LATEST NEWS

Jersey Boys - Stage vs Film

Gothampc
#1Jersey Boys - Stage vs Film
Posted: 3/30/15 at 9:51am

I recently watched the film version of Jersey Boys. For anyone who has seen both the stage version and the film version, how do they compare? I found the film version very boring.


If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.

LizzieCurry Profile Photo
LizzieCurry
#2Jersey Boys - Stage vs Film
Posted: 3/30/15 at 9:53am

Most of the vibrant life that exists in the stage version was sucked out of it on film.

I was at what I think was the first NYC screening of the film. I feel like people were afraid to laugh at the more ridiculous parts (well, the spongy makeup) because Clint Eastwood was there, probably armed.

There are some good, tiny bits in the film, but there's a life that exists in the stage version that another director might've captured better.


"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt
Updated On: 3/30/15 at 09:53 AM

tazber Profile Photo
tazber
#2Jersey Boys - Stage vs Film
Posted: 3/30/15 at 9:55am

The film was indeed boring. And not much of a musical.

The play was vastly superior.


....but the world goes 'round

JBroadway Profile Photo
JBroadway
#3Jersey Boys - Stage vs Film
Posted: 3/30/15 at 10:47am

Haven't seen the movie, but I found the musical to be very boring, so it's no surprise to me that the movie is too

Jeffrey Karasarides Profile Photo
Jeffrey Karasarides
#4Jersey Boys - Stage vs Film
Posted: 3/30/15 at 10:56am

I actually really liked the film much better than others.

Sure, there's more energy on stage, but film is a completely different medium. The stage version only has very few moments that are pure musical (Earth Angel, Oh, What a Night, My Eyes Adored You, Fallen Angel). But what I felt the film did really well as how the musical performances were presented. They could've easily been these big flashy Baz Luhrmann-style musical numbers, but they were treated like actually musical performances you'd see in real life.

Gothampc
#5Jersey Boys - Stage vs Film
Posted: 3/30/15 at 11:17am

I guess my problem is that the story was so boring. The music is the music and you're either going to like it or hate it. But the story didn't seem to have any intrigue and no conflict. They didn't even really cover how they went from being "The Four Seasons" to "Frank Valli and The Four Seasons." It just showed up on a marquee and that's how you knew. At least in Dreamgirls, you see Effie getting angry that Deena is made lead. And their producer was played so flamboyant, and the only remark is that one of the guys compares him to Liberace.


If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.

LizzieCurry Profile Photo
LizzieCurry
#6Jersey Boys - Stage vs Film
Posted: 3/30/15 at 11:26am

He's actually way less flamboyant in the movie compared to how he's usually portrayed on stage.


"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt

Jeffrey Karasarides Profile Photo
Jeffrey Karasarides
#7Jersey Boys - Stage vs Film
Posted: 3/30/15 at 11:47am

I have read that Bob Crewe was naturally very flamboyant in real life, so Mike Doyle was apparently portraying him very accurately.

Mattbrain
#8Jersey Boys - Stage vs Film
Posted: 3/30/15 at 11:52am

The show actually had a little thing the movie lacked called pacing. All I had to see was a few minutes to know the movie just sits there.


Butters, go buy World of Warcraft, install it on your computer, and join the online sensation before we all murder you. --Cartman: South Park ATTENTION FANS: I will be played by James Barbour in the upcoming musical, "BroadwayWorld: The Musical."