Differences between Bye Bye Birdie show and movie?

[renthead92]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 3:49pm

Hi,
I got the Bye Bye Birdie movie for Christmas, and I think it's O.K. However, I'v heard that it's different than the show. Can someone please tell me how it's different? Thanks in advance!

[singingshowgirl]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 4:00pm

a couple of songs aren't in the movie and they added they song "Bye Bye Birdie" to the movie.....the show centers more around Rosie, but the movie seems to center more around Kim, in my opinion. the movie is entertaining, though

[allofmylife]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 4:07pm

The difference is the show works, even when high schools mount it. The movie is.... okay. I am always leary when someone adds a song to the movie that is the title of the movie. It's usually given to the person whose presence in the film upsets the delicate balance the show's creators strove to create and, guess what? Sure enough, it's Ann Margaret. The stage play was about adults and the kids were the things they were talking ABOUT (what the devil's wrong with these kids today?). I defy anyone but a true theatre geek to NAME the actors who played the kids onstage. In the movie, 50% of the time and focus is given to the kids (and Ann Margaret can show Lindsay Lohan how to be hot, sexy, funny AND professional any day) but only a few of the songs, so there is an imbalance. Either make it a teen movie with the hot young star, of make it an adult film. They can't have both.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 4:11pm

I think the main difference is the show Bye Bye Birdie is more about Rosie than the movie.

[ggersten]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 4:42pm

pick up the OBCR and read the liner notes - in addition to what's been said: there are many other differences - the biggest is the plot device of the "speed" chemical. Also, on stage, Albert already writes songs for Birdie but owed him money - on film, Albert is trying to get Birdie to sing a song.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 5:19pm

The movie was a vehicle for Ann-Margret as Kim who is really a secondary lead in the show.

The story (and much of the dialogue) was re-written. The songs "An English Teacher", "A Healthy Normal American boy", "What Did I Ever See in Him?", "Baby, Talk to Me" and "Spanish Rose" were all cut. ("One Last Kiss" is partially sung but interrupted. For the film soundtrack album Jesse Pearson re-recorded it as a complete number.) They did add the title song as a pre-main Title song for Ann-Margret but it has nothing to do with the plot or the show.

It's just another case of Hollywood buying a hit property from Broadway and then reworking and revising it to death.
About the only time this resulted in a great film was Bob Fosse's CABARET.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 5:25pm

A much more successful film adaptation was the ABC television movie, with Jason Alexander, Vanessa Williams, Tyne Daly, George Wendt, Chynna Philips, and Marc Kudisch as Birdie. It's much more faithful to the stage script and keeps most, if not all, of the songs. Even adds a few.

[neomystyk29]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 5:46pm

Hugo, too, sings in the film while he does not sing in the show. If I'm not mistaken the film's climax and end come at the Ed Sullivan show? That's simply the act 1 finale to the stage version.

[StephenSondheimWHOO]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 6:09pm

the cutting "Spanish Rose" made me unhappy, that = one of the best songs in the show

[theaterdude87]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 6:47pm

i agree that the new made for tv movie was great.

[overthemoon419]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 11:15pm

Random: In the movie, Albert sings "Put on a Happy Face" to Rosie, while in the show, he's singing to a sad little girl.

The TV movie is dreadful. Really, really dreadful. Watching Jason Alexander and Vanessa Williams is just plain painful - actually, Jason Alexander's hairpiece is the most obnoxious thing ever. He does NOT have the same endearing qualities of Dick Van Dyke, and Ms. Williams is no Chita. And as much as I love Tyne Daly (and I promise you, that is a LOT), she sings about as well as I do -- and you can just guess how many professional musicals I've done. They didn't need to add a song for her. (And yes, I know she's done Gypsy, blah blah blah -- doesn't matter. Her singing voice grates.)

Tyne Daly was my inspiration when I played Mae. But the TV movie as a whole is more like a fight to keep from throwing large objects at the television.

[alliez92092]

Posted: 12/31/06 at 11:20pm

In a nutshell, the show is ten times better than the movie. And it's not even that good.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 2:30am

When the TV movie was first shown I dutifully watched but by the end I felt 3 hours (TV time...about 45 minutes of that was commercials) was just way too long for such a slight story. I think if they had cut it down to maybe a 2 hour or 2 /12 hour slot it would have worked better. I must agree I wasn't much impressed with the casting.

[jewishboy]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 2:39am

I for one love the TV movie. I was so aggravated at Hollywood for ruining this musical that the length of the TV movie does not register with me. I love the casting and feel that Vanessa Williams works really well with Jason Alexander.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 11:06am

I love the song "Bye Bye Birdie" that opens and closes the film version. That was a great opening and closing and Ann-Margret was hot! I don't like the way they use it in the TV version. Also, I don't like the speed pill sub-plot in the film version and the fact that they took out "An English Teacher", "Baby Talk To Me", "What Did I Ever See In Him?" and "Spanish Rose". I'm glad they are in the TV version but that suffers from some poor casting (Jason Alexander, Norm from "Cheers") as well as a very low budget since many of the songs are done outside on the street!

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 11:26am

Frankly, as much as Dick Van Dyke has complained about the movie being The Ann-Margret Show, he's lucky that he doesn't have a huge amount of screen time in the film. Even if he was in the movie 98% of the the time and Ann-Margret was in it for two, she would still blow him off the screen.

[Josh Freilich]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 11:35am

The biggets complaint I had was having Albert be a SCIENTIST rather than an English teacher. And give the "speed chemical" to Borov to ruin a perfectly good piece of classical music? Not a good plan.

I would like the TV-movie better, and I haven't even seen it. That remains as close to the original musical as possible.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 11:44am

[sondhead]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 11:46am

I think we could all agree that Albert being a song writer and manager for a fadishly popular rock singer but giving it up to teach Junior High English in ass America is as stupid a plot device as the movie's scientist Albert business.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 11:54am

If Herbie can give up the candy business to manager Rose's kid act, then anything is possible.

------------

[allofmylife]

Posted: 1/1/07 at 3:25pm

That woman really, seriously understood sex appeal in ways the modern stars have concept.