Listening to some of the Mary Poppins soundtrack (will probably see Saving Mr. Banks next weekend), I can't help thinking that it's a bit of a shame the Paddington movie can't be a musical.
I mean, a fantasy movie based on a classic children's book series that takes place in a rather romanticized version of London...with the right songwriter (though sadly, one-half of the Sherman Brothers is no more), it could be a natural. We really COULD have had a latter-day Mary Poppins.
(Plus, we know Nicole Kidman, Jim Broadbent, and Peter Capaldi can sing. Don't know about Colin Firth, though.)
What can I say? I grew up on musicals (my parents played cast albums in the car when I was a kid) and love them. So it's kind of in my nature to NOT find it weird when people burst into song in a movie.
Happy New Year to you and good luck and health in 2014!
What? Why would you make a children's book and TV show which had next to no singing (other than when he's in the bath) in to a musical? There shouldn't even be a movie like there shouldn't have been an updated cartoon where he turned more in to Rupert by going on adventures, etc
Well, with all due respect, couldn't that be said of any property (book, play, film) that is musicalized--that it started out without songs?
I guess it's just that I'm the quintessential musical-theater geek--when I was growing up, my folks used to play cast albums in the car wherever we went, so I grew up on them. I think it's that I was sort of drawing a few parallels between this and Mary Poppins (classic children's novel, written in an episodic style that needs a story thread added to make it a unified movie, taking place in a rather nostalgic London) that I liked to imagine taking the final step--in the tradition of the classic Disney musical films that have always held a place in my heart. YMMV, of course.
And as for whether it should be a movie, well, I prefer to wait and see. Given the credentials of the director, producer, and actors involved (and they seem to have a good deal of affection and respect for the source material), I have faith in it--and have long wanted to see Paddington on the big screen. I knew all along that they'd have to give it a unified story between Paddington's misadventures, so that doesn't bother me. Plus, I've seen a few shots of filming, and so far they seem to be giving it a nice look--for example, recreating Paddington Station to look more like it did years ago, so even if it does take place in the modern day, it has a "timeless" look. Also, I've been brushing up on Peter Capaldi's acting talent since he was announced as the new Doctor, and I think he'll be a marvelous Mr. Curry! (As long as he doesn't go Malcolm Tucker on Paddington, mind you. )
Besides, in the right hands, a film adaptation of a children's book has just as much chance of being good as being bad. Look at Hugo! (As good as the book The Invention Of Hugo Cabret was, I believe the movie actually improved on it a bit.)
In Britain we had the Disney musicals quite a lot, but don't have the same heritage in creating musicals/they aren't really as popular here so I think that would have been a consideration for the director and studio
Looking at what's available story wise so far it does seem to be quite close to the old Paddington stories, I think there is always a concern that it will go off on a tangent, but I agree that they have shown a great deal of affection and respect compared to other adaptation. It's the feeling of taking it easy and not being high-paced which really set Paddington apart from other cartoons and books which was always the USP of Paddington
With such a good cast and director it should be good, hopefully we'll get to see more soon
Also I'd recommend a trip to Paddington station to find the Paddington statue if you've not been there, they move him around quite a bit and there are always people selling a lot of merchandise
I've seen the picture of the statue; I haven't been to England as yet. I don't know which I'd like to see more if I made a voyage there...the literary landmarks or the Beatle landmarks.
Alternatively, you could (bear with me now) not take a classic children's book and put your own personal, totally unearned spin on it and pretend like it's something completely new.
I mean what's next, a film about the Clangers invading earth with anal probes? I can't believe you'd say it's a shame that Hollywood didn't butcher this film for absolutely no apparent reason. You should be ashamed of yourself.
A lover not a fighter: someone who finds alternative ways to make their jaw ache...
The strangest Musical adaptation must be " The Texas Chainsaw Musical" with that extraordinary sing-song round the dinner table.
The evening I saw it at Kidderminster 2 members of the audience fainted and 1 dear old lady seated in the row immediately in front of me broke wind violently out of sheer fright.
The Show continued with the bizarre spectacle of a chainsaw-wielding nut-case singing his heart out on stage whilst the good people from St. Johns Ambulance resuscitated an octogenarian who turned up an evening too early for the performance of Alice in Wonderland and thought she was present at an over-exuberant Mad Hatters Tea Party.
Oh God, NO; how that would have ruined it! It already has a great soundtrack as it is, how idiotic the plot and such would have been had people suddenly burst into song in the film. Yuck. And uh, get your actors right, if you like the film so much - Colin Firth wasn't even in the film.
Well, he was when I made the first post. He left the production rather late in the game...turned out to be a wise move from all accounts. Ben's more youthful, innocent voice probably suited Paddington much better--Colin sounded a little too old and sophisticated. 😃