ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 5 of 6
< 12345 6 >
Media Center>CATS trailer. Welcome to the new nightmare.
Kiimosabi 04:04 PM 07-18-2019
You thought IT was scary?


The fuck is this? I want to die.

This looks like a fake fan trailer. They finally did it. They invented catgirls that even anime fans wouldn’t want to fuck.


One night. One chance. Watch the #CatsMovie trailer now. pic.twitter.com/7XwCx79xOh

— Universal PicturesUK (@universaluk) July 18, 2019


[Reply]
DaFace 04:42 PM 12-23-2019
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Most musicals would fail.

I mean even something like Hamilton would lose a lot in the translation, IMO. Having a real world 'movie' instead of the carousel set and fixed scenery (that focuses you on the actors not the backgrounds) and lacking the power of a person's voice in real-life just wouldn't work.

It would work better than friggen CATS but it would still be a watered down facsimile. About the only ones that I can see making a fairly seamless transition to a movie are comedies. I honestly think you could pull off Book of Mormon or Spamalot. Even Avenue Q might be able to make the transition (puppets would make it tougher).

But beyond comedy I just can't see it ever being a good idea.
There are SOME that have done pretty well over the years. Chicago is probably the biggest one. Sweeney Todd was decent. Little Shop was good back in the 80s. Phantom and Les Mis were OK.

But yeah, it's tough. I can't think of everything crashing and burning as bad as it looks like Cats is going to, though.
[Reply]
DJ's left nut 04:56 PM 12-23-2019
Originally Posted by DaFace:
There are SOME that have done pretty well over the years. Chicago is probably the biggest one. Sweeney Todd was decent. Little Shop was good back in the 80s. Phantom and Les Mis were OK.

But yeah, it's tough. I can't think of everything crashing and burning as bad as it looks like Cats is going to, though.
Forgot about Chicago - good counterpoint. I have no idea why that one took off like it did.

But when Sweeney Todd is the bar of a success (and Les Mis got eviscerated critically, IIRC), I think the point is being made. It's just a damn tough thing to translate.

But yeah, NOTHING seems to have made the transition as badly as this. And I think you nailed the why of it - quirky costumes making for a niche audience just become creepy CGI. It's the most obvious example we've seen yet of the Uncanny Valley phenomenon. Too human to be cheeky, not inhuman enough to avoid cognitive dissonance. And the end result is just really off-putting.
[Reply]
-King- 08:45 PM 12-23-2019
Originally Posted by DaFace:
It's definitely a weird show, and it wouldn't be anywhere near my top 10 (probably not even top 25), but it's not painful to watch in person. It's mainly notable for 1) being unique (cat costumes), 2) catchy songs, and 3) great dancing. There's very little plot, but theater is often a bit...experiential.

On the surface, the movie seems to be all of those same things, but the "weird but interesting" costumes have been replaced with "weird and creepy" CGI, the dancing and singing seem much less impressive since it's spliced together rather than live, and they appear to have thrown a nice dose of cat horniness to make it even more creepy.

The more I think of it, the more I think that this should have been a TV live event like they did with Grease, Hairspray, etc. The costumes still would have been weird, but people will live with a low-commitment TV show being a bit odd and experimental, and the singing and dancing would be much more impressive live.

I'm kind of excited to watch this someday just to see how bad it really is, but no way am I spending money to see it in the theater.
Yeah if I'm going to see something weird and gimmicky I guess I'd rather see it live in person. At least then the performance aspect of it is interesting and engaging. A movie is less interesting because they can film a scene 100x to make it "perfect" and a lot of the tension of theater would be gone.
[Reply]
BWillie 11:12 AM 12-25-2019
Originally Posted by rydogg58:
My daughter is a huuge Taylor Swift fan. She saw this last night and afterwards told me it was the worst movie she had ever seen.

I told her I wasn't shocked.
Ive never been a huge fan, just thought she was hot but seemed like she wasn't crazy pop trash. But her freaking out on that Scooter Braun guy for just buying the record label that she's already signed to...then saying hes trying to own her and whatever. Thats just bullshit. People buy companies and assets to build equity. Get over it whiney bitch
[Reply]
Mennonite 11:36 AM 12-25-2019
The only musical I like is The Blues Brothers (theatrical cut only).
[Reply]
Frazod 12:11 PM 12-25-2019
I enjoy the theater, but I prefer sweeping, epic, historical stuff. My far and away favorite is Les Miserables, which I've seen multiple times. I've seen Phantom two or three times, as well as Miss Saigon. I liked Evita and Fiddler on the Roof, as well as Producers and Spamalot. I've seen a handful of others that ranged from okay to meh. But I hated Cats. As Roger Ebert would say, I hated hated hated it. Pointless, silly, mind-numbing, time wasting, awful. Basically a bunch of bullshit bookending the song Memories. The wife enjoyed it, which was the only thing that kept me from walking out. And the only thing that kept me from lapsing into a coma was laser-focusing on one of the dancers who had a spectacular ass; God she was gorgeous. But I'm as likely to see it again as I am to watch David Lynch's Dune again. :-)
[Reply]
Baby Lee 12:23 PM 12-25-2019
Originally Posted by -King-:
Yeah if I'm going to see something weird and gimmicky I guess I'd rather see it live in person. At least then the performance aspect of it is interesting and engaging. A movie is less interesting because they can film a scene 100x to make it "perfect" and a lot of the tension of theater would be gone.
It's not so much that movie musicals are doomed, so much as that's a tightrope to do the adaption properly.

When you envision a musical for stage, you are staging a single comprehensive spectacle that the audience can make individual personalized choices in how to consume. Dancers over here, light spectacle over there, a swirl of singing roles. You can focus your attention on specifics, or just taking in the entire thing, or just close your eyes and listen.

A camera makes all the choices. So if you have a weak link, a poor performer or an off tone of an overly emoted expression, and it ends up right in the center of the camera's eye, it can break everything. And once it's broken, the fantastical nature of musical theater means it usually stays broken, unless you follow up with a new spectacle to make people forget and reinvest.

Take one of the most successful movie musical adaptions ever, Grease. There's plenty of AWFUL mugging and cringy moments, but it consistently papers over it with great spectacle like the dance competition. Or a great humor break.

Also, in today's movie culture spectacle presumes CGI, but a creative creation envisioned for the stage is not well suited to CGI enhancement. The beauty of what is staged is the practical effects and the cohesion of the setting and visuals, as opposed to the infinite possibilities of CGI locked into a singular vision imposed by the camera.

Perhaps, with contemporary movie expectations, you have to decide between an intentionally sparse stagey presentation, or something wholly created for film, like Moulin Rouge or Romeo+Juliet. Or cohesive concepts like Tommy or The Wall, as opposed to a dramatic narrative.

One other aspect that hampers movie adaptions of existing stage works, is that your core audience is already deeply emotionally invested in an existing vision. Even if you 'improve' on what they have in their hearts, it's still 'different' from what they fell in love with. So the improvement has to be astounding or it will still generate conflict and emotional consternation for your biggest fans. Kind of like what Star Wars is going through, on steroids.
[Reply]
keg in kc 12:49 PM 12-25-2019
I've always just wondered where the audience for a mainstream musical film would be. It's always seemed like such a niche thing to me. I mean, shit, I have a degree in writing music, and I don't like musicals. At all. Never have, not even when I was an undergrad geek hanging out with the theater majors, or when I was working with the kids performing Sweeney Todd at Interlochen. So it's not like I'm not familiar with them. I just don't think they're entertaining enough to get me into a movie theater. And I don't think my lack of interest in the genre is even close to a minority opinion among the general public.
[Reply]
Sorry 03:09 PM 12-25-2019
Originally Posted by keg in kc:
I've always just wondered where the audience for a mainstream musical film would be. It's always seemed like such a niche thing to me. I mean, shit, I have a degree in writing music, and I don't like musicals. At all. Never have, not even when I was an undergrad geek hanging out with the theater majors, or when I was working with the kids performing Sweeney Todd at Interlochen. So it's not like I'm not familiar with them. I just don't think they're entertaining enough to get me into a movie theater. And I don't think my lack of interest in the genre is even close to a minority opinion among the general public.
What type of music do you write
[Reply]
Chief Pagan 04:54 PM 12-25-2019
Originally Posted by DaFace:
There are SOME that have done pretty well over the years. Chicago is probably the biggest one. Sweeney Todd was decent. Little Shop was good back in the 80s. Phantom and Les Mis were OK.

But yeah, it's tough. I can't think of everything crashing and burning as bad as it looks like Cats is going to, though.
I thought that Chicago was great. I'm lukewarm on the film version of Sweeney and Phantom.

I really like the film version of Joseph's dream coat. I also thought the 2000 film version of Jesus Christ Superstar was really good. That film doesn't get much attention.
[Reply]
DaFace 04:59 PM 12-25-2019
On the subject of film adaptations if Broadway shows, I saw the trailer for In the Heights this weekend. Looks solid. But I bet it won't have a $100m budget and a fuck ton of CGI.


[Reply]
DaFace 05:13 PM 12-25-2019
Originally Posted by Chief Pagan:
I thought that Chicago was great. I'm lukewarm on the film version of Sweeney and Phantom.



I really like the film version of Joseph's dream coat. I also thought the 2000 film version of Jesus Christ Superstar was really good. That film doesn't get much attention.
I forgot about Joseph. Agree that that one was fun. Donny Osmond and all. :-)
[Reply]
Setsuna 09:39 PM 12-25-2019
This movie was made simply for the memes. How far society has fallen.
[Reply]
JD10367 09:25 PM 12-31-2019
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Most musicals would fail.
Uhhh.... what? "Jesus Christ Superstar", "The Sound Of Music", "My Fair Lady", "Les Miserables" (which was only picked on because of the live singing), "Phantom Of The Opera", "South Pacific", "Chicago", "A Chorus Line", "Cabaret"...
[Reply]
Deberg_1990 09:56 PM 12-31-2019
Musicals are still very popular when done right and the audience likes the songs.

The Greatest Showman was very popular just a couple years ago.
[Reply]
Page 5 of 6
< 12345 6 >
Up