Hard to believe that after 21 years on Broadway, Wicked not only made it to the big screen, but it also proved to be an enormous success not just at the box office, but also with critics. Throughout the history of cinema, countless stage musicals have been adapted into feature films. There have been a number of hits with The King & I, West Side Story, The Music Man, My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, Funny Girl, Oliver!, Fiddler on the Roof, Cabaret, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Grease, Chicago, Dreamgirls, Hairspray, Sweeney Todd, and Les Misérables. Yet there have also been a number of flops, whether with critics, at the box office, or both. 'Thank Goodness' Wicked didn't fall into the latter category. Had that been the case, it would've made millions of fans clamor for a new adaptation someday.
Which brings me to the topic of this discussion. Classic musicals get revived on stage all the time, but it's not the same thing as doing new film adaptations of them. As I mentioned in my review of Steven Spielberg's West Side Story, "a great work can spend decades off the Broadway stage before it returns to dazzle a whole new generation of theatergoers. Conversely, movies live forever on the DVD shelf, or can be instantly accessed through streaming services. There's always a way to see them." With that being said, there are 8 stage musicals I can think of that have been adapted before, but not successfully. Therefore, each of them could use brand new cinematic iterations. I'm not only about to list them off one by one, but I'll also be sharing my ideas for who should direct and/or star in them.
Camelot
Which brings me to the topic of this discussion. Classic musicals get revived on stage all the time, but it's not the same thing as doing new film adaptations of them. As I mentioned in my review of Steven Spielberg's West Side Story, "a great work can spend decades off the Broadway stage before it returns to dazzle a whole new generation of theatergoers. Conversely, movies live forever on the DVD shelf, or can be instantly accessed through streaming services. There's always a way to see them." With that being said, there are 8 stage musicals I can think of that have been adapted before, but not successfully. Therefore, each of them could use brand new cinematic iterations. I'm not only about to list them off one by one, but I'll also be sharing my ideas for who should direct and/or star in them.
Camelot
Adapted from Alan Jay Lerner & Frederick Loewe's 1960 stage musical version of T. H. White's 1958 novel, The Once and Future King. The original Broadway production opened to mixed critical reviews, but became a commercial hit through its cast recording and performance on The Ed Sullivan Show. While it failed to receive a Tony nomination for Best Musical the following year, Camelot still managed to win 4 awards. When Warner Brothers bought the film rights, Lerner became attached to write the screenplay. Although it was temporarily put on hold so the studio would adapt My Fair Lady first. The movie was finally released on October 25th, 1967. Despite mixed critical reviews, it managed to make over $31,100,000 at the worldwide box office on a $13,000,000 production budget, becoming the 10th highest-grossing release of that year. It went on to win 3 Academy Awards for Best Adapted Score, Best Art Direction, and Best Costume Design. As of this writing, Camelot holds a 41% critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 17 reviews.
Having seen this myself, reading about the different people who were approached to direct and/or star early on made me wish we got a completely different movie from the finished product. Under Joshua Logan’s direction, the pacing drags and the staging of the musical numbers are so lackluster. Vanessa Redgrave gives a pretty good acting performance as Guinevere. Though from a singing standpoint, she’s OK. Her voice just lacks the vocal skills the role usually requires. Given that this was the era of when dubbing in movie musicals was common, where was Marni Nixon when you needed her? Not to mention that a lot of the joy of the song ‘The Lusty of Month of May’ felt drained from this film’s rendition of it. On a more positive note, the production design is so impeccably mounted. Richard Harris is very lively as King Arthur (even though he was better in HBO’s capture of the 1981 Broadway revival). Franco Nero makes for a charismatic Lancelot. I did quite like Lionel Jeffries as King Pellinore. Plus, there’s a couple of scenes in the third act that are kind of touching. Overall, Camelot isn’t necessarily the worst movie musical I’ve ever seen, it’s just very boring. If there’s any stage musical that could use a new film adaptation, it’s certainly this one.
Who'd be my choice to direct? Greta Gerwig; While she hasn’t taken on a full fledged musical yet (not counting the song sequences in Barbie), she has so far proven that she can pretty much do anything, especially if she really puts her mind to it. Plus, when Gerwig appeared on BBC Radio 4's 'Desert Island Discs' in 2023, she revealed that "My list is extremely musical-heavy because that's the truth of who I am." She also discussed the early influence of her family's record collection, which included recordings of plays and musicals. One of the songs she listed was the finale from the original Broadway cast recording of Camelot.
As for my casting choices...
Matthew Rhys as King Arthur
Anne Hathaway as Guinevere
Josh Groban as Sir Lancelot Du Lac
Jim Broadbent as King Pellinore
Daniel Huttlestone as Mordred
Kara Tointon as Morgan Le Fay
Carousel
Having seen this myself, reading about the different people who were approached to direct and/or star early on made me wish we got a completely different movie from the finished product. Under Joshua Logan’s direction, the pacing drags and the staging of the musical numbers are so lackluster. Vanessa Redgrave gives a pretty good acting performance as Guinevere. Though from a singing standpoint, she’s OK. Her voice just lacks the vocal skills the role usually requires. Given that this was the era of when dubbing in movie musicals was common, where was Marni Nixon when you needed her? Not to mention that a lot of the joy of the song ‘The Lusty of Month of May’ felt drained from this film’s rendition of it. On a more positive note, the production design is so impeccably mounted. Richard Harris is very lively as King Arthur (even though he was better in HBO’s capture of the 1981 Broadway revival). Franco Nero makes for a charismatic Lancelot. I did quite like Lionel Jeffries as King Pellinore. Plus, there’s a couple of scenes in the third act that are kind of touching. Overall, Camelot isn’t necessarily the worst movie musical I’ve ever seen, it’s just very boring. If there’s any stage musical that could use a new film adaptation, it’s certainly this one.
Who'd be my choice to direct? Greta Gerwig; While she hasn’t taken on a full fledged musical yet (not counting the song sequences in Barbie), she has so far proven that she can pretty much do anything, especially if she really puts her mind to it. Plus, when Gerwig appeared on BBC Radio 4's 'Desert Island Discs' in 2023, she revealed that "My list is extremely musical-heavy because that's the truth of who I am." She also discussed the early influence of her family's record collection, which included recordings of plays and musicals. One of the songs she listed was the finale from the original Broadway cast recording of Camelot.
As for my casting choices...
Matthew Rhys as King Arthur
Anne Hathaway as Guinevere
Josh Groban as Sir Lancelot Du Lac
Jim Broadbent as King Pellinore
Daniel Huttlestone as Mordred
Kara Tointon as Morgan Le Fay
Carousel
Adapted from Richard Rodgers & Oscar Hammerstein II's 1945 musical iteration of Ferenc Molnár's 1909 play, Liliom. The original Broadway production was an immediate hit with both critics and audiences alike. When Rodgers & Hammerstein eventually made a deal to bring their shows to the big screen, they oversaw production on both Oklahoma! and South Pacific to protect their work from being messed up by studio executives. Although with Carousel and The King & I, they both had prior nonmusical films produced by 20th Century Fox, so they needed to be done there. The former was released on February 16th, 1956. It managed to make over $3,750,000 at the worldwide box office on a $3,300,000 production budget. It's also currently one of seven Rodgers & Hammerstein movie musicals that didn't receive a single Academy Award nomination. As of this writing, Carousel holds a 71% critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 7 reviews.
The stage version of Carousel has been my favorite Rodgers & Hammerstein musical ever since I saw PBS' broadcast of the New York Philharmonic's 2013 concert presentation with Nathan Gunn, Kelli O'Hara, Jessie Mueller, Jason Danieley, Shuler Hensley, Kate Burton, and John Cullum. While I do like this movie for what it is, even I gotta admit that it's pretty tame compared to the source material. Understandably so because it was made at a time where it had to be a little more audience friendly. I’m also not sure if a lot of the liberties taken stuck the landing. That being said, there’s still quite a bit to like about this. The performances are really good. The songs are well produced. The visuals are outstanding. The choreography is phenomenal. I did tear up multiple times. I will say that if we ever get a new film adaptation of Carousel, I would definitely support it.
Who'd be my choice to direct? Greta Gerwig; Don't worry, I'm not going to mention her for every single listing here. I just feel it would be a smart idea in this day and age to have a woman take on a serious story dealing with domestic abuse and approach it with more modern sensibilities.
As for my casting choices...
Jake Gyllenhaal as Billy Bigelow
Lily James as Julie Jordan
Kara Lindsay as Carrie Pipperidge
Paul Alexander Nolan as Enoch Snow
Kelli O’Hara as Nettie Fowler
Christopher Fitzgerald as Jigger Craigin
Elizabeth Marvel as Mrs. Mullin
Stephen McKinley Henderson as The Starkeeper
A Christmas Carol: The Musical
The stage version of Carousel has been my favorite Rodgers & Hammerstein musical ever since I saw PBS' broadcast of the New York Philharmonic's 2013 concert presentation with Nathan Gunn, Kelli O'Hara, Jessie Mueller, Jason Danieley, Shuler Hensley, Kate Burton, and John Cullum. While I do like this movie for what it is, even I gotta admit that it's pretty tame compared to the source material. Understandably so because it was made at a time where it had to be a little more audience friendly. I’m also not sure if a lot of the liberties taken stuck the landing. That being said, there’s still quite a bit to like about this. The performances are really good. The songs are well produced. The visuals are outstanding. The choreography is phenomenal. I did tear up multiple times. I will say that if we ever get a new film adaptation of Carousel, I would definitely support it.
Who'd be my choice to direct? Greta Gerwig; Don't worry, I'm not going to mention her for every single listing here. I just feel it would be a smart idea in this day and age to have a woman take on a serious story dealing with domestic abuse and approach it with more modern sensibilities.
As for my casting choices...
Jake Gyllenhaal as Billy Bigelow
Lily James as Julie Jordan
Kara Lindsay as Carrie Pipperidge
Paul Alexander Nolan as Enoch Snow
Kelli O’Hara as Nettie Fowler
Christopher Fitzgerald as Jigger Craigin
Elizabeth Marvel as Mrs. Mullin
Stephen McKinley Henderson as The Starkeeper
A Christmas Carol: The Musical
Adapted from Madison Square Garden's 1994 stage musical version of Charles Dickens' 1843 classic novella. This particular iteration featured a score by Lynn Ahrens and Alan Menken, the former of whom also co-wrote the book with director Mike Ockrent, and choreography by Susan Stroman. The production received a Drama Desk Award nomination for Outstanding Musical and became an annual show at Madison Square Garden, running until December 27th, 2003. I’ve never seen it on stagee, but the original cast album has become a staple for me every holiday season. It especially features what has to be the most underrated music Menken has ever written. Having recently read through the libretto, I could tell how very theatrical the show itself is supposed to be. A TV movie adaptation produced by Hallmark premiered on NBC on November 28th, 2004. It went on to win a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Music Direction.
Having recently rewatched this myself, I must say that despite some great casting (especially Kelsey Grammer as Ebenezer Scrooge) and some heartfelt moments, everything else is so lackluster. There’s some weird editing choices. The production values look cheap, including some very cheesy visual effects. The musical numbers lack imagination. If you’re going to do a movie musical adaptation of A Christmas Carol, you need a real visionary director at the helm. Something Arthur Allan Seidelman just isn’t. Not to mention that having listened to the soundtrack for this film, I can honestly say that the songs sound so much better there (even the line readings). Here, they just don’t come off as well thanks to some poor audio mixing. If Madison Square Garden’s A Christmas Carol musical ever receives another screen iteration, it should either be a live action feature film, an animated movie, or a live TV special. There’s a lot of potential for it to receive such a grander treatment than what we got with this one, which I felt took itself too seriously and forgot to embrace the fact that it’s a musical.
If it were to be done as a live action feature film, who'd be my choice to direct? Dexter Fletcher; For those unfamiliar with his work, he's so far helmed two movie musicals: 2013's Sunshine on Leith and 2019's Rocketman. I haven't seen the former, but in the latter, he crafted such imaginative musical numbers. Something that would definitely be needed for something like this. Plus, him being a Brit would be a nice bonus for taking on a classic British story.
As for my casting choices...
Hugh Jackman as Ebenezer Scrooge
Eddie Redmayne as Bob Cratchit
Daniel Radcliffe as The Ghost of Christmas Past/Lamplighter
Tituss Burgess as The Ghost of Christmas Present/Sandwichboard Man
Rita Moreno as The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Be/Blind Old Hag
Patrick Page as Jacob Marley
Paul Alexander Nolan as Fred Anderson
Rachel Zegler as Emily
Matt Lucas as Mr. Fezziwig
Keala Settle as Mrs. Fezziwig
Laura Michelle Kelly as Mrs. Cratchit
Hair
Having recently rewatched this myself, I must say that despite some great casting (especially Kelsey Grammer as Ebenezer Scrooge) and some heartfelt moments, everything else is so lackluster. There’s some weird editing choices. The production values look cheap, including some very cheesy visual effects. The musical numbers lack imagination. If you’re going to do a movie musical adaptation of A Christmas Carol, you need a real visionary director at the helm. Something Arthur Allan Seidelman just isn’t. Not to mention that having listened to the soundtrack for this film, I can honestly say that the songs sound so much better there (even the line readings). Here, they just don’t come off as well thanks to some poor audio mixing. If Madison Square Garden’s A Christmas Carol musical ever receives another screen iteration, it should either be a live action feature film, an animated movie, or a live TV special. There’s a lot of potential for it to receive such a grander treatment than what we got with this one, which I felt took itself too seriously and forgot to embrace the fact that it’s a musical.
If it were to be done as a live action feature film, who'd be my choice to direct? Dexter Fletcher; For those unfamiliar with his work, he's so far helmed two movie musicals: 2013's Sunshine on Leith and 2019's Rocketman. I haven't seen the former, but in the latter, he crafted such imaginative musical numbers. Something that would definitely be needed for something like this. Plus, him being a Brit would be a nice bonus for taking on a classic British story.
As for my casting choices...
Hugh Jackman as Ebenezer Scrooge
Eddie Redmayne as Bob Cratchit
Daniel Radcliffe as The Ghost of Christmas Past/Lamplighter
Tituss Burgess as The Ghost of Christmas Present/Sandwichboard Man
Rita Moreno as The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Be/Blind Old Hag
Patrick Page as Jacob Marley
Paul Alexander Nolan as Fred Anderson
Rachel Zegler as Emily
Matt Lucas as Mr. Fezziwig
Keala Settle as Mrs. Fezziwig
Laura Michelle Kelly as Mrs. Cratchit
Hair
Adapted from Galt MacDermot, James Rado, & Gerome Ragni's 1968 groundbreaking rock musical. While the original Broadway production nearly flopped at the Tony Awards by receiving 2 nominations and 0 wins, it still proved to be a huge commercial hit. Although when Miloš Forman saw the show during its Off-Broadway premiere beforehand, he went backstage afterwards and told the creators that he was interested in making a film adaptation and asked them to consider him to direct it. The movie version of Hair was released in theaters nationwide on March 14th, 1979. It managed to make over $38,300,000 at the worldwide box office on a $11,000,000 production budget. As of this writing, Hair holds a 83% critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 63 reviews with the consensus stating "Spiritedly performed by a groovy cast and imaginatively directed by Milos Forman, Hair transports audiences straight to the Age of Aquarius."
Although if you ask me, the movie seems to lack energy, which is something that feels like should be present throughout such an energetic musical like Hair. Even in certain book scenes, the film seems to forget that it’s supposed to be a musical because the energy isn’t there. As great of a director Miloš Forman proved to be on other movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Amadeus, he did not feel like the right person to bring Hair to the big screen. Now I’ve never seen the stage musical, I’m only familiar with the score from both the original production’s and 2009 Broadway revival’s cast recordings. Though I am aware that the film is very different from the source material to the extent that the original creators were very unhappy with the end results. Book writers/lyricists Gerome Ragni and James Rado felt it failed to capture the essence of the stage version in that hippies were portrayed as "oddballs" and "some sort of aberration" without any connection to the peace movement. They also stated that "Any resemblance between the 1979 film and the original Biltmore version, other than some of the songs, the names of the characters, and a common title, eludes us." In their view, the screen version of Hair had not yet been produced. NBC was previously set to air a live television production in 2019, but that got scrapped. Therefore, I know I’d be interested in seeing a new film adaptation that is more faithful and energetic.
Who'd be my choice to direct? Jon M. Chu; With In the Heights and Wicked, he's quickly proven to be one of the very best movie musical directors working today. The energy he brought to the former alone makes him a perfect match for the material.
As for my casting choices...
Darren Criss as Claude
Adam Lambert as Berger
Sara Bareilles as Shelia
Hello, Dolly!
Although if you ask me, the movie seems to lack energy, which is something that feels like should be present throughout such an energetic musical like Hair. Even in certain book scenes, the film seems to forget that it’s supposed to be a musical because the energy isn’t there. As great of a director Miloš Forman proved to be on other movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Amadeus, he did not feel like the right person to bring Hair to the big screen. Now I’ve never seen the stage musical, I’m only familiar with the score from both the original production’s and 2009 Broadway revival’s cast recordings. Though I am aware that the film is very different from the source material to the extent that the original creators were very unhappy with the end results. Book writers/lyricists Gerome Ragni and James Rado felt it failed to capture the essence of the stage version in that hippies were portrayed as "oddballs" and "some sort of aberration" without any connection to the peace movement. They also stated that "Any resemblance between the 1979 film and the original Biltmore version, other than some of the songs, the names of the characters, and a common title, eludes us." In their view, the screen version of Hair had not yet been produced. NBC was previously set to air a live television production in 2019, but that got scrapped. Therefore, I know I’d be interested in seeing a new film adaptation that is more faithful and energetic.
Who'd be my choice to direct? Jon M. Chu; With In the Heights and Wicked, he's quickly proven to be one of the very best movie musical directors working today. The energy he brought to the former alone makes him a perfect match for the material.
As for my casting choices...
Darren Criss as Claude
Adam Lambert as Berger
Sara Bareilles as Shelia
Hello, Dolly!
The movie version of Hello, Dolly! was released in theaters nationwide on December 16th, 1969. It managed to make over $26,000,000 at the worldwide box office on a $25,000,000 production budget. It went on to receive 7 Academy Award nominations (including Best Picture), winning 3 Oscars for Best Adapted Score, Best Art Direction, and Best Sound. As of this writing, Hello, Dolly! holds a 43% critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 30 reviews with the consensus stating "Though Streisand charms, she's miscast as the titular middle-aged widow in Gene Kelly's sluggish and over-produced directorial effort." I perviously reviewed this adaptation in 2023. You can read my full thoughts (and additional background) on it here. Not to repeat myself too much but while the film itself does have its moments, it's still pretty flawed.
Shortly after the most recent Broadway revival opened in 2017, it was on my wish list of shows that should be done on live television (even with Bette Midler reprising her role). Yet seeing how no network appears to be interested in TV musicals at the moment, that ship has probably sailed. So if Disney (which now owns the film rights since they bought Fox in 2019) ever makes a new movie adaptation of Hello, Dolly!, I'd be open to it.
Who'd be my choice to direct? Rob Marshall; While I understand how his track record since Chicago has been inconsistent, he still has great instincts when it comes to crafting musicals for film. Not to mention that I love how in interviews, he talks about his appreciation for the classics in any medium as well as stars from the Golden Age with such enthusiasm. He is currently attached to helm a new adaptation of Guys & Dolls, which looks like a great fit for him. Although if there's another classic musical from the Golden Age of Broadway I can see him doing, it's certainly this one. His sensibilities would make him an ideal match for Hello, Dolly!.
As for my casting choices...
Emma Thompson as Dolly Gallagher Levi
J. K. Simmons as Horace Vandergelder
Graham Phillips as Cornelius Hackl
Anna Kendrick as Irene Molloy
Andrew Barth Feldman as Barnaby Tucker
Beanie Feldstein as Minnie Fay
Man of La Mancha
Shortly after the most recent Broadway revival opened in 2017, it was on my wish list of shows that should be done on live television (even with Bette Midler reprising her role). Yet seeing how no network appears to be interested in TV musicals at the moment, that ship has probably sailed. So if Disney (which now owns the film rights since they bought Fox in 2019) ever makes a new movie adaptation of Hello, Dolly!, I'd be open to it.
Who'd be my choice to direct? Rob Marshall; While I understand how his track record since Chicago has been inconsistent, he still has great instincts when it comes to crafting musicals for film. Not to mention that I love how in interviews, he talks about his appreciation for the classics in any medium as well as stars from the Golden Age with such enthusiasm. He is currently attached to helm a new adaptation of Guys & Dolls, which looks like a great fit for him. Although if there's another classic musical from the Golden Age of Broadway I can see him doing, it's certainly this one. His sensibilities would make him an ideal match for Hello, Dolly!.
As for my casting choices...
Emma Thompson as Dolly Gallagher Levi
J. K. Simmons as Horace Vandergelder
Graham Phillips as Cornelius Hackl
Anna Kendrick as Irene Molloy
Andrew Barth Feldman as Barnaby Tucker
Beanie Feldstein as Minnie Fay
Man of La Mancha
Adapted from Dale Wasserman, Mitch Leigh, & Joe Darion's 1965 stage musical iteration of Wasserman's 1959 teleplay, I, Don Quixote, which in turn was inspired by Miguel de Cervantes and his 17th century novel. The original Broadway production won 5 Tony Awards (including Best Musical). When United Artists bought the film rights, Albert Marre, who directed the original stage incarnation, was set to be at the helm. He even screen tested both of the original stars, Richard Kiley and Joan Diener, in anticipation of both of them reprising their roles. Yet due to Marre’s inexperience with filmmaking, he used up part of the movie’s budget on screen tests, which not only angered studio executives, but it also got him fired. As a result, Kiley and Diener both left the project as well. The movie version of Man of La Mancha eventually premiered in New York City on December 11th, 1972. It managed to make over $11,500,000 at the worldwide box office on a $12,000,000 production budget. It went on to receive an Academy Award nomination for Best Adapted Score. As of this writing, Man of La Mancha holds a 53% critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 17 reviews. Dale Wasserman revealed in an interview shortly before his death in 2008 that he strongly disliked the movie, calling it "exaggerated" and "phony."
Reading about how this went through such a troubled production is no surprise because the whole thing is an absolute mess. Right from the opening title sequence, I knew things weren’t looking promising. It’s poorly directed, poorly shot, poorly designed, poorly edited, and even the soundtrack is poorly produced. Interestingly enough, it felt like there were two different Peter O’Toole’s on set the whole time. In some scenes, it looked like he was doing the best he possibly could. In others, he looked so bored out of his mind. His vocal dubbing by Simon Gilbert not only didn’t sound seamless, but it also lacked the oomph the role of Don Quixote requires. Kudos to Sophia Loren for faring the best out of everyone (even if she doesn’t have the range for Aldonza from a singing standpoint). For a musical that goes back and forth between “reality and illusion,” this needed a director with a more visual panache. Yet Arthur Hiller can’t even go in and out of a song naturally. As Man of La Mancha is actually the worst movie musical I've ever seen, I of course would fully support a new film adaptation.
Who'd be my choice to direct? This was one I really debated, but I ultimately came up with Lin-Manuel Miranda for the following reasons:
1. He has shown multiple times that he's a fan of the musical, having grown up listening to the original Broadway cast recording.
2. In his feature directorial debut, Tick, Tick...BOOM!, he managed to pull off going back and forth between the framing device of Jonathan Larson performing his rock monologue at New York Theatre Workshop and the actual events he was telling in the story very well. Several other movie musicals of the 21st century have employed clever tactics of using non-diegetic numbers in more fantasy settings such as Chicago, In the Heights, The Color Purple, and Kiss of the Spider Woman (the latter of which just debuted at Sundance). Each of those mentioned were from the perspectives of the main characters. I can see a better Man of La Mancha movie working well by having all the songs taking place in Miguel de Cervantes' head as he's imagining the story of Don Quixote.
3. Miranda may be the son of Puerto Rican immigrants, but he's at least still of Spanish descent. Not that it would be a requirement for telling a story set in Spain, but it'd at least be a nice bonus.
As for my casting choices...
Antonio Banderas as Don Quixote
Sara Ramirez as Aldonza
Josh Gad as Sancho Panza
The Phantom of the Opera
Reading about how this went through such a troubled production is no surprise because the whole thing is an absolute mess. Right from the opening title sequence, I knew things weren’t looking promising. It’s poorly directed, poorly shot, poorly designed, poorly edited, and even the soundtrack is poorly produced. Interestingly enough, it felt like there were two different Peter O’Toole’s on set the whole time. In some scenes, it looked like he was doing the best he possibly could. In others, he looked so bored out of his mind. His vocal dubbing by Simon Gilbert not only didn’t sound seamless, but it also lacked the oomph the role of Don Quixote requires. Kudos to Sophia Loren for faring the best out of everyone (even if she doesn’t have the range for Aldonza from a singing standpoint). For a musical that goes back and forth between “reality and illusion,” this needed a director with a more visual panache. Yet Arthur Hiller can’t even go in and out of a song naturally. As Man of La Mancha is actually the worst movie musical I've ever seen, I of course would fully support a new film adaptation.
Who'd be my choice to direct? This was one I really debated, but I ultimately came up with Lin-Manuel Miranda for the following reasons:
1. He has shown multiple times that he's a fan of the musical, having grown up listening to the original Broadway cast recording.
2. In his feature directorial debut, Tick, Tick...BOOM!, he managed to pull off going back and forth between the framing device of Jonathan Larson performing his rock monologue at New York Theatre Workshop and the actual events he was telling in the story very well. Several other movie musicals of the 21st century have employed clever tactics of using non-diegetic numbers in more fantasy settings such as Chicago, In the Heights, The Color Purple, and Kiss of the Spider Woman (the latter of which just debuted at Sundance). Each of those mentioned were from the perspectives of the main characters. I can see a better Man of La Mancha movie working well by having all the songs taking place in Miguel de Cervantes' head as he's imagining the story of Don Quixote.
3. Miranda may be the son of Puerto Rican immigrants, but he's at least still of Spanish descent. Not that it would be a requirement for telling a story set in Spain, but it'd at least be a nice bonus.
As for my casting choices...
Antonio Banderas as Don Quixote
Sara Ramirez as Aldonza
Josh Gad as Sancho Panza
The Phantom of the Opera
The movie version of The Phantom of the Opera had a limited release on December 22nd, 2004, then expanded to more theaters nationwide on January 21st, 2005. It managed to make over $154,600,000 at the worldwide box office on a $70,000,000 production budget. It went on to receive 3 Academy Award nominations for Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Song ('Learn to Be Lonely'). As of this writing, The Phantom of the Opera holds a 33% critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 169 reviews with the consensus stating "The music of the night has hit something of a sour note: Critics are calling the screen adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's popular musical histrionic, boring, and lacking in both romance and danger. Still, some have praised the film for its sheer spectacle." I perviously reviewed this adaptation in 2023. You can read my full thoughts (and additional background) on it here. Not to repeat myself too much but I was actually a fan of the film from when I was in middle school all the way to high school. Yet when I rewatched it two years ago...it not only didn't hold up for me at all, but I started to see why a number of people found it to be a big disappointment.
In a 2021 interview with Variety, Andrew Lloyd Webber revealed that he personally felt director Joel Schumacher made a mistake in casting Gerard Butler as the title character. He said "The Phantom was too young, and the whole point of the Phantom is he needs to be quite a bit older than Christine." Although anyone who saw the film knows that there were way more problems with Butler's casting than just his age. Granted, he turned 34 halfway through principal photography, Michael Crawford was 44 when he first played it. But that's not even the point here. Schumacher saw Butler's performance in Dracula 2000, and was convinced he could pull off the role despite not being sure if he could sing or not. He had four vocal lessons prior to auditioning for Andrew Lloyd Webber, and it showed. Schumacher made a lot of questionable choices with not only the casting, but also his staging of the musical numbers and the cinematography. In a 2013 interview with Hollywood.com, Cameron Mackintosh, a co-producer on the original stage incarnations who had nothing to do with this movie, said "I would have wanted to do the film differently. This new version which we’ve done (a touring production with updated staging) is dangerous and gritty. It combines the world of upstage and the lair below. You see two different worlds. That would have been my approach to the film." Mackintosh hasn't produced a movie since scoring big success with the 2012 adaptation of Les Misérables. If he ever does so, I hope he considers re-doing Phantom.
Josh Parham of Next Best Picture, who actually has a soft spot for Joel Schumacher's film, tweeted on May 23rd, 2022 that "If we ever get another adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Phantom of the Opera (and I fully believe we should), my choice for a director would be Guillermo del Toro." If you ask me, that actually sounds like a great idea. He's not only such a visionary filmmaker, but he also has a good amount of experiences with monsters. Plus, the original songs in his 2022 Netflix adaptation of Pinocchio were staged so well that I’d like to see what he could do with a full fledged live action movie musical.
As for my casting choices...
Rachel Zegler as Christine Daaé
Josh Groban as The Phantom
Timothée Chalamet as Raoul, Vicomte de Chagny
Audra McDonald as Carlotta Guidicelli
Toni Collette as Madame Giry
Rent
In a 2021 interview with Variety, Andrew Lloyd Webber revealed that he personally felt director Joel Schumacher made a mistake in casting Gerard Butler as the title character. He said "The Phantom was too young, and the whole point of the Phantom is he needs to be quite a bit older than Christine." Although anyone who saw the film knows that there were way more problems with Butler's casting than just his age. Granted, he turned 34 halfway through principal photography, Michael Crawford was 44 when he first played it. But that's not even the point here. Schumacher saw Butler's performance in Dracula 2000, and was convinced he could pull off the role despite not being sure if he could sing or not. He had four vocal lessons prior to auditioning for Andrew Lloyd Webber, and it showed. Schumacher made a lot of questionable choices with not only the casting, but also his staging of the musical numbers and the cinematography. In a 2013 interview with Hollywood.com, Cameron Mackintosh, a co-producer on the original stage incarnations who had nothing to do with this movie, said "I would have wanted to do the film differently. This new version which we’ve done (a touring production with updated staging) is dangerous and gritty. It combines the world of upstage and the lair below. You see two different worlds. That would have been my approach to the film." Mackintosh hasn't produced a movie since scoring big success with the 2012 adaptation of Les Misérables. If he ever does so, I hope he considers re-doing Phantom.
Josh Parham of Next Best Picture, who actually has a soft spot for Joel Schumacher's film, tweeted on May 23rd, 2022 that "If we ever get another adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Phantom of the Opera (and I fully believe we should), my choice for a director would be Guillermo del Toro." If you ask me, that actually sounds like a great idea. He's not only such a visionary filmmaker, but he also has a good amount of experiences with monsters. Plus, the original songs in his 2022 Netflix adaptation of Pinocchio were staged so well that I’d like to see what he could do with a full fledged live action movie musical.
As for my casting choices...
Rachel Zegler as Christine Daaé
Josh Groban as The Phantom
Timothée Chalamet as Raoul, Vicomte de Chagny
Audra McDonald as Carlotta Guidicelli
Toni Collette as Madame Giry
Rent
Adapted from Jonathan Larson's 1996 rock opera loosely based on Giacomo Puccini's 1896 opera, La bohème. The original Broadway production won 4 Tony Awards (including Best Musical), the Pulitzer Prize for Drama, and became a cultural phenomenon. Miramax Films almost immediately bought the rights to produce a big screen adaptation for $2,500,000, though the studio decided that they should allow touring companies to run six years on the road before making a movie. Larson's family was very involved in the development process. Spike Lee became attached to direct in 2001. Yet he parted ways after a while, and Miramax had no idea what to do with Rent. Then, the project eventually found its way to Revolution Studios. The movie version of Rent was released in theaters nationwide on November 23rd, 2005. It managed to make over $31,700,000 at the worldwide box office on a $40,000,000 production budget. As of this writing, Rent holds a 47% critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 174 reviews with the consensus stating "Fans of the stage musical may forgive Rent its flaws, but weak direction, inescapable staginess and an irritating faux-boho pretension prevent the film from connecting on screen."
The first time I ever saw this movie was way back in 2007. I remember the DVD was part of a prize package my parents won in an auction. At the time, it was my first exposure to the musical. Since then, I became a bigger fan through listening to the original Broadway cast recording and seeing a couple stage productions. Although when I rewatched it two years ago, I joined the chorus of those in feeling that it is not the film adaptation Rent deserves. The whole thing is so boring. Many fans over the years have complained about having most of the original cast reprise their roles nearly a decade after they first played them on stage. I agree that these characters should really be played by young adult performers. However, that is far from the main problem with this movie. The real problem here is Chris Columbus. While he has done some good work before with Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, and the first two Harry Potter films, he is just the wrong director to take on something like Rent. For one, Columbus has more experience with comedies and family friendly stuff. So him taking this on doesn’t even make sense from a thematic standpoint. Plus, if legendary director/playwright Arthur Laurents saw this movie in his lifetime, I wouldn’t be surprised if he felt “Columbus doesn’t have musicals in his bones.” Which definitely shows as all the musical numbers are so oddly put together. The way they’re staged and visualized lack imagination. Several of the more intimate songs are framed in very wide shots. Not to mention that some of them are just done as voice overs with different images playing. From an adaptation standpoint, the liberties that were taken from the source material either weren’t good ideas, executed well, or both. One of them being transcribing a good deal of the lyrics into dialogue. While some were paraphrased, others were left completely intact. As I said about the Phantom movie, lyrics in musicals are meant to be sung, not spoken. If we ever get a new film version of Rent (which I would fully support), I’ve got some ideas for it. Hire a director with more visual panache. Cast performers who are more age appropriate for the characters. Stick with the sung-through nature of the musical. Have the cast sing live for all the intimate numbers (and don’t frame them in wide shots). Don’t open it with ‘Seasons of Love.’ Last but certainly not least, embrace the fact that it's a musical.
Who'd be my choice to direct? Following the release of Tick, Tick...BOOM!, many wanted to see Lin-Manuel Miranda take on Rent. Although in an interview with Gay Times, he mentioned that he has no plans to do so because "I think Rent has had every incarnation it could possibly have and I don’t know what I could add to its incredible legacy." Which is easy to see where he's coming from. Since the 2005 film, we also had a 2008 capture of the final Broadway performance and Fox's 2019 (almost) live telecast. Since Miranda's not interested, how about Jon M. Chu? In addition to what I said about him being a great choice for Hair, he also showed with Wicked that he can take on the challenge of not only reimagining a beloved Broadway smash for the big screen, but also give it the respect it deserves.
As for my casting choices...
I've actually got none. Similar to how the original production proved to be a launch pad for a number of performers who've gone on to have successful careers, I feel a new film adaptation should do the same. Plus, that would also make sense if Chu were to direct it. After all, in each of his last 3 films (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights, and Wicked), he gave several prominent roles to fresh faces and rising stars as opposed to big A-listers.
So which stage musical that was brought to the big screen before would you most like to see get another shot? Do they happen to be any one of the eight mentioned above?
The first time I ever saw this movie was way back in 2007. I remember the DVD was part of a prize package my parents won in an auction. At the time, it was my first exposure to the musical. Since then, I became a bigger fan through listening to the original Broadway cast recording and seeing a couple stage productions. Although when I rewatched it two years ago, I joined the chorus of those in feeling that it is not the film adaptation Rent deserves. The whole thing is so boring. Many fans over the years have complained about having most of the original cast reprise their roles nearly a decade after they first played them on stage. I agree that these characters should really be played by young adult performers. However, that is far from the main problem with this movie. The real problem here is Chris Columbus. While he has done some good work before with Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire, and the first two Harry Potter films, he is just the wrong director to take on something like Rent. For one, Columbus has more experience with comedies and family friendly stuff. So him taking this on doesn’t even make sense from a thematic standpoint. Plus, if legendary director/playwright Arthur Laurents saw this movie in his lifetime, I wouldn’t be surprised if he felt “Columbus doesn’t have musicals in his bones.” Which definitely shows as all the musical numbers are so oddly put together. The way they’re staged and visualized lack imagination. Several of the more intimate songs are framed in very wide shots. Not to mention that some of them are just done as voice overs with different images playing. From an adaptation standpoint, the liberties that were taken from the source material either weren’t good ideas, executed well, or both. One of them being transcribing a good deal of the lyrics into dialogue. While some were paraphrased, others were left completely intact. As I said about the Phantom movie, lyrics in musicals are meant to be sung, not spoken. If we ever get a new film version of Rent (which I would fully support), I’ve got some ideas for it. Hire a director with more visual panache. Cast performers who are more age appropriate for the characters. Stick with the sung-through nature of the musical. Have the cast sing live for all the intimate numbers (and don’t frame them in wide shots). Don’t open it with ‘Seasons of Love.’ Last but certainly not least, embrace the fact that it's a musical.
Who'd be my choice to direct? Following the release of Tick, Tick...BOOM!, many wanted to see Lin-Manuel Miranda take on Rent. Although in an interview with Gay Times, he mentioned that he has no plans to do so because "I think Rent has had every incarnation it could possibly have and I don’t know what I could add to its incredible legacy." Which is easy to see where he's coming from. Since the 2005 film, we also had a 2008 capture of the final Broadway performance and Fox's 2019 (almost) live telecast. Since Miranda's not interested, how about Jon M. Chu? In addition to what I said about him being a great choice for Hair, he also showed with Wicked that he can take on the challenge of not only reimagining a beloved Broadway smash for the big screen, but also give it the respect it deserves.
As for my casting choices...
I've actually got none. Similar to how the original production proved to be a launch pad for a number of performers who've gone on to have successful careers, I feel a new film adaptation should do the same. Plus, that would also make sense if Chu were to direct it. After all, in each of his last 3 films (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights, and Wicked), he gave several prominent roles to fresh faces and rising stars as opposed to big A-listers.
So which stage musical that was brought to the big screen before would you most like to see get another shot? Do they happen to be any one of the eight mentioned above?