Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the January 9th Jim on Film Column at <a href="News-ID180230.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID180230.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations Jim, An interesting premise, however I wonder if the company would take such a risk in its current financial condition. MouseBear
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "Also, it was Disney’s Miramax division that released Moulin Rouge, which garnered high praise from critics and audiences, as well as the recent release of Chicago, which has also been praised by critics and is building a strong foundation in limited release." << "Moulin Rouge" was produced and released by 20th Century Fox. Miramax had no involvemnet with the film. -Jeff
Originally Posted By ColorAndLight Chicago isn't exactly a "box office smash" as of yet. Yes, it has done astoundingly well in limited release. But that does not translate into "smash hit" status. Let's wait for the wide release. If the film manages to hit 50 million, it's a modest success for a mainstream film. If it hits that 75 to 100 million gold-standard, than we can start discussing the possibility of more musicals. Evita and Moulin Rouge were considered "successes", but they barely broke 60 million domestically. The stakes are higher these days. But then, I'd rather see Chicago or Moulin Rouge any day, than some of the junk Hollywood's turning out these days. "Just Married" or "Maid in Manhattan" anyone?
Originally Posted By Jim Your comment about success is such a good example of Hollywood perception. MOULIN ROUGE and EVITA both cost similar amounts and earned similar amounts . . . however only MOULIN ROUGE was really considered a big hit. It was considered to be a big hit, and I've heard that all over the place. What I always read about EVITA was about it not doing well (they both only about covered costs). As I've said before (and I'm sure others have), reality is less important to Hollywood. It's all perception.
Originally Posted By Brimo_Pitapan this is random, but jim mentioned Jason Robert Brown, and I reccomend that you all go to barnes and nobel and pick up a copy of parade, because it's the best musical ever written and would make an amazing movie. As for revivals and live action musicals, they have great inspiration in their forgotten movie ideas or what they should try is to develope it as an animated movie, but then do it as a live action, see how that turns out.
Originally Posted By tmonee11 <<<Your comment about success is such a good example of Hollywood perception. MOULIN ROUGE and EVITA both cost similar amounts and earned similar amounts . . . however only MOULIN ROUGE was really considered a big hit. It was considered to be a big hit, and I've heard that all over the place. What I always read about EVITA was about it not doing well (they both only about covered costs).>>> I would diasagree with you here. First of all, Moulin Rouge did do about 15% more at the box office then Evita, and was much stronger in rentals....but, the main difference I think is that Moulin Rouge was much better recieved by the critics, scoring tons of Golden Globe and Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actress. Evita was panned by many critics, and did not have the same awards success. Almost $60 million at the box office (way above what most predicted), combined with great critical acclaim, made Mouliun Rouge a percieved smash. I do agree that Chicago will do well in wide release....
Originally Posted By TheRedhead So let's just say that CHICAGO ends up being a huge smash hit, which it very much might and very certainly deserves. I still don't think that this shows that audiences are hankering for live-action movie musicals. And most importantly, these 2 movies (MOULIN ROUGE and CHICAGO) make a serious departure from the standard movie musical, and actually go against what the majority of America thinks of as a live-action movie musical. MOULIN ROUGE uses the whole concept of characters singing what they're feeling, but for the most part, they are singing songs that we all know and have heard a zillion times. There's a bit of novelty there that I think the audience really loved. And the fact that these characters are singing popular songs that one would not expect in a live-action movie musical ("Like A Virgin", "Roxanne", etc.), made it funny and zany, going full circle in making it OK for an audience to buy they're singing at all. If the movie had used wholly original songs, I doubt very much the film would have received the complete cultural love-fest that it received. Could Disney pull that off? CHICAGO also takes the idea of the movie musical and twists it around: all of the numbers are taking place in one character's mind, as if they are theatrical productions. It is not sung-through, like your ordinary musical. And that is/will be it's appeal. We still get the big, belting, incredible production numbers, without the characters singing to each other, which would no doubt turn an audience away. CHICAGO was truly the misunderstood musical of its day, that now fits perfectly with today's dark, cynical, and, above all, non-traditional movie musical lovin' audience. Again, can Disney make a kiddie movie that could fall into that category? So these two movies do not represent any kind of trend. They are merely exceptions to the rule that people today don't want to see movie musicals. And they are exceptions because they did something new and fresh and original that caught the public's attention. SO, the real question here is, what could Disney do with this genre that would be fresh and original. I fear nothing. The kind of movies that we love like MARY POPPINS and the like are doomed to failure if done that particular way. Like NEWSIES. NEWSIES has a great score with a great message, and good lord everybody I know loves it to death (including me). But that particular type of film is a lumbering dinosaur that no one will see. Which is not to say that the movie musical is dead. Just like Broadway, despite appearances, it will never die. But I just don't see the family-friendly Disney studio making the daring kind of movie that audiences will go to IN SPITE of it being a movie musical. And that's sad.
Originally Posted By ToonKirby >Evita was panned by many critics, and did not have the same awards success.< For the record, "Evita" did win three Golden Globes, including Best Picture - Musical/Comedy and Best Actress - Musical/Comedy for Madonna.
Originally Posted By cstephens Yeah, but those are just the Golden Globes... Yeah, so I'm a non-Golden Globes snob. /cs
Originally Posted By ToonKirby LOL ... yeah, they sure have given plenty a reasons to be one ... Madonna actually won the award over Frances McDormand in "Fargo" ...
Originally Posted By Jim If I remember correctly (and I don't have time to do the research at the moment), EVITA and MOULIN ROUGE both ended with about $60 million. EVITA didn't win the award MR did; however, besides the Globes, there was talk of an Oscar nom for Madonna (which never happened). So, it's not like it was critically panned to any extreme. The idea that MR and CHICAGO were successful only because of their "spalshy" concept still leaves out one big factor . . . the success of traditional musicals on television, including the adult-oriented SOUTH PACIFIC. In addition to this, in the past two days, there has been a confirmation of the PHANTOM movie to be done by Lloyd Webber himself as well as more talk of a SUNSET BOULEVARD movie, possibly starring Liza Minelli. While SB is more tentative, POTO seems to be a go. I guess, in the end, only time will tell. But if well done and addressing some of the major problems that have plagued some musicals, I think there's a chance. Also, don't forget the generations who grew up watching musicals and MTV. Even MTV produced a TV musical . . . I believe it was CARMEN.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "In addition to this, in the past two days, there has been a confirmation of the PHANTOM movie..." << That is one that I will believe when I see. They have been talking about that movie ever since the stage show first made its debut. It has had various actors and directors attached over the years, but the project never quite gets off the ground. I'm guessing the biggest reason for the foot-dragging on that one (and the similarly stalled "Les Miserables" movie) is fear that a film would have a negative impact on the highly successful touring companies. -Jeff
Originally Posted By cstephens Jim wrote: > In addition to this, in the past two days, there has been a confirmation of the PHANTOM movie to be done by Lloyd Webber himself as well I agree with Jeff that I'll believe this when principal photography is actually completed. They were a "go" several years ago with Antonio Banderas as the Phantom (ugh, imo), even going so far as taking out a full-page ad in Daily Variety announcing the date that principal photography was supposed to start. (I may still have a copy of that somewhere.) But nothing. I love Phantom, but I'm not sure I want to see a big-screen version attempted. I'm not sure they could match my expectations. /cs
Originally Posted By ToonKirby >That is one that I will believe when I see. They have been talking about that movie ever since the stage show first made its debut. It has had various actors and directors attached over the years, but the project never quite gets off the ground.< The same was said about both "Evita" and "Chicago" ...
Originally Posted By dlpostcardguy I took someone to see Chicago who HATES musicals. Hoever, they loved Chicago and have now seen it twice. I think the reason for this is that it is NOT your "traditional" movie musical. The musical numbers aren't the "just break out into a song" type; it's edgy and cynical and funny; they have a diverse cast; the editing is quick and very well done; and the songs move the story line along. They were also smart in not using talent where their names are so big you can't get past it even when watching the film. If they choose their material and talent (both behind and in front of the camera) wisely I think there is a place for filmed musicals in the future. (And if you haven't seen Chicago go see it. It's fantastic!!!!)
Originally Posted By cstephens ToonKirby wrote: > The same was said about both "Evita" and "Chicago" ... IMO, "Evita" would have been better served had it never quite gotten off the ground... dlpostcardguy wrote: > They were also smart in not using talent where their names are so big you can't get past it even when watching the film. Do Richard Gere, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Rene Zellweiger (sp?) really fall into those categories? (Don't know who else is in the film.) /cs
Originally Posted By TheRedhead But Jim, the point you seemed to be making in your article (taking a line from it - "With this newfound interest in live-action musicals, Disney should take a serious look at creating new musical stories for live-action feature films"), it seems that the only musicals people are even considering filming are ones that already have proven successful material. How does that show that people have any interest in seeing the original kind of movies that we woild like Disney to produce? And then you mention Phantom and Sunset Blvd. Again, nothing original there. This doesn't show Disney that they should rev up the old movie-musical machine again, and go and find the studio's next Sherman brothers. If anything, it shows them that people want to see something that they've already heard of. And it really is true that whenever it's mentioned that there are talks of bringing a musical to the screen, one out of ten actually go anywhere. Tim Burton was doing Into the Woods. Spike Lee was going to do Rent. When City of Angels won some Tony's, people swore that was a definite for the big screen. It's just talk circling about a proven property, like a new cool comic book or something. Hollywood often mistakes it as a trend, and we get the Punisher movie. By the way, this exact same conversation took place years ago when EVITA came out, along with Woody Allen's EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU, with headlines proclaiming, "The Rebirth of the Movie Musical???" So where were they? And you are absolutely correct: Disney should be focusing its efforts on making more TV musicals. THAT is the arena where the musical seems to do well (which seems totally bizarre, but hey, whatever works). I was excited a while back when they also threw GEPETTO into the fray - that maybe we would see maybe two musicals a year - since the CHICAGO guys can't do everything. And just to take your quote from above Jim: "The idea that MR and CHICAGO were successful only because of their "spalshy" concept still leaves out one big factor . . . the success of traditional musicals on television, including the adult-oriented SOUTH PACIFIC." I don't think either of them were successful because they were "splashy." CHICAGO could have been done traditionally and still have been splashy, but it wouldn't have been as good as the product we see now. I think the key is that they are innovative, or at least different. Traditional seems to work for TV, and that's where I see them focusing their efforts. (And was SOUTH PACIFIC a hit? It got panned by critics, and I thought it was unwatchable. I remember they dumped it on a Monday night, and I didn't think it did well at all. Does anyone know how it did?)
Originally Posted By Jim Well, I guess we'll have to wait to see what happens. Only time will tell. My point is not WHAT Disney will do but what Disney SHOULD do. Again, I see the interest combined in both the theatrical success and the television success. I see them as connected. I think there's a tip of an iceberg forming here and Disney should take the lead. If I remember correctly, SOUTH PACIFIC was a hit. Monday is a night in need of ratings as much as any night--movies debut on Monday just as well as they do on any other day of the week. Plus, it must have been successful enough to warrant the talk (yes, only talk, but talk nonetheless) of MAME and ANNIE GET YOUR GUN for TV. Plus, the DVD got respectable promotion from Disney, including a push in Disney Stores. But I guess, in the end, if Disney does take a chance (or another studio), that is only when we'll know for sure what will happen.
