Film versus stage musical.

Just explaining the massive impact of Grease on film to my 17 year old who remains unimpressed whilst watching it. I made my dad take me to see it when I was 6 then tagged along with my mum & aunty later that same week when they went. I have no idea what its’ pull is but it is a movie classic. West Side Story is pure quality end of, and the last tour nearly matched it but not quite. No other movie musical has ever really impressed me as much. I like bits of ‘Hairspray’, especially that gorgeous coda at the end of YCSTB.

Chicago (2002) is by far the best film adaption of a musical ever.

Obviously but Les Mis... better onstage.

Better onstage for sure, but aside from Crowe I don't think the film is at all bad.

Rent, however, should never have been made into a film, even though as a stage production it works surprisingly well in intimate settings!

The Last Five Years is better onstage. Grease and Dirty Dancing are unsurprisingly better as films.

100% agree. Whilst I don't think the film is bad, there were a lot of questionable casting choices. I know Russell Crowe gets a lot of flack (which I do agree on), but why does Hugh Jackman seem to get a free pass? If you ask me, I think he would have made a better Javert than Valjean. 

As for the Thenadiers, it's just Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter being Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. 

Anne Hathaway, Samantha Barks and Amanda Seyfield are fine though. 

Eddie Redmayne's singing does sound like a swan honking sometimes, but he's a better Marius than Nick Jonas.

Into The Woods and Sweeney Todd better on stage.
A Chorus Line far better on stage.
Mary Poppins better on film.

I was never really in to film musicals before I got into stage musicals so can only really comment on stage to film adaptations of the last 25 years, but I agree Chicago was the only one that really worked exceptionally well and was well adapted. The fact that you could have the numbers performed on a stage in a jazz club worked massively to it's benefit. 

The only other one I really rate was Evita. It had an epic feel and musically was kept very close to the original with most of the score intact and performed in a classic musical theatre manner. (The apologetic speak singing of Les Mis was just horrendous). The double CD is one of my fave Evita recordings.

Phantom, Les Mis, Cats all deeply underwhelming. 

Quite liked the remake of Hairspray but that also was very close musically to the stage show. For me the key is embracing being a musical, not apologising for it. 

In my opinion the best solutions to getting modern musicals on film are the staged film versions. The blu-ray of Miss Saigon is sensational. Ditto the Gielgud Les Mis and the 90s Cats film from The Adelphi with EP etc.

I honestly think they shouldn't bother trying to get modern musicals done as feature films as they just never seem to pull it off. I think there are so many conflicts of interest that a decent artistic vision never comes through. The main one of course being the perception that they must have 'names' for box office and these are not usually people capable of doing the score justice. We had this conversation elsewhere, but Hollywood triple threats aren't really a thing (other than CZJ's iconic Velma Kelly, obvs). 

Agree. 

The writing was on the wall for Cats when the first trailer came out and contained NO SINGING. For a sung through musical, that's a pretty grim omen.

But yes primary stage musicals are inherently theatrical, at the risk of stating the obvious. Another obstacle in getting them to work on film. 

I didn’t enjoy The Jersey Boys on stage but absolutely hated the film version.

I feel like The King And I's film with Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner beats the stage version. It was one of the first film musicals I'd ever watched and I absolutely adored it. I'll sometimes look at "Shall We Dance" and rewatch that scene. However I do love that part on stage, the entire theatre silent as he puts his hand on her waist.

Nothing can beat the West Side Story film for me - I must have seen it about six times by now. The Royal Exchange's production was fantastic in the round but it didn't have as much of an emotional impact as the film did. (I might be slightly biased as I adore Natalie Wood). Looking forward to the remake next year. Rachel Zegler has a fantastic voice.

Sweeney Todd was a really great adaptation in almost every way other than the casting. I love the bleak world of London and Fleet Street, and actually think approaching it as a drama (that just happens to be sung) works too.

They’re basically different beasts, but Gentlemen Prefers Blondes is a much better movie than it is a stage musical. Perfect casting and no matter how many times I watch it, I’m never bored. My Fair Lady and Oliver are also examples of fantastic movie adaptations and are so iconic that it’s really rather hard for new stage productions to outshine them.

I’d say Once was a stronger stage musical than it was a movie, though that’s possibly because the stage musical glosses over the rough edges of the low budget movie. It’ll never win any prizes but I thought the Phantom of the Opera movie was pretty well done too.

The Producers was a terrible film, as was The Phantom of the Opera.

I thought Mary Poppins was better on stage, as it has the stage magic and that is the wow moment.

If West Side Story wasn’t done as a film, we probably wouldn’t have heard of it today. It would have been some obscure musical like Kismet. The film brought it to the wider public attention.

Billy Elliot, well that one is a draw, as they’re very different, but both are great.