|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 2:58:53 GMT
thoughts
|
|
1,062 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Feb 8, 2021 7:31:22 GMT
The stage musicals, the films or in general?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 7:33:53 GMT
the stage musicals
|
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Feb 8, 2021 8:30:46 GMT
Let it go
|
|
2,422 posts
|
Post by robertb213 on Feb 8, 2021 10:21:52 GMT
Generally I think they're quite disappointing. The films are always much better and still include the same songs.
The one shining exemption for me is Mary Poppins. But the animated ones never translate particularly well.
|
|
4,993 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Feb 8, 2021 10:30:47 GMT
Disappointing.
B&B was one overdesigned mess that was a dull copy of the brilliant film.
Lion King - very long and tiresome. The opening ten minutes was great but after that a hotchpotch of theatrical styles that didn't gel.
I recently watched a recording of Tangled from the Disney cruise ship. Meh! I found I was spending more time scrolling on my phone...
I doubt I'll bother with anymore
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 11:59:52 GMT
I liked Beauty and the Beast but apart from that everything's a colossal pile of meh. Not interested.
For me the issue is that I have a passion for animation and Disney's main studio offers some of the best animation ever created, and a major part of that is the amount of work they put in to get the very best out of the medium. That goes for their live action films too. Disney are outstanding film makers. It's what they do. But if you're going to remake something in a different medium then you need to be able to bring something new to it — otherwise why bother? — but when Disney brings one of their films to the stage it's like "The film you love, now without all the stuff we're best at".
|
|
2,412 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Feb 8, 2021 12:11:27 GMT
I can't stand animation and never could really even as a child. I remember walking out of Fantasia when I went to see it originally. Out of the musicals Mary Poppins is my favourite by far. Lion King is ok and Aladdin quite poor in my opinion. To me they are almost always aimed at children.
|
|
1,062 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by David J on Feb 8, 2021 12:36:54 GMT
Beauty and the Beast was the one that started my love for musicals so I have an attachment to that. For a film to stage adaptation, it had some wonderful new songs (especially If I Can't Love Her) and the production values were beautiful to look at. Sure the animated film was better but it wasn't short of creative.
I went to New York specifically to see it after the UK tour. I also saw Aida there which I really enjoyed.
Lion King: phenomenal start but the rest is boring. Certainly, a case where the animated film can't be matched.
Mary Poppins on the other hand is not a word for word retelling of the film and all the better for it. When you take out the songs it feels less of a Disney musical. Saw the original when it previewed in Bristol and it was one of the most amazing theatrical experiences I've ever seen full of special effects and production values. And that Temper Temper is one of the few times that truly scared me.
Aladdin was just subpar. Nothing amazing.
Not bothered about the Frozen musical.
Anybody see the Goodman Theatre's Jungle Book adaptation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2021 12:42:45 GMT
I love many of the Disney films, but have only ever seen the stage version of The Lion King, which aside from the opening was rather disappointing.
I would love to see a production of Aida though. Other than that, not bothered about seeing any of the others!
|
|
2,702 posts
|
Post by viserys on Feb 8, 2021 12:47:00 GMT
but when Disney brings one of their films to the stage it's like "The film you love, now without all the stuff we're best at". I think this cuts to the core of the problem. The animated movies rely a lot on animal cuteness, whether it's actual animal heroes like Bambi or Simba or quirky cute sidekicks to the human hero(ine). That just doesn't translate to the stage. Same with so many famous scenes from the movies, for example in the movie version of "A whole new world" Aladdin and Jasmine fly over a variety of famous sights like the pyramids, in the stage version they remain rather static in front of a blinky-blinky starry wall. With today's projection possibilities, why couldn't they fly over various sights as well and take the audience along on that journey? Why doesn't the stage show evoke any kind of "1001 nights enchantement" with some proper Arab sounds and sights? I feel that Lion King was the only really mega-seller Disney created because Julie Taymor had the guts to create something completely different and "adult" away from the movie and with music that truly evokes Africa. It's not everyone's cup of tea (certainly isn't mine), but it's a unique stand-alone show and not just a lame pale copy of a movie. The Little Mermaid would have had potential to be similar if they had managed to create a properly enchanting underwater world, but failed completely. It's a pity because Disney is the only company with the money and reach to still create huge "blockbuster" musicals that really blow people's minds with special effects and lavish sets/costumes rather than the cheapskate stuff that dominates today. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Feb 8, 2021 13:03:29 GMT
One of the last shows I saw before lockdown was Mary Poppins, which I found frustrating - it sits in an odd place where it’s not ‘the film on stage’ but clearly has to include enough of the set-pieces and songs from the films to make it feel like it is. And I disliked the changes to the family member characterisations from the film.
Generally though I think that we should bear in mind that they are aimed at a family audience, and they do go down very well with children. They will be the first stage musicals many children see and a gateway drug for theatre in general - particularly internationally in countries that don’t have Panto doing that job.
So, they serve a purpose. And hey, The Lion King may not fill most here with enthusiasm but the stage show is Disney’s biggest grossing franchise. If nothing else, that encourages Disney to keep investing their money in theatre.
|
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Feb 8, 2021 13:10:24 GMT
I've not seen many of the stage musicals but those I have seen, Beauty & the Beast and Aladdin, I found disappointing compared to the animated films. I've also avoided the "live-action" re-makes, especially as the nature of many of the characters means it's not truly live-action, since talking furniture, lions, etc. do not really exist!
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Feb 8, 2021 14:36:06 GMT
I have mixed feelings about them. On the one hand, I think that they, along with the slightly earlier mega-musicals of the 80s, have helped to turn the musical theatre scene into a place dominated by the multi-million-dollar juggernauts which kills a lot of the potential variety of shows we could have occupying the West End or Broadway.
On the other hand, people do enjoy them and they create long-term jobs for many in the industry. It's good to see family shows with high production values.
Are they actually good? For the most part yes I think, but they become watered down over time. I, for one, wish that I had seen the original London incarnation of Mary Poppins which apparently had a much darker, more mature edge. Since going to the US and then onto multiple tours it has lost that and has become a shiny, colourful "product" which can be copied and pasted into any theatre in the world, which seems to be the end goal.
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 8, 2021 15:11:22 GMT
I generally enjoyed the stage shows, for no other reason I haven’t really seen any on the films. Disney production qualities are superb, they always go and get the best composers,
Saying that I would hate it if Broadway becomes a glorified Disneyland.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaqs on Feb 8, 2021 16:03:51 GMT
Lion king first ten minutes are amazing then it’s a total snooze.
I loved Mary Poppins first time around and thought it was a brilliant family show. The current production is okay.
Aladdin should have been better.
And that’s the issue, they need to have the absolute top quality production values and casts or they become very ordinary.
|
|
19,797 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Feb 8, 2021 16:24:45 GMT
Ive only seen Poppins and The Lion King. Poppins was fab, so beautiful to look at. Lion King was just too much like a kids show. I know that’s a big part of the target audience but it was more like watching a Panto with nice sets. And I know I’m very unimaginative but surely converting animated characters into characters that have to be played or operated by humans requires a such huge leap of faith from the audience, you’re always going to feel short changed. . I was watching some clips of Frozen on Broadway and that Olaf puppet... terrible. Even the tiniest kids must surely look at that and think “who’s that woman making his arms move?”. Not to mention the very low rent looking sets, overacting and the sound of babies crying in the audience... not for me. Leave it for the families!
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Feb 8, 2021 17:18:48 GMT
Disney stage musicals are never as big as they should be in my opinion. They lack imagination and ambition. I want to step into the world I know so well and be wowed. I know the story, I know the characters and I know their journey - so make me glad I’ve spent money re-living it. Take Aladdin, for example. It hits some of the right notes with the Genie and Friend Like Me, and A Whole New World on the carpet etc. Brilliant - couldn’t ask for better. But did Aladdin really need 3 new friends? Why couldn’t the brilliant minds at Disney figure out how to make Abu, Iago and Rajah work as animals? Where were the giant hourglasses? A giant red genie Jafar? Yes, I would tend to agree with that, which is why I think Beauty and the Beast was their best adaptation. They put everything from the film on stage, but in a more theatrical manner. It wasn't "reimagined", it was recreated but using theatrical techniques. They expanded on the story where necessary, added a couple of extra songs, but kept the hallmarks of the original in a way that wowed everyone. The Beast's transformation went from a great piece of animation to a brilliantly executed stage-illusion. Be Our Guest was expanded into an 8-minute Broadway dance showstopper. The prologue was changed from stained glass windows to a live action display of wires and pyrotechnics. They took everything filmic and converted it to its theatrical equivalent. Imagine if they had stuck to this formula for something like The Little Mermaid? A giant Ursula filling the stage, a more clever and stylish transformation for Ariel etc. |
|
|
|
Post by stagebyte on Feb 8, 2021 18:24:31 GMT
As with most films if they didn’t contain music they would be very weak indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by stagebyte on Feb 8, 2021 18:28:25 GMT
I’m actually a great believer in encouraging your inner child. Life is far too serious and you have to treat the ten year old in you or you’ll lose something special about yourself forever. So unsurprisingly, I’m a huge Disney fan and whilst the movies have their flaws, there’s still something hugely enjoyable about sitting down on a Sunday afternoon with a big bowl of popcorn and revisiting an old favourite. Disney doesn’t seem to quite get that and it’s evident not just in their musicals, but also the live action remakes. Developing a story or characters is all well and good, but people aren’t spending money to see that - we want what we know we should be getting because we’ve seen the original. Disney stage musicals are never as big as they should be in my opinion. They lack imagination and ambition. I want to step into the world I know so well and be wowed. I know the story, I know the characters and I know their journey - so make me glad I’ve spent money re-living it. Take Aladdin, for example. It hits some of the right notes with the Genie and Friend Like Me, and A Whole New World on the carpet etc. Brilliant - couldn’t ask for better. But did Aladdin really need 3 new friends? Why couldn’t the brilliant minds at Disney figure out how to make Abu, Iago and Rajah work as animals? Where were the giant hourglasses? A giant red genie Jafar? For me it’s like Disney take their musical adaptations too seriously and that strips the fun away. Even Mary Poppins doesn’t it quite right (though my understanding is the agreement with Travers was to the-adapt the source material more than adapting the movie). The musicals have to land in the same way as the movies, particularly at the same story points and audience excepts. Otherwise it’s like watching a Dirty Dancing musical without a watermelon or that swan lift at the end. If we’re talking about Aladdin adaptation from movie to stage don’t think I’ve ever been so disappointed. It reminded me of panto (although in panto the sets are usually better) particularly with the bumbling friends. Completely saved by the genie and he only appeared in Act 2 The worst bit sitting front circle and seeing a hand reach through the trapdoor and grab the lamp that *spoiler* Jafar had just been decanted into |
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Feb 8, 2021 18:43:45 GMT
I have a soft spot for Beauty and the Beast, it was my first West End musical that I saw and even went into the Dominion Orchestra Pit. The puppetry for Lion King is wonderful but it's so run down that theatre. Aladdin, the ensemble was brilliant but I wasn't too impressed.
|
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Feb 8, 2021 20:32:40 GMT
Yes, I would tend to agree with that, which is why I think Beauty and the Beast was their best adaptation. They put everything from the film on stage, but in a more theatrical manner. It wasn't "reimagined", it was recreated but using theatrical techniques. They expanded on the story where necessary, added a couple of extra songs, but kept the hallmarks of the original in a way that wowed everyone. The Beast's transformation went from a great piece of animation to a brilliantly executed stage-illusion. Be Our Guest was expanded into an 8-minute Broadway dance showstopper. The prologue was changed from stained glass windows to a live action display of wires and pyrotechnics. They took everything filmic and converted it to its theatrical equivalent. The first stage production may have been like that but by the time I saw it touring the UK in 2007 it certainly wasn't! And, with the exception of Matthew Cammelle's Beast, most of the rest of the cast managed to make their characters more cartoon-like than the animated ones! |
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 8, 2021 21:06:26 GMT
I am clearly in the minority, thing that The Lion King is brilliant from beginning to end, so clever how they tell the story of Hamlet using animals. The puppets are breathtaking too.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Feb 8, 2021 22:52:44 GMT
Double post.
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Feb 8, 2021 22:53:59 GMT
Yes, I would tend to agree with that, which is why I think Beauty and the Beast was their best adaptation. They put everything from the film on stage, but in a more theatrical manner. It wasn't "reimagined", it was recreated but using theatrical techniques. They expanded on the story where necessary, added a couple of extra songs, but kept the hallmarks of the original in a way that wowed everyone. The Beast's transformation went from a great piece of animation to a brilliantly executed stage-illusion. Be Our Guest was expanded into an 8-minute Broadway dance showstopper. The prologue was changed from stained glass windows to a live action display of wires and pyrotechnics. They took everything filmic and converted it to its theatrical equivalent. The first stage production may have been like that but by the time I saw it touring the UK in 2007 it certainly wasn't! And, with the exception of Matthew Cammelle's Beast, most of the rest of the cast managed to make their characters more cartoon-like than the animated ones! Yes, this is another issue with the Disney shows, they don't quite work when another company takes over that doesn't have the Disney budget. The 2007 tour was another company (UK Productions I believe) and they're more of a panto producer. |
|
