Other Musicals Being Turned Into Movie

[moe.ron]

Can Rossum hit the high notes? She was struggling with Christine's high and low notes. Seems like she's ill prepared to tackle the role. But, I've never liked Cossette anyway, so they can get almost anybody to play that role.

I think his son, Kiefer Sutherland, would be better. Javert isn't that old and most of the actors that played him were in their late 30s to early 40s.

How about Anne Hathaway? She has the voice, could hit the high notes and is pretty popular. I think she'll be pretty good as Cossette.

Macintosh is extremely protective of this musical. I think he'll be very picky when it come to picking the actors to play the role.

Let's talk about who can direct this movie. Maybe Baz Luhrmann?

ETA: Just thought about this: Neil Patrick Haris as either Enjrolas or Marius.

[moe.ron]

Tim Burton is to direct Sweeney Todd. Here's a suprise, Johnny Depp is rumored to play Sweeney. can he pull off the singing chop?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

Tim Burton is to direct Sweeney Todd. Here's a suprise, Johnny Depp is rumored to play Sweeney. can he pull off the singing chop?

I have no idea whether Depp can sing or not, but Sondheim is not for the "pretty good" singer.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

I have no idea whether Depp can sing or not, but Sondheim is not for the "pretty good" singer.

I took professional lessons for years, and there's quite a bit of Sondheim stuff that's still challenging. Although after singing quite a bit of both, I do have to say that musically (not lyrically) him and Ives have many similarities.

[jadis96]

I know this may sound weird, but what about Alan Cumming as Sweeny? He has the broadway credits of Caberet, Threepenny Opera etc, but he also has done enough film work to know he can carry that too. If you ever saw him in Caberet you know he can carry the crazed look that Sweeny needs to carry off.

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by jadis96

I know this may sound weird, but what about Alan Cumming as Sweeny? He has the broadway credits of Caberet, Threepenny Opera etc, but he also has done enough film work to know he can carry that too. If you ever saw him in Caberet you know he can carry the crazed look that Sweeny needs to carry off.

I think that might be a good casting choice. Christopher Walken would another good casting choice to play Sweeney.

[RU OX Alum]

If you like good movies, you'll boycot these. These are just as bad as if not worse than all the stupid sequels and remakes and sequels to remakes.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

If you like good movies, you'll boycot these. These are just as bad as if not worse than all the stupid sequels and remakes and sequels to remakes.

They aren't bad (well, yes, some are bad)...they just have a different target audience then most mainstream films. There are quite a few that stick as much to the orginal script as possible.

ETA: Actually, I found Phantom of the Opera to be excellent, as far as remakes go. Most of the things added (besides the backstory of the Phantom told by Mdme Giry) were things from the book that were not in the orignal stage play (such as the room of mirrors Raoul falls into).

[RU OX Alum]

I should have been more clear. Musical on Broadway have been ruining the level of quality in the theatre scene of america for years. They hardly even hire actors. Not that they don't have any acting training, but most of these people are singers and/or dancers, and they constantly screw up the acting part just to get the notes "right."

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

I should have been more clear. Musical on Broadway have been ruining the level of quality in the theatre scene of america for years. They hardly even hire actors. Not that they don't have any acting training, but most of these people are singers and/or dancers, and they constantly screw up the acting part just to get the notes "right."

What musicals are you seeing?? Wow, I think that's a totally unfair assesment.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

They hardly even hire actors. Not that they don't have any acting training, but most of these people are singers and/or dancers, and they constantly screw up the acting part just to get the notes "right."

How is that different from how it has long been, both on Broadway and in Hollywood? Then as now there are exceptions -- usually quite a few -- but the idea that voice (or dancing) is much more important than acting ability goes back to grand opera at least.

Now, if you want to argue that the trend of creating musicals out of "XYZ's Greatest Hits" is damaging the American musical, you'll get no argument from me. And if you have specifics on actors/singers/dancers who are "ruining the quality" of American theatre by "constantly screwing up the acting part," then please share, because I don't see it.

[RU OX Alum]

whoever was in that god awful thing I got dragged to
it was a rip off of a rip off of a rip off bascially same plot as philadelphia story/ fantasktics/ et al in whatever incarnation. Dude playing the ex husband character had maybe three songs to sing, which he did, but the entire time he was on stage, never once changed expressions, or showed ANY emotion.

I think this was called "high society" or some such non-sense. And then you look at program, you see they all joined AEA within the last month or so. I'm calling shenainingins on that.

And no, not always was it like this. For example, WEst Side Story. Parts written for singers, parts written for actors and parts written for dancers. 3 or 4 in each gang i think that only danced. They didn't want some one who spent all day at the piano learning scales to play action. That would have ruined everything. Or riff or the sharks or whoever.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

whoever was in that god awful thing I got dragged to
it was a rip off of a rip off of a rip off bascially same plot as philadelphia story/ fantasktics/ et al in whatever incarnation. Dude playing the ex husband character had maybe three songs to sing, which he did, but the entire time he was on stage, never once changed expressions, or showed ANY emotion.

I think this was called "high society" or some such non-sense.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have provided one "specific" and ask: does one bad experience herald the downfall of American theatre?

And "High Society" = "some such non-sense?" Ummm, yeah, it is a musical version of "The Philadelphia Story," with music by Cole Porter. I guess you've never seen the movie, starring Bing Crosby (definitely a better singer than actor -- he pretty much always played himself), Grace Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Celeste Holm, John Lund and Louis Armstrong.

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

And no, not always was it like this. For example, WEst Side Story. Parts written for singers, parts written for actors and parts written for dancers. 3 or 4 in each gang i think that only danced. They didn't want some one who spent all day at the piano learning scales to play action. That would have ruined everything. Or riff or the sharks or whoever.

Yeah, okay. That's one show from 1957. (And a show that in many ways, according to its composer, is more of an opera than a musical.) Of course, it lost the Tony for Best Musical to "The Music Man" in 1958. And do you remember the other nominees -- "New Girl in Town," "Jamaica" or "Oh, Captain!"? And, of course, you ignore the many, many shows that require dancing by the main characters. I mean, really, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers?! Fred wasn't that strong an actor either -- like Bing, he played himself.

It's a bad idea to judge the current state of the American theatre by one show, just as it's a bad idea to judge the history of the American theatre by one show -- even one as remarkable as "West Side Story," which may be an exception to the rule. "WSS" story doesn't change the fact that frequently in the history of the American musical theatre and movie musical, the ability to sing or dance well has been deemed more important than the ability to act well.

BTW: since you say that WSS had parts written for singers, parts for dancers and parts for actors, would Tony, Maria and Anita classify as parts for actors, singers or dancers? Not anybody can sing Tony and Maria's parts, and Anita has to do quite a bit of dancing (which is perhaps why someone whose training and background was primarily dancing rather than acting -- Chita Rivera -- was the first Anita).

[jadis96]

I am not sure High Society can be considered where Broadway is going since it's not currently running on Broadway according the the IBDB http://www.ibdb.com/production.asp?ID=4867 and with the exception of two of the original cast members all were already equity members. Maybe the production you saw was a tour. I find that tours are often new performers because that is a good way to cut their teeth on shows without the producers having to risk the main production.

Looking at a list of current shows:
• Avenue Q
• Beauty and the Beast
• Bridge & Tunnel
• Chicago
• Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
• Faith Healer
• Hairspray
• Jersey Boys
• Mamma Mia!
• Rent
• Spamalot
• Sweeney Todd
• Tarzan
• The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee
• The Color Purple
• The Drowsy Chaperone
• The History Boys
• The Lieutenant of Inishmore
• The Lion King
• The Phantom of the Opera
• The Producers
• The Wedding Singer
• Wicked

I see quite a few that require real acting to get through it. I don't think Anthony Rapp or Adam Pascal got by on singing or dancing alone in Rent. Also quite a few of these shows are straight shows that require no singing or dancing at all.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you have provided one "specific" and ask: does one bad experience herald the downfall of American theatre?

And "High Society" = "some such non-sense?" Ummm, yeah, it is a musical version of "The Philadelphia Story," with music by Cole Porter. I guess you've never seen the movie, starring Bing Crosby (definitely a better singer than actor -- he pretty much always played himself), Grace Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Celeste Holm, John Lund and Louis Armstrong.

Yeah, okay. That's one show from 1957. (And a show that in many ways, according to its composer, is more of an opera than a musical.) Of course, it lost the Tony for Best Musical to "The Music Man" in 1958. And do you remember the other nominees -- "New Girl in Town," "Jamaica" or "Oh, Captain!"? And, of course, you ignore the many, many shows that require dancing by the main characters. I mean, really, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers?! Fred wasn't that strong an actor either -- like Bing, he played himself.

It's a bad idea to judge the current state of the American theatre by one show, just as it's a bad idea to judge the history of the American theatre by one show -- even one as remarkable as "West Side Story," which may be an exception to the rule. "WSS" story doesn't change the fact that frequently in the history of the American musical theatre and movie musical, the ability to sing or dance well has been deemed more important than the ability to act well.

BTW: since you say that WSS had parts written for singers, parts for dancers and parts for actors, would Tony, Maria and Anita classify as parts for actors, singers or dancers? Not anybody can sing Tony and Maria's parts, and Anita has to do quite a bit of dancing (which is perhaps why someone whose training and background was primarily dancing rather than acting -- Chita Rivera -- was the first Anita).

Oh.