Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: StageLover 09:53 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| per Deadline | |
| Link | https://deadline.com/2020/08/andrew-lloyd-webber-cats-movie-tom-hooper-1203001983/ |
| reply to this message | |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 10:17 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - StageLover 09:53 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| I am curious to know how the granting of rights works in a case like this. ALW says Hooper did not want anyone involved with the movie who was involved with the stage show. Obviously that does not include ALW since ALW was at least involved enough to write a new song. And, for example, did Hooper need ALW's (or someone else's ) permission to use the London version of Mungojerrie...or did the studio's purchase of the flim rights mean they could take anything they wanted from any version carte blanche? I know film is notoriously a director's medium, while theatre is often an author's medium. Who did the studio actually get the rigths from? ALW alone, or ALW and the Elliott estate, or is Cameron Mackintosh also in the mix as original producer? Do the authors then have zero say in what is created? |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - EvFoDr 10:17 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| "ALW says Hooper did not want anyone involved with the movie who was involved with the stage show." Seems to me that If ALW didn't want the movie to be made without the involvement of any of the creatives from the stage production, he could have made that stipulation clear as part of the sale of the movie rights, and could have refused to sell to any studio that didn't agree. Perhaps he could have insisted that Trevor Nunn be hired as co-director of the CATS movie along with whatever established film director was chosen. I have read that the MAMMA MIA! people wouldn't sell those movie rights unless the director of the stage production was hired to direct the movie. The rights holders can stipulate anything they want, and any studio is free to accept or not go through with the project and leave the rights for another studio to buy. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: IvyLeagueDropout 11:29 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - Michael_Portantiere 12:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| I think he is, of course, just trying to stay away from the train wreck that was the film. I think he would not have wanted any kind of involvement with a Cats film (besides remotely writing one song) because he is smart enough to know that it was very likely to be terrible. There was a lot less to work with than the Evita and Phantom films, and they were hardly unmitigated triumphs. Because of the nature of the material, it would be hard to make it into a film. The narrative is barely there. If it were to be made as an animated film, you would lose the choreography. In fact. If it can be enjoyed at all, it is as a dance piece, punctuated with a few nice but disconnected songs. Not the parts with which to build a conventional coherent movie. Plus, yes, the visuals in the film were creepy. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 02:20 am EDT 08/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - IvyLeagueDropout 11:29 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| In fact. If it can be enjoyed at all, it is as a dance piece, punctuated with a few nice but disconnected songs. Which is ironic, because I've always thought of Cats as a big song cycle that got grossly overproduced/overstaged. ;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:23 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - Chromolume 02:20 am EDT 08/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| "In fact. If it can be enjoyed at all, it is as a dance piece, punctuated with a few nice but disconnected songs." "Which is ironic, because I've always thought of Cats as a big song cycle that got grossly overproduced/overstaged. ;-)" I don't think those two views oppose each other. Maybe CATS would have been better as a song cycle, without all that dance. But once it was planned to be put on stage as a full show, it was decided -- probably correctly -- that lots of dancing was needed to fill in and give the audience something to look at, aside from the makeup, the costumes, and the set. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| the dancing isn't random... it's a about Cats | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 10:54 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - Michael_Portantiere 12:23 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
|
|
|
| It seems inherent to the concept to have a lot of feline-based dancing and movement. I can't imagine this as a song cycle, it's like a dark children's musical and vaudeville show, it's not written as something that can stand on its own with just music and lyrics, it doesn't tell a story or have relatable characters drawn out in lyrics, etc. It seems like the show is basically what it should be, the elements that could most successfully changed are the actual choreo, and the design of the costumes and sets etc. I can see it being reconceived with a different directorial vision (i long to see that actually), but I can't see it as a song cycle. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the dancing isn't random... it's a about Cats | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:10 am EDT 08/11/20 | |
| In reply to: the dancing isn't random... it's a about Cats - Chazwaza 10:54 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
|
|
|
| I understand your points, and personally, I agree that the show would not work as a song cycle, but I don't that's because it doesn't tell a story. I am only vaguely familiar with the form, but I don't think it's necessary for a song cycle to tell any kind of traditional story with any kind of linear plot. And, whether or not you think the songs in CATS are successful, I think they are intended to illuminate the various characters, and the characters are intended to be relatable to human beings even though they are cats. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the dancing isn't random... it's a about Cats | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 01:37 am EDT 08/15/20 | |
| In reply to: re: the dancing isn't random... it's a about Cats - Michael_Portantiere 11:10 am EDT 08/11/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes but the songs are not actually telling us almost anything and the lyrics don't build to more or illuminating anything very interesting about the cat it's talking about. Unlike Songs for a New World or Last Five Years etc. I think Cats would be painfully boring with just actors singing the songs straight and with no visual storytelling. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: the dancing isn't random... it's a about Cats | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:10 am EDT 08/15/20 | |
| In reply to: re: the dancing isn't random... it's a about Cats - Chazwaza 01:37 am EDT 08/15/20 | |
|
|
|
| "Yes but the songs are not actually telling us almost anything and the lyrics don't build to more or illuminating anything very interesting about the cat it's talking about." I completely agree, I was just talking about the intent of the songs, which doesn't mean they're successful in their intent :-) "I think Cats would be painfully boring with just actors singing the songs straight and with no visual storytelling." Agree 100 percent. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I agree and I think the CATS film they should have made should have been this......SPOILER ALERT for those yet to read 'Unmasked' | |
| Last Edit: bway1430 02:24 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| Posted by: bway1430 02:21 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - IvyLeagueDropout 11:29 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Having read many interviews and sections of books that cover the story of how the show got to the stage (including ALWs account in "Unmasked") THAT would have made a far more interesting film. The show was rife with drama from the get-go including : 1) a subject matter nobody wanted to invest in so ALW put his own fortune on the line and nearly lost his shirt 2) ALW and Cameron deciding to cancel the show after a dreadful run-thru but Trevor Nunn stopping them in their tracks 3) the pre-opening gossip floating around the West End that the biggest turkey of all time was about to unfold 4) a now legend (Judi Dench) hired for a key part but ripping her achilles in rehearsal - when she tries, on crutches to take to the stage for an early run-through she falls into a row of seats and is out for good 5) the emergency replacement of Ms Dench with a known West End star who has little time to prepare before first preview 6) an unknown song named Memory causing a huge rift between ALW and Tim Rice when Rice's lyrics are rejected - compounded with Rice being the leading lady's lover and her getting his lyrics confused with others sumbitted by Trevor Nunn, often in performance during previews 7) a bomb scare on opening night that clears the theatre during the bows.....and more.... Certainly not a behind the scenes tale that you think might result in a massively succesful show. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: StageLover 10:41 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - EvFoDr 10:17 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm fairly certain the film rights were obtained from ALW's Really Useful Co. I'm not really sure if CamMac even participated, as the show was first produced over 40 years ago. Don't think Bway co-producer David Geffen needs the money... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: fosse76 12:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - StageLover 10:41 am EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Generally speaking, when rights are sold for a particular medium, the seller has no rights to the material in that medium (hence the term, "sold"). The most known example is Harry Potter. JK Rowling had no actual power over the films or their content; she simply got lucky that the producer and screenwriter were fans and respected her input. So ALW likely had no power in what was in the film. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Rowling not a good example | |
| Posted by: DavidEsq 03:33 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - fosse76 12:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Rowling actually had fairly unprecedented rights over the films including approval of script and director. So while she may not have had final shot for shot approval of the film, the control she did have gave her significant power over the film (including demanding an all British cast). Basically - rights holders get whatever rights they contract for. While there are some "standard" terms - those regularly get adjusted based on the relative bargaining power of the parties. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - fosse76 12:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| ***Generally speaking, when rights are sold for a particular medium, the seller has no rights to the material in that medium (hence the term, "sold").*** Unless, as I wrote above, the seller of the rights makes certain stipulations regarding the sale, such as the stipulation that a particular director must be hired, as was apparently the case with MAMMA MIA! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Six Degrees of Separation | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 11:56 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - Michael_Portantiere 01:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| My memory is that John Guare would only sell the film rights to Six Degrees of Separation if it was guaranteed that Stockard Channing would play Ouisa. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Six Degrees of Separation | |
| Posted by: IvyLeagueDropout 02:59 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: Six Degrees of Separation - AlanScott 11:56 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| "...film is a different medium." Nice use of Six Degrees, Alan Scott, to talk about Cats. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Maybe they'll make a movie of "Starlight Express" (nm) | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 03:45 pm EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Six Degrees of Separation - IvyLeagueDropout 02:59 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| they could all be on roller skates | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: fosse76 02:35 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - Michael_Portantiere 01:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| Movie studios and production companies RARELY allow the original rights holders any concessions. They want full control. So "generally speaking" is almost as good as saying "always." And no, at least as far as the first 4 films, JK Rowling had absolutely no real authority. By the time the first film was made, the series was massively popular, but was only on the third book. They deferred to her quite a bit, but were under no contractual obligation. Her only stipulations were that each book have a separate movie and the cast be British. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Last Edit: JereNYC 01:39 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 01:36 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - fosse76 02:35 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| But what else could Warner Bros have done at a point where they were embarking on making a franchise based on a projected 7 book series of which only 3 books had been written/published? They either had to have involved Rowling in the process or they risked their films wildly diverging from the books and setting up all the fan sturm und drang that comes with that. Given the twists and turns of Rowling's narrative, there's no way the film makers could have anticipated where she was going with the story and we'd likely have ended up with an entirely different Harry Potter story. And what's the point of that? It would have turned Harry Potter into a mess of GAME OF THRONES proportions. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 01:20 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Andrew Lloyd Webber reviews the CATS movie - fosse76 12:47 pm EDT 08/03/20 | |
|
|
|
| It's incredible to me that he would have no say. Not that he is the be all end all. I am not sure if Harry Potter is the best example. You could be right, it could have just been a lucky matter of respect and fandom. What I read--and following the logic I don't think it can be false--is that the movie makers HAD to involve Rowling becase all of the books were not written/published at the time the movies started being made. She had to approve changes and cuts because she was the only person who knew how everything impacted the final outcome, and what could be adjusted and what could not, in that context. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.074612 seconds.