Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
NYTimes.com: To understand why Hollywood is moving aggressively into making musicals for Broadway, just look out the eighth-floor office window of Jimmy Horowitz, the president of Universal Pictures.
10 comments:
Tyler Jacobson
said...
"Not that relying on a brand-name movie has ever been a guarantee. Roughly 75 percent of shows lose money on Broadway, including many beloved popular movies that were turned into musicals, like the recent flops “Ghost” and “9 to 5.”
This is something everyone has to remember when preparing for a Broadway run. As much as people would like everything to work out with every production it's not feasible. It's interesting to see what works for shows and what doesn't and if somehow somewhere someone was able to figure out the formula for success to a show that would be great. Until then we just have to keep trying and keep finding producers to finance these endeavors.
You never know what people will like. It depends on so many factors! I think the connection between Hollywood and Broadway -- and a broadening connection at that -- is really interesting. Though on the one hand I get frustrated with the rehashing of things over and over -- making sequels to sequels to sequels and remakes of things made only 5 years ago, I think that adapting movies to theater can be an incredibly creative challenge and force both filmmakers and theater folk alike to come up with creative solutions and amazing new ways of telling a story. Granted, this could also be done with new stories as well, but what can you do? I love that little known films can become sensational when told in a new medium and I love the exploration of story telling in different ways and the great (or not so great) things that happen with that.
I agree with Tyler. There is definitely no formula for this. And I think the trend to turn movies into Broadway Musicals (IE: Big Fish, Lion King, Shrek, etc...) has to do with the fact that audiences paying for an expensive theatre ticket carry a certain level of expectation and therefore invest in name-recognition when selecting what show to see. "I really liked this movie, therefore the show should be good, too." But this didn't work for productions such as "Bring it On!", which in my opinion is a shame. That was a great show! But I think the title's association with the film was working against it. Phantom of the Opera waited over 20 years before it released a cinematic version of the staged musical, and critically it was not as successful as the staged version. I fear that Wicked could potentially see the same thing happen. Movies can have more scenes because it is easier to manipulate time and space with "cuts", but it is much easier to capture the "suspension of disbelief" in a theatrical experience. Like any project, I think its success is driven by the artist. If Sony and Universal want to make a project successful, they need to be willing to invest in the talent to make it happen. I think Bridges of Madison County is a great example of this. It's a sweet love story, and a beautiful production because the current king of ballad-writing, Jason Robert Brown, wrote it. I'm curious to see how this production does on Broadway.
My initial reaction was that Hollywood should stay out of the theater world but reading Sophie's comment about creative solutions made me reconsider my stance. Even though it would be nice if only original works ended up on Broadway, the collaboration between Broadway and Hollywood can lead to some very interesting and creative adaptations. Maybe we could try to limit sequels as much as possible but I don't see a problem with collaboration between the two industries as long as it doesn't stymie original works.
I don't think that I'll be able to imagine Rocky as a musical until I actually see it and this I think is the key factor influencing the fate of most ventures of this nature. Most Movie - Broadway ventures face previous fans who are interested in seeing the musical of a film or not. When I saw Bring It On, I didn't expect to like it, because I wasn't a huge fan of the film, but it was surprisingly much more entertaining and the dance sequences and music made it very enjoyable to watch. I also think that what helps is making sure that the film has its own life and so does the musical. Meaning that they both follow the same story plot and pattern, but adapted for their various mediums. This is where some hollywood to broadway venture fall flat. Aladdin is one Disney cartoon that I can't wait to see on Broadway, I have been waiting on this for years. It will be interesting to see how they pull it off.
I think it's just really important remember that in terms of adapting theatre to movies, success if really defined in accessibility. To watch a show on Broadway, you pay anywhere from 20-100+ dollars a show. That's pending on whether or not your actually in the correct city/state at the right time. A movie however, the most you would pay is $15 (here's looking to you NY rip offs) you could see it pretty much anywhere, AND it will eventually come out on dvd for your obsessive viewing pleasure. Now it's true that not all broadway musicals are meant to be a movie, but you have a better chance at finding a cash cow if you make the change from the stage to the big screen (unfortunately for us theatre folk)
I recognize that movie becoming musicals is becoming more and more common, but I personally think that some thing should stay as they are. Sometimes, a musical is more magical as a musical and not as a movie, and a movie is more powerful and visually pleasing as a movie. I appreciate that "Hollywood and Broadway are trying to make better shows together". In fact, I think it's wonderful that we are able to collaborate to create better things; however, I think some parts are getting out of control. Don't get me wrong, I love some adaptations of musicals or movies. "The Lion King" on Broadway as outstanding costumes and I think that the production has dramatically changed the perception that the audience has. I also greatly loved the newly released "Les Misérables" movie. It was almost everything I could have hoped for in a film adaptation of the musical; yet, I still prefer the musical on stage because I can feel it more than on a screen.
I honestly don't know what to think of this. In some cases, movies and books that are made into musicals are amazing (i.e.Lion King, Wicked, etc.) and then there are also musicals that aren't that are just as breathtaking! It has been getting to a point where it's kind of enough... Spiderman? I mean really? I'm sorry, I understand the things they do in that show are unlike any other and it's AMAZING and everything, but to be blunt, I think it's stupid. The musical is based of a movie that was based off a comic book. What's next? The Incredible Hulk? (maybe, after all there is the deep and touching underlying message of physical appearances... Oh wait Shrek did that already.) Speaking of Shrek (this also applies to Elf and other shows of their liking), I do think the songs are catchy and it is very cute but again, silly and childish... Which, well, that's what they are aiming for! Everyone knows in the film and theater industry that if you want money, go for the kids. If the kids want to go, the parents have to go with them, therefore business is booming!
But quality is going down. It's not the actors, they're amazing. It's not the musicians, they're great too! It's really no one's fault that the quality goes down, it's the show itself. (Random thought: I'm actually quite surprised that Billy Elliot isn't still on Broadway. I saw it a few years ago and I thought it was stunning.) Bring it On and Legally Blonde weren't going to be the best musicals to have hit Broadway. They were fun shows that made money, but they weren't the ones winning the Tony awards for best musical.
So here is where I finally pieced it together! It's not the fact that they are taking from movies and books that annoys me, it's the movie and book that they end up choosing that bother me. I feel like they are choosing movies that were successful in the box office, so of course they must be great as musicals too! (Someone help us, that's not how people should think) Money is important, but you shouldn't make a fool of the industry by dumbing down performances and not being as creative just so you're "guaranteed" a great financial outcome.
I sound harsh, and I am sorry for that. And you know what, I don't know what to think about it! I do enjoy the musicals that are light hearted and just plain entertaining. Not as much as I do the ones that make me feel something, but I still do.
I do think that there are so many amazing and talented writers, composers, etc out there that it is a little sad to see us not funding one of their shows, but someone how has already made a huge franchise off of the movie.
It's also like the situation with making books into movies, the book tends to be better than the movie.
This article mentions "The Bridges of Madison County". I saw this at the Williamstown Theater Festival, and to be honest I did not like it very much at all. I felt like it lacked a real message, and was trying too hard to meet the expectations of both those who loved the book and those who loved the movie. I think that while it may be tempting to assume that if a book or movie did well, the plot is all that matters and it must inevitably do well in a different form. This is simply not true. Movies, musicals, plays, and books are all entirely different forms of media, and all have certain benefits and certain limitations. For this reason I feel that it is actually better to write something specifically designed for one form of presentation, without trying to take one kind of media and transform it into another while expecting it to work exactly the same way.
Truth be told I don't feel like this is a bad thing. The article points out how audiences ask why original work isn't hitting the stage but the real question is... What's original. At this point in time story lines have been told and repeated and passed down. So what's the difference of adapting a Movie to the stage. I in fact believe that this could be beneficial because many stories have larger impact when you see them in person. Two examples for me were "Once" and "Ghost" both as movies were box office successes but as shows I feel were even more powerful and pleasing. This is to say though that I do not believe all movies will become Broadway successes but I am very willing to give them the chance to wait and see.
10 comments:
"Not that relying on a brand-name movie has ever been a guarantee. Roughly 75 percent of shows lose money on Broadway, including many beloved popular movies that were turned into musicals, like the recent flops “Ghost” and “9 to 5.”
This is something everyone has to remember when preparing for a Broadway run. As much as people would like everything to work out with every production it's not feasible. It's interesting to see what works for shows and what doesn't and if somehow somewhere someone was able to figure out the formula for success to a show that would be great. Until then we just have to keep trying and keep finding producers to finance these endeavors.
You never know what people will like. It depends on so many factors! I think the connection between Hollywood and Broadway -- and a broadening connection at that -- is really interesting. Though on the one hand I get frustrated with the rehashing of things over and over -- making sequels to sequels to sequels and remakes of things made only 5 years ago, I think that adapting movies to theater can be an incredibly creative challenge and force both filmmakers and theater folk alike to come up with creative solutions and amazing new ways of telling a story. Granted, this could also be done with new stories as well, but what can you do? I love that little known films can become sensational when told in a new medium and I love the exploration of story telling in different ways and the great (or not so great) things that happen with that.
I agree with Tyler. There is definitely no formula for this. And I think the trend to turn movies into Broadway Musicals (IE: Big Fish, Lion King, Shrek, etc...) has to do with the fact that audiences paying for an expensive theatre ticket carry a certain level of expectation and therefore invest in name-recognition when selecting what show to see. "I really liked this movie, therefore the show should be good, too." But this didn't work for productions such as "Bring it On!", which in my opinion is a shame. That was a great show! But I think the title's association with the film was working against it. Phantom of the Opera waited over 20 years before it released a cinematic version of the staged musical, and critically it was not as successful as the staged version. I fear that Wicked could potentially see the same thing happen. Movies can have more scenes because it is easier to manipulate time and space with "cuts", but it is much easier to capture the "suspension of disbelief" in a theatrical experience. Like any project, I think its success is driven by the artist. If Sony and Universal want to make a project successful, they need to be willing to invest in the talent to make it happen. I think Bridges of Madison County is a great example of this. It's a sweet love story, and a beautiful production because the current king of ballad-writing, Jason Robert Brown, wrote it. I'm curious to see how this production does on Broadway.
My initial reaction was that Hollywood should stay out of the theater world but reading Sophie's comment about creative solutions made me reconsider my stance. Even though it would be nice if only original works ended up on Broadway, the collaboration between Broadway and Hollywood can lead to some very interesting and creative adaptations. Maybe we could try to limit sequels as much as possible but I don't see a problem with collaboration between the two industries as long as it doesn't stymie original works.
I don't think that I'll be able to imagine Rocky as a musical until I actually see it and this I think is the key factor influencing the fate of most ventures of this nature. Most Movie - Broadway ventures face previous fans who are interested in seeing the musical of a film or not. When I saw Bring It On, I didn't expect to like it, because I wasn't a huge fan of the film, but it was surprisingly much more entertaining and the dance sequences and music made it very enjoyable to watch. I also think that what helps is making sure that the film has its own life and so does the musical. Meaning that they both follow the same story plot and pattern, but adapted for their various mediums. This is where some hollywood to broadway venture fall flat. Aladdin is one Disney cartoon that I can't wait to see on Broadway, I have been waiting on this for years. It will be interesting to see how they pull it off.
I think it's just really important remember that in terms of adapting theatre to movies, success if really defined in accessibility. To watch a show on Broadway, you pay anywhere from 20-100+ dollars a show. That's pending on whether or not your actually in the correct city/state at the right time. A movie however, the most you would pay is $15 (here's looking to you NY rip offs) you could see it pretty much anywhere, AND it will eventually come out on dvd for your obsessive viewing pleasure. Now it's true that not all broadway musicals are meant to be a movie, but you have a better chance at finding a cash cow if you make the change from the stage to the big screen (unfortunately for us theatre folk)
I recognize that movie becoming musicals is becoming more and more common, but I personally think that some thing should stay as they are. Sometimes, a musical is more magical as a musical and not as a movie, and a movie is more powerful and visually pleasing as a movie. I appreciate that "Hollywood and Broadway are trying to make better shows together". In fact, I think it's wonderful that we are able to collaborate to create better things; however, I think some parts are getting out of control. Don't get me wrong, I love some adaptations of musicals or movies. "The Lion King" on Broadway as outstanding costumes and I think that the production has dramatically changed the perception that the audience has. I also greatly loved the newly released "Les Misérables" movie. It was almost everything I could have hoped for in a film adaptation of the musical; yet, I still prefer the musical on stage because I can feel it more than on a screen.
I honestly don't know what to think of this. In some cases, movies and books that are made into musicals are amazing (i.e.Lion King, Wicked, etc.) and then there are also musicals that aren't that are just as breathtaking! It has been getting to a point where it's kind of enough... Spiderman? I mean really? I'm sorry, I understand the things they do in that show are unlike any other and it's AMAZING and everything, but to be blunt, I think it's stupid. The musical is based of a movie that was based off a comic book. What's next? The Incredible Hulk? (maybe, after all there is the deep and touching underlying message of physical appearances... Oh wait Shrek did that already.) Speaking of Shrek (this also applies to Elf and other shows of their liking), I do think the songs are catchy and it is very cute but again, silly and childish... Which, well, that's what they are aiming for! Everyone knows in the film and theater industry that if you want money, go for the kids. If the kids want to go, the parents have to go with them, therefore business is booming!
But quality is going down. It's not the actors, they're amazing. It's not the musicians, they're great too! It's really no one's fault that the quality goes down, it's the show itself. (Random thought: I'm actually quite surprised that Billy Elliot isn't still on Broadway. I saw it a few years ago and I thought it was stunning.) Bring it On and Legally Blonde weren't going to be the best musicals to have hit Broadway. They were fun shows that made money, but they weren't the ones winning the Tony awards for best musical.
So here is where I finally pieced it together! It's not the fact that they are taking from movies and books that annoys me, it's the movie and book that they end up choosing that bother me. I feel like they are choosing movies that were successful in the box office, so of course they must be great as musicals too! (Someone help us, that's not how people should think) Money is important, but you shouldn't make a fool of the industry by dumbing down performances and not being as creative just so you're "guaranteed" a great financial outcome.
I sound harsh, and I am sorry for that. And you know what, I don't know what to think about it! I do enjoy the musicals that are light hearted and just plain entertaining. Not as much as I do the ones that make me feel something, but I still do.
I do think that there are so many amazing and talented writers, composers, etc out there that it is a little sad to see us not funding one of their shows, but someone how has already made a huge franchise off of the movie.
It's also like the situation with making books into movies, the book tends to be better than the movie.
This article mentions "The Bridges of Madison County". I saw this at the Williamstown Theater Festival, and to be honest I did not like it very much at all. I felt like it lacked a real message, and was trying too hard to meet the expectations of both those who loved the book and those who loved the movie. I think that while it may be tempting to assume that if a book or movie did well, the plot is all that matters and it must inevitably do well in a different form. This is simply not true. Movies, musicals, plays, and books are all entirely different forms of media, and all have certain benefits and certain limitations. For this reason I feel that it is actually better to write something specifically designed for one form of presentation, without trying to take one kind of media and transform it into another while expecting it to work exactly the same way.
Truth be told I don't feel like this is a bad thing. The article points out how audiences ask why original work isn't hitting the stage but the real question is... What's original. At this point in time story lines have been told and repeated and passed down. So what's the difference of adapting a Movie to the stage. I in fact believe that this could be beneficial because many stories have larger impact when you see them in person. Two examples for me were "Once" and "Ghost" both as movies were box office successes but as shows I feel were even more powerful and pleasing. This is to say though that I do not believe all movies will become Broadway successes but I am very willing to give them the chance to wait and see.
Post a Comment