MovieChat Forums > JackNorth > Replies
JackNorth's Replies
That's kinda the point: Lion King has nothing to do with Cats, other than both involve cats of a sort. Grease has nothing to do with Bye Bye Birdie, other than both have rock and roll as a backdrop. Barnum has nothing to do with The Greatest Showman, other than they both are about P.T. Barnum.
This is an entirely new and different musical about the same subject matter. Different screenwriters, different music composers, different choreographers, a different artistic piece. An all-new musical based on Jesus H. Christ, would not be expected to include music from Jesus Christ Superstar, nor would an all-new musical version of Romeo and Juliet be expected to include songs from West Side Story.
The Greatest Showman was never promoted as the movie version of the stage show. In fact, they gave it a different title so people wouldn't expect to see or hear the Broadway show. Evidently, that wasn't enough.
That's an odd expectation. Like saying "I really enjoyed The Lion King, but I wish they'd included a couple songs from Cats." Or "I liked Grease, but they should have added some songs from Bye Bye Birdie."
I see your point.
It is wrong.
(Hahaha, just kidding. I love these discussions.)
The over-the-top comments were primarily aimed at Clive and Whale. I'm good with the monsters. (Except for the tears, which was Whale's doing, I'm betting.)
Yes to all of that...almost.
Because of the success of the original, Whale was practically given carte blanche for this one. He went w-a-y over the top. However, various aspects of the production were extremely well done and fun to watch. The sets they built were incredible. The makeup, the lighting and yes, the music, were outstanding.
I didn't like the monster speaking in this, but as a minor point; it is made clear that he understands spoken words very well. In his "discussions" with the hermit you see him nodding and reacting to what is being said. He struggles to learn how to speak again. He knows the words, he just has to re-learn how to formulate them and make the proper sounds. That's totally believable.
The over acting by some of the cast is...yeah, it's awful, even for its day.
But the film is an important milestone in cinema history.
If you can't just sit back and enjoy the show, but need an explanation, how's this: the other equipment had to be in a certain configuration for the lever to properly work. Since the other devices were (theoretically) shut down the power unleashed by the lever was destructive.
"I was born naturally but I was raised Cesarien."
I agree that the music (in all movies) sounds so much better in the theater mix. I wish it were easier to find surround mixes of music in general. I have a few music DVD's (classical, rock, jazz) in surround sound and it's so much more dramatic and interesting. Even when they incorporate some old pop song into the film, the new mixes sound great. When you get home and listen to the same recording on a CD or via streaming you think "hmmm, this song isn't has great as I thought when I heard it at the theater."
(FWIW, remixed surround discs of Welcome to My Nightmare, Dark Side of the Moon, etc. are incredible.)
These types of "musicals" are more "operettas." The traditional American musical (which is constantly evolving, I admit) is made typically made up of dialogue scenes to advance the (usually light or comic) story, with songs added for further character, and sometimes story, development. I also cannot make it through much of Sweeney Todd, Les Mis, Phantom of the Opera or any of the recent similar operetta style musicals. (Ironically, I absolutely LOVE the comic and witty operettas of Gilbert and Sullivan. Also, I really like Hamilton just from hearing the album; I've not seen the production.)
I guess I just prefer musicals that I can whistle.
So, what it boils down to is: some people like Apples, some like Oranges? It would serve you well to learn some manners and be more understanding of a person's opinion, as your response is rude and obnoxious.
The Thing is a classic. Overlapping dialogue was a bold move at the time. (I wonder if Spielberg, who uses that technique a lot, was influenced by this film.) A great film.
Creature From the Black Lagoon is also a classic on a slightly different level.
Very few, actually. And those few are not placed at the bottom as is usual, but are part of the shot. In most of the scenes where she is signing, the other characters either say what she signs, or they respond in such a way as to convey to the audience what she said.
You won't "waste" your money reading subtitles.
CharlieS, I get what you're saying, but with classic mysteries like this I think the enjoyment (or lack of enjoyment) of watching them is to see how this particular group of actors play the characters. Of course we know how it will end, but that's the case anytime you re-watch any movie. When you watch a movie a second or third time you can look to appreciate other aspects besides "how it ends."
Regardless, it seems as if this particular rendition is generally a major disappointment according to the majority of reviews.
Then this is just not your thing. For me, I enjoy seeing a play/film where the characters, the acting and the interplay among them draws you in. Well, draws me in, anyway. It's not good or bad or anything. Just not your thing.
For the same reason; there was absolutely no indication throughout the movie that a supernatural, or fantastical, element was at play. I felt it was a copout.
Yeah, I have since delved more deeply and read about the connection and the possible final third of the trilogy, yadda, yadda, yadda. But that doesn't change my disappointment. Because of the trailer, and because I enjoy psychological thrillers, I was ready for a good, taut, edge-of-seat thriller. No fantasy, no matter how subtle. No super-hero, no matter how "grounded in reality." I know that advertising it as a follow-up, or part of a trilogy, would destroy the art of the reveal, which I will admit was well-done here, but I, personally, have had my fill of franchise films. I just wanna watch a movie. A stand-alone movie, which this came close to being! Again, I enjoyed the acting, the story, etc.
I had an even stronger WTF reaction to "Frailty." I really, really hated being twisted around by that one!
Seeing and hearing this film when it opened in 1976 in a grand old theater with a great sound system (for its time) made me buy the vinyl album the very next day. Incredibly lush and beautiful at times. Overall, almost as iconic as the 1933 Max Steiner original score. Can't agree that this is the best of the Kongs, though; it's not bad when Rick Baker is on the screen, but John Barry's score deserved much better.
Screenwriters don't seem to own their work the way playwrights do. Just wondered why the film industry went that route, since, as I said, film industry grew out of theater in a sense.
Not quite what I meant.
The question is how/why did the the business develop along different paths for writers? A playwright may measure success and make a living from scripts which are produced over-and-over again. Many people go to see new theatrical productions of old shows with new casts. They look forward to seeing different actors perform familiar lines and scenes.
A screenwriter, however, makes his/her money from one production (including from later film distribution sales of that film) but that script will never again be produced. Someone may buy the rights and write a new version for a new film, but the original script is gone forever. I'm not at all suggesting that direct film remakes are great ideas or box office gold. I'm just wondering why that "business model" (?) came about.
Think of a film you like, and can practically quote line for line. Any film. Maybe it was made 20 or 30 years ago. Have you never wanted to see some other production of that same dialogue performed by other actors you admire? Something like (and this is just an example, and not a very good one at that) "Man, Goodwill Hunting is a great film. I would love to see what other actors would do with those lines." If it were to be remade Matt Damon and Ben Affleck would still be paid for their script, of course, but it would be discarded for a totally different script, with different dialogue and different scenes.
Remakes are always re-written, usually drastically so. Dialogue and even entire storylines are changed beyond recognition. I'm not against this...in fact, there are many remakes which are better than originals, but that's a different discussion.