We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

Remakes of Musicals in general


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#21 istara

istara

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 07 February 2017 - 04:29 AM

I would love to see classic musicals remade.

 

The problem is casting. In previous eras, actors were much more likely to be highly proficient in singing and dancing than they are now. Standards were so high that even those with good voices were frequently dubbed. Audrey Hepburn had a very pretty voice but still had to be dubbed. As did Christopher Plummer in The Sound of Music and Peggy Wood - even though she had formerly been a Broadway singer. It was recognised when a voice wasn't up to it.

 

Today, there would be pressure to cast A-listers who don't have the equivalent skill levels (think Phantom, Moulin Rouge, La La Land - hardly any of the leads in those had professional level voices).

 

You could easily find the talent - just look at Glee - but most of it would likely be "unknown" and thus considered a casting risk for a multi-million dollar production. And these days, I'm not sure that audiences - or even actors - would necessarily accept dubbing.



#22 johnm001

johnm001

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,978 posts

Posted 02 February 2017 - 11:28 AM

I wonder why we are talking about PLANET OF THE APES in a musicals thread?



#23 johnm001

johnm001

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,978 posts

Posted 02 February 2017 - 11:26 AM

I thought Dawn was excellent but did no like the second movie

Perhaps I have the titles mixed up?  The one with James Franco I love.  The one that followed, I hate.



#24 jaragon

jaragon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 897 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 06:10 PM

I thought DAWN  was horrible, but I loved RISE.  My disdain for DAWN will keep me far away from any further sequels.

I thought Dawn was excellent but did no like the second movie



#25 johnm001

johnm001

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,978 posts

Posted 01 February 2017 - 06:01 PM

The 2001 Tim Burton Planet of the Apes was a horrible movie with some amazing special effects that made over $360 million on a $100 million budget. So it made a ton of money.

 

The newest Apes films, Rise of the Planet of the Apes in 2011 ($93m budget/$481 million BO) and the sequel Dawn of the Planet of the Apes in 2014 ($170m budget/$710m BO), were both critical and commercial hits (and I liked them a lot, too. Rise was on my top ten of the year list). I'm looking forward to the forthcoming War of the Planet of the Apes next year.

 

So these did, in fact, do well.

I thought DAWN  was horrible, but I loved RISE.  My disdain for DAWN will keep me far away from any further sequels.


  • jaragon likes this

#26 im4cinema2

im4cinema2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 261 posts

Posted 08 January 2017 - 11:43 AM

Best idea. Re-release instead of remake like SITR  Jan.15th.



#27 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39,651 posts

Posted 08 October 2016 - 02:29 PM

Thanks for the correction.   I just assumed that what Miki posted ',,,went over like lead balloons" meant that the films did poorly at the box office.   

 

They definitely did well at the box office, as Larry's data proves. We're dealing with exaggerated claims in this thread because someone obviously dislikes remakes and wants to act as if these films underperformed. But the reality is they did not.

 

If GONE WITH THE WIND were remade tomorrow and it took in a billion dollars, you can bet it would encourage studios to remake other 'sacred' and 'untouchable' classic films. 


  • GGGGerald and cinemaspeak59 like this

"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#28 LawrenceA

LawrenceA

    Watchman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21,159 posts
  • LocationThe Wild Frontier

Posted 08 October 2016 - 02:27 PM

Thanks for the correction.   I just assumed that what Miki posted ',,,went over like lead balloons" meant that the films did poorly at the box office.   

 

Yeah, I see that now. They were right about the Psycho remake, but not the Apes movies. Some people confuse their personal dislike for a movie as an indicator of the film's success, when those often don't correspond. There are many hit films I dislike, and many flops that I count as favorites.


  • johnm001, TopBilled and cinemaspeak59 like this

#29 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,529 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 08 October 2016 - 02:24 PM

The 2001 Tim Burton Planet of the Apes was a horrible movie with some amazing special effects that made over $360 million on a $100 million budget. So it made a ton of money.

 

The newest Apes films, Rise of the Planet of the Apes in 2011 ($93m budget/$481 million BO) and the sequel Dawn of the Planet of the Apes in 2014 ($170m budget/$710m BO), were both critical and commercial hits (and I liked them a lot, too. Rise was on my top ten of the year list). I'm looking forward to the forthcoming War of the Planet of the Apes next year.

 

So these did, in fact, do well.

 

Thanks for the correction.   I just assumed that what Miki posted ',,,went over like lead balloons" meant that the films did poorly at the box office.   



#30 LawrenceA

LawrenceA

    Watchman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21,159 posts
  • LocationThe Wild Frontier

Posted 08 October 2016 - 02:19 PM

Remakes clearly bring attention to prior versions;  Yea, those 'new' Planet of the Ape films didn't do so well but the rentals of the original films increased.     

 

The 2001 Tim Burton Planet of the Apes was a horrible movie with some amazing special effects that made over $360 million on a $100 million budget. So it made a ton of money.

 

The newest Apes films, Rise of the Planet of the Apes in 2011 ($93m budget/$481 million BO) and the sequel Dawn of the Planet of the Apes in 2014 ($170m budget/$710m BO), were both critical and commercial hits (and I liked them a lot, too. Rise was on my top ten of the year list). I'm looking forward to the forthcoming War of the Planet of the Apes next year.

 

So these did, in fact, do well.



#31 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,529 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 08 October 2016 - 01:12 PM

Again, I disagree.  Even though my generation wasn't especially interested in the majority of the movies that were popular during my parents' generation, our generation didn't demand to have them re-made to fit our interests.  The newer generation shouldn't demand that older movies be re-made to cater to their tastes, whims, mores and preferences, either.  

 

I wonder if you understand US movie history as it relates to remakes;  remakes have been made since the 20s;  E.g. many silent films were remade as talkies.   This is similar to remaking a film with CGI effects in that advanced technology is a primary reason for a remake.      In addition when the production code was lifted (or less enforced) a remake can be more true to the original source material;  e.g.   The play The Children Hour was released in the 30s as These Three without a lesbian and the remake in the 60s was much more closer to the play.   Note that Wyler directed both versions.    To me this is telling;  He felt the story was sound and wanted to remake the picture in an era where the actual story could be told.      

 

Remakes clearly bring attention to prior versions;  Yea, those 'new' Planet of the Ape films didn't do so well but the rentals of the original films increased.     So yea,  I do believe a remake of West Side Story or Sound of Music would bring interest for these great films to younger viewers that are unaware of them.   

 

I do agree that the one area where a remake can cause harm is when producers purchase the rights to the original version and suppress access to the original (e.g. don't lease it to stations like TCM,  don't offer the film on DVD etc...).      This occurred with the Alan Ladd version of The Great Gatsby.      Obviously I strongly object to this practice since one of my missions in life is to expose people (such as my nephews) to all the great films,  like West Side Story,  that were made during the studio-era. 


  • cinemaspeak59 likes this

#32 miki

miki

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • LocationSomerville, MA U. S. A.

Posted 08 October 2016 - 10:35 AM

You're right about that. So many talented people had non-careers because the studios only wanted their voices and nothing else. In "Singin' In The Rain", Debbie Reynolds' character eventually became a star after having only been a voice, but I doubt that happened in real life. As far as whether or not people would bother to check out an original if the remake were poor, I guess I was playing devil's advocate. I myself like to see every version of a film I like if I can track them down and I bet you're that way too, but so many people are turned off by anything "old" or black-and-white or Academy-ratio. Their loss, right?

 

Debbie Reynolds played in the film  "The Unsinkable Molly Brown".  She was quite good.



#33 miki

miki

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • LocationSomerville, MA U. S. A.

Posted 08 October 2016 - 10:33 AM

Again, how does a remake prevent the original from 'standing on it's own'. I already stated multiple times that I rarely find a remake better than the original. So what.

A remake being attention to the original. I have often had discussions with people that have only seen the remake. When they hear there is an earlier version they often seek that out. They wouldn't of been interested in the original if it wasn't for the remake.

So I really don't see what there is to disagree with; Again, tell me what harm a remake does to the original? NONE! (except when the producers of the remake legally prevent access to the original by buying the rights to the original).

 

Steve Spielberg bought the rights to the 1961 film of West Side Story, so that he could do a re-make of it.  Since he bought the rights of that film from Fox, I have a hunch that nobody else would be able to have access to the original film of West Side Story afterwards.  We'd all be sunk.



#34 miki

miki

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • LocationSomerville, MA U. S. A.

Posted 08 October 2016 - 10:26 AM

Definitely be left alone????     How does a remake harm a film?   It does NOT.

 

Sorry but younger generations are NOT interested in 'old' movies.     Introducing old films back into movie theaters would be a financial disaster.     

 

Data on leasing of films tells the real story;   E.g. The Magnificent Seven remake that was just released.    Rental of the 60s version are increasing.   Same was true for True Grit etc........

 

Remakes being attention to prior versions and if anything honor prior versions instead of harming them.

 

PS:   99% of the time I prefer the original over a remake (exceptions being the Huston version of The Maltese Falcon).       

 

So...Do you think that the re-making of movies such as West Side Story and the Sound of Music would increase the popularity of the original films?  Just curious.   

 

There were re-makes of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho and The Planet of the Apes (the latter of which was not made by Alfred Hitchcock), both of which went over like lead balloons...inotherwords, not at all well.



#35 miki

miki

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • LocationSomerville, MA U. S. A.

Posted 08 October 2016 - 10:15 AM

Definitely be left alone????     How does a remake harm a film?   It does NOT.

 

Sorry but younger generations are NOT interested in 'old' movies.     Introducing old films back into movie theaters would be a financial disaster.     

 

Data on leasing of films tells the real story;   E.g. The Magnificent Seven remake that was just released.    Rental of the 60s version are increasing.   Same was true for True Grit etc........

 

Remakes being attention to prior versions and if anything honor prior versions instead of harming them.

 

PS:   99% of the time I prefer the original over a remake (exceptions being the Huston version of The Maltese Falcon).       

 

Again, I disagree.  Even though my generation wasn't especially interested in the majority of the movies that were popular during my parents' generation, our generation didn't demand to have them re-made to fit our interests.  The newer generation shouldn't demand that older movies be re-made to cater to their tastes, whims, mores and preferences, either.  



#36 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,529 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 02 October 2016 - 07:20 PM

I have to disagree here, Im4movies2.  I don't know about Singing' in the Rain, since I've never seen that one, but Sound of Music and West Side Story are  movie/musicals that are classics which are what they are and should definitely be left alone.  The best way to introduce those two films to younger generations would be to re-introduce them back into the movie theatres, not to re-make them.

 

Definitely be left alone????     How does a remake harm a film?   It does NOT.

 

Sorry but younger generations are NOT interested in 'old' movies.     Introducing old films back into movie theaters would be a financial disaster.     

 

Data on leasing of films tells the real story;   E.g. The Magnificent Seven remake that was just released.    Rental of the 60s version are increasing.   Same was true for True Grit etc........

 

Remakes being attention to prior versions and if anything honor prior versions instead of harming them.

 

PS:   99% of the time I prefer the original over a remake (exceptions being the Huston version of The Maltese Falcon).       



#37 miki

miki

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • LocationSomerville, MA U. S. A.

Posted 02 October 2016 - 07:29 AM

I'll make a shocking statement and say that some of our long beloved musical films should be remade. Yes why not apply new technical advances and newer approaches with new young talent to redo some classics like: Singing In The Rain and even The Sound of Music. Although pretty perfect as they are now the way they were originally made come on now, it's been over fifty or sixty years and there isn't a fresh approach?

Edited by: Im4movies2 on May 16, 2010 11:28 PM

 

I have to disagree here, Im4movies2.  I don't know about Singing' in the Rain, since I've never seen that one, but Sound of Music and West Side Story are  movie/musicals that are classics which are what they are and should definitely be left alone.  The best way to introduce those two films to younger generations would be to re-introduce them back into the movie theatres, not to re-make them.



#38 miki

miki

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • LocationSomerville, MA U. S. A.

Posted 04 May 2016 - 08:07 AM

it's interesting how they are making musicals based on non-musical cult movies....Little Shop of Horrors, Hairspray, the Producers, etc, etc,,..but I have to ask if it is really necessary to do a musical remake of Footloose??

 

 

The Graduate was another dreadful example of making musicals based on non-musical cults.  I read some reviews, and decided to pass.  Hollywood has run out of creative ideas, which is why there are so many re-makes these days.  They should leave well enough alone.



#39 miki

miki

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • LocationSomerville, MA U. S. A.

Posted 04 May 2016 - 08:03 AM

Of course, they are doing THE SOUND OF MUSIC, in the fall of this year. However, it isn't a remake. It will be a live production of, I believe, the stage show; but, because it is live television, it will be neither the stage show or the movie. It will be a hybrid of both, I would expect, done in a studio, with various sets, like the days of live teleplays. It will have the look of a daytime soap. With the casting of Carrie Underwood, I would rather they were doing ANNIE GET YOUR GUN, but, whatever, I'll be watching, though not expecting much. It certainly isn't possible for them to better the 1965 film, which is among a very rare breed of film. It is perfect.

 

 

Again, you're right on target, johnm001.  Re-creating a given musical like Sound of Music, West Side Story, or even My Fair Lady on stage is one thing, but  these movies cannot be re-made, at least not without disastrous results, especially since re-makes of Planet of the Apes and Hitchcock's Psycho are strong indications of that, since both of the latter re-makes went over like lead balloons--inotherwords, not well. 



#40 miki

miki

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • LocationSomerville, MA U. S. A.

Posted 04 May 2016 - 07:58 AM

Would you like to give specifics of the "technical advances" which would improve upon existing musicals? The most recent musicals utilize the annoyingly excessive quick cuts, for their musical numbers. Films now look like MTV videos, where someone with zero ability to dance, can be made to look like they are doing something. Not such an advancement to my way of thinking. Not to say that I don't feel some musicals should be remade, but not for the reasons you state.

 

Your points make great, good sense, johnm001.   In the past, there were people who really knew how to dance and act that really were in musicals, but nowadays, there's so much corporate-oriented tin-can talent (if one can call it "talent" with a straight face!), so long on style (if one can call it that!), and so woefully short on substance that re-makes would not go over very well, at all.

 

The best way to introduce famous classic movie-musicals to today's younger generations is to get the original movies such as West Side Story, Sound of Music, etc., back into the theatres.  Wouldn't that be a fabulous way to unite generations together?!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users