Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? | |
| Posted by: Zelgo 12:27 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| This is a question I've been asking myself lately, particularly because of the large number of movie-to-play transfers. Certainly, historically, there have been a number of books converted to movies and plays. The difference now seems to be that movies are being retold in play form specifically because the movie was hit and to attract tourist dollars. From Pretty Women to King King to To Kill A Mockingbird--is the theater audience getting a different, and even better, experience than when we watched the movie versions? More often than not, I'm concluding a resounding NO. So why bother going to see a play based on a movie, particularly when theater tickets are so high? I guess I can leave most to the tourists. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? | |
| Posted by: TGWW 03:16 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? - Zelgo 12:27 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| Guess you've never seen a cook book. | |
| reply to this message |
| Is the story the only reason you see a play, read a book, watch a movie? | |
| Posted by: tmdonahue (tmdonahue@yahoo.com) 03:06 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? - Zelgo 12:27 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| A play can be an different experience from other media. For me, when done well there's nothing finer than a live play. Yes, when a producer chooses a book, a movie, a TV series, as the basis for a show because he/she thinks it's presold from the title: bah humbug. I feel the same way about jukebox musicals. I want to see a play--no matter what the genre of the inspiration. |
|
| Link | Link to my latest book "Playing for Prizes" |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Also, I’ve never understood rabid fans seeing a show 100 times | |
| Posted by: dramedy 04:25 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Is the story the only reason you see a play, read a book, watch a movie? - tmdonahue 03:06 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| I think I’ve seen Chicago and phantom and a chorus line around 6 times each...in...my...life. Not a year or month. I would be bored out of mind seeing phantom 100 times. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Yes. That’s why I hate reboot movies usually | |
| Last Edit: dramedy 04:18 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 04:18 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Is the story the only reason you see a play, read a book, watch a movie? - tmdonahue 03:06 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| I know how peter Parker got his powers, I don’t need to see that story every time a new actor takes on the role. I really like bond movies because they don’t do that. I get the different take on a role in a play, But I am definitely plot driven person in plays and books. I tend to avoid revivals of plays since I already know the outcome— the suspense is gone and it’s all about the acting. Three tall woman is an example of ‘go see it for the acting’. I guess I feel if the acting is that good and I’m noticing it, then there’s a problem since I’m drawn out of the play to notice the acting. I think the only revival that I liked more on stage the second time was glass menagerie with CJones. Angels also, but both were more of my age and experience and knowledge (I never heard of Mormons in 1993) than the actual amazing acting or directors take on the play. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| One exception in my experience about suspense in revivals | |
| Posted by: tmdonahue (tmdonahue@yahoo.com) 04:41 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Yes. That’s why I hate reboot movies usually - dramedy 04:18 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| When I saw the 2002 revival of the Crucible, a play I knew well and never much liked, the one with Liam Neeson and Laura Linney, the acting was so incredible that I totally suspended my disbelief. During the trial scene, when Abigail is asked if Proctor ever cheated on her, I was hoping she'd tell the truth--even though I knew the play and that she wouldn't. A good friend who saw this revival and who is very theater-savvy said the same thing. Doesn't happen often, but it happens. And when it does, WOW! |
|
| Link | Link to my latest book "Playing for Prizes" |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Yes. That’s why I hate reboot movies usually | |
| Posted by: ashleylm 04:30 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Yes. That’s why I hate reboot movies usually - dramedy 04:18 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| I tend to avoid revivals of plays since I already know the outcome I think that's a shame, and you may surprise yourself. You're depriving yourself of the pleasure of watching Shakespeare or Aeschylus, of reading Jane Austen, or Winnie-the-Pooh, or Alice, or seeing the film of the Wizard of Oz, or Star Wars (unless you were there for its initial release). So many wonderful books, plays, movies, etc., are part of our collective awareness, and if you spurn everything where you know what happens then you're really missing out. (I didn't read Jane Eyre for years since I knew all the plot elements--but once I was required to read it at University, I loved it). There are also particular pleasures to be had in adaptation: to very much know what happened (in the original account) but to watch how it unfolds now, whether it's Mallory's take on Le Morte D'Arthur, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, or the musical Fun Home breathing a very different life into Bechdel's graphic novel, and to be able to compare, contrast, and appreciate the artistry. (None of this should be read as expressing the opinion that one should go to Pretty Woman, though). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I’m really focused on theater vs movies | |
| Posted by: dramedy 04:45 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: re: Yes. That’s why I hate reboot movies usually - ashleylm 04:30 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| I did see lord of rings trilogy in movies. But I didn’t see the stage version. Theater is so expensive with even discount orch at $100 for plays. Remake of a movie is $10 or rental dvd, so I’ll see that. But I’ve had the dvd for seagull on my counter for about a month now since I can’t seem to face watching it when ideal home and book club was also on counter and i grabbed those. And if I’ve see the broadway production of the play, I rarely see a regional production. It kind of ruins the memory of the broadway production. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? | |
| Posted by: den 02:34 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? - Zelgo 12:27 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| I thought that about Mockingbird and saw it only because I’m an LCT member. I’m glad I did. Sorkin has rethought the text in ways I found interesting. I don’t think all his changes work, but most do, and it’s a thoughtful, sometimes provocative adaptation. The effect of this Mockingbird was quite different for me than the effect of the novel or the film. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:28 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? - Zelgo 12:27 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| You do not NEED to see anything. Whether you want to is another matter, and the nice thing about the theatre is that shows get reviewed and there is word of mouth about them, so you don't have to spend your money until you have an opportunity to assess. (And one of the nice things about this joint is that often you can get the G-2 well enough in advance so you won't have to wait until there are no tickets available. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 01:22 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? - Zelgo 12:27 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| Depends on the property and the interpretation. King Kong was worth seeing because the artistry is just astounding. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Depends. | |
| Posted by: sf 01:21 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? - Zelgo 12:27 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| 'Legally Blond', for example, didn't do a great deal for me because I couldn't see any reason the creative team had chosen to put it on stage beyond "extending the franchise". 'Network', I thought, was the most stunning thing I saw in a theatre last year - but van Hove transforms it into a *theatrical experience* that makes its point about the blurring of the lines between news and entertainment via the production - the use of film, the live video, the onstage audience, the audience participation, the video montage at the end and all the rest of it are all there to reinforce the script's underlying thesis, and the way it's directed makes it into something quite different from the film even though Lee Hall's script is more or less just an editing job on Chayefsky's screenplay. I read 'My Name is Lucy Barton' before I saw Laura Linney's one-woman performance; Rona Munro's script, again, is an editing job, but Ms. Linney is extraordinary. Again, it's a different experience from reading the novel, and there are details in the novel that the stage adaptation skips, but Ms. Linney is more than worth the money (and I'm going back next year to see the return engagement). I made a point of rereading Howards End before I saw 'The Inheritance' - and rewatching the Merchant Ivory film - and I'm glad I did. In THAT case, the stage script is more a riff on top of the source material than a direct adaptation of it. It would certainly work if you hadn't read the book, but if you *have* there's an extra layer to the play that comes from seeing how Lopez takes plot points from the novel and transforms them, as in what he does with the moment his version of Margaret Schlegel sees the meadow behind the house for the first time. I already have a ticket to see Ivo van Hove's staging of 'All About Eve' next year. I have no interest at all in seeing 'Pretty Woman'. They're both adaptations of well-known films, but one interests me more than the other. I'm not going to dismiss ALL adaptations just because some of them are cheesy money-grabbers. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Depends. | |
| Last Edit: PlayWiz 03:44 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| Posted by: PlayWiz 03:41 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Depends. - sf 01:21 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| A lot of folks tend to forget that "Pygmalion", " "Charley's Aunt", "Liliom" (all of which have screen versions, though sometimes in other languages) and other existing properties were used to fashion some of the great musicals during the Golden Age of the 1940s and 1950s and beyond. One big joke around Broadway after the success of "My Fair Lady" was that producers couldn't be found in their offices; they were at the library trying to find the source of their next big show. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Do you need to look at a painting of a person once you've seen a photograph? n/m | |
| Posted by: Michael_212 01:14 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? - Zelgo 12:27 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| o | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? | |
| Posted by: vegas 01:03 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? - Zelgo 12:27 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think you can generalize. It will simply be a new adaptation of an existing work. The adaptation might bring something new and valuable to the table. Or it might not. Then there's the live performance aspect. There might be a performer that is well worth seeing. Or the thrill of a live orchestra. Or the whole thing could just be slapped together to rip people off. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I think musicals bring something new to the table | |
| Last Edit: dramedy 12:51 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:51 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: Do I need to see another version of the same story just because it's a play now? - Zelgo 12:27 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| So I’m ok with adapting movies into musicals. Mockingbird goes to the source material (not The movie) and makes into a memory play (I have not seen it but that is my understanding). So that is a new way of presenting it from book or movie. But i agee with the graduate and the horrible Feston?? (But that was an adaptation of Swedish movie) and probably network, why bother adapting a movie when it was so good. But it does sell tickets. And I guess one could argue why do revivals of Virginia Wolfe when the movie is so stellar but the revival cast win Tonys. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think musicals bring something new to the table | |
| Posted by: Zelgo 01:07 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: I think musicals bring something new to the table - dramedy 12:51 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| So glad you brought up Festen, which was over a decade ago, I think. It was literally one of the worst experiences I've ever had in the theatre. While Mockingbird claims to go to the source material, I find that "we're going back to the source material for a darker view of the story," to be typical producer marketing talk to justify a money grab based on the public's feelings about a movie. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Mockingbird supposedly is due to child actors | |
| Posted by: dramedy 01:17 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: re: I think musicals bring something new to the table - Zelgo 01:07 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| Not being able to the material on stage. Frankly, I don’t buy that but it does make it easier for 8 shows a week to use adults. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I think musicals bring something new to the table | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 01:17 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
| In reply to: re: I think musicals bring something new to the table - Zelgo 01:07 pm EST 11/29/18 | |
|
|
|
| Yeah..."But it's based on the original book, not the movie" is one of the biggest cliches now. The discussion in the Prince thread this morning had me wondering if the instigator of a piece makes a difference. If a musical based on a movie is made because a theatre writer says "This inspires me, I can make something bigger of it" vs. Universal or Sony or whoever saying "A musical adaptation will bring us money." I think it must, but probably not entirely. Inspired writers don't necessarily make successful work, and corporate-driven adaptations don't all end badly. Have any of those "We're making a musical! Writers and creative team TBD" announcements every led to good shows? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.065244 seconds.