Musicals that were huge hits on stage and flops on screen

[kenobi_65]

@Eyebrows_0f_Doom

A movie version of **Wicked **is in development, but I’m not sure how far along. Last I heard they were hoping for a winter 2016 release, but of course who knows if that’ll ever actually happen.

The IMDB listing says “Production Status: Unknown”, and was last updated in November. If it’s not yet in production or pre-production (and it sure doesn’t sound like it is), at this point, it wouldn’t be out before next summer at the earliest (if it ever gets made at all).

[Jackmannii]

@Melbourne

Well, The Producers was already a successful movie, so the remake was playing as a remake. That always seems to cut into the vibe and the audience.

Competing with the far superior casting of the original movie couldn’t have helped.

[RealityChuck]

Newsies fits – Broadway hit, but flop movie. However, in this case, the movie came first.

[Gyrate]

@terentii

This far into the thread and no one has mentioned Mame? Or have I missed something?

I’m wondering if films of stage musicals which were themselves preceded by non-musical films (and/or stage productions) fare differently from those which started out as musicals. Mame, The Producers, and My Fair Lady all had earlier non-musical film versions (I don’t think The Producers was a stage show first, although the other two were).

I know a film version of the Matilda musical is in the works (there having been a 1996 non-musical film of the Dahl book); in the Wikipedia articleI found this interesting tidbit which may be relevant to Hamilton:

The [Matilda] movie will be released in 2019 at the earliest, due to a Broadway contract stipulating that any film version cannot be released before six years have expired following the show’s opening there. Despite this, the filming might begin in late 2016, prompting a much earlier release date than originally planned.

Bolding and brackets text mine. Anyone know if that’s a standard contractual condition for Broadway?

[Eyebrows_0f_Doom]

@Gyrate

I know a film version of the Matilda musical is in the works (there having been a 1996 non-musical film of the Dahl book); in the Wikipedia articleI found this interesting tidbit which may be relevant to Hamilton:Bolding and brackets text mine. Anyone know if that’s a standard contractual condition for Broadway?

Rock of Ages opened on Broadway in 2009 and the film version came out in 2012. **Hairspray **opened on Broadway in 2002 and was on film in 2007. The Producers opened on Broadway in 2001 and the film was released in 2005, so no that doesn’t seem to be any kind of standard contract. That contract is probably specifically for Matilda.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Jim_s_Son

… “Paint Your Wagon”…Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood singing. Enough said.

I came in to name this one. I have no idea how big a hit the stage version was, but I have to guess this was one of the biggest movie musical disasters ever.

[RealityChuck]

@Gyrate

I’m wondering if films of stage musicals which were themselves preceded by non-musical films (and/or stage productions) fare differently from those which started out as musicals. Mame, The Producers, and My Fair Lady all had earlier non-musical film versions (I don’t think The Producers was a stage show first, although the other two were).

Well, those examples have three different results: Mame was a flop, The Producers came close to breaking even, and My Fair Lady was a smash hit.

Paint Your Wagon was not a hit on Broadway – 289 performances and, according to Lerner, it basically just earned back its costs with maybe a slight profit.

It’s also notable that up until 1970, the majority of Tony nominated musicals were made into movies, but after that the number dropped off. Part was that Hollywood stopped making musicals – they were big in the 60s (especially after The Sound of Music), but too many flops killed the market.

[Voyager]

@Jim_s_Son

I don’t know the box office but reviews were not very good for “A Little Night Music” in 1977

I can’t find any grosses for it, but I have seen the movie and it is dreadful. Worse than the regional theater production I saw, and I’d imagine orders of magnitude worse than the original production.

I think Little Shop of Horrors did fairly well, though when the movie came out it was still playing in a fairly small theater off-Broadway.

[Just_Asking_Questions]

@Eonwe

That, and there is something about being there and seeing it live that is unlike any other art form. The day they begin regular broadcasts of Broadway shows is the day they take their first step on becoming just another TV station (do those still exist?). The magic of Broadway, for audiences and performers, is the immediacy and intimacy of it. Remove that, and the experience becomes nothing special. Like seeing pictures of great art, or of beautiful landscapes in a book, as opposed to experiencing them in person.

Oh, puleeze.

“Unlike any other art form.” You could (and people do) say the same about concerts, or sporting events, or rocket launches, and you’d still be wrong.

Yes, seeing them live is arguably better, but is it sufficient to keep them from being recorded and rebroadcast (or sold as DVDs)? There are a lot of us who don’t live in NYC and can’t make to many, or even any, plays. (And at those prices! Sheesh!)

I’d love to see Patti Lupone (or even Elena Roger) as Evita, but I never will. So I have to be happy with touring casts (and some times, I didn’t even get the lead, but the understudy). If they would create recorded performances, I think there would be a huge market. Just plant a single camera; you could even skip closeups and fades and tracking shots. Just show it like an audience viewer would see it.