The list goes on seemingly forever. It started as a novelty, a reversal on an old idea, and now it's an obsession. Originally conceived as a way to put "cheeks in the seats" (as my profs would say), its become de rigeur, and I, for one, am not amused. It's lazy.Movies on Broadway.
You can't get away from them. Spamalot, Footloose, The Wedding Singer, High Fidelity (the f*&%!?!), The Color Purple. And let us not forget the offerings of the House of Mouse- Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Tarzan, and coming soon: Mary Poppins.
Not that I'm totally against derivative works on stage. From a technical aspect many of these are amazing productions. Re-creating on stage what is simple in movies (especially in animation) can be a thrilling sight to see for an audience, and for some, well worth the price of admission. I remember seeing the Beast's transformation and sitting slack-jawed in my seat trying to figure out exactly how it was accomplished. And having seen stills from The Lion King, I can only imagine what those costumes are like in an actual theatre setting. But that's my inner techie geek speaking- the rest of me is completely flummoxed at the idea of spending that kind of dough on something I can have Netflix send me and I can watch in my pj's.
The long/short of it is, I've seen this. I know what's going to happen, so unless you're going to show me something completely new I'm pretty sure I don't want to spend that kind of cash. No matter how much I may have liked the movie. (And I say again- High Fidelity?!?!)
Now, I see where the producers of these productions are coming from. It seems to work so well going the other way (Broadway to movie) that sending it up should be a moneymaker, too. Right? Not quite. See, those Broadway to movie adaptations really haven't been as successful as people would have liked them to be (and haven't been since, what- the 50's?). Yeah, they got the awards (Chicago), and they look beautiful (Phantom of the Opera), but they didn't get the money (Rent) and they were fairly expensive to make compared to a run-of-the-mill film (all of the above). The biggest downside of a movie to stage adaptation (as far as I see) is that it's not all that marketable for the long-term. Will people see it? Yes, and likely in droves if it's a popular movie. Will they see it again and again? No. It's kind of a one-off thing, like a cheesy tourist attraction. You do it to say you did, and then you go back to your home movies and slide shows.
From what I understand, the audience attendance fall-off after opening for all of these shows has been fairly substantial. It's not like a Phantom or a Cats or a Rent where (until recently) the only place to see it WAS onstage. And if you're habitually a repeat viewer like me, it's worth the multiple trips to a theatre. There's more than one way to get your Ren and Ariel fix and you don't have to wait for the half-price tix line if you go to Blockbuster.
(Exceptions to this rule could be for movies/shows that attain a cult-like status- I'm thinking something along the lines of Hairspray or Rocky Horror. Even Rent has it's Rentheads and Spamalot has a lot going for it in the cult category. But trying to handicap those races is like trying to count Snakes on a Plane. Fun, but not really useful.)
Still, I guess you could call the overall convention a success. They're still coming out with more, but I don't see the trend lasting much longer. After all, the recent Broadway to movie revival seems to have petered out and sooner or later the Broadway producers will realize that they can't sell DVD's starring a poor man's John Cusack, when DVD's of the real thing are around. And Broadway shows are expensive to make.
But remember that exception I just mentioned?
Evil Dead- The Musical. With splatter section. I am so there, when is it here?!.
