. Seriously, joyous. And the audience was having an absolute ball. The script was witty and literate, and the music carried us away on a cloud. And when the Pimpernel lost his hope momentarily in the second act, we were involved and disturbed, only to be reassured with more joy at the finale. A couple of the ballads needed to be sharper in focus, I felt, but they didn't detract from a thrilling score at the service of a stirring piece of theatrical storytelling. I understand Bonnie and Clyde was also far superior to the impression given by commentary about it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: let's get something straight | |
| Posted by: | chrismpls 11:13 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | let's get something straight - jero 06:12 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| I think you reversed the first and second sentences. Otherwise, you are dead on -- and thanks. I always appreciate a "Chorus Line" reference! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: let's get something straight | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 06:39 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | let's get something straight - jero 06:12 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| also it occurs to me that y'all are talking about films. i've never seen films of either of these books. the movie version of the count of monte cristo may well be superior to a film of the scarlet pimpernel. i wouldn't know. to quote you i don't give a ** about movies. i like books and both of these books are terrific. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Count of Monte Cristo stage versions | |
| Posted by: | Max 07:15 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: let's get something straight - enoch10 06:39 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| Remember James O'Neill (Eugene's dad) played the Count on stage for years, from the 1880s through the early 1900s and then "converted Monte Cristo into tabloid form for the vaudeville circuit to accommodate changing taste in theater entertainment. By 1913 a cinema version was playing on nickelodeons." Whatever else can be said about it, it's stageworthy. It doesn't sound like adding a musical score is going to hurt it much. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Count of Monte Cristo stage versions | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 07:24 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | Count of Monte Cristo stage versions - Max 07:15 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| i don't know where i got it, it may have been published, but as an undergraduate i actually read a version of the script he performed. i remember thinking this must have gone on for hours and hours and he must have been a hell of a performer for making it interesting (and it must have been, he played it long enough) because reading it required effort. and stamina. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Count of Monte Cristo stage versions | |
| Posted by: | Max 07:32 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: Count of Monte Cristo stage versions - enoch10 07:24 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| It did run on and on. The standard play at the time was a five act play that could easily run four hours, not counting the intermissions, which were easily 30 minutes plus each to allow for the scenery to be changed. An evening at the theater lasting five to six hours was expected and the norm. (And nowadays some people complain about 90 minutes!) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: let's get something straight | |
| Posted by: | jero 06:46 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: let's get something straight - enoch10 06:39 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| i agree about movies.. my avoidence of movies has served me well, theatrically. I never saw the movies of Priscilla, Edward Scissorhands, Crybaby, Billy Eliot, Full Monty... and that made the stage versions very fun for me. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: let's get something straight | |
| Posted by: | enoch10 06:34 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | let's get something straight - jero 06:12 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| i promise i wasn't slamming the count of monte cristo. i thoroughly enjoyed it when i read it. but it is intended to be more of an adventure and (again, in a good way) more of a melodrama than much classic literature is. i like the fact that it's not intended to be precious. and you should read the scarlet pimpernel. it's delightful. and if you liked the count i suspect you'd like it as well. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: let's get something straight | |
| Posted by: | jero 06:45 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
| In reply to: | re: let's get something straight - enoch10 06:34 pm EDT 04/02/14 |
|
| |
| my only point is, wtf is a pimpernel? Ok just looked- a flower... the show, the title, never interested me ever so I kind of blanked it out. (I always thought I would have benefited from a liberal arts education but it's a little late.) I don't think I've even seen an ad or logo of the show. | |
| 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: 1.108414 seconds.