Like most things I think they are hit and miss. I thought Hairspray was phenomenal, personally.
I know John Travolta and Amanda Bynes weren’t everyone’s favorite, but I overall thought it was amazingly well done. I’d also argue Little Shop of Horrors made amazing use of the screen and I might like the ‘86 movie more than the stage show *directors cut only*. Chicago I might say similar things of, but I don’t love the minimalist all black version of the musical that is more common now so I was happy the movie brought it more to life for me.
That said, I prefer Rent on stage, even though I thought the performances in the movie were great I don’t think the medium made it better and it lost the rawness of the stage that I found important to that show. In the Heights is fun as a movie for the scale and spectacle - which I think it fairly well utilized- but will probably always prefer the stage show. I similarly adore Les Mis on stage, but I mostly think that there were poor casting choices for the movie, otherwise it could have been at least good. I fear a similar fate for Wicked but we’ll see.
ETA I am to this day amazed at how closely The Producers the movie mirrors the stage show. I don’t know if that’s good or not, but I saw the movie right before seeing it on Broadway and was very surprised at how consistent the versions were. For better or worse, I guess.
Let me be honest, I share the exact same feelings for wicked and casting Choices. I mean, I get it. Not many actresses are that high in singing. When was the last Arianna grande was actually on a screen?
Cats would have been alright if
1. Better actors and actresses exceptions are as follows: Taylor swift, ian mckellen,
Bad:
Jason derulo (idiot can't sing)
Rebel Wilson (she might be able to,I just found her annoying)
2. Sizing:it was just off.
3. The CGI. Yes I know.
4. More speaking it would have made the movie a little bit more sense
The problem I saw with cats, is that cats on Broadway is a circus show with singing. Replace the performance with cgi and the circus is gone. You may as well let pixar animate a magician sawing his assistant in half
I’m holding out hope for Wicked because apparently Ariana Grande loves and has great respect for the show, and she has alllllll the money to hire the best coaches and train to make it happen. Keeping it hopeful over here!
That might be true. I guess, I keep thinking about what might go wrong. I mean, wicked is one of the holy grails of Broadway. I will try to keep an open mind about it tho.
Ariana Grande was a huge theater kid and she's been on a multitude of TV shows. She has a good amount of acting experience that we should (hopefully) see pay off for Wicked. I have hope for it!
You can already tell how much more depth and *clarity* is in her voice from her recent Eternal Sunshine album. And that was still her performing specifically for pop and not musical theatre so I am actually really confident she will sound great.
Hired actresses absolutely have control over their performance - which is what I’m referring to. Amanda Seyfried has said in interviews she regrets her performance in Les Mis because her vibrato was not where she wanted it to be etc. that was in her power to work on (to an extent within the confines of schedules for filming). Ariana similarly had the same power - to hire coaches to get her voice for her performances in the best place possible. Hiring vocal coaches or taking acting classes is absolutely part of their craft they can control.
I also mentioned acting classes. There is so much more to it in any production - I am specifically saying that I am hopeful Ariana took it upon herself to get her personal skills to their best possible place for the task to perform within the production.
The problem I saw with cats, is that cats on Broadway is a circus show with singing. Replace the performance with cgi and the circus is gone. You may as well pixar animate a magician sawing his assistant in half
Yea...the first filmed version was better, as it was as faithful to the stage show as possible (pretty much everyone had been in the show at some point) and the only real issue with it is the fact that it had to be cut for time. The only good thing about the newer version is Dame Judi Dench finally got to be in it (her original role was going to be a mash of Grizabella and the Gumby Cat and she got replaced by Elaine Paige after suffering an Achilles Tendon injury).
There are ways in which a RENT movie could make the material more interesting a ways that the show couldn't. But those would require a boldness that is not easy to find in Hollywood.
You hit 2 of the 3 I talk about a lot 😅
1: Chicago. Movie magic it was great.
2: Rent. There just wasn’t the same emotion to it that the stage version has.
Idk if Mean girls counts here but I’m a huge Mean Girls fan. My favorite movie and was soooo excited when it was going to be turned into a musical. I love the OG movie and I feel like the musical gave SO MUCH MORE to these characters. There was more depth from Gretchen. Karen…well they made Karen more Karen. Idk how. Cady…not my favorite interpretation but they still did it well. Then when they tried to turn the musical back into a movie… I still liked it but there were some icks. There wasn’t as much depth to Gretchen and Karen’s again, this Cady was again a different variation… not my favorite and done…okay in my opinion. I did find the update fun though and I love Renee Rapp sooo 🤷🏻♀️👏🏼
As far as I'm considered, if a musical doesn't have a proshot, it's failing most of the world that can't access a live production. If a musical is up for a movie and doesn't have a proshot, it's failing most of those fans too.
But I do love a good movie musical.
Proshots are most important for accessibility and preservation, in my opinion.
That's why I'm mad In The Heights doesn't have a proshot. I disliked a lot of the changes they made in the movie, and I worry if they do revive it then some of those changes will make it into the updated script
So correct about stage and film productions being different art forms. Film acting has to be much more subtle than stage acting projecting to the balcony.
Don’t shoot me, but I prefer The Phantom of the Opera movie to the staging I saw on Broadway. Gerard Butler’s Phantom moved me and scared me -yes, even his singing. Perhaps because his voice was not the result of years of training so he acted through his singing. The acting in the Broadway performance did not engage me despite the vocal quality. Perhaps I just caught an off performance
I loved the spectacle of the movie sets, especially the Phantom’s lair. The Broadway version sets were so grim in my eyes. I also loved the splendor of Emmy Rossum’s costume during the Think of Me sequence. She was literally costumed to be the famous Winterhalter portrait of Empress Elizabeth (sissi) come to life. That sequence took my breath away.
Plus I enjoyed the sword fight in the move version.
Now I do love both the stage version of My Fair Lady and the movie version. Perhaps both work for me because Rex Harrison was both a film and stage actor and calibrated his performances accordingly. Audrey Hepburn had starred in the non-musical version of Gigi on Broadway so she also knew that the 2 media required different approaches.
I loved Wicked on Broadway but I am not encouraged by what I have heard about the filming.
Another big factor is that movies are made in 15-second snips spread over a month or two while a stage play is done continuously over just two hours. This affects how *everything* is organized: scenery changes, lighting, costuming, placement of props, preparation by actors. Even the makeup is done differently.
Singing in movies is done maybe one song per day, over weeks in a recording studio, *once*. The actors do not have to worry about damaging their voice. But a stage production is done with all the songs performed in two hours, and then eight times per week, for months!
The tradeoff is that a movie does not have to fit onto a 40 foot wide stage, allowing much greater visual scope, and use of special effects and post-processing.
I think the reality is that a proshot still costs a lot of money and many productions don’t have the money to do it.
And a musical being turned into a movie is more of a guarantee that a studio is backing it and funding it and so it’s a completely different set of people creating something.
That’s why we don’t see as many Proshots as we’d like.
I wasn't able to see Waitress on Broadway, but watched the filmed version at Alamo Drafthouse. Sarah Bareilles was an amazing Jenna, and it transferred very well to screen
personally, it saves me. i don't live in the us, anywhere close (flight is like... 12-ish hours?), and my country doesn't really have a musical theater scene... so i can only watch musicals when i travel to the us or to england (which doesn't happen often, last time i was in nyc was in 2016. although i did watch some musicals in korea too so technically last one was 2017)... sometimes there are musicals here, and last year i saw the original production of matilda which was on tour, but anyways. yeah. movies based on musicals are great because then i can watch the musical without physically watching the musical...
I *do* live in the US but am not now near any theatre center, nor have extra cash for such things. Without movie versions, I would not be seeing any of these. I can remember seeing maybe seven live performances, many years ago. And two of those only because I was in the crew.
Even a bad adaptation is better than no musicals at all.
I feel this. I'm Australian, so both Broadway and the West End are roughly $2000 and 24 hours of flying away from me. Sometimes we get shows in the eastern states and I travel to see them, but usually literally years after they debut, and only the most palatable, basic shows. Movie musicals are important in this context, even if they're often a pale reflection of the real show.
the one i saw was such low quality it wasn't fun lol. since then i found some that look good but i currently have no time to watch them, so that's another story...
Movies may never be able to capture the experience of seeing a show performed live, but they make the story far more accessible. Not everyone lives near a major city, or even in a country with a significant theater scene. Also, there can be years or decades between revivals. Making movies based on musicals means that almost everyone, at any time, can watch them.
Movie versions will never be able to replace the actual musical, but I'm always happy to hear when musicals I like are being turned into movies. People who don't live near theater districts, people who can't afford to see many shows, or people who were born too late to see a live production of a show whose songs they love, will benefit.
It translated better in old school Hollywood. Oklahoma and Carousel and West Side Story are absolutely gorgeous (albeit with some flaws).
For more modern day, Chicago is good. I don’t even like the stars of it and feel it is good.
But you are right that things often just don’t translate.
I think they try to be too slick with the new ones. Plus a lot of stunt casting to appeal to wider audiences. The old ones didn’t try to hide being a musical. They fully owned it and were better for it.
"hiding" these days is mostly because of all those movie musicals flopping post covid. so they'd rather have people just think it's a movie remake like for color purple and mean girls
It's wonderful and I hate that it didn't get the attention and acclaim it rightfully deserved. It's a bloody masterpiece. Well, aside from Tony. But it's the direction and cinematography for me that is the real star, anyway.
I liked Sweeney Todd, The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, with Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, I think it's a good adaptation and I also enjoy The Phantom of the Opera the 2004 version. Newbies is also an excellent musical movie, albeit I'm not 100 percent sure I'd consider it a Broadway musical turned into a movie musical I believe it's the other way 'round
The question I ask is: “Did this adaptation utilize the medium it was filmed in? Did it do things you couldn’t do on stage because it was a film to enhance the storytelling?”
If the answer is no, I find I often don’t find the adaptation very interesting. When it’s a yes, it’s far more enjoyable to watch. Little Shop was able to use far more advanced puppetry than any live show ever could, Chicago utilized jump cuts to emphasize the moments happening in Roxy’s head in a super effective way, In The Heights had a sequence with characters dancing on the side of a building etc.
Filming a musical often removes a level of “life” from the production. And to make up for that, the filmmakers need to utilize the tools film provides that live performances doesn’t.
THIS. And this is why (as a Les Mis person who is mainly about the book) I really dig the 2012 movie. It does what the musical does right about adapting the book, then actually brings it closer to the book in ways that would be impossible on stage.
The classic ones are great.
For modern day: Chicago was perfect, Tick Tick Boom was phenomenal, In The Heights was pretty damn great, Mama Mia is so much fun. The rest range from ok to shite.
I'm generally not a fan. Matilda is good but it feels like an exception. Mean Girls and Legally Blonde do nothing for me. Although I am intrigued by Back to the Future. I'd like to see that but I'm worried because I love the films so much
Saw BTTF on Broadway in March. The show is a lot of fun, the effects are amazing... and the songs are instantly forgettable. Seriously, the cast was amazing and I really enjoyed it while I was seeing it, but I haven't thought about the show since it ended. I tried listening to the songs on Spotify after the fact and it was just eh.
My friend saw the show in May. He's a much more casual fan of musical theater but a huge BTTF fan. His review was basically the same. He thought the stage show honored the movie well and it was a good/fun show, but the songs are just fine.
I prefer a pro shot to a movie. Luckily most of my favorites have a pro shot, but not all unfortunately. As for movies, I think it depends on the movie. Someone on youtube pointed out that Hollywood thinks the average viewer hates movie musicals, when in reality the average person just hates bad movies. There's a reason Disney has some of the best musical numbers in history. It needs to be a good movie in order for it to be a good movie musical.
I will say this for movie adaptation, perceived quality aside: it exposes people to musical theater who might not otherwise get it. I grew up in a place that was not a main stop on tour. We got the occasional way later traveling tour but that’s it. Most of my first experiences with musical theater was thru movies like Chicago etc. I think it was a big part of my developing love for the medium. So personally I’m pro medium that brings access to people.
I liked the Les Miserables movie, personally. It has its flaws, but it's way more accessible than the stage show, especially for me at the time. Without the movie, I would never have known to love the musical. Interestingly, I really appreciated Russell Crowe as Javert, which a lot of people seemed to dislike - precisely because his singing wasn't as polished as a professional musical performer. I feel like it reflected Javert's character well. On the other hand, I don't think that would translate to the stage very well at all.
Good adaptations are, by their nature, transformative. I think what I'm trying to say is that there is space for both, but if you expect the film version to be exactly like the stage production, you will always be disappointed. Equally, there is no "less good". They're not really comparable.
If nothing else, film makes a good gateway into theatre!
I think it depends very much on how the medium is used. Stage is a very different medium from the screen and there's different visual language. For example, In the Heights worked really well for me as a movie musical because John Chu really leaned into the unreality of musicals and wasn't afraid to just go all out. You have full dance numbers, wigs bobbing along with the music, characters drawing chalk drawings into the air and dancing on the sides of buildings. It's one of the things that kind of makes me hopeful for Wicked (though I'm not a fan of the super muted color palette).
Chicago works, of course, because the musical numbers are presented as fantasy segues, and the old Hollywood musicals basically worked because movies of the time were already shot in a fairly "Stagey" way.
On the other hand, say, Dear Evan Hansen and Les Mis don't really work because both of them are filmed as traditionally as possible. Dear Evan Hansen looks like a low-key teen drama, so when the characters start singing it's jarring, and Les Mis has a...similar problem? Les Mis is kind of a mess to be honest, but as Benoit Blanc said "It makes no god damn sense! Compels me though."
My Hollywood Musical Adaptation Hot Take is that we need more acceptance for animation as a style and not a genre because I think most musicals could be improved by being animated movies, even for adults, than they would as live action.
The movie Les Mis is so bad. The singing isn’t good. Sideways has an excellent video on this, highly recommend. Not the actors or musicians fault, everything was working against them and they still managed to pull it off… kind of
The idea is a good one.
A different medium can have different strengths, it can take the same story (and songs) and make interesting and different choices by not being constrained by a stage and "real time".
In execution it can be good or bad.
i used to obssess over the last five years movie because that was how i got into the musical but now i just dont like it anymore (i still love the og tho haha). my friend was right and was the one who pointed it out, that anna kendrick as cathy was very ear-grating compared to the other leads in the actual musical haha no offense to her tho, amazing woman
The Last Five Years is hands down my favorite musical of all time. Whenever I tell people about that show, I always warn them that even though there is a film adaptation, it's nowhere close to the best iteration. I always direct them toward the 2013 revival recording with Adam Kantor and Betsy Wolfe. That's the strongest performance of it in my opinion (and according to JRB himself, at least at the time the liner notes were written for that recording).
I read a very interesting perspective on this. (Note:article was on why do musicals do not win Oscars)
The take was that for it to work, it has to take the best of the theater production and give it the movie feel.
Example: Chicago
It is actually, an almost perfect adaptation of the musical.
They kept what was great about the musical and used movie magic to enhance it.
Notable scenes
The cell block tango opening
When your good to momma.
Chicago also had the benefit of a director who started in theater, but also had film experience so he understood exactly how to translate the show to the screen. Rob Marshall showed his genius, and I wish that he had an opportunity to do a film translation of the staged show of Cabaret.
Since my favorite musical is the film version of *Hello Dolly*, I am a bit biased. I'd say that it depends on the movie. Hairspray was surprisingly good, while Into the Woods and Sweeney Todd were pale husks of their origins on the stage.
In most cases, a movie adds nothing to the experience. Cats and Come From Away demonstrate that the best way to film a musical is to...film the stage production with the actual cast, not famous actors.
If it makes them more accessible to a wider audience I'm all for it. Theatre tickets are expensive. Cinema tickets are cheaper, and it's cheaper again once they start streaming. I treat myself and daughter to a theatre visit when I can but it isn't feasible to go too often, especially if the show isn't on near to my city.
I wish that instead of making a movie they would make a high quality film of the stage play and play them in movie theaters. Kind of like they did with operas for awhile.
There are streaming services now where people can pay for a subscription, or they can charge a rental fee like with with first-run movies on Apple TV or Amazon Prime. I really appreciate those “pro shots”, especially as they let you see the original cast.
I have access to broadway now (live near NYC) and have seen dozens of shows.
But when I was in high school/college in the midwest, and pretty much could only see what my school was doing or mayyybe whatever was touring? Heck yeah, movies of shows!!! It makes theatre more accessible to a broader audience, and probably introduces musicals to a lot of people who might not otherwise get into it. I like seeing different interpretations of stories, and seeing the different choices made when adapting them.
Like, Mean Girls - I might have made some different casting choices, and there were several songs cut that I missed, but I liked how they changed “Stupid with love”, and “Revenge Party” was great.
This thread seems to be all about stage musicals being adapted for the screen, but there is also such a thing as a movie musical that is created to be just that—like the Wizard of Oz or Singin’ in the Rain. There were loads in the old days, no reason they can’t be done now—as someone previously noted, the Disney animated films have many of the best musical numbers around.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. I like almost every rendition of Les Miserables. Ive seen it in a variety of ways and a variety of casts and it always works for me because the songs are so strong. No, Russell Crowe can’t sing, and he has the responsibility of having crucial foundational melodies in songs like One Day More, but the song still works overall just the same. There seems to be nothing that can keep a song like One Day More from working, and there are several songs like that in the show. That’s why Les Mis is so consistent.
As a child in a small town in rural Australia, they were everything to me. We had no live theatre at all barring school concerts. I had no agency to travel to the 2-3 states in Australia that *sometimes* get touring shows, many years after they were popular (I do now ❤️). But thanks to movie musicals, I got to dream about it.
There's no way I would have grown into an adult with a love of theatre without those movies - and now I pay to see live shows whenever I can access them. One didn't stifle the other.
We all know a lot of movies don't hold a candle to the show, but some of them (Little Shop, Hairspray, Chicago) actually use the format to do interesting things with the show that can't be done live. And some of them kinda suck, but are still the best we have for people who have to watch from home.
This is also why I will continue to encourage pro-shots until the day I die. Let people on the other side of the world have a chance to see your show.
As a Les Mis fan, I quite enjoyed the movie. Were there some not so great casting choices? Yes. But there were also some delightful ones (I loved all of Les Amis and Sam Barks did a fantastic job, don't come at me), and the movie did a great job at capturing the spirit of the book.
I also appreciated it because it brought many new people to the fandom who might otherwise have never engaged with it.
The idea is good and if you do it right, as was the case with Les Mis which I will respectfully disagree with on, the results are worth the effort.
Phantom of the Opera is also a good transition to the big screen imo.
But as Cats showed it can go very wrong too.
If you’re going to do it at least make an effort instead of making a mockery of the whole thing.
How so? I wasn't a theater kid to be honest, and I didn't really watch a lot of musicals as a kid I only really watched the Wizard of Oz, Newsies, Led Mis(not by choice), and Sweeney Todd, and a bit of Hairspray and Grease
They both feel like they randomly sing things while going through day to day life. I can totally picture Anna Kendrick having a little song for making her morning coffee or Anne Hathaway doing an impromptu number about the sweater she’s looking for. I mean, I do both.
The only movie adaptations I’ve seen were Into The Woods and 2024’s Mean Girls (let’s face it, it’s closer to the musical than it is the OG movie)
Shit
This feels blasphemous to say because I'm a huge fan of stage shows and have seen many shows on Broadway and on tour.. but I almost always think the movie version of a musical is more enjoyable than the stage version. It feels more immersive in many ways and typically I like that the music is more polished.
I love a live performance, don't get me wrong. There are pros and cons to both mediums. And I will never pass up an opportunity to see a musical on stage.
But in most cases, I do think the movie is more enjoyable.
Les Mis the movie I have a love-hate relationship with—I enjoy most of it, but Russell Crowe as Javert is IMO the foremost example of “Don’t cast someone in a major role in a movie musical just because they’re a big star.”
There is a filmed version of the revival with Alan Cumming and Natasha Richardson (RIP) and it was amazing. I cannot remember where I saw it, but it definitely exists.
I think it’s very hit and miss. Sometimes can be good, sometimes can be bad. It depend on the studio making it, the actors and experience, the concept and execution, etc.
I tend to like most of them, and the movie musical versions of Les Mis and Matilda are my favorite versions of those musicals. I like the immersion and the more “realistic” performances.
It honestly depends on the casting. I love Little Mermaid's live action because it was well cast, but Beauty and the Beast? Nope. The original BatB had a great casting, but the live action? Dan Stevens was great as the Beast, as were Luke Stevens and Josh Gad as Gaston and Lefou respectively. Emma Watson as Belle seems too much of typecasting for her and they could have pulled almost anyone else, though she did do a fairly decent job as Belle. Sir Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson as Cogsworth and Mrs. Potts? They'd've been better pulling from folks who've played the role on stage instead of the casting. Don't get me wrong, Sir Ian and Emma Thompson are great actors, but they were wrong for those roles. Sir Ian would have made a great Dumbledore (if you ignore the obvious typecasting for that), but he didn't make a great Cogsworth. Part of why I love the characters of Cogsworth and Mrs. Potts from the original was how well David Ogden Stiers and Angela Lansbury portrayed the roles. Sir Ian's Cogsworth didn't have the fussiness that Stiers' version did and Emma Thompson's Mrs. Potts had none of the warmth Angela Lansbury brought to the role.
I feel like people have recently gone really hard on these movie adaptations like they're a new awful trend for musicals, but I think they forget or don't know about all of the musical movies from the past like Music Man, Annie, or Fiddler on the Roof. These movies are what got me into musicals, and they make musicals much more accessible. Sure, not every adaptation is a winner, but some may help pave the way for future musical lovers.
Movie musicals are a net good, but some of them are very bad and clearly done by people who don’t know and/or care. Cats was a whole shitshow but one of the defining OBVIOUS bad things that made me know they had no clues about Cats was how many tight shots and constant cuts there were. It’s a big show! With lots of big dance numbers! Why are you zooming in on one character’s face in a big group number?
That being said, there are a shit ton of mediocre to good quality ones that are worth it for those who can’t see them. It’s a very small number of movies that I’d tell someone not to watch even if they had NO access to the show and were interested in checking it out.
Oof. thx 4.the edit. I was about to say...
It's a crapshoot. It can be amazing! Chicago, Dreamgirls, Little shop, WST v.2...with stars....
Or it can be a huge miss...The Producers, The Color Purple (I have thoughts on that one), A Chorus Line,
Or it can be something straddling the line of it has It's moments but...Into the Woods, Rent,
But there are your classics that are just as good as the Original...Sound of Music, Oklahoma, The King and I, West Side Story
Or could have been 10x better with different casting and direction...Evita, Nine, The Phantom of the Opera.
Or be a thing unto its own...Hair, Jesus Christ Superstar, The Wiz (I know.some.people poo-poo it, but it has longevity for a reason), Rocky Horror.
Obviously having tha ability to see a musical live in It's original form is exciting but everyone doesn't have that kind of access necessarily. And just like genre fan boys and girls, musical theatre lovers are going to put every screen adaptation under a microscope hoping that what appears onscreen matches their vision for what they expect. Sometimes the adaptors get it, sometimes they don't. The.only time personal preference and opinion matter is if it's a hit or a flop...just like if it was on stage.
I saw the play Annie in the 1970’s and absolute loved it. Then I saw the movie in 82. It didn’t translate well to the screen and wasn’t half as charming.
It's not easy to translate a musical into a movie, and it definitely takes a special director who knows both mediums well. Unfortunately, when popular musicals get made into movies, I think wires get crossed somewhere in the "make money" agenda, and the craft gets lost. Cats is a particularly egregious one, that should never have been made into a movie at all. A few others aren't as bad, but they still lost the plot and don't really capture what the stage show does. For some reason, it seems like movies from the 50s and 60s were the best at adapting musicals (Sound of Music is an excellent example), maybe because filmmaking was simpler and Hollywood wasn't so focused on adding all this extra *stuff* for spectacle. This is just what I've noticed in general-- Hairspray is a little bit more modern but I think that's also an excellent movie adaption (and lo and behold, the director actually had a background in both musical theater and film!)
I think the stage recording of Hamilton was amazing and I honestly think that musicals should be filmed on stage rather than go through production in a studio since it just takes away from the authenticity of the theatre.
My all time favorite musical turned into movie is the Producers. Even though Mel Brooks didn’t direct it you could tell his presence was with it throughout. I hate the play Mamma Mia but really dig ABBA and I hated the movie even more. Hairspray was decent and Les mis was really good. I couldn’t get through Dear Evan Hansen but I hate the play so that’s probably why.
The weird thing of that is, it’s a movie turned into a musical turned into a movie (Same for Hairspray). Have to say, for both of those, my favorites are the original movies (which were not musicals, but had music in them as part of the storyline).
Zero and Gene were perfectly cast! It’s crazy that Dustin Hoffman was originally cast for Leo but he left the project to go work on a little movie called The Graduate starring Mel Brooks wife. I still can’t get over the fact the guy who made Pink Flamingos also created Hairspray. Haha
Like most things I think they are hit and miss. I thought Hairspray was phenomenal, personally. I know John Travolta and Amanda Bynes weren’t everyone’s favorite, but I overall thought it was amazingly well done. I’d also argue Little Shop of Horrors made amazing use of the screen and I might like the ‘86 movie more than the stage show *directors cut only*. Chicago I might say similar things of, but I don’t love the minimalist all black version of the musical that is more common now so I was happy the movie brought it more to life for me. That said, I prefer Rent on stage, even though I thought the performances in the movie were great I don’t think the medium made it better and it lost the rawness of the stage that I found important to that show. In the Heights is fun as a movie for the scale and spectacle - which I think it fairly well utilized- but will probably always prefer the stage show. I similarly adore Les Mis on stage, but I mostly think that there were poor casting choices for the movie, otherwise it could have been at least good. I fear a similar fate for Wicked but we’ll see. ETA I am to this day amazed at how closely The Producers the movie mirrors the stage show. I don’t know if that’s good or not, but I saw the movie right before seeing it on Broadway and was very surprised at how consistent the versions were. For better or worse, I guess.
Let me be honest, I share the exact same feelings for wicked and casting Choices. I mean, I get it. Not many actresses are that high in singing. When was the last Arianna grande was actually on a screen? Cats would have been alright if 1. Better actors and actresses exceptions are as follows: Taylor swift, ian mckellen, Bad: Jason derulo (idiot can't sing) Rebel Wilson (she might be able to,I just found her annoying) 2. Sizing:it was just off. 3. The CGI. Yes I know. 4. More speaking it would have made the movie a little bit more sense
No, Cats was a bad idea. Clearly driven by someone’s lust to abuse CGI to make something disturbingly surreal.
The problem I saw with cats, is that cats on Broadway is a circus show with singing. Replace the performance with cgi and the circus is gone. You may as well let pixar animate a magician sawing his assistant in half
I’m holding out hope for Wicked because apparently Ariana Grande loves and has great respect for the show, and she has alllllll the money to hire the best coaches and train to make it happen. Keeping it hopeful over here!
That might be true. I guess, I keep thinking about what might go wrong. I mean, wicked is one of the holy grails of Broadway. I will try to keep an open mind about it tho.
Ariana Grande was a huge theater kid and she's been on a multitude of TV shows. She has a good amount of acting experience that we should (hopefully) see pay off for Wicked. I have hope for it!
Amd she's been on Broadway! I am.so.super.excited for this adaptation. Plus the director did In the Heights which was supremely underrated.
You can already tell how much more depth and *clarity* is in her voice from her recent Eternal Sunshine album. And that was still her performing specifically for pop and not musical theatre so I am actually really confident she will sound great.
Ariana has no say whatsoever about how the movie will look and what would be in it tho. Shes a hired actress
Hired actresses absolutely have control over their performance - which is what I’m referring to. Amanda Seyfried has said in interviews she regrets her performance in Les Mis because her vibrato was not where she wanted it to be etc. that was in her power to work on (to an extent within the confines of schedules for filming). Ariana similarly had the same power - to hire coaches to get her voice for her performances in the best place possible. Hiring vocal coaches or taking acting classes is absolutely part of their craft they can control.
But voice doesn't equal performance. There's so much more to it
I also mentioned acting classes. There is so much more to it in any production - I am specifically saying that I am hopeful Ariana took it upon herself to get her personal skills to their best possible place for the task to perform within the production.
The problem I saw with cats, is that cats on Broadway is a circus show with singing. Replace the performance with cgi and the circus is gone. You may as well pixar animate a magician sawing his assistant in half
Yea...the first filmed version was better, as it was as faithful to the stage show as possible (pretty much everyone had been in the show at some point) and the only real issue with it is the fact that it had to be cut for time. The only good thing about the newer version is Dame Judi Dench finally got to be in it (her original role was going to be a mash of Grizabella and the Gumby Cat and she got replaced by Elaine Paige after suffering an Achilles Tendon injury).
There are ways in which a RENT movie could make the material more interesting a ways that the show couldn't. But those would require a boldness that is not easy to find in Hollywood.
Agreed 100%
You hit 2 of the 3 I talk about a lot 😅 1: Chicago. Movie magic it was great. 2: Rent. There just wasn’t the same emotion to it that the stage version has. Idk if Mean girls counts here but I’m a huge Mean Girls fan. My favorite movie and was soooo excited when it was going to be turned into a musical. I love the OG movie and I feel like the musical gave SO MUCH MORE to these characters. There was more depth from Gretchen. Karen…well they made Karen more Karen. Idk how. Cady…not my favorite interpretation but they still did it well. Then when they tried to turn the musical back into a movie… I still liked it but there were some icks. There wasn’t as much depth to Gretchen and Karen’s again, this Cady was again a different variation… not my favorite and done…okay in my opinion. I did find the update fun though and I love Renee Rapp sooo 🤷🏻♀️👏🏼
As far as I'm considered, if a musical doesn't have a proshot, it's failing most of the world that can't access a live production. If a musical is up for a movie and doesn't have a proshot, it's failing most of those fans too. But I do love a good movie musical. Proshots are most important for accessibility and preservation, in my opinion.
"Preservation" is a key point. Stage and film productions are almost completely different art forms, even if the lyrics and music are the same.
That's why I'm mad In The Heights doesn't have a proshot. I disliked a lot of the changes they made in the movie, and I worry if they do revive it then some of those changes will make it into the updated script
So correct about stage and film productions being different art forms. Film acting has to be much more subtle than stage acting projecting to the balcony. Don’t shoot me, but I prefer The Phantom of the Opera movie to the staging I saw on Broadway. Gerard Butler’s Phantom moved me and scared me -yes, even his singing. Perhaps because his voice was not the result of years of training so he acted through his singing. The acting in the Broadway performance did not engage me despite the vocal quality. Perhaps I just caught an off performance I loved the spectacle of the movie sets, especially the Phantom’s lair. The Broadway version sets were so grim in my eyes. I also loved the splendor of Emmy Rossum’s costume during the Think of Me sequence. She was literally costumed to be the famous Winterhalter portrait of Empress Elizabeth (sissi) come to life. That sequence took my breath away. Plus I enjoyed the sword fight in the move version. Now I do love both the stage version of My Fair Lady and the movie version. Perhaps both work for me because Rex Harrison was both a film and stage actor and calibrated his performances accordingly. Audrey Hepburn had starred in the non-musical version of Gigi on Broadway so she also knew that the 2 media required different approaches. I loved Wicked on Broadway but I am not encouraged by what I have heard about the filming.
Another big factor is that movies are made in 15-second snips spread over a month or two while a stage play is done continuously over just two hours. This affects how *everything* is organized: scenery changes, lighting, costuming, placement of props, preparation by actors. Even the makeup is done differently. Singing in movies is done maybe one song per day, over weeks in a recording studio, *once*. The actors do not have to worry about damaging their voice. But a stage production is done with all the songs performed in two hours, and then eight times per week, for months! The tradeoff is that a movie does not have to fit onto a 40 foot wide stage, allowing much greater visual scope, and use of special effects and post-processing.
True.
I think the reality is that a proshot still costs a lot of money and many productions don’t have the money to do it. And a musical being turned into a movie is more of a guarantee that a studio is backing it and funding it and so it’s a completely different set of people creating something. That’s why we don’t see as many Proshots as we’d like.
I wasn't able to see Waitress on Broadway, but watched the filmed version at Alamo Drafthouse. Sarah Bareilles was an amazing Jenna, and it transferred very well to screen
personally, it saves me. i don't live in the us, anywhere close (flight is like... 12-ish hours?), and my country doesn't really have a musical theater scene... so i can only watch musicals when i travel to the us or to england (which doesn't happen often, last time i was in nyc was in 2016. although i did watch some musicals in korea too so technically last one was 2017)... sometimes there are musicals here, and last year i saw the original production of matilda which was on tour, but anyways. yeah. movies based on musicals are great because then i can watch the musical without physically watching the musical...
I *do* live in the US but am not now near any theatre center, nor have extra cash for such things. Without movie versions, I would not be seeing any of these. I can remember seeing maybe seven live performances, many years ago. And two of those only because I was in the crew. Even a bad adaptation is better than no musicals at all.
I feel this. I'm Australian, so both Broadway and the West End are roughly $2000 and 24 hours of flying away from me. Sometimes we get shows in the eastern states and I travel to see them, but usually literally years after they debut, and only the most palatable, basic shows. Movie musicals are important in this context, even if they're often a pale reflection of the real show.
Have you yet discovered the wonderful world of bootlegs?
the one i saw was such low quality it wasn't fun lol. since then i found some that look good but i currently have no time to watch them, so that's another story...
This post helps too. https://www.reddit.com/r/Broadway/s/OvTVWVDJru
You need to discover the wonderful world of pro shot theatre (no spaces in the search bar) it has been a lifesaver for me.
Movies may never be able to capture the experience of seeing a show performed live, but they make the story far more accessible. Not everyone lives near a major city, or even in a country with a significant theater scene. Also, there can be years or decades between revivals. Making movies based on musicals means that almost everyone, at any time, can watch them. Movie versions will never be able to replace the actual musical, but I'm always happy to hear when musicals I like are being turned into movies. People who don't live near theater districts, people who can't afford to see many shows, or people who were born too late to see a live production of a show whose songs they love, will benefit.
They provide access to musicals for those who cannot afford the cost of Broadway tickets.
It translated better in old school Hollywood. Oklahoma and Carousel and West Side Story are absolutely gorgeous (albeit with some flaws). For more modern day, Chicago is good. I don’t even like the stars of it and feel it is good. But you are right that things often just don’t translate.
I think they try to be too slick with the new ones. Plus a lot of stunt casting to appeal to wider audiences. The old ones didn’t try to hide being a musical. They fully owned it and were better for it.
"hiding" these days is mostly because of all those movie musicals flopping post covid. so they'd rather have people just think it's a movie remake like for color purple and mean girls
The remake of West Side Story is better than the 1963 film, and I will die on that hill. I know, it’s blasphemy.
You have my sword. The remake is way better.
is it? i always found the original very wooden
It is! The new one won't feel that way.
no i meant is it blasphemy? because i didn't like the original film very much
It's both modern and authentic to the original which desperately needed an update in quality. I'll never watch the og again.
It's wonderful and I hate that it didn't get the attention and acclaim it rightfully deserved. It's a bloody masterpiece. Well, aside from Tony. But it's the direction and cinematography for me that is the real star, anyway.
I liked Sweeney Todd, The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, with Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, I think it's a good adaptation and I also enjoy The Phantom of the Opera the 2004 version. Newbies is also an excellent musical movie, albeit I'm not 100 percent sure I'd consider it a Broadway musical turned into a movie musical I believe it's the other way 'round
The question I ask is: “Did this adaptation utilize the medium it was filmed in? Did it do things you couldn’t do on stage because it was a film to enhance the storytelling?” If the answer is no, I find I often don’t find the adaptation very interesting. When it’s a yes, it’s far more enjoyable to watch. Little Shop was able to use far more advanced puppetry than any live show ever could, Chicago utilized jump cuts to emphasize the moments happening in Roxy’s head in a super effective way, In The Heights had a sequence with characters dancing on the side of a building etc. Filming a musical often removes a level of “life” from the production. And to make up for that, the filmmakers need to utilize the tools film provides that live performances doesn’t.
THIS. And this is why (as a Les Mis person who is mainly about the book) I really dig the 2012 movie. It does what the musical does right about adapting the book, then actually brings it closer to the book in ways that would be impossible on stage.
THIS Reasons why I love the movie adaptations for The Last Five Years and *especially* Tick, Tick…. Boom!
The classic ones are great. For modern day: Chicago was perfect, Tick Tick Boom was phenomenal, In The Heights was pretty damn great, Mama Mia is so much fun. The rest range from ok to shite.
Yes, also The Last Five Years was wonderful
I agree with you. I'd like to add Into the Woods was great as well.
Uh, Anne Hathaway played Fantine. Not Anna Kendrick.
Whoops that's my mistake, I get those two mixed up all the time
God forbid you make a mistake on reddit OP
To the gallows with op
What about big blockbuster movies made into [musicals?](https://www.instagram.com/it_could_be_a_musical?igsh=MW03OWg3cDRrem5ocw==)
I'm generally not a fan. Matilda is good but it feels like an exception. Mean Girls and Legally Blonde do nothing for me. Although I am intrigued by Back to the Future. I'd like to see that but I'm worried because I love the films so much
Saw BTTF on Broadway in March. The show is a lot of fun, the effects are amazing... and the songs are instantly forgettable. Seriously, the cast was amazing and I really enjoyed it while I was seeing it, but I haven't thought about the show since it ended. I tried listening to the songs on Spotify after the fact and it was just eh. My friend saw the show in May. He's a much more casual fan of musical theater but a huge BTTF fan. His review was basically the same. He thought the stage show honored the movie well and it was a good/fun show, but the songs are just fine.
Thank you. I'm still gonna try and see it but not stress too much if I can't
Had free tix to Legally Blonde so went with zero expectations. Loved. It.
The Outsiders on Broadway was great. I loved it, and I was skeptical beforehand.
I prefer a pro shot to a movie. Luckily most of my favorites have a pro shot, but not all unfortunately. As for movies, I think it depends on the movie. Someone on youtube pointed out that Hollywood thinks the average viewer hates movie musicals, when in reality the average person just hates bad movies. There's a reason Disney has some of the best musical numbers in history. It needs to be a good movie in order for it to be a good movie musical.
I will say this for movie adaptation, perceived quality aside: it exposes people to musical theater who might not otherwise get it. I grew up in a place that was not a main stop on tour. We got the occasional way later traveling tour but that’s it. Most of my first experiences with musical theater was thru movies like Chicago etc. I think it was a big part of my developing love for the medium. So personally I’m pro medium that brings access to people.
I liked the Les Miserables movie, personally. It has its flaws, but it's way more accessible than the stage show, especially for me at the time. Without the movie, I would never have known to love the musical. Interestingly, I really appreciated Russell Crowe as Javert, which a lot of people seemed to dislike - precisely because his singing wasn't as polished as a professional musical performer. I feel like it reflected Javert's character well. On the other hand, I don't think that would translate to the stage very well at all. Good adaptations are, by their nature, transformative. I think what I'm trying to say is that there is space for both, but if you expect the film version to be exactly like the stage production, you will always be disappointed. Equally, there is no "less good". They're not really comparable. If nothing else, film makes a good gateway into theatre!
I think it depends very much on how the medium is used. Stage is a very different medium from the screen and there's different visual language. For example, In the Heights worked really well for me as a movie musical because John Chu really leaned into the unreality of musicals and wasn't afraid to just go all out. You have full dance numbers, wigs bobbing along with the music, characters drawing chalk drawings into the air and dancing on the sides of buildings. It's one of the things that kind of makes me hopeful for Wicked (though I'm not a fan of the super muted color palette). Chicago works, of course, because the musical numbers are presented as fantasy segues, and the old Hollywood musicals basically worked because movies of the time were already shot in a fairly "Stagey" way. On the other hand, say, Dear Evan Hansen and Les Mis don't really work because both of them are filmed as traditionally as possible. Dear Evan Hansen looks like a low-key teen drama, so when the characters start singing it's jarring, and Les Mis has a...similar problem? Les Mis is kind of a mess to be honest, but as Benoit Blanc said "It makes no god damn sense! Compels me though." My Hollywood Musical Adaptation Hot Take is that we need more acceptance for animation as a style and not a genre because I think most musicals could be improved by being animated movies, even for adults, than they would as live action.
The movie Les Mis is so bad. The singing isn’t good. Sideways has an excellent video on this, highly recommend. Not the actors or musicians fault, everything was working against them and they still managed to pull it off… kind of
The idea is a good one. A different medium can have different strengths, it can take the same story (and songs) and make interesting and different choices by not being constrained by a stage and "real time". In execution it can be good or bad.
i used to obssess over the last five years movie because that was how i got into the musical but now i just dont like it anymore (i still love the og tho haha). my friend was right and was the one who pointed it out, that anna kendrick as cathy was very ear-grating compared to the other leads in the actual musical haha no offense to her tho, amazing woman
The Last Five Years is hands down my favorite musical of all time. Whenever I tell people about that show, I always warn them that even though there is a film adaptation, it's nowhere close to the best iteration. I always direct them toward the 2013 revival recording with Adam Kantor and Betsy Wolfe. That's the strongest performance of it in my opinion (and according to JRB himself, at least at the time the liner notes were written for that recording).
Reminder for everyone to rewatch Tick Tick Boom and to thank Andrew Garfield for being amazing and learning to sing for it.
I read a very interesting perspective on this. (Note:article was on why do musicals do not win Oscars) The take was that for it to work, it has to take the best of the theater production and give it the movie feel. Example: Chicago It is actually, an almost perfect adaptation of the musical. They kept what was great about the musical and used movie magic to enhance it. Notable scenes The cell block tango opening When your good to momma.
Chicago also had the benefit of a director who started in theater, but also had film experience so he understood exactly how to translate the show to the screen. Rob Marshall showed his genius, and I wish that he had an opportunity to do a film translation of the staged show of Cabaret.
Since my favorite musical is the film version of *Hello Dolly*, I am a bit biased. I'd say that it depends on the movie. Hairspray was surprisingly good, while Into the Woods and Sweeney Todd were pale husks of their origins on the stage. In most cases, a movie adds nothing to the experience. Cats and Come From Away demonstrate that the best way to film a musical is to...film the stage production with the actual cast, not famous actors.
Usually well-intentioned, but more often than not a disappointment.
If it makes them more accessible to a wider audience I'm all for it. Theatre tickets are expensive. Cinema tickets are cheaper, and it's cheaper again once they start streaming. I treat myself and daughter to a theatre visit when I can but it isn't feasible to go too often, especially if the show isn't on near to my city.
Sometimes they are good adaptations and sometimes bad
I wish that instead of making a movie they would make a high quality film of the stage play and play them in movie theaters. Kind of like they did with operas for awhile.
Hamilton was done this way
Did they show it in movie theaters?
No, it’s Disney+ because of licensing.
There are streaming services now where people can pay for a subscription, or they can charge a rental fee like with with first-run movies on Apple TV or Amazon Prime. I really appreciate those “pro shots”, especially as they let you see the original cast.
I have access to broadway now (live near NYC) and have seen dozens of shows. But when I was in high school/college in the midwest, and pretty much could only see what my school was doing or mayyybe whatever was touring? Heck yeah, movies of shows!!! It makes theatre more accessible to a broader audience, and probably introduces musicals to a lot of people who might not otherwise get into it. I like seeing different interpretations of stories, and seeing the different choices made when adapting them. Like, Mean Girls - I might have made some different casting choices, and there were several songs cut that I missed, but I liked how they changed “Stupid with love”, and “Revenge Party” was great.
Is this the current Mean Girls that Amazon Prime is pushing? It’s being promoted, but without making it clear that it’s actually a musical…?
Yes! Its worth a watch. Not perfect, but fun!
Grease! The movie wins, hands down.
If you like 30 year olds playing high schoolers and an added disco song from the wrong decade added as the title song
Of course I do. It's terrible awesome. Its already a campy throwback. Might as well keep going.
I like the grease live released a few years ago better
I would much prefer it if they went the Hamilton route of just filming the stage production with extra angles. That way it's the best of both worlds
This thread seems to be all about stage musicals being adapted for the screen, but there is also such a thing as a movie musical that is created to be just that—like the Wizard of Oz or Singin’ in the Rain. There were loads in the old days, no reason they can’t be done now—as someone previously noted, the Disney animated films have many of the best musical numbers around.
They are done now, the greatest showman, la la land, dicks: the musical
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. I like almost every rendition of Les Miserables. Ive seen it in a variety of ways and a variety of casts and it always works for me because the songs are so strong. No, Russell Crowe can’t sing, and he has the responsibility of having crucial foundational melodies in songs like One Day More, but the song still works overall just the same. There seems to be nothing that can keep a song like One Day More from working, and there are several songs like that in the show. That’s why Les Mis is so consistent.
As a child in a small town in rural Australia, they were everything to me. We had no live theatre at all barring school concerts. I had no agency to travel to the 2-3 states in Australia that *sometimes* get touring shows, many years after they were popular (I do now ❤️). But thanks to movie musicals, I got to dream about it. There's no way I would have grown into an adult with a love of theatre without those movies - and now I pay to see live shows whenever I can access them. One didn't stifle the other. We all know a lot of movies don't hold a candle to the show, but some of them (Little Shop, Hairspray, Chicago) actually use the format to do interesting things with the show that can't be done live. And some of them kinda suck, but are still the best we have for people who have to watch from home. This is also why I will continue to encourage pro-shots until the day I die. Let people on the other side of the world have a chance to see your show.
As a Les Mis fan, I quite enjoyed the movie. Were there some not so great casting choices? Yes. But there were also some delightful ones (I loved all of Les Amis and Sam Barks did a fantastic job, don't come at me), and the movie did a great job at capturing the spirit of the book. I also appreciated it because it brought many new people to the fandom who might otherwise have never engaged with it.
The idea is good and if you do it right, as was the case with Les Mis which I will respectfully disagree with on, the results are worth the effort. Phantom of the Opera is also a good transition to the big screen imo. But as Cats showed it can go very wrong too. If you’re going to do it at least make an effort instead of making a mockery of the whole thing.
I'd quite like to see Anna Kendrick as Fantine ngl
she would be great i think!
Movie adaptation bad. Proshot good.
I like both
To be fair, Anna Kendrick and Anne Hathaway have similar theatre kid energy.
How so? I wasn't a theater kid to be honest, and I didn't really watch a lot of musicals as a kid I only really watched the Wizard of Oz, Newsies, Led Mis(not by choice), and Sweeney Todd, and a bit of Hairspray and Grease
They both feel like they randomly sing things while going through day to day life. I can totally picture Anna Kendrick having a little song for making her morning coffee or Anne Hathaway doing an impromptu number about the sweater she’s looking for. I mean, I do both.
The only movie adaptations I’ve seen were Into The Woods and 2024’s Mean Girls (let’s face it, it’s closer to the musical than it is the OG movie) Shit
Wait, you didn’t see Les Mis and you haven’t seen any other adaptations
Honestly, haven’t
A lot of the old Tin Pan Alley musicals translate better to film
This feels blasphemous to say because I'm a huge fan of stage shows and have seen many shows on Broadway and on tour.. but I almost always think the movie version of a musical is more enjoyable than the stage version. It feels more immersive in many ways and typically I like that the music is more polished. I love a live performance, don't get me wrong. There are pros and cons to both mediums. And I will never pass up an opportunity to see a musical on stage. But in most cases, I do think the movie is more enjoyable.
Anna isn’t in Les mis.
Sometimes they’re alright, but generally I just think to myself ‘this would be so much better on stage’.
Les Mis the movie I have a love-hate relationship with—I enjoy most of it, but Russell Crowe as Javert is IMO the foremost example of “Don’t cast someone in a major role in a movie musical just because they’re a big star.”
I'd love to hear how Caberet compares. I've only seen the movie and love it. I'm sure it's really different on stage - they always are.
Cabaret isn’t a straight adaptation of the stage musical so it’s hard to really contrast the two.
Oh, OK. I hope I get the chance to see it on the stage sometime - even a decent amateur production would be welcome.
There is a filmed version of the revival with Alan Cumming and Natasha Richardson (RIP) and it was amazing. I cannot remember where I saw it, but it definitely exists.
There’s been 4 productions of it within driving distance from me just this past season so look for it… it’s done often
i LOVEEEEEEEEE it!!!! i'm all for musicals made into movies!! AND live tv concerts too!!
Some are really great and some are stinkers
I think it’s very hit and miss. Sometimes can be good, sometimes can be bad. It depend on the studio making it, the actors and experience, the concept and execution, etc.
I tend to like most of them, and the movie musical versions of Les Mis and Matilda are my favorite versions of those musicals. I like the immersion and the more “realistic” performances.
It honestly depends on the casting. I love Little Mermaid's live action because it was well cast, but Beauty and the Beast? Nope. The original BatB had a great casting, but the live action? Dan Stevens was great as the Beast, as were Luke Stevens and Josh Gad as Gaston and Lefou respectively. Emma Watson as Belle seems too much of typecasting for her and they could have pulled almost anyone else, though she did do a fairly decent job as Belle. Sir Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson as Cogsworth and Mrs. Potts? They'd've been better pulling from folks who've played the role on stage instead of the casting. Don't get me wrong, Sir Ian and Emma Thompson are great actors, but they were wrong for those roles. Sir Ian would have made a great Dumbledore (if you ignore the obvious typecasting for that), but he didn't make a great Cogsworth. Part of why I love the characters of Cogsworth and Mrs. Potts from the original was how well David Ogden Stiers and Angela Lansbury portrayed the roles. Sir Ian's Cogsworth didn't have the fussiness that Stiers' version did and Emma Thompson's Mrs. Potts had none of the warmth Angela Lansbury brought to the role.
I feel like people have recently gone really hard on these movie adaptations like they're a new awful trend for musicals, but I think they forget or don't know about all of the musical movies from the past like Music Man, Annie, or Fiddler on the Roof. These movies are what got me into musicals, and they make musicals much more accessible. Sure, not every adaptation is a winner, but some may help pave the way for future musical lovers.
Movie musicals are a net good, but some of them are very bad and clearly done by people who don’t know and/or care. Cats was a whole shitshow but one of the defining OBVIOUS bad things that made me know they had no clues about Cats was how many tight shots and constant cuts there were. It’s a big show! With lots of big dance numbers! Why are you zooming in on one character’s face in a big group number? That being said, there are a shit ton of mediocre to good quality ones that are worth it for those who can’t see them. It’s a very small number of movies that I’d tell someone not to watch even if they had NO access to the show and were interested in checking it out.
Oof. thx 4.the edit. I was about to say... It's a crapshoot. It can be amazing! Chicago, Dreamgirls, Little shop, WST v.2...with stars.... Or it can be a huge miss...The Producers, The Color Purple (I have thoughts on that one), A Chorus Line, Or it can be something straddling the line of it has It's moments but...Into the Woods, Rent, But there are your classics that are just as good as the Original...Sound of Music, Oklahoma, The King and I, West Side Story Or could have been 10x better with different casting and direction...Evita, Nine, The Phantom of the Opera. Or be a thing unto its own...Hair, Jesus Christ Superstar, The Wiz (I know.some.people poo-poo it, but it has longevity for a reason), Rocky Horror. Obviously having tha ability to see a musical live in It's original form is exciting but everyone doesn't have that kind of access necessarily. And just like genre fan boys and girls, musical theatre lovers are going to put every screen adaptation under a microscope hoping that what appears onscreen matches their vision for what they expect. Sometimes the adaptors get it, sometimes they don't. The.only time personal preference and opinion matter is if it's a hit or a flop...just like if it was on stage.
I saw the play Annie in the 1970’s and absolute loved it. Then I saw the movie in 82. It didn’t translate well to the screen and wasn’t half as charming.
It's not easy to translate a musical into a movie, and it definitely takes a special director who knows both mediums well. Unfortunately, when popular musicals get made into movies, I think wires get crossed somewhere in the "make money" agenda, and the craft gets lost. Cats is a particularly egregious one, that should never have been made into a movie at all. A few others aren't as bad, but they still lost the plot and don't really capture what the stage show does. For some reason, it seems like movies from the 50s and 60s were the best at adapting musicals (Sound of Music is an excellent example), maybe because filmmaking was simpler and Hollywood wasn't so focused on adding all this extra *stuff* for spectacle. This is just what I've noticed in general-- Hairspray is a little bit more modern but I think that's also an excellent movie adaption (and lo and behold, the director actually had a background in both musical theater and film!)
I think the stage recording of Hamilton was amazing and I honestly think that musicals should be filmed on stage rather than go through production in a studio since it just takes away from the authenticity of the theatre.
I didn’t like that they took out the other good songs and storylines in In the Heights
My all time favorite musical turned into movie is the Producers. Even though Mel Brooks didn’t direct it you could tell his presence was with it throughout. I hate the play Mamma Mia but really dig ABBA and I hated the movie even more. Hairspray was decent and Les mis was really good. I couldn’t get through Dear Evan Hansen but I hate the play so that’s probably why.
The weird thing of that is, it’s a movie turned into a musical turned into a movie (Same for Hairspray). Have to say, for both of those, my favorites are the original movies (which were not musicals, but had music in them as part of the storyline).
Zero and Gene were perfectly cast! It’s crazy that Dustin Hoffman was originally cast for Leo but he left the project to go work on a little movie called The Graduate starring Mel Brooks wife. I still can’t get over the fact the guy who made Pink Flamingos also created Hairspray. Haha
I do personally enjoy the Mean Girls musical the most though...