Jump to content
THIS IS A TEST/QA SITE

What kind of movie inspired plays would you like to see in Broadway?

marylander1940

By marylander1940
in Comedy & Tragedy

This topic is 3235 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply
MrMiniver Mentor

MrMiniver

Posted
Posted
I think Pitch Perfect would be fun on Broadway. ;) I would also love to see Restoration, The English Patient, and Remains of the Day. we're all those plays first?

 

Answer: NONE. How about original work?

 

English Patient was a novel by Michael Ondaatje and Remains of the Day (minus the annoying Chris Reeve character) was a novel by Ishiguro. Both are among the best novels written in the last 30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Truereview Grand Master

+ Truereview

Posted
Posted
Answer: NONE. How about original work?

 

English Patient was a novel by Michael Ondaatje and Remains of the Day (minus the annoying Chris Reeve character) was a novel by Ishiguro. Both are among the best novels written in the last 30 years.

Do you think they would make good theater? I know zilch about theater, but i love film and books. I read Eng. Patient before the movie, but I should read Remains! Thanks for the nudge! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bostonman Grand Master

bostonman

Posted
Posted
Answer: NONE. How about original work?

 

Many of the great classics - whether we're talking the Greeks, Shakespeare, etc - were based on pre-existing stories, myths, etc. And yet we consider these to be "original works" without pause. Operas and oratorios often took known stories and novels/plays for their sources. It can be argued that Verdi's two biggest masterpieces were based on Shakespeare (Otello and Falstaff). Many of our classic musicals were based on novels (Show Boat, Man Of La Mancha), plays (Oklahoma, My Fair Lady, Sweeney Todd), short stories (Guys And Dolls, Pal Joey, Fiddler On The Roof), and yes, movies (Sweet Charity, A Little Night Music, Nine).

 

This past year's Tony winner is based on a graphic novel (Fun Home), the previous year's was based on a film based on a novel (A Gentleman's Guide To Love And Murder), the two before that based on films (Kinky Boots and Once). All of these are considered successes. This year's Tony is likely to go to the critical and box-office smash Hamilton, but that too is essentially based on a book (Chernow's biography of Hamilton was the show's inspiration).

 

This is not to say that purely original work doesn't also happen. But much of what we see as plays or musicals come from tangible sources.

 

I think the difference is in the why and the how of the adaptation. To make a generalization, I think it used to be, more often than not, that a source was looked at for its potential in being musicalized (or adapted as a play) - whether the idea was producer-driven or writer-driven, someone saw the artistic sense in the project. Also notice that many of the great Broadway musical adaptations took original names. If musicals had been named going with today's trends, we might have had Matchmaker: The Musical instead of Hello, Dolly, and Smiles Of A Summer Night: The Musical instead of A Little Night Music. (The NAME of the source wasn't important - the STORY was.)

 

Nowadays, though I've already pointed out shows that have worked, I think things are mostly driven by title recognition and commercial viability, instead of artistic expression. And I think this is one reason why we have so many shows that fit the formula of Familiar Title: The Musical, because that is the entire point of the endeavor - to get the audience to come to something they pretty much already know. Same with jukebox musicals - nothing like a "new" show hastily built around iconic pop songs everyone already knows, huh? It's become much harder to write a show based on a dark-horse property, though I think that often those are the ones that a writer is bound to be more attracted to.

 

So, though I do agree with Mr. Miniver that original works should be encouraged (many are unfortunately shot down before they get much of a chance), I think there's nothing wrong with adaptations if they are done well and with a strong artistic vision being the focus, rather than just a "hey, remember that nostalgic cult movie? Let's put it onstage - it'll be a HIT!!!!!!!!"

 

Since this thread started with an observation about Legally Blonde: The Musical, I should mention that Larry O'Keefe's first major musical, the off-Broadway Bat Boy, is a MUCH better-written show, IMO. Yes, it's based on World Weekly News articles, but only as a starting point. The show is wonderfully original, and musically inventive in a way that, sorry, Legally Bland - um, Blonde just isn't. (However, his newest piece, Heathers, based on the film, does have a more adventurous, properly theatrical score. So it can be done and done well.)

 

Personally, I'd love to see someone take a new stab at All About Eve, either as a play or a musical, just because I think it's a fascinating story. Though Applause has some fine songs, it's not really an adaptation of the film (they didn't have the rights originally), and it's hugely mired in 1970's datedness. However, the film is so good as it is, does it NEED to be adapted for another medium? (I know - fasten my seat belt - it's going to be a bumpy thread...) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrMiniver Mentor

MrMiniver

Posted
Posted
Do you think they would make good theater? I know zilch about theater, but i love film and books. I read Eng. Patient before the movie, but I should read Remains! Thanks for the nudge! :)

 

I don't see how English Patient could make good theater. It's too complex, they'd have to eliminate half the book. Remains might work if they did it a drawing room comedy of some sort but nobody is writing those these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrMiniver Mentor

MrMiniver

Posted
Posted
Many of the great classics - whether we're talking the Greeks, Shakespeare, etc - were based on pre-existing stories, myths, etc. And yet we consider these to be "original works" without pause. Operas and oratorios often took known stories and novels/plays for their sources. It can be argued that Verdi's two biggest masterpieces were based on Shakespeare (Otello and Falstaff). Many of our classic musicals were based on novels (Show Boat, Man Of La Mancha), plays (Oklahoma, My Fair Lady, Sweeney Todd), short stories (Guys And Dolls, Pal Joey, Fiddler On The Roof), and yes, movies (Sweet Charity, A Little Night Music, Nine).

 

This past year's Tony winner is based on a graphic novel (Fun Home), the previous year's was based on a film based on a novel (A Gentleman's Guide To Love And Murder), the two before that based on films (Kinky Boots and Once). All of these are considered successes. This year's Tony is likely to go to the critical and box-office smash Hamilton, but that too is essentially based on a book (Chernow's biography of Hamilton was the show's inspiration).

 

This is not to say that purely original work doesn't also happen. But much of what we see as plays or musicals come from tangible sources.

 

I think the difference is in the why and the how of the adaptation. To make a generalization, I think it used to be, more often than not, that a source was looked at for its potential in being musicalized (or adapted as a play) - whether the idea was producer-driven or writer-driven, someone saw the artistic sense in the project. Also notice that many of the great Broadway musical adaptations took original names. If musicals had been named going with today's trends, we might have had Matchmaker: The Musical instead of Hello, Dolly, and Smiles Of A Summer Night: The Musical instead of A Little Night Music. (The NAME of the source wasn't important - the STORY was.)

 

Nowadays, though I've already pointed out shows that have worked, I think things are mostly driven by title recognition and commercial viability, instead of artistic expression. And I think this is one reason why we have so many shows that fit the formula of Familiar Title: The Musical, because that is the entire point of the endeavor - to get the audience to come to something they pretty much already know. Same with jukebox musicals - nothing like a "new" show hastily built around iconic pop songs everyone already knows, huh? It's become much harder to write a show based on a dark-horse property, though I think that often those are the ones that a writer is bound to be more attracted to.

 

So, though I do agree with Mr. Miniver that original works should be encouraged (many are unfortunately shot down before they get much of a chance), I think there's nothing wrong with adaptations if they are done well and with a strong artistic vision being the focus, rather than just a "hey, remember that nostalgic cult movie? Let's put it onstage - it'll be a HIT!!!!!!!!"

 

Since this thread started with an observation about Legally Blonde: The Musical, I should mention that Larry O'Keefe's first major musical, the off-Broadway Bat Boy, is a MUCH better-written show, IMO. Yes, it's based on World Weekly News articles, but only as a starting point. The show is wonderfully original, and musically inventive in a way that, sorry, Legally Bland - um, Blonde just isn't. (However, his newest piece, Heathers, based on the film, does have a more adventurous, properly theatrical score. So it can be done and done well.)

 

Personally, I'd love to see someone take a new stab at All About Eve, either as a play or a musical, just because I think it's a fascinating story. Though Applause has some fine songs, it's not really an adaptation of the film (they didn't have the rights originally), and it's hugely mired in 1970's datedness. However, the film is so good as it is, does it NEED to be adapted for another medium? (I know - fasten my seat belt - it's going to be a bumpy thread...) ;)

 

Boston: I think, though, with a lot of the "classic" or "older shows" you mention the source material was somewhat more obscure or little known. And, therein, lies the difference. No one is doing that today. Today, what they do, is take something enormously famous like Misery or Sunset Blvd and try to turn it into a play or musical because of the built in marketing advantage and there's the problem. It ain't even attempting to be good, just popular. I should have clarified that in my original post.

 

Theater is very similar to film (and I'm really generalizing here) in that great books rarely make great plays or film while mediocre books often make great plays or film. There are always exceptions but for every Washington Square that becomes The Heiress there is Portrait of a Lady that becomes a bad film. Or Michener's mediocre Tales of the South Pacific that becomes a great show like South Pacific.

 

As for Shakespeare, et al. Yes, that original work, period. Basing something on historical events or myths is not adapting a pre-existing work. It would be like today taking a murder case and turning it into a play. That's original work. It's not the same as taking The Color Purple, the awful film, and turning it into The Color Purple, the awful movie.

 

I don't agree with you about Hamilton (which I love). It's not really an adaptation of the book. It maybe inspired by it but if the creators hadn't said that you wouldn't know it from what's on the stage. It could have been adapted from Hamilton's Wikipedia page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WilliamM Grand Master

+ WilliamM

Posted
Posted
I don't agree with you about Hamilton (which I love). It's not really an adaptation of the book. It maybe inspired by it but if the creators hadn't said that you wouldn't know it from what's on the stage. It could have been adapted from Hamilton's Wikipedia page.

 

I agree. However, I really enjoyed Chernow's "Alexander Hamilton." If people have the time, I highly recommend the book..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bostonman Grand Master

bostonman

Posted
Posted
I don't agree with you about Hamilton (which I love). It's not really an adaptation of the book. It maybe inspired by it but if the creators hadn't said that you wouldn't know it from what's on the stage. It could have been adapted from Hamilton's Wikipedia page.

 

I agree with you - though Miranda has made the point of saying that it all started when he got absorbed in the Chernow biography. But yes, that was only a starting point. Much as I'd say that Avenue Q is not really an adaptation of Sesame Street, though obviously that was the inspiration, and many elements of the classic TV show are spoofed. And of course, The Book of Mormon is not directly based on the religious text of the same name, though it obviously plays a part in the story.

 

Though certainly a portion of older musicals were based on familiar properties. The Mary Martin Peter Pan, for instance (and the play-with-music that Bernstein wrote songs for, based on the same story). I would imagine R&H's audience were familiar with Michener's recent and timely Tales Of The South Pacific when its musical adaptation premiered - and certainly everyone knew the story of Cinderella when they wrote the TV musical version for Julie Andrews. I would also tend to think that The Rainmaker was a well-known property when Jones and Schmidt wrote 110 In The Shade. And, any musical based on a comic strip must have been banking on familiarity/nostalgia for the originals - Lil' Abner being the first, I believe (and still a classic musical even if it's not done nearly as much anymore), and Annie being obviously the most successful. And of course one would think everyone would have been familiar with the basic story of Arthur/Guenevere/Lancelot even if they hadn't specifically read The Once And Future King, which I believe was the source that Lerner and Loewe cited for their Camelot.

 

So yes, although I agree that many great adaptations came from less-known books/plays/etc, some of the great ones were certainly based on familiar sources as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrMiniver Mentor

MrMiniver

Posted
Posted
I agree with you - though Miranda has made the point of saying that it all started when he got absorbed in the Chernow biography. But yes, that was only a starting point. Much as I'd say that Avenue Q is not really an adaptation of Sesame Street, though obviously that was the inspiration, and many elements of the classic TV show are spoofed. And of course, The Book of Mormon is not directly based on the religious text of the same name, though it obviously plays a part in the story.

 

Though certainly a portion of older musicals were based on familiar properties. The Mary Martin Peter Pan, for instance (and the play-with-music that Bernstein wrote songs for, based on the same story). I would imagine R&H's audience were familiar with Michener's recent and timely Tales Of The South Pacific when its musical adaptation premiered - and certainly everyone knew the story of Cinderella when they wrote the TV musical version for Julie Andrews. I would also tend to think that The Rainmaker was a well-known property when Jones and Schmidt wrote 110 In The Shade. And, any musical based on a comic strip must have been banking on familiarity/nostalgia for the originals - Lil' Abner being the first, I believe (and still a classic musical even if it's not done nearly as much anymore), and Annie being obviously the most successful. And of course one would think everyone would have been familiar with the basic story of Arthur/Guenevere/Lancelot even if they hadn't specifically read The Once And Future King, which I believe was the source that Lerner and Loewe cited for their Camelot.

 

So yes, although I agree that many great adaptations came from less-known books/plays/etc, some of the great ones were certainly based on familiar sources as well.

 

Yes, I agree. Like I said, I was generalizing, there are always exceptions. But in film especially, it's often bad books that make the best films -- look at The Godfather. Atrociously bad book, absolutely one of the greatest films ever made.

 

Yes, I think we have defined the difference between "inspiration" and "adaptation." Everything created is inspired by something else. Thoughts don't happen in a vacuum. But true adaptations are a different thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrMiniver Mentor

MrMiniver

Posted
Posted
Who would have thought Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson would have inspired plays and operas. There was "McBird" in the 1960s, "All The Way" and it's follow-up "The Great Society" lately. And now Sheldon Harnick is working on an opera about Lady Bird.

 

And every last one of them sucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Contact Info:

The Company of Men
5834 C. North Kings Hwy #4343
Alexandria, VA 22303

Email: moderators@companyofmen.org

Help Support Our Site

Our site operates with the support of our members. Make a one-time donation using the buttons below.

$10 $25 $50 $100 $200

Make a recurring donation

Additional Resources

×
×
  • Create New...