Musicals that miss the point of the movie they are based on

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 9:27am

I went and saw Amélie the other day and I thought it was...eh, but what really struck me was how dissimilar the show was from the original movie, and not in a good way. It felt to me that the authors never actually saw the film in question, but merely read a plot synopsis on Wikipedia and made a musical out of that, based on how little style the show actually had.

So, I was curious if there were other shows that did this; that is, ignore the charms of the movie entirely in favor of something more bland and inoffensive. Some examples I thought of:

Big Fish

Sunset Blvd.

Bullets Over Broadway

any others?

 

[newintown]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 10:09am

I'm not sure that I agree with Bullets (although the move is definitely far superior to the nitwitted mess of a musical), but I agree with your other examples, and would add:

Summer of 42 (quiet and articulate movie; wordy and idiotic musical)
Rocky (another musical where inarticulate characters are diminished by added dialogue/lyrics)
The Full Monty (a smoothly sentimental reduction of a more eccentric film)
And a collection of second-rate musical versions of better movies, which only seem to exist in order to wring additional cash out of a familiar property: Nine to Five, Legally Blonde, Ghost, Bonnie & Clyde, Catch Me If You Can, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, Shrek, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Elf, Thoroughly Modern Millie, Urban Cowboy, Little Women, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, etc., etc., etc.
 

Updated On: 3/20/17 at 10:09 AM

[JennH]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 10:43am

Oh this oughta be fun! 

My first off off the head ones are Hunchback and Ever After. I saw both at Papermill. Here I go again about Hunchback..

Yes I know they wanted to go back to the novel with it, but that's the problem...I love the book of course, but the issue is that the movie ISNT the book. At east not in the purest sense. I ADORE the movie and what Disney did with it, but by going back to the book, they were trying to meld to two different pieces. Hence the identity crisis that most reviewers called it out for having. It seems many stage adaptations of films that were based on book (or on real life aka Anastasia) are like this lately (I discovered Tarzan had this issue as well) bit the problem is that when you try to do this, it's two different things colliding and I don't know what to make of them. Either do the book or stick to the movie. Frankly the French musical already exsist and it's fantastic so I was never of the thought that another book based. adaptation of that story was needed. I wanted to see the movie on stage, and those brilliant themes brought out, which it didn't do. I'm seeing Anastasia in May, and Im hoping this issue isn't too problematic as we all know they went a more historically accurate direction. 

Ever After...ok this is interesting because though I wasn't impressed by any preview videos I saw, I went in with low expectations...but didn't dislike it as much I thought it would. Unlike Hunchback where I my expectations were stupidly sky high and therefore was let down. I'm telling y'all, how much you'll like a show depends on your expectations more than I ever thought it could. These shows taught me this. 

Anyways, much like someone said about Amelie above, it's like someone just watched the movie and thought it would make a good musical without really thinking what the whole point of it was. The musical was made to be a feminist version of Cinderella, and that's all. there are elements of this in the film, but again it's not the point. The whole point of Ever After was treating the Cinderella as if it were real history. And funny that's actually why it doesn't exactly work as a musical. I recall thinking YEARS ago (I'm talking my high school days here) before this was even announced, that it should be on stage...but a play, not a musical. I always wondered why, then it hit me. Musicals live in their own world, like it's another dimension. Once you treat something like Its real life/history, the "musical" aspect doesn't work. It's why Allegiance didn't work. It's too real life to work as a musical, though I applaud the attempt, and  I think Takei should have done it as a play. 

 

Just merely for being a twist on a fairy tale, Ever After mmaaayyybbee can work as a musical, but it's gonna take a lot of creative thought to make it really work, not just sticking songs into a movie and throwing it on stage. 

 

 

Updated On: 3/20/17 at 10:43 AM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 10:53am

Big Fish and Sunset Boulevard are the biggest culprits for me. 


I'm tempted to say Mary Poppins, which I liked better, just because the film handled the major emotional arc of the children's relationship with their father so much better. The musical used only his last reprise of "The Life I Lead" (and abridged at that), which to this day I find utterly puzzling. You can't JUST do the pay-off; it doesn't mean anything that way.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 10:57am

Oh, and it will never make it to Broadway, but Diner was a big one. 

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 12:00pm

I thought An American in Paris. The original was pure escapist fantasy, with a touch of the absurd. A true MGM musical. Trying to remold the paper-thing storyline into some Schindler's List/coming out story for Max bogged the second half of the musical down to the point where even the final ballet couldn't save it for me.

[wendy72]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 12:15pm

I don't remember that well but I felt that Big Fish *tried* to capture the magic of the movie but didn't quite get it right!

Posted: 3/20/17 at 1:01pm

Haven't most, with maybe the exception of Hairspay and Sunset Boulevard?

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 4:24pm

I'm curious to know why they think Big Fish doesn't get the point of the film. Big Fish is actually my favorite musical.
On another note, does a musical missing the point of a movie necessarily make it bad, or can it still be at least okay on it's own legs?

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 4:24pm

I'm curious to know why they think Big Fish doesn't get the point of the film. Big Fish is actually my favorite musical.
On another note, does a musical missing the point of a movie necessarily make it bad, or can it still be at least okay on it's own legs?

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 5:59pm

Some musicals, while not thematically missing the point of the source material, miss the point of it's source material's success. Legally Blonde, the film, featured a star making performance from Reese Witherspoon and, while the screenplay is solid, the movie was successful due in most part to her. Removing the star from the property diminishes the material and interest significantly. I'd argue to same is true of The Wedding Singer (Adam Sandler, Drew Barrymore), Elf (Will Ferrell), 9 to 5 (Fonda, Parton & Tomlin) among others. All of these films feature star performances (or at least stars with box office clout) and the adaptations suffer with the star's absence. 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 6:05pm

In my opinion, a Christmas story is the best adaption of a movie in a musical.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 6:28pm

APPLAUSE, to its detriment
XANADU, to its great credit (in fact, the Broadway show appears to be smartly more attuned to the original tonal conception for the movie, which changed as the film bloated into something quite different during production)

more neutrally, it might be argued that NIGHT MUSIC and NINE to at least some degree miss the points (i.e. greatly differ in appeal) of SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT and 8 1/2, but that doesn't change the facts that both are still, at the very least, strong solid musicals based on movie masterpieces.  

Updated On: 3/20/17 at 06:28 PM

[mikey2573]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 8:22pm

Call_me_jorge said: "In my opinion, a Christmas story is the best adaption of a movie in a musical.

 

"

I would have to agree with that one.  The biggest problem I have with "A Christmas Story: The Musical" is that I can't watch the movie anymore because I want the songs (and the heart) from the musical. 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/20/17 at 11:36pm

How odd that so many posters mention SUNSET BOULEVARD when the musical adaptation is very nearly a line by line setting of Billy Wilder's screenplay. Hell, they even use the car chase from the actual movie!

henrikegerman rightly points out that two of the most successful adaptations, NIGHT MUSIC and NINE, drop the tone of the original films altogether. We might add SHENANDOAH and THE KING AND I (the latter officially based on the heroine's memoirs but actually inspired by ANNA AND THE KING OF SIAM, a popular film).

[jo]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 7:16am

(GavestonPS said: "How odd that so many posters mention SUNSET BOULEVARD when the musical adaptation is very nearly a line by line setting of Billy Wilder's screenplay. Hell, they even use the car chase from the actual movie! "

Exactly! I do remember Billy Wilder ( who attended the musical's premiere) saying that he felt the musicalized version felt very close to the film noir classic -- I think he even mentioned that he felt it was about an 85% close fit!  That was why it seemed that sometimes the lyrics in the musical were occasionally awkward because the stage musical adopted much of the screenplay dialogs.

I have rewatched the film classic a number of times and I have always felt that it was a  very close adaptation. If at all, it was the role of Norma which received more emphasis in the stage musical. In the original film version, William Holden as Joe Gillis led the billing and the story was told from the perspective of the writer!

 

 

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 8:04am

Johnny Guitar.

The 1954 film is campy because it takes itself so seriously. It wanted to be a feminist Western about McCarthyism. It’s better remembered for Joan Crawford and Mercedes McCambridge munching the scenery while barely suppressing the lesbian subtext.

The 2004 musical tries to be campy in the style of Forbidden Broadway. It also shifts too much focus to Johnny. In the film the story is about the women. Johnny is beside the point.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 9:04am

Legally Blonde, the film, featured a star making performance from Reese Witherspoon and, while the screenplay is solid, the movie was successful due in most part to her. Removing the star from the property diminishes the material and interest significantly.

Which is where the London production succeeded (not to mention, it tightened the book and direction a bit).  Small changes made a huge impact and the show played like classic musical comedy, showing its true potential.  It was wonderful.

For me, the biggest culprit of "missing the mark" was Priscilla.  Placing the entire show at the vibrancy level of the drag costumes and makeup removed the stark contrast that made the film extraordinary.  Instead, the musical was a bright, loud headache of tired gay anthems and cliches.  

[green waver]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 10:29am

Deena Jones said: "Haven't most, with maybe the exception of Hairspay and Sunset Boulevard?

If you add Little Shop of Horrors, I'm on board with you,

"

 

[JennH]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 12:28pm

green waver said: "Deena Jones said: "Haven't most, with maybe the exception of Hairspay and Sunset Boulevard?

If you add Little Shop of Horrors, I'm on board with you,

"

 

 

"

Except Little Shop was a musical before it was a movie musical. So in that case, the movie missed the point of the musical. This thread is about the opposite. But the point of Little Shop still stands in general. 

I actually also read the case for Legally Blonde. Apart from why the MOVIE was successful which Reese certainly had a huge part in that, the thing is, is that, that was an era in which for whatever stupid reason, so many successful films were being turned into musicals just because they were successful films. A successful film doesn't make a good musical. There was no rhyme or reason for Legally Blonde (or Spider-Man, or any of those similar film to stage adaptations) to be a musical. Where's the musical theatre essence of those films? They didn't have that essence. It was just throwing these films up to be musicals for no good reason except to make them musicals because they were popular films. There was no sense in adapting them as musicals. I just didn't see the "music" in them. And if there's anything I hate, it things that plain and simply don't make sense. 

One movie that's based on a book that I think could be turned into a musical with some careful thought could be A Walk to Remember. But it needs the right writers and creatives. This wouldn't fly as a traditional musical, it reads like it needs to be a contemporary pop/rock kind of musical. That's if it would be based more on the movie than book anyway. I enjoy the both, but the movie gives me more character development than The saccharinely sweet book does and I like the modern take better. Ok totally off tangent, my apologies. 

[JennH]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 12:31pm

OMG ignore me about Little Shop...I totally didn't know about the existence of THE original 1960 film...WOOOOWWWWW I just brought shame and dishonor to the theatre community...

[Kad]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 12:33pm

Little Shop was first a movie, an extremely low budget 1960 B movie directed by Roger Corman.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 12:57pm

Right, Billy Wilder himself said the show was a 85% just like his movie. I think the other 15% is even better than the movie, because the musical and the dramatic symphonies and the color of the music make it a 15% better. 

I didn't enjoy Big Fish or Bullets Over Broadway.

I think they did a great job with The Wedding Singer though. Great score and very easy show to get into.

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 4:04pm

Fascinating interpretation of why Diner failed...

Or, as my boyfriend eloquently put it, "As a film, it works as a relatively innocuous look at the time period, but it wouldn't work for the musical theatre scene today."

I notice, though, that a lot of the movies mentioned in this thread are "fantasy-realism" ones where reality collides with some element of magic or escapism/illusion. Amelie, Big Fish, Nine, Night Music, even Sunset to an extent. Anyone think a Cameron Crowe screenplay could work onstage?

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 4:38pm

Sunset Boulevard failed because

a. The score is abysmal. Even by Lloyd Webber standards it's about as interesting as uncooked oatmeal and slick as an oil spill on an ice pond.

b They tried to humanize Norma Desmond, who is such a perfect cinematic monster, belonging in the same category as the Universal Frankenstein or Dracula.

c. The movie uses cinema, and specifically black and white 35mm photography to such effect that removing it from that context takes away a lot of its terrifying beauty. Same reason why the story-with-the-story of City of Angels sucks.

d. Billy Wilder's ethos is about as cynical and hardened as you can get. Any attempt at emotionality in Wilder films usually doesn't come off, and the musical trying to was like getting a stone to bleed.

So.....basically, they missed the point.