| re: ''Chicago'' is my kind of film, ''Chicago'' is ... | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 02:24 am EDT 08/15/14 |
| In reply to: | ''Chicago'' is my kind of film, ''Chicago'' is ... - WaymanWong 10:34 pm EDT 08/14/14 |
|
| |
| I'm not predicting doomsday for ITW, in fact what I wrote was hopeful for it despite my issues with Marshall as a director... which are based solely on his work up until now. I was probably too young at the time to have an opinion on whether or not a good movie would be made out of Chicago, but either way it would have been based on guessing the worst and the best based on nothing... right now we have evidence of what Marshall has done, and we know certain things are cut or tinkered with, and those are legit things to base speculation, fear, or hope on. Of course one should, and I do, leave the real assumptions aside when one sees the actual movie to judge based on its own merits... that doesn't mean one can't have an opinion on the director and their record or on the show being adapted or the news of what's happening in adapting it. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: ''Chicago'' cuts | |
| Posted by: | SidL 07:02 am EDT 08/15/14 |
| In reply to: | re: ''Chicago'' is my kind of film, ''Chicago'' is ... - Chazwaza 02:24 am EDT 08/15/14 |
|
| |
| "Class" was cut from CHICAGO and ended up as a DVD extra - and "I AM MY OWN BEST FRIEND" was not considered for the big screen - so it may be (show) business as usual -getting asses into those multiplexes seats - but who wants a carbon-copy the Broadway show just look how Fosse tinkered with CABARET and succeeded | |
| reply to this message | | |
| re: ''Chicago'' cuts | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 12:06 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
| In reply to: | re: ''Chicago'' cuts - SidL 07:02 am EDT 08/15/14 |
|
| |
| Who asked for a carbon copy? However, as for who wants that? I mean... I think a musical being adapted for film should be made to work, but the less tinkering the better because more often than not (Cabaret aside) it doesn't change it for the better. When a musical I love is being made into a film, I'm not excited to think "I've seen the show on stage and can again, I'm ready for whatever new version and "interpretation" this director has for the show on film"... a film isn't just another production. I hated the business with the kid they added for the production in Central Park, but that was just for that. A movie is forever. It is the production most people in the world will see of it, and the thing they will in theory always go back to. If it's bad, they think the musical is bad. And if it's bad in part because of changes made for the film, that's always upsetting. And if it's good, then the film becomes the standard... and if it's good with changes made for the film, that's great but one always wonders what it would have been like if the director had just tried it the way it was written. (thank goodness there will always be the recording of the original production, however that is still watching a film of the play on stage, and relatively few people will ever seek it out or know it's there) I'm just rambling. But this thing with ITW and Rob Marshall, is that I think he is a twit and I think he has proven that he doesn't trust the audience and that he doesn't trust musicals... for those two reasons, I don't trust him with making THE movie of a great musical and making the sometimes tough choices about adaptation because I think he is the type who is very quick to say "well that doesn't work, I have a new idea instead" rather than being able to think creatively and effectively about how to make something work. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: ''Chicago'' cuts | |
| Posted by: | WaymanWong 12:39 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
| In reply to: | re: ''Chicago'' cuts - Chazwaza 12:06 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
|
| |
| There was once a time when musicals weren't turned into movies too quickly because folks feared that a film version would cut into its Broadway grosses. Now the shoe is on the other foot. I think the reason why this revival of ''Chicago'' has run so long is because the movie was such a hit and branded it for tourists galore. Even though it would be much cheaper to just rent the DVD of ''Chicago,'' there are still many who want to see it live, not in spite of the movie, but because of it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: ''Chicago'' cuts | |
| Posted by: | Chazwaza 01:44 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
| In reply to: | re: ''Chicago'' cuts - WaymanWong 12:39 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
|
| |
| But the revival of Chicago was a long-running hit well before the movie came out... it had been running for SIX years straight by the time that happened. I have no doubt that the success of the movie helped it run for another 12 years... an impossible thing for most shows with or without a successful movie. I think in this case, because of the particulars of the show - the dancing especially, and the sexiness, and audiences knowing they like it or that it'll be worth seeing already going in - audience feel safe buying a ticket, so it has become a perennial hit. And it's so different from Phantom and Les Miz, so so different, that it's actually not a surprise that it became an institution. It's the kind of show many people now think of when they think of "Broadway", and there are very very few shows that fit the bill in the same way, especially running or soon to be running in nyc. So again, the movie I'm sure helped quite a bit... but I'm willing to bet the show would have run another 4 years at least without the movie. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: ''Chicago'' cuts | |
| Posted by: | Greg_M 02:07 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
| In reply to: | re: ''Chicago'' cuts - Chazwaza 01:44 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
|
| |
| And no one ever came out humming the scenery! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: ''Chicago'' cuts | |
| Posted by: | Scott6263 02:17 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
| In reply to: | re: ''Chicago'' cuts - Greg_M 02:07 pm EDT 08/15/14 |
|
| |
| That's for sure! :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: ''Chicago'' is my kind of film, ''Chicago'' is ... | |
| Posted by: | sandcastle 04:43 am EDT 08/15/14 |
| In reply to: | re: ''Chicago'' is my kind of film, ''Chicago'' is ... - Chazwaza 02:24 am EDT 08/15/14 |
|
| |
| I love this board, but I am glad I am going to the beach on Monday and won't be near a computer. HAVING SAID THAT: I hope Into The Woods (the movie) succeeds. And I hop the darkness is retained. I too though "Chicago" (the film), delivered, Wayman. "Nine" (film) wasn't terrible. But I saw it on the Island. "Mamma Mia" (film) WAS terrible, and I saw it on the Island as well. I cheered for Meryl as she worked that precipice, however. It was good to see this with a cocktail. "Cabaret". Just saw it again. Flawless. The movie. LIZA. Weekend's here! | |
| 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: 0.060312 seconds.