- Jul 27, 2015
- 9,685
- 47,479
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
- May 26, 2010
- 5,823
- 16,233
Technically off-broadway at the McKittrick. Ported from the very well-received West End production but adjusted to be site-specific. Very, very excited.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 9,685
- 47,479
My absolute favorite play. It just gives me chills every time. Enjoy it.
I'm not so much agree with this sentiment. Didn't help with Apple+ with Come From Away. Hamilton is a show so many wanted to see on broadway but the tickets were near impossible to get which helped.
The 10 Highest-Grossing Movie Musicals Of All Time (According To Box Office Mojo)
Though musicals tend to be rather controversial in terms of audience approval, one cannot deny that these 10 musicals were instant classics.
screenrant.com
The numbers for me tell me its way more about Star Power/likeability stars, the only movie musical that flopped with actual real star power as leads was Cats and relatively speaking The Prom underperformed but I have a feelings that more due to Cordon than anything else.
That's why I'm not worried to much about Wicked because Universal is going to go heavy on the star power for this one.
One thing I’d like to mention (box office results aside) is that nearly every live action musical this year was really good. The only one that was BAD was Dear Evan Hanson, which a lot had to do with that everyone seemed to have finally realized that Evan is a creep hiding behind catchy songs.I'm not so much agree with this sentiment. Didn't help with Apple+ with Come From Away. Hamilton is a show so many wanted to see on broadway but the tickets were near impossible to get which helped.
The 10 Highest-Grossing Movie Musicals Of All Time (According To Box Office Mojo)
Though musicals tend to be rather controversial in terms of audience approval, one cannot deny that these 10 musicals were instant classics.
The numbers for me tell me its way more about Star Power/likeability stars, the only movie musical that flopped with actual real star power as leads was Cats and relatively speaking The Prom underperformed but I have a feelings that more due to Cordon than anything else.
That's why I'm not worried to much about Wicked because Universal is going to go heavy on the star power for this one.
Another big part of that though was the insistence on casting Ben Platt as Evan even though he looked 40+ in the movie at times. But let’s be honest. DEH was never gonna be a big hit either way. People who don’t like musicals don’t go to see musicals, especially in theaters.
The reason we’ve had such a good year with musicals is because the people in these movies are actually lead by theater performers and have large casts of Broadway caliber performers. Andrew Garfield(don't forget he's a Tony Winner), Robin de Jesus, and Vanessa Hudgens in Tick, Tick… Boom! Anthony Ramos, Daphne Rubin-Vega and Olga Merediz in In The Heights. Ariana DeBose in West Side Story.
Juxtapose that with a Cats or Into The Woods where it seems like all they were doing was star chasing to draw a big box office, many of them not even actors, but musicians. And what exactly did those movies do? Cats lost a crap ton of money and Into The Woods gained back it’s budget. Not great for two films chasing success with stars.
Of course it can be done. Three times successfully in the past five years actually we’ve seen it. La La Land, The Greatest Showman, and A Star Is Born.
So what’s the difference that made those a success and Cats a failure? Besides catchy songs, it was simply the casting that did it. They cast actors who could sing, not singers who can’t act. Hugh Jackman has Broadway experience. This was Efron’s fifth musical movie. Zendaya had the acting and singing training from Disney. Ryan Gosling has always been able to sing. You get my point.
Movie musicals need to have that perfect balance of being catchy songs and casting actors who can sing instead of singers who wouldn’t stand out in a community theater version of Seussical.
The fact that Cats sucks as a musical in general doesn’t help matters. Probably a controversial take, but I don’t care.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 9,685
- 47,479
I like it, but it’s definitely experimental Webber instead of *good* Webber.
- Jun 27, 2017
- 8,043
- 5,224
Well Apple TV, I literally only Ted Lasso....I know they have other stuff but dont watch itI'm not so much agree with this sentiment. Didn't help with Apple+ with Come From Away. Hamilton is a show so many wanted to see on broadway but the tickets were near impossible to get which helped.
The 10 Highest-Grossing Movie Musicals Of All Time (According To Box Office Mojo)
Though musicals tend to be rather controversial in terms of audience approval, one cannot deny that these 10 musicals were instant classics.
The numbers for me tell me its way more about Star Power/likeability stars, the only movie musical that flopped with actual real star power as leads was Cats and relatively speaking The Prom underperformed but I have a feelings that more due to Cordon than anything else.
That's why I'm not worried to much about Wicked because Universal is going to go heavy on the star power for this one.
To me Apple is too young as a point of proof.
In general, Musicals seem to just work for broadway and not always so much as movies.
I know NBC does a yearly live Musical, so some places it works but in Theaters with a big budget, it seems like a risk for most.
FOX used to do a live musical to (maybe they'll get back to it). They did the not-so-live RENT, Grease, Jesus Christ Superstar, etc. With those, once again, casting is a big thing, imo. Remember the first year NBC did it and they cast Carrie Underwood to be Maria in The Sound of Music? They wanted a big name star for the lead and it was cringe. They realized that the name of the show mostly sells itself, but people aren't going to stay and watch if the show is trash, so you need good, trained theater actors (and you also need an audience so not to make it awkward).
For Annie Live! the main cast was Celina Smith as Annie, Harry Connick Jr. as Daddy Warbucks, Taraji P. Henson as Miss Hanigan, Nicole Scherzinger as Grace, Titus Burgess as Rooster, and Megan Hilty as Lily, along with Jeff Kready as Bert Healy. The only names any random person may know of are Harry Connick Jr, Nicole Scherzinger, and Titus Burgess.
Try putting that cast in a movie and seeing how well it plays with the general public. My guess is the Annie brand gets to the rough $10M mark even if i'm playing Daddy Warbucks, but not much past that, much like how the 2014 Annie opened at $15M.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 9,685
- 47,479
The number of truly “commercial” musicals for general audiences are pretty small. Just because something is a huge success on Broadway (were something can succeed even with no names attached), that doesn’t mean it can effectively translate to film even with huge names. West Side Story, as a musical, hasn’t seen a ton of success onstage since its debut, and the movie is competing with its original version. Wicked, as a show, survives on the chemistry between Galinda and Elphaba. The songs are generally good, but most are niche-popular because they are VERY “theater” (Popular, As Long As You’re Mine). Defying Gravity is a uniquely iconic high-point. Then you have shows that are so theater, they can’t really be commercial at all (The Prom, Tick Tick Boom, Nine).
I surprisingly found the songs in Tick Tick Boom to be rather catchy and Andrew Garfield’s performance was completely engaging. But yes, had it had a wide theatrical release, it likely would’ve flopped big time.
I know Wicked is a huge name and a huge show, but aside from the fan base, I still don’t even see that adaptation doing overly great. The key takeaway from musicals like Cats and West Side Story (which both had $100M production budgets) to take away going forward imo is to try and make sure the budget stays low. If we know Musicals don't sell initially and nothing is a sure fire hit (as musicals make their money over time, not in one lump sum), don't give them a budget higher than that of Ghostbusters: Afterlife ($75M) and closer to Ant Man and the Wasp than ($130M) to In The Heights ($50M) or Tick Tick Boom ($30M).
The West Side Story brand is not big enough and the music isn't modern enough, no matter how much you love it, Spielberg (even if it is a good film as Spielberg seems to have made). Audiences now want less and less of the Rodgers & Hammerstein, Sondheim, Webber, etc classics. If you want to attract general audiences to watch a musical adaptation, the way to do it is to make it feel less fake and showtime-y and more "real" and have the songs be more modern in style. Lin Manuel Miranda and Benj Pasek & Justin Paul have hit that on the head, both on Broadway and in multiple original movie musicals.
....otherwise, you need to accept that movie musicals without the Disney Brand attached open SUPER low. Even Les Mis only opened to $27.5M (although they really blew casting for that movie) and with as big as Les Mis is, I have to think that's around the ceiling for Wicked.
- Jun 27, 2017
- 8,043
- 5,224
I wish Wicked was done by Disney.....mainly because then it would do much much better
- Jul 27, 2015
- 9,685
- 47,479
So the West Side Story thread doesn’t go too off the rails, I’m bringing this over here.
The only “in-production” movie adaptation that, I think, has a real shot of being successful in theaters isn’t Wicked: it’s “Mean Girls.”
Like I said in the other thread, Wicked is very “stagey.” It’s also a show that reads “blockbuster” by virtue of its success and subject. It’s also 20 years old and will look like so many movies that already came out.
Mean Girls will cheaper, while being more recognizable to the general audience. It doesn’t have a singular prestige moment like Wicked or Les Mis, but neither did Chicago. Mean Girl’s soundtrack is consistently catchy (akin to Dear Evan Hanson), and doesn’t need stunt casting.
The only “in-production” movie adaptation that, I think, has a real shot of being successful in theaters isn’t Wicked: it’s “Mean Girls.”
Like I said in the other thread, Wicked is very “stagey.” It’s also a show that reads “blockbuster” by virtue of its success and subject. It’s also 20 years old and will look like so many movies that already came out.
Mean Girls will cheaper, while being more recognizable to the general audience. It doesn’t have a singular prestige moment like Wicked or Les Mis, but neither did Chicago. Mean Girl’s soundtrack is consistently catchy (akin to Dear Evan Hanson), and doesn’t need stunt casting.
I'm not sure how a Disney Wicked movie would be or if the Disney name would really effect it too much (although it never can happen anyway since Universal actually owns the musical).
But don't get what i'm saying confused. Just because a movie opens low doesn't mean it doesn't finish with a healthy gross. This used to be the norm for movies back before the late 80's. Musicals still seem to have this trait though. Let me show you what I mean with a sampling of some movie musicals:
- Les Mis only opened to $27.5M domestic. It went on to gross $148.8M domestic and $438M Worldwide. This was a Universal film with a budget of $65M.
- Mamma Mia! opened with $27.8M domestic. It went on to gross $144.1 domestic and $602M Worldwide. This was a Universal film with a budget of $52M. It is the highest grossing non-Disney musical worldwide.
- The Greatest Showman only opened to $8.8M domestic. It went on to gross $174.3M domestic and $433.7 Worldwide. This was a 20th Century Film before Disney's Acquisition. The budget was $84M.
- Chicago only opened to $2.1M domestic. It went on to gross $170M domestic and $300M Worldwide. This was a Miramax (technically Disney) film with a budget of $30M.
- La La Land opened to $4.1M domestic in it's first weekend in more than 100 theaters (it only played in 5 on it's first weekend). It went on to gross $151.1M domestic and $444.4M Worldwide. This was a Lionsgate film with a budget of $20M.
- Mary Poppins Returns opened to $23.5M domestic. It went on to gross $171.9M and $349M Worldwide. This was a Disney film with a budget of $130M.
Point being, musicals are films the academy love, because the Academy is old. That's why they consistently are made to be awards contenders.
Cleaned up the thread a bit and moved more general theater talk over to the proper thread.
All i'll say is i'm that star power doesn't equal automatic success and it better not be what they rely on. The only sure fire casting i'd approve of is Lady Gaga given that we know she can act her face off now. I'm just not sure who i'd cast her as. Her voice is sooo recognizable though.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 9,685
- 47,479
- May 26, 2010
- 5,823
- 16,233
Headed to New York tonight on a red eye. Given the state of Broadway at the moment, I'm hoping for the best and expecting the worst.
- Feb 15, 2012
- 17,126
- 47,027
- Aug 7, 2018
- 7,108
- 9,113
