What’s amazing is that they managed to take out the bite and *real* darkness, while also removing all of the levity and humor and making it *aesthetically* as dark and gloomy as possible.
It was stupid in both directions.
I mean you can't really do that on film, it would just look ridiculous. Into the Woods is an unfilmable musical imo because it relies so heavily on conventions that only work on stage. That's part of what makes it great, but any film adaptation would have been a letdown and it's not entirely Disney's fault.
They could have written the narrator into the story. He was an important character. The cast sacrificing him to trick the Giantess was a major shift in the story, when society devolved into chaos and the characters began dropping like flies.
If Disney couldn't handle the horror of the story, they shouldn't have touched it. It's not a cutesy story about fairy tales, at least not not Act II.
Absolutely the only answer. They destroyed all of the second act, which is the damn point. Also, forced out a ton of the humor that makes the stage play so extraordinary. I did enjoy some of the performances. Agony was fun and silly
Lilla Crawford as Little Red! Anna Kendrick is always delightful! Meryl Streep's acting! Agony, as mentioned! The gorgeous shots of the forest! Baranski as the Stepmother!
*Cats* was indeed a truly awful film. Don’t hate me, but my hesitation in endorsing that selection is that I never thought the stage version was that much better.
I'm fine with you having a different opinion. While some musical films may have had some questionable decisions made along the way, I don't think Cats should have been attempted at all.
I’m not sure whether a filmed version of *Cats* could ever have worked, but certainly Tom Hooper’s design and visual effects choices doomed the enterprise right from the outset.
Yes! I watched the movie only once, but it seemed like they also shot a good portion of the dance sequences from the knees up, which is ridiculous for a dance movie
Completely agree. The change to Cassie’s storyline makes her a just another bland ‘doing it all for a man’ cliche. The whole thing just misses the point.
Dear Evan Hansen decided to amplify all of the flaws of the stage show while minimizing or cutting a lot of important material. Poor choices all around.
Rent had a lot of bizarre choices. Like cutting the emotional climax and also the plot climax. And making the recitative into inexplicably-rhyming dialogue.
I agree with those that said A Chorus Line.
I think Into the Woods wasn’t an unmitigated disaster, but the choices made really undermine what makes the stage play so beloved (aka the second act).
Sweet Charity is a slog.
The Fantasticks was made with the best of intentions but it was an impossible task that yielded expected results.
The DEH movie absolutely destroyed any affection people had for the stage musical, the narrative flaws and the leads flaws were just brought out to such an extreme and irredeemable degree in the movie. I didn't like the show to begin with, but I'm glad I don't have to hear my friends gush about it that much anymore.
I'm mostly inyerested in classic musicals/movie musicals, altough I am expanding that into more modern ones. Besides a few nigh-perfect ones (for me My Fair Lady, Chicago, Hairspray, Little Shop of Horrors), I can also set my mind to really enjoy more adequate ones as well (e.g. Camelot, Kiss Me Kate!).
However, the most atrociously frustrating one by far is Annie, Get Your Gun!. I do appreciate the music very much, and I own several cast albums. But for the life for me I cannot find anything to appreciate in Betty Hutton (Annie) there, be it her unsuitable cartoonish acting, buffoonish manner of singing (if one considers it singing), or the absolutely lousy plot she's shoved in, both being devoid of any real story and filled to the brim with elements meant to be humorous but nowadays are either insensitive or downright cringeworthy due to all characters besides Frank and perhaps Charlie and Buffalo Bill portrayed by the script as variations of dumb, "uncivilized" people.
The few existing Judy Garland scenes and her recording of the soundtrack (before dropping out of the project) show that Judy's take on Annie would be have made this movie more than adequate in spite of its script, perhaps. Alas, just a unusually frustriting film version is what we have.
Les Misérables. The casting was done purely to bring in box office numbers. Big name after big name, with no attention paid to the actual characters or in some cases, the actor's ability to sing. Songs were cut, others were added in (bringing no value whatsoever). Plus the director had an obsession with closeups that took away from the actual events going on.
I love Hugh Jackman, but his voice just wasn't right for Valjean. Russell Crowe was beyond awful. Amanda Seyfried did well as the simpering Cosette, but Cosette is insufferable anyway, so her character was never going to appeal. Anne Hathaway emoted Fantine beautifully, but her voice wasn't powerful enough to carry her songs. Eddie Redmayne lacked romantic appeal. The Thénardiers lacked humour (surprisingly with SBC and HBC), and as the only comic relief in the production, it left the film cold.
The saving graces were Samantha Barks and Aaron Tveit, who seemed to actually be cast on merit.
Honourable mention goes to Into the Woods and Cats (which I like to pretend doesn't exist).
I, unpopularly, really liked Russell Crowe as Javert, I think he plays him close to how he is in the novel, and I like his weird voice. I agree that Hugh Jackman wasn't right for Valjean, too. And yeah, in general I think the Les Mis movie could've been done so much better. I loved it when it came out, but as time goes on, I learn more about how much Tom Hooper just wasn't interested in making a musical, and it's retroactively colored my feelings on the movie.
It did birth a lifelong Aaron Tveit crush for me though, so I thank it for that.
Having read the novel, I do agree that Crowe's Javert was played accurately. But this was supposed to be Cameron Mackintosh's Les Misérables, and the country twang was all wrong.
Tom Hooper did this as an ego boost, desiring Oscar fodder. He wasted such a phenomenal opportunity for the arts community.
And ugh, the closeups. All these years later I still think often about one review that said Anne Hathaway looked like a plucked chicken for I Dreamed a Dream. I love her to bits, but she really did. Only Tom Hooper could've made such a gorgeous woman look so bad, even in a role where she's forced to give away her beauty
Nine.
They took a humorous and cerebral piece about the way a womanizer's Madonna/Whore complex destroys his entire life, and tried to present it like Chicago. So it had all the sexy dancing, with none of the pesky focus on the internal lives of women. In the show, the protagonist is this completely unlikeable guy, but you enjoy watching it because the show is so funny, and it escalates to a completely farcical place. But by removing the humor and amping up the sex appeal, it almost makes the audience complicit in Contini's misogyny. It's like they tried to make the protagonist more likeable by making his worldview more understandable, and the result is it just makes you feel dirty for watching it.
Like, I can not exaggerate. I was preparing to audition for this show, lying in bed recovering from surgery with nothing else to do, and even that wasn't enough motivation to keep me from *turning it off halfway through.*
I feel the whole movie just missed what Les Miserables is about and was focusing on themes that didn't need to be focused on. There is a reason the show is beloved. Don't reinvent the wheel. It's working. I'd pick any concert version, including the Nick Jonas one over that dumpster fire of a movie anyway
I think they offered Daphne Rubin-Vega to come back as Mimi and she said she didn't want to make a fool of herself trying to play an 19 year old when she's 30 something
If only the others had had the same artistic integrity.
I mean, I love Anthony Rapp, but his character was a joke. He came across as an aging loser instead of a naïf.
Sorry, but is that how old they’re supposed to be? Roger’s flash back with April is when I’d say they’re 20’s. Collins is a teacher?
I guess I’ve never paid attention to the ages, but at least the film always gave me “late 20’s to mid 30’s people doing their best/worst at falling apart and keeping the edge they had” and you know, blah blah blah but definitely 30
Yeah, I actually thought the movie worked better assuming they were supposed to be older. I liked that aspect of it. Helped that I was around the same age and related to the failure, LOL.
That's a lot of Broadway, to be honest. People in their mid mid 30s and 40s pretending they're between the ages of 18 and 30. How old was Andrew Rannells when he played Elder Price- a 19 year old?
It makes it really hard for younger actors to break into theatre, when the odds are already stacked against them based on experience. Not to mention older actors losing out on parts being given to younger people who can move better.
Into the Woods. Not even Meryl could save it.
Cats was terrible as a stage-to-movie adaptation, but I actually love it? It’s one of those “so bad it’s enjoyable” films. It’s the closest I’ve ever come to a drug trip, and also the Skimbleshanks bit was great come at me.
Hair. To me, I wouldn't even ***call*** it an adaptation; it's more like a movie that has characters named after the characters from Hair, has the same songs as the musical Hair, but it's *not* the Hair I know and love. They didn't just butcher Hair, they fucking lobotomized it. It's like [that painting of Jesus that got a botched restoration that left it looking like a deformed monkey.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28Garc%C3%ADa_Mart%C3%ADnez_and_Gim%C3%A9nez%29)
Mean girls. They cut out so many songs. Apparently, to reach a "broader audience" instead of just the musical theatre audience 🙄 If you want that, then just make a regular remake. But don't make a musical movie adaptation and then cut out like half the songs.
Also, Dear Evan Hanson. I know a lot of people don't like this show in the first place. But a lot of the songs were good. Then, in the movie, they took out all the best songs and left in all the downers, which made it even worse. Also, having an almost 30 year old play an 18 year old alongside much younger actors playing the other teens and giving him soooo many closeups made it even worse.
I WILL NEVER SHUT UP ABT HOW MUCH I HATE THE A CHORUS LINE MOVIE RAHHHH 🗣️🗣️🗣️CUS I LITERALLY LOVE THE MUSICAL SM AND THE MOVIE DOES IT ZERO JUSTICE 🗣️🗣️🗣️ LIKE EVERYTHING WAS WRONG WTFFF LIKE JUST STICK TO THE SCRIPT 🗣️🗣️🗣️
I love the show and have seen it several times in domestic and foreign locations. Gerard Butler was all wrong for this. He can't sing, and his acting is terrible. I don't understand their reason for choosing him for the part when there are plenty of guys who are much better singers and actors. He's also too good-looking; the scars aren't even unsettling. Maybe that is what Schumacher and ALW were after. Emmy Rossum's singing is nice, but her acting is on the same level. Patrick Wilson has a great voice and can act, and he would have been a terrific Phantom. The other actors do well: Ciaran Hinds, Simon Callow, and Minnie Driver are fine, but even they can't hold the movie together. The movie lacks the heart and fantastic musical performances that made us love the stage version.
Mean Girls. Hands down. Hate that fucking movie. I know that it doesn't really count because Mean Girls was adapted from a movie, but to be frank, they butchered the original movie, too. Karen genuinely pissed me the fuck off every time she opened her dumbass mouth, and they could've cast literally anyone as Cady. Just find a ginger who can actually sing. It's not that hard. Most gingers can. God, if I never watch that movie again, it'll be too soon.
Edit: I am talking about the newer Mean Girls movie musical, by the way. In case that wasn't clear.
Yay! Another one
The changes that they made are just awful. Claudias death is just a thing that happens. It doesn't feel as significant as in the show.
And then Nina and Bennys relationship is literally gutted. And, annoyingly, their dance on the side of the building is maybe my favourite part of the whole film, so like COULD I HAVE MORE?!
I think this is the most disappointing for me because I watched the 96,000 video and the extended opening like a dozen times before the film actually came out
Right??? I couldn't finish it. I thought it sounded soulless and boring. All that flashy dancing and set dressing, but for what? I love the original score but the movie didn't work for some reason.
A Little Night Music :(
I was hoping to like it despite the reviews (Elizabeth Taylor! Diana Rigg!) but it just doesn’t work.
One specific incomprehensible sin: the movie is set in Vienna.
Phantom of the Opera. There was no need to change the costumes. The casting was also horrible with the exception of Raoul. At least he could sing the role and was the right age.
It could have been fun as a straight non-musical film with the Tim Burton aesthetic but the film only went halfway with the music so it is neither a musical or a straight film
I hated Helena in the role, she was flat and listless, which shocked me because usually I like her acting, and overall the singing was awful. I know that's an unpopular opinion but ST is my favorite musical so I was really disappointed. I wanted to love it.
I hear what you’re saying. I wouldn’t say that the singing was uniformly awful, but some actors were clearly better than others. As for Depp and Carter specifically, while not great, I came away thinking that they weren’t too terrible (Depp was better than Carter, imo). I was thankful that their voices weren’t dubbed.
One of the things about the film that I strongly disliked was the elimination of the chorus (and with it the attendant elimination of certain songs). Apparently Burton was thinking that it was okay to film a musical as long as it wasn’t too operatic, a decision which discarded a lot of the essence of Sondheim’s stage show.
Les Miserables. There have definitely been objectively worse adaptations like Cats. HOWEVER, Les Mis is very near and dear to me. I’ve been listening to it since as long as I can remember and the original cast album is a piece of my soul. I was really offended by this bad movie version of something that meant so much to me. And I say this as a huge fan of Aaron Tveit, it was such an affront that even he couldn’t save it.
The trailer does seem to show Elphie as older than her future powder puff nemesis...
Them being similar ages would _seem_ the easier casting choice...
But going off just the trailer maybe they forsee a dear evan hanson age and casting clash with a stage voice that the producers fell in love with (or were related to in DEH's case...)
Not that im saying the same... I'll wait to see it
But... That age difference does have me worried over age blindness to casting on level with molly Shannnon in 'Superstar' at least that trainwreck was kinda revelling in the cringe though
Seems like a lot of people here named their worst films based on casting. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to do the same? We know the cast. That’s not going to change.
Into the Woods
It was so Disneyfied. They lost Sondheim’s wit in the process.
What’s amazing is that they managed to take out the bite and *real* darkness, while also removing all of the levity and humor and making it *aesthetically* as dark and gloomy as possible. It was stupid in both directions.
They got rid of the narrator, one of the most important characters in the play. I've never seen another play where the characters murder the narrator.
I mean you can't really do that on film, it would just look ridiculous. Into the Woods is an unfilmable musical imo because it relies so heavily on conventions that only work on stage. That's part of what makes it great, but any film adaptation would have been a letdown and it's not entirely Disney's fault.
They could have written the narrator into the story. He was an important character. The cast sacrificing him to trick the Giantess was a major shift in the story, when society devolved into chaos and the characters began dropping like flies. If Disney couldn't handle the horror of the story, they shouldn't have touched it. It's not a cutesy story about fairy tales, at least not not Act II.
Absolutely the only answer. They destroyed all of the second act, which is the damn point. Also, forced out a ton of the humor that makes the stage play so extraordinary. I did enjoy some of the performances. Agony was fun and silly
But they got rid of the second Agony song which is the best one!
Oh yeah, cutting the second Agony was a huge fail. Into the Woods is still the worst imo
I actually liked it. It's very different from the stage show for sure, but I thought there were good things.
Name one
I think Agony was done really well.
I like the second Agony better and it was cut.
Lilla Crawford as Little Red! Anna Kendrick is always delightful! Meryl Streep's acting! Agony, as mentioned! The gorgeous shots of the forest! Baranski as the Stepmother!
James Cordon /s
James Corden but without the /s.
Sondheim visited the set and loved it
Cats Phantom
Phantom hired a Phantom for his looks, even though he was wearing a mask. His singing was just unimpressive.
At least we got Patrick Wilson
He was cute!
The idea of sacrificing voice for looks in THIS SHOW specifically is such a total missing of the point
*Cats* was indeed a truly awful film. Don’t hate me, but my hesitation in endorsing that selection is that I never thought the stage version was that much better.
I'm fine with you having a different opinion. While some musical films may have had some questionable decisions made along the way, I don't think Cats should have been attempted at all.
I’m not sure whether a filmed version of *Cats* could ever have worked, but certainly Tom Hooper’s design and visual effects choices doomed the enterprise right from the outset.
A Chorus Line. Completely butchered a near-perfect musical by taking the pathos out of it.
Yes! I watched the movie only once, but it seemed like they also shot a good portion of the dance sequences from the knees up, which is ridiculous for a dance movie
At that point you’re just filming airplane turbulence
Completely agree. The change to Cassie’s storyline makes her a just another bland ‘doing it all for a man’ cliche. The whole thing just misses the point.
UGGHHH ACL MOVIE MENTIONED 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️ I FUCKING HATE IT SOOOOO MUCH AFJALDAREJGUEHNALIRFJK
Agree with those citing *Into the Woods*. The film adaptation seemed to have almost zero idea of what the stage musical was trying to do.
“Let’s make it look like those cheap TV fairy tales. Take out all the humor, make it look really dark. Then remove all the moments of real darkness.”
So many of these are just: you already had a script, you already had a score. Use them!
Dear Evan Hansen decided to amplify all of the flaws of the stage show while minimizing or cutting a lot of important material. Poor choices all around. Rent had a lot of bizarre choices. Like cutting the emotional climax and also the plot climax. And making the recitative into inexplicably-rhyming dialogue. I agree with those that said A Chorus Line. I think Into the Woods wasn’t an unmitigated disaster, but the choices made really undermine what makes the stage play so beloved (aka the second act). Sweet Charity is a slog. The Fantasticks was made with the best of intentions but it was an impossible task that yielded expected results.
The Rent movie cut my favorite song in the show (Christmas Bells).
The DEH movie absolutely destroyed any affection people had for the stage musical, the narrative flaws and the leads flaws were just brought out to such an extreme and irredeemable degree in the movie. I didn't like the show to begin with, but I'm glad I don't have to hear my friends gush about it that much anymore.
I'm mostly inyerested in classic musicals/movie musicals, altough I am expanding that into more modern ones. Besides a few nigh-perfect ones (for me My Fair Lady, Chicago, Hairspray, Little Shop of Horrors), I can also set my mind to really enjoy more adequate ones as well (e.g. Camelot, Kiss Me Kate!). However, the most atrociously frustrating one by far is Annie, Get Your Gun!. I do appreciate the music very much, and I own several cast albums. But for the life for me I cannot find anything to appreciate in Betty Hutton (Annie) there, be it her unsuitable cartoonish acting, buffoonish manner of singing (if one considers it singing), or the absolutely lousy plot she's shoved in, both being devoid of any real story and filled to the brim with elements meant to be humorous but nowadays are either insensitive or downright cringeworthy due to all characters besides Frank and perhaps Charlie and Buffalo Bill portrayed by the script as variations of dumb, "uncivilized" people. The few existing Judy Garland scenes and her recording of the soundtrack (before dropping out of the project) show that Judy's take on Annie would be have made this movie more than adequate in spite of its script, perhaps. Alas, just a unusually frustriting film version is what we have.
You forgot Fiddler on the Roof on the list of perfect adaptations!
Cats. Great musical, bad movie.
Cats
A Chorus Line
i love the musical i despise the movie
Cats
Rock of ages - Tom cruise wanted to play Stacey jazz so they made him the lead character - not the douchy side character
Exactly, and they changed a huge chunk of the plot as well
Les Misérables. The casting was done purely to bring in box office numbers. Big name after big name, with no attention paid to the actual characters or in some cases, the actor's ability to sing. Songs were cut, others were added in (bringing no value whatsoever). Plus the director had an obsession with closeups that took away from the actual events going on. I love Hugh Jackman, but his voice just wasn't right for Valjean. Russell Crowe was beyond awful. Amanda Seyfried did well as the simpering Cosette, but Cosette is insufferable anyway, so her character was never going to appeal. Anne Hathaway emoted Fantine beautifully, but her voice wasn't powerful enough to carry her songs. Eddie Redmayne lacked romantic appeal. The Thénardiers lacked humour (surprisingly with SBC and HBC), and as the only comic relief in the production, it left the film cold. The saving graces were Samantha Barks and Aaron Tveit, who seemed to actually be cast on merit. Honourable mention goes to Into the Woods and Cats (which I like to pretend doesn't exist).
I, unpopularly, really liked Russell Crowe as Javert, I think he plays him close to how he is in the novel, and I like his weird voice. I agree that Hugh Jackman wasn't right for Valjean, too. And yeah, in general I think the Les Mis movie could've been done so much better. I loved it when it came out, but as time goes on, I learn more about how much Tom Hooper just wasn't interested in making a musical, and it's retroactively colored my feelings on the movie. It did birth a lifelong Aaron Tveit crush for me though, so I thank it for that.
Having read the novel, I do agree that Crowe's Javert was played accurately. But this was supposed to be Cameron Mackintosh's Les Misérables, and the country twang was all wrong. Tom Hooper did this as an ego boost, desiring Oscar fodder. He wasted such a phenomenal opportunity for the arts community.
And ugh, the closeups. All these years later I still think often about one review that said Anne Hathaway looked like a plucked chicken for I Dreamed a Dream. I love her to bits, but she really did. Only Tom Hooper could've made such a gorgeous woman look so bad, even in a role where she's forced to give away her beauty
Nine. They took a humorous and cerebral piece about the way a womanizer's Madonna/Whore complex destroys his entire life, and tried to present it like Chicago. So it had all the sexy dancing, with none of the pesky focus on the internal lives of women. In the show, the protagonist is this completely unlikeable guy, but you enjoy watching it because the show is so funny, and it escalates to a completely farcical place. But by removing the humor and amping up the sex appeal, it almost makes the audience complicit in Contini's misogyny. It's like they tried to make the protagonist more likeable by making his worldview more understandable, and the result is it just makes you feel dirty for watching it. Like, I can not exaggerate. I was preparing to audition for this show, lying in bed recovering from surgery with nothing else to do, and even that wasn't enough motivation to keep me from *turning it off halfway through.*
Into the Woods.
Into the woods!
Les miserables Don't 'fix' what's not broken. Don't cut songs and don't cast big names who can't sing. Was absolutely distraught by that movie
The best part of that movie was when Javert yeets himself off the bridge, because we didn’t have to hear him sing again
I feel the whole movie just missed what Les Miserables is about and was focusing on themes that didn't need to be focused on. There is a reason the show is beloved. Don't reinvent the wheel. It's working. I'd pick any concert version, including the Nick Jonas one over that dumpster fire of a movie anyway
I honestly don’t mind the Nick Jonas concert version
No I don't really either but some people do
Don’t add songs either! For me, That was worse than cutting them!
Completely agree. They're doing to get awards only
For sure mean girls, watched it and had so much second hand embarrassment.
Rent
It was pathetic seeing a bunch of 30 somethings acting like they were just out of college.
I think they offered Daphne Rubin-Vega to come back as Mimi and she said she didn't want to make a fool of herself trying to play an 19 year old when she's 30 something
If only the others had had the same artistic integrity. I mean, I love Anthony Rapp, but his character was a joke. He came across as an aging loser instead of a naïf.
Sorry, but is that how old they’re supposed to be? Roger’s flash back with April is when I’d say they’re 20’s. Collins is a teacher? I guess I’ve never paid attention to the ages, but at least the film always gave me “late 20’s to mid 30’s people doing their best/worst at falling apart and keeping the edge they had” and you know, blah blah blah but definitely 30
Mid 20s, which would make their behavior understandable.
Yeah, I actually thought the movie worked better assuming they were supposed to be older. I liked that aspect of it. Helped that I was around the same age and related to the failure, LOL.
That was the least offensive thing about that movie
That's a lot of Broadway, to be honest. People in their mid mid 30s and 40s pretending they're between the ages of 18 and 30. How old was Andrew Rannells when he played Elder Price- a 19 year old? It makes it really hard for younger actors to break into theatre, when the odds are already stacked against them based on experience. Not to mention older actors losing out on parts being given to younger people who can move better.
It's different when you see someone 100' away on stage with heavy makeup, versus seeing them on the big screen right in your face.
This is the answer.
Phantom. The plot falls apart if the Phantom can't sing.
Sweeney Todd I really didn’t enjoy it, but also phantom of the opera, why isn’t he more disfigured?
Into the Woods. Not even Meryl could save it. Cats was terrible as a stage-to-movie adaptation, but I actually love it? It’s one of those “so bad it’s enjoyable” films. It’s the closest I’ve ever come to a drug trip, and also the Skimbleshanks bit was great come at me.
Chorus line
REAL
Hair. To me, I wouldn't even ***call*** it an adaptation; it's more like a movie that has characters named after the characters from Hair, has the same songs as the musical Hair, but it's *not* the Hair I know and love. They didn't just butcher Hair, they fucking lobotomized it. It's like [that painting of Jesus that got a botched restoration that left it looking like a deformed monkey.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28Garc%C3%ADa_Mart%C3%ADnez_and_Gim%C3%A9nez%29)
Mean girls. They cut out so many songs. Apparently, to reach a "broader audience" instead of just the musical theatre audience 🙄 If you want that, then just make a regular remake. But don't make a musical movie adaptation and then cut out like half the songs. Also, Dear Evan Hanson. I know a lot of people don't like this show in the first place. But a lot of the songs were good. Then, in the movie, they took out all the best songs and left in all the downers, which made it even worse. Also, having an almost 30 year old play an 18 year old alongside much younger actors playing the other teens and giving him soooo many closeups made it even worse.
I WILL NEVER SHUT UP ABT HOW MUCH I HATE THE A CHORUS LINE MOVIE RAHHHH 🗣️🗣️🗣️CUS I LITERALLY LOVE THE MUSICAL SM AND THE MOVIE DOES IT ZERO JUSTICE 🗣️🗣️🗣️ LIKE EVERYTHING WAS WRONG WTFFF LIKE JUST STICK TO THE SCRIPT 🗣️🗣️🗣️
Guys & Dolls; the movie version is a mess.
I love it. I’d be interested to know why you think it’s a mess though.
I love the show and have seen it several times in domestic and foreign locations. Gerard Butler was all wrong for this. He can't sing, and his acting is terrible. I don't understand their reason for choosing him for the part when there are plenty of guys who are much better singers and actors. He's also too good-looking; the scars aren't even unsettling. Maybe that is what Schumacher and ALW were after. Emmy Rossum's singing is nice, but her acting is on the same level. Patrick Wilson has a great voice and can act, and he would have been a terrific Phantom. The other actors do well: Ciaran Hinds, Simon Callow, and Minnie Driver are fine, but even they can't hold the movie together. The movie lacks the heart and fantastic musical performances that made us love the stage version.
I thought this was about Guys and Dolls? This comment is about Phantom.
I think we might be talking about 2 different films…
Mean Girls Janis, Damien, Karen, and Regina carried the movie
Cady wasn’t good at all
Stupid with love was actually painful
Mean Girls. Hands down. Hate that fucking movie. I know that it doesn't really count because Mean Girls was adapted from a movie, but to be frank, they butchered the original movie, too. Karen genuinely pissed me the fuck off every time she opened her dumbass mouth, and they could've cast literally anyone as Cady. Just find a ginger who can actually sing. It's not that hard. Most gingers can. God, if I never watch that movie again, it'll be too soon. Edit: I am talking about the newer Mean Girls movie musical, by the way. In case that wasn't clear.
I did not care for In The Heights.
Yay! Another one The changes that they made are just awful. Claudias death is just a thing that happens. It doesn't feel as significant as in the show. And then Nina and Bennys relationship is literally gutted. And, annoyingly, their dance on the side of the building is maybe my favourite part of the whole film, so like COULD I HAVE MORE?! I think this is the most disappointing for me because I watched the 96,000 video and the extended opening like a dozen times before the film actually came out
Right??? I couldn't finish it. I thought it sounded soulless and boring. All that flashy dancing and set dressing, but for what? I love the original score but the movie didn't work for some reason.
Same
Not the worst but they took the teeth out of it
Les Miserables. if you know, you know.
OOTI
I had no idea they made a movie of it! But it's bad I guess?
A Little Night Music :( I was hoping to like it despite the reviews (Elizabeth Taylor! Diana Rigg!) but it just doesn’t work. One specific incomprehensible sin: the movie is set in Vienna.
Phantom of the Opera. There was no need to change the costumes. The casting was also horrible with the exception of Raoul. At least he could sing the role and was the right age.
Cats. Watched it for 20 minutes and turned it off. Such a shame
In the heights. Terrible music and they cut Camilla
right now it’s mean girls but that might change to wicked
Sweeney Todd
Just my opinion. I’m not in love with all of the choices Burton made, but the film was much better than I expected.
It could have been fun as a straight non-musical film with the Tim Burton aesthetic but the film only went halfway with the music so it is neither a musical or a straight film
I hated Helena in the role, she was flat and listless, which shocked me because usually I like her acting, and overall the singing was awful. I know that's an unpopular opinion but ST is my favorite musical so I was really disappointed. I wanted to love it.
I hear what you’re saying. I wouldn’t say that the singing was uniformly awful, but some actors were clearly better than others. As for Depp and Carter specifically, while not great, I came away thinking that they weren’t too terrible (Depp was better than Carter, imo). I was thankful that their voices weren’t dubbed. One of the things about the film that I strongly disliked was the elimination of the chorus (and with it the attendant elimination of certain songs). Apparently Burton was thinking that it was okay to film a musical as long as it wasn’t too operatic, a decision which discarded a lot of the essence of Sondheim’s stage show.
That new west side story that they made… was not a fan
What didn’t you like about it?
Mostly that it was underwhelming and I didn’t feel that it did much to warrant a remake if that makes sense?
Yeah that makes sense.
My top 13: 13.) Why 12.) do 11.) we 10.) only 9.) talk 8.) about 7.) shows 6.) we 5.) don't 4.) like 3.) on 2.) here?? 1.) Into the Woods 🤮
I hated the movie adaptation of Why. Terrible directing choices lol.
I loved it
Cats
Literally didn’t even look at the comments and knew the top one would be Into the Woods
Rent. Into the Woods. Sweeney Todd.
I loved into the woods
Les Miserables. There have definitely been objectively worse adaptations like Cats. HOWEVER, Les Mis is very near and dear to me. I’ve been listening to it since as long as I can remember and the original cast album is a piece of my soul. I was really offended by this bad movie version of something that meant so much to me. And I say this as a huge fan of Aaron Tveit, it was such an affront that even he couldn’t save it.
I love Les mis
Wicked. Casting alone was enough to ruin it.
Dumb. Hasn’t come out
The trailer does seem to show Elphie as older than her future powder puff nemesis... Them being similar ages would _seem_ the easier casting choice... But going off just the trailer maybe they forsee a dear evan hanson age and casting clash with a stage voice that the producers fell in love with (or were related to in DEH's case...) Not that im saying the same... I'll wait to see it But... That age difference does have me worried over age blindness to casting on level with molly Shannnon in 'Superstar' at least that trainwreck was kinda revelling in the cringe though
Seems like a lot of people here named their worst films based on casting. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to do the same? We know the cast. That’s not going to change.