| When the movie hurts the play.... | |
| Posted by: | Glamourboy 04:53 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| I remember reading an article waaay back about how the Rosalind Russell film version of Gypsy ended up having a negative effect on the stage version..in the sense that it seemed to diminish the audience's interest in the original--and there was a big drop in productions of Gypsy in the US. What other misguided film versions ended up hurting the original movie or musical... The few I can think of: On A Clear Day You Can See Forever, Paint Your Wagon, A Chorus Line, Annie, Nine.... Any others? | |
| reply to this message | | |
| "Fiddler" and "Funny Girl" were good transfers to film. | |
| Posted by: | jimvar1 01:27 pm EDT 05/09/15 |
| In reply to: | When the movie hurts the play.... - Glamourboy 04:53 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| (although FUNNY GIRL is rarely staged without a knockout lead); but the drek film version of MAN OF LA MANCHA didn't seem to dim its popularity in community theaters. Same thing with the substandard ANNIE film; it didn't stop thousands of ANNIE live performances. | |
| reply to this message | | |
| for some reason, I find the Fiddler movie dreary (N/M) | |
| Posted by: | MarkBearSF 12:13 am EDT 05/11/15 |
| In reply to: | "Fiddler" and "Funny Girl" were good transfers to film. - jimvar1 01:27 pm EDT 05/09/15 |
|
| |
| although it IS faithful to the original stage version. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: When the movie hurts the play.... | |
| Posted by: | TeriG (terig.lvshakes@gmail.com) 06:40 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
| In reply to: | When the movie hurts the play.... - Glamourboy 04:53 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| SWEENEY TODD. CHICAGO LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS On the plus side: WEST SIDE STORY SOUND OF MUSIC, and THE KING AND I were excellent films. On the other hand, Broadway Theatre Archives produced A MOON FOR THE MISBEGOTTEN starring Collen Dewhurt and Jason Robards, jr. This wasn't filmed on stage, but just Ms Dewhurst's performance as Josie is worth the price of the DVD, | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: When the movie hurts the play.... | |
| Posted by: | garyd 10:58 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
| In reply to: | re: When the movie hurts the play.... - TeriG 06:40 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| Nope. "Sweeney…." the film will never hurt the play. "Chicago" is a very fine film and may have even enhanced the commercial viability of the stage version…which in revival form is excellent. "Little Shop…" is also a decent film and will never diminish the stage version. "Sound of Music" is quantum leaps better than the stage version as is "West Side Story" film. "Cabaret" film was not altered to fit Liza M. but it was altered to fit Fosse's vision and his version is just as viable as the stage version. It is just different. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: When the movie hurts the play.... | |
| Posted by: | TeriG 09:37 pm EDT 05/08/15 |
| In reply to: | re: When the movie hurts the play.... - garyd 10:58 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| Sweeney Todd...Tim Burton hired non singers. CHICAGO. Richard Gere? LITTLE SHOP...miscast Steve Martin and Rick Moranis. Thanks for the info on CABARET.....I always thought it was tailor made for Liza. Anyway, I did enjoy the film with Liza and Joel, but missed The Pineapple Song with Jack Gilford and Lotte Lenya's song...but that's just me.. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: When the movie hurts the play.... | |
| Posted by: | Richard Connema 08:50 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
| In reply to: | re: When the movie hurts the play.... - TeriG 06:40 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| I wonder if it is on NETFLEX | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: When the movie hurts the play.... | |
| Posted by: | TeriG 06:45 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
| In reply to: | re: When the movie hurts the play.... - TeriG 06:40 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| One last one....CABARET was tailored for Liza Minnelli, and the movie was not the same as the play. Although the DVD is worth it for Joel Grey's performance of the MC. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: When the movie hurts the play.... | |
| Posted by: | Richard Connema 08:52 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
| In reply to: | re: When the movie hurts the play.... - TeriG 06:45 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| I second that. Joel Grey performance rocked in the film and also when I saw the original in New York but hey I am hell of alot older then most of you. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: When the movie hurts the play.... | |
| Posted by: | Richard Connema 06:08 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
| In reply to: | When the movie hurts the play.... - Glamourboy 04:53 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| Yes it certainly is true at least several years after the films were made.I can name a few that I worked on at Warners. "My Fair Lady", "Music Man" and "Damn Yankees" come to mine. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: When the movie hurts the play.... | |
| Posted by: | TeriG 06:43 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
| In reply to: | re: When the movie hurts the play.... - Richard Connema 06:08 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| Oh yeah, GREASE was totally reworked to enhance the charisma of John Travola. The play is better. And let's not forget that debacle starring Lucille Ball...MAME. Joke, it was! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: When the movie hurts the play.... | |
| Posted by: | TheaterGoer 01:58 pm EDT 05/08/15 |
| In reply to: | re: When the movie hurts the play.... - TeriG 06:43 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| Grease would never had been the staple it is now without the movie. The book to the stage musical is somewhat incoherent. That show gets more licensing from the love of the movie (that said, the movie hurt the play because it is so much better and invites disappointment in how many of the big the movie songs are not in the stage show). Chicago made $306,000,000 world-wide, and as title was definitely boosted by the film; sales spiked after it won the Oscar. Sweeney made $153,000,000 world-wide and I've no doubt enhanced further licensing in countries that didn't necessarily go after it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: When the movie hurts the play.... | |
| Posted by: | Richard Connema 08:50 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
| In reply to: | re: When the movie hurts the play.... - TeriG 06:43 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| Yes let's forget Lucille Ball in "Mame" It think it was 1973 when we at the Burbank studio heard that Lucille Ball has bought the rights to "Mame" Oh did we moan and groan when we found out Warners was going to produce and film it on lot. Needless to say several of us had seen Roz Russell do it on stage and we had hope she would repeat it on film. She was box office even at the time. Nope it would be Lucy. I had hoped I was not be part of the crew. However about one or two weeks into the shooting I was told by my boss that I would be joining the Philip H Lathrop cinematography crew. My job was to shoot with a camera still photos of sets and costumes and publicity photos of Lucille also to help with the actual camera work. I remember that Lucy was always giving everyone orders on how to film her scenes. I had to take photos of her with a my camera and I always remember she kept saying "Hurry up, I can't be here forever". The only good thing I remember on working on the film was meeting and becoming friends with Jane Connell who played Agnes Grooch. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Richard, where did they film the title number?. | |
| Posted by: | jimvar1 01:24 pm EDT 05/09/15 |
| In reply to: | re: When the movie hurts the play.... - Richard Connema 08:50 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| Was it at the Warners ranch out in Santa Clarita? And did they build that mansion just for the "MAme" number? How about the "Macy's" Department Store scenes? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Richard, where did they film the title number?. | |
| Posted by: | Richard Connema 05:55 am EDT 05/10/15 |
| In reply to: | Richard, where did they film the title number?. - jimvar1 01:24 pm EDT 05/09/15 |
|
| |
| Are you referring to the ranch out on Hollywood Way in Burbank??? Warner and Columbia shared this ranch. I worked only three weeks with the Mame crew and my job was taking publicity photos and costumes and set photos. If memory serves the mansion was rented and frankly I don't remember much about the film (I try to blank out the memory :-) ) Frankly I cannot even remember the Macy Store scenes. I worked on at least 50 films during that 40 year period. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: When the movie hurts the play.... | |
| Posted by: | Glamourboy 02:08 am EDT 05/08/15 |
| In reply to: | re: When the movie hurts the play.... - Richard Connema 08:50 pm EDT 05/07/15 |
|
| |
| I would love to hear more stories about being on the set for the movie, Mame. Were you around during the time that Madeline Kahn was fired? More stories please! | |
| 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 | Sound Advice Upcoming Releases CDs/Books/DVDs, etc. | 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 - 2015 www.TalkinBroadway.com, Inc. ]
Time to render: 0.108211 seconds.