*a like for Little Shop song*

"Life is about movies; anything else is a bonus!"- Me   

Very good, Teague. Requests? Sweet Transvestite from Rocky Horror is a classic.

I think the subsidence, of musicals also probably has more than a bit to do with casting.  You can't just pick people who are known stars and put them in theatrical roles I think in some cases, like Chicago, it succeeds while in others, like Phantom of the Opera, it doesn't.    I think Gerard Butler did an ok job, but his more rock/pop style of singing paired horribly with Emmy Rossum's operatic style.  I think the casting of Nine was another case where a musical could have worked but didn't, for a multitude of reasons.  I think it can be done, and I think Les Miserables has done a good job in that respect with its casting, but I guess we'll see in December.

I agree with Invid that changing musical tastes also has a lot to do with why musicals aren't as successful as they once were.  Though that probably has a lot to do with the fact that stations are kind of "fixed" in what they play, so unfortunately its not just musicals which get the short end of that its other genres as well.

And Teague, very nicely done.

Last edited by Jen (2012-07-03 18:39:46)

I think Frank Oz said casting had been over for awhile before they realized they should see if Rick Moranis could even sing. While it worked out there, all too often it doesn't. Mind you, things could improve if vocal dubbing came back in style (and wouldn't be mentioned in the press).

So, I'll take a moment to say EVERYONE GO WATCH EVERY SHOW STARKID HAS DONE.

But also... their new webseries (Well..not technically it's not by Starkid, but basically half the cast and crew): The Worlds Worst Musical.

Carry on citizens.

Totally agreed. I think that Sweeney Todd is the best recent musical I've seen in terms of celebrity casting; apart from Helena Bonham Carter's second-rate performance as Mrs. Lovett (I'm sorry, the woman cannot sing), everyone did a tremendous job at both acting and singing—even Borat and Hans Gruber, for crying out loud.

Another factor in the decrease of movie musicals from the golden age of Singin' in the Rain is the fact that, when it comes to mainstream, live-action films aimed at adults, very few musicals are being written specifically for film nowadays, which compounds the problem Invid mentioned; studios willing to do a musical are forced to pull from stage musicals. I think Across the Universe is the only big movie musical in recent history that wasn't based on a stage musical.

In fact, Invid, that's interesting in the context of Rock of Ages, because it's extremely different than the stage musical to the tune of replacing characters and plots. Perhaps the production felt free to do so because the more different the film ended up being, the more word of mouth might be generated for the show?

Is there anything to say about filmed performances in this regard? They're not film, per se, as they're theater records (although I was surprised to see that the taped version of Danny Boyle's Frankenstein gets cinematic at times), but they still pose the same threat to the stage show. Hence RENT releasing one after closing and Legally Blonde only airing its taped performance once on MTV a few years back.

And I'd also just like to say that, as someone who constantly ponders the story potential of the music she listens to, that I love jukebox musicals.

I'm sure thats a factor, but I'd wager it's more to do with the fact that musicals are a bitch and a half to actually pull off. Any jagoff can point a camera at a table, give the actors some lines you wrote 20 minutes ago, and if you get lucky and have some decent words and actors you can get away with it. But to pull off a musical you have to have weeks if not months of planning to pull off even the simplest thing.

I'm sure Teague can fill in a lot here. I've only done stage productions, but I can imagine the significant amount of extra work you would have once you throw in a camera crew.... on top of the ridiculous nature of making a musical in general. And that's just not feasible for a small budget indie. For instance take a look at The Worlds Worst Musical I linked a ways back. They barely get away with it, because 1) They are just an insanely fucking talented group of musical people. 2) ONE SONG PER EPISODE 3) They set the production value bar low enough and quirky enough that they can get away with it.

Look at Sad Max. Insanely talented musical dude. Black room. One camera angle. Go. Still a ridiculous fuckton of work.

Doing anything more than that just becomes horrendously challenging for any crew on any budget.

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2012-07-10 05:22:35)

I was in the chat for this, but I listened to it again on a drive and just laughed my ass off over Teague's Hedwig story and Trey's follow up about busting out the balloon animals if you get dragged on stage.

You owe me one ass, sirs.

EDIT: Oh, and a related note on Trey's method of rewriting lyrics for a song then rewriting the melody to get a whole new song, and his recommendation of Singin' in the Rain.... MGM writers were not above doing the same thing, and in fact for Singin' in the Rain, producers said, "We need a song for Donald O'Connor like 'Be a Clown'." So the writers rewrote the lyrics as "Make 'em Laugh" but didn't bother to rewrite the melody. "Be a Clown" was written by Cole Porter for MGM's The Pirate (also with Gene Kelly), and Porter didn't complain (hopefully there was a payment under the table).

Also, I've got to throw a word in for The Sound of Music and Guys and Dolls, my two favorite musicals, along with Singin' in the Rain and The Blues Brothers.

Last edited by Zarban (2012-07-21 19:16:28)

Well, Porter came to Hollywood already very famous and kept the right to his songs.

Also, I don't think anyone was under the impression that they were going to get a baby out of Cole Porter... including his wife.

I had a thought today I don't think I've heard mentioned. Is part of the death of musicals due to the rise of using actual songs as background music? In the episode someone listed Tarzan as one of Disney's musicals. It's not. All the Phil Collins songs are just part of the soundtrack, with no characters actually singing. You get the same emotional effect, speaking the subtext, without having your characters dancing around the screen. From the studio's perspective, it's even better. Old MGM musicals were often created around existing songs to promote record or even sheet music sales. Now you can use any movie to do that!

Thus, we can blame either Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, which had the "Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head" bit, or Lucas for American Graffiti.

I think using popular music as soundtrack is a bit of a different impulse than creating a musical; to pluck an example from the veritable flood of nineties films with such soundtracks, A Knight's Tale (incidentally one of my favorite movies) does use popular music, but rarely, if ever, does it use the music as a musical would, to make subtext explicit.