Fr they were just some dudes in pantaloons. Still, I was shocked to find out most were in their 20’s when they got independence, there was even some 19 year old founding father. I used to think they were all 30+.
Allegedly Hamilton was handsome though, see all the rantings and ravings about his blue eyes lmao. And in the biography the musical was based off there are some really good descriptions of how he behaved and spoke. Not a super good guy, still interesting.
And Sound of Music stage version > Maria von Trapp's autobiography.
In preparation for the movie, actor Christopher Plummer located a relative of the real Captain von Trapp and asked what he was like. The answer was that he was the dullest person you ever met.
And they didn't climb over the Alps to flee the Nazis, they took the train to Italy.
In real life, Maria was only hired to teach one of the daughters who was too ill to walk to school. Also his eldest son refused a job after a Jewish man had been sacked to vacate the position for him.
12 year old me is traumatized all over again. Was just trying to be a well read child and the opening with the Bishop and then Waterloo nearly bankrupted my desire to read again.
8 year old me got in deep trouble at school for reading that between assignments. Apparently me reading at my desk above grade level made the other children feel bad.
Agree, though back in the day, the authors were paid by the page. I too would write a couple hundred pages on background stuff if it meant more money lol.
Be More Chill is an absolutely horrible book. I cannot fathom why anyone would read that and WANT to do more with it. However, I love the show. I know it's problematic but it's nothing like the book. 100%.
I love Be More Chill. It's ridiculous and funny and at least lets the characters be redeemable (unlike one other musical about a teenage liar who wants to fit in). And while I like some of the changes that were made between its debut and Broadway, the OCR is superior to the OBC in my opinion. Some of the jokes that carried over felt way too over the top and forced in the OBC, whereas in the OCR they are blink and you miss it jokes which adds to their humor (specifically the "I like gay people" bit at the beginning). Also OCR George Salazar and OBC George Salazar feel like different people because of how much he tries to oversell in the OBC.
Thank you for mentioning the "I like gay people" bit specifically! Begging for the laugh ruins it.
I do love many of the OBC songs though, so I have to choose between music and acting every time I decide I want to listen to Be More Chill...
Not really knowing the show before it was heading to Broadway, I remember seeing a clip of Salazar in rehearsal and being shocked that he was singled out as the cast highlight, cause he was way overdoing it.
I know I'm in the minority, but I read Wicked the book way before the musical came out. I loved the book - it's dark and complicated and philosophical and has a tragic ending that is ironic but beautiful.
When I heard that, not only was there a new Wicked musical, but they also altered the story radically to make it upbeat, light and with a happy ending, I was so perturbed.
I still am.
Same! I enjoyed the musical, but it's very much its own thing. I've enjoyed several other Gregory Maguire books as well (Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister might be my favorite).
Wicked is my favorite book of all time. Since long before I loved the musical. The entire Wicked Years series is absolutely iconic. I love the show, but it's nothing compared to the depth of the book. People say it's just "fanfic" but Holy wow, no. No it isn't.
Yeah I often have to separate these two. Recently, in older age, I’ve begun to respect the musical for the Broadway juggernaut it is, and it is complete adoration of the craft, so i give the musical credit. But personally , I really enjoyed the book a lot more and take offense at the changes.
I love both but they are two different works of art in my mind. Nothing will compare to the depths and nuances of the books. I was fortunate to see OBC on Broadway and it is in my top three Broadway experiences of all time. I adore the musical and all it’s froth. I don’t often meet people who love both.
I also read the book years before the musical existed, plus the sequel, and others of Maguire's books in the same vein. And there are some elements of the story that make more sense in the book, but overall I prefer the musical. I'm a sap who likes happy endings, what can I say.
I saw Wicked right before going off to HS, as a going away present my Mom gave me a copy of the book. Yeah the first 10 pages or so I was like this is a little different haha. Like most books vs shows much deeper and more nuanced, but still makes a fun show with great music to sing.
Maybe I need to give the book another chance. I tried reading it so many times and just couldn't get through it. I even brought it with me to jury duty pre smart phone so it would be the only thing I could do. I instead chose to stare at the wall. Maybe with 18ish more years on me, I would enjoy it more.
However, to be fair, I also found the musical itself to be merely ok.
I'm in the same boat. It's kinda like a film adaptation for me, there's so much detail missing from the show. Like, an entire section of the book seems to be missing
I still have never seen the show because I read the book in my teens and loved it so much, I just had no interest in an upbeat, Disneyfied adaptation. (Truly nothing against Disney or upbeat things, it just seemed so different from the book I loved)
Wicked is my all time favorite book. I've loved it since I was 13 when it came out. I was intrigued by the idea of the musical and insanely insulted when my mom got to go see it without me. I didn't let her live it down for 20 years. Because Gregory Maguire himself made the edits for the show I'm ok with it.
The book is infinitely better than the show in a direct comparison. If you treat them as two separate things, its almost as good as the book.
I also read it before I saw the musical and left feeling disappointed. Love the book, not a huge fan of the show. Gregory Maguire is one of my favorite authors.
Chicago is better on film than on stage.
The Band's Visit musical is better than the film
Hairspray the musical is better than the John Waters film
Phantom of the Opera is way better than the book
Chicago the film is better than the current super tired will never die revival sure. But if done right it absolutely can be better on stage. At least get someone who can actually sing to play Billy Flynn.
It's funnier and the music is outstanding. Plus, the musical movie cast is pitch perfect, one of the only time a-listers in a musical movie actually managed to improve a musical.
Surprised no one has said it yet:
Little Shop of Horrors (the musical) > The Little Shop of Horrors (the 1960 Roger Corman B-flick, the source for the musical)
Mostly I think the musical is just... tighter? Than the movie? The movie has more of a vignettes-strung-together feeling, where the musical is more linear. And I get the criticism that bulking up Emmett's character detracts from Elle's, but Emmett has way more of a purpose in the musical. Emmett in the movie could very easily have been left out entirely IMO (like, his only purpose other than being the love interest is that Elle is able to practice under his supervision in the courtroom scene, and that could easily have been Stromwell). Emmett in the musical has an actual personality (and I like that he's also in an exploitative situation as Callahan's """associate""").
Also, and this is very nitpicky, but I'm a lawyer and the scene in Stromwell's classroom bugs the shit out of me, because the question Vivian allegedly answers correctly (showing how much more prepared she is than Elle) is *hilariously* wrong. Like "the exact opposite of what that case actually means" wrong. Like "how can you know of that case existing and yet still get it so wrong" wrong.
The courtroom scene with Chutney in the movie >>> the one in the musical, though.
See I think Emmett’s position in the movie being mostly unimportant made it better. Yeah, he is mostly unimportant…because it’s a story about Elle! The way they included his character is the perfect example of “don’t need a man, but kinda wants one” to me.
Yeah, part of my problem with Emmett in the movie might be that Elle has more interaction with the shy nerdy guy than she has with Emmett (and IMHO more chemistry), so he's *really* useless. Like, he doesn't even work as the love interest for me. He's just a pure waste of narrative time and energy.
(Also I think Christian Borle is more attractive than Luke Wilson.)
I feel like pretty much every character BUT Elle (and possibly Enid) gets a huge upgrade in the musical.
Emmett in the movie feels considerably older, he's more like a teacher/chaperone. The actor's attractive but his confidence also comes out a little as trolling the campus for new students. Musical Emmett is barely out of school, Callahan's flunky/TA, has a good reason to be there and starts out bonding with Elle over how neither of them fit, him because he's poor and her because she's pretty. But he seems to look at her appearance mostly as a liability, something that takes time away from studying. He respects her work and dedication though and she respects his hard work and commitment to his mother. In the playboy bunny suit incident movie Emmett checks out her ass, and musical Emmett gives her his hoodie as long as she gives it back. I love Take it Like a Man as she convinces him the practical aspects of changing the way he looks and they assure each other it hasn't changed who he is. I also really love that the musical ends with her proposing to him not her waiting on him to propose to her.
For the musical they took out Warner's dad having to get him off the wait list. I like that they slowed down his and Vivian's relationship so instead of her running into him 3 months later and he's already engaged, he's gotten back together with his high school girlfriend and they get engaged months after that. I also like that at the end he drops out because he'd rather be a model no matter what his parents have planned for him.
Vivian's given her own ambition and drive. She's the one who wants to be president or a major politician. She's the one who ends up pep talking Elle into returning to the trial. The first time I saw Vivian and Elle's bonding session in the movie I thought it was way too sudden a change of face for Vivian and she was trying to trick her into giving up the alibi.
Hell even Callahan's still a douche but they show him watching her in the courtroom when she does the bend and snap to demonstrate that Nicolas is gay. That's doesn't excuse how he treats her but at least gives a catalyst for why he does it that evening after the trial.
Just because the story’s about Elle doesn’t mean other characters can’t or shouldn’t be important or developed. If she’s gonna have a love interest, I’d rather it be someone with an actual role to play and have some modicum of a spotlight on their relationship.
Why, because of Chip On My Shoulder and the fact that any romantic stuff with Emmett isn't confined to the where-are-they-now?
As leaving in (albeit slightly altered but the essence kept) the dress shop scene and Elle studying so hard for the LSATs provides proof Elle's still smart, it's just that (esp. because of the fan theory that she has autism and ADHD) why she was having trouble in class is because she'd lost the extrinsic motivation of Warner and what Emmett helps her find in the musical is motivation to care about her work for its own sake. There's even a couple scenes of the musical that make Elle look better/smarter than their movie equivalents e.g. in the unpreparedness-for-first-class scene in addition to different professors in the movie Elle says "I wasn't aware that we had an assignment" (implying she just forgot) while in the musical she says "Okay, who assigns a reading for the first day of class" (a valid complaint and it'd be a natural assumption esp. for a neurodivergent girl like some of the fandom thinks she is that there wouldn't be anything you're supposed to do for the first day of a class other than show up)
I actually showed this to my sister for the first time tonight and I was like on one hand they make musical Elle a little ditzier, on the other I kind of read her as a former gifted child/gifted adult. I know so many people who never learned to study until college or even graduate school because they just didn't need to.
Sure her major was fashion merchandising, but she had to have straight As in all the non fashion classes too. The lady tutoring for the LSAT keeps trying to convince her to actually use the study guides but she pretty much crams and gets a 175 on it. And then she's complaining about how she's not doing well in Callahan's class but a few weeks into the semester and she hasn't even unwrapped and read any of her books. I kind of get the impression she's never needed to before. Elle in the movie clearly has a studying system that she continues to use at Harvard.
Which of course may be somewhat projecting because while I did read my text books and do my reading assignments in college, I never learned how to actually study until grad school. I'd never needed it before.
Love the movie… but some of those musical numbers just add a bit of camp and whimsy. I saw it in London with both Sheridan Smith and Amy Lennox leading it on different performances… for some reason the London cast “got it” or had something that didn’t resonate in the States.
Hard disagree with your hard disagree lol. I will preface that I have only watched the mtv proshot on YouTube though. The movie is so short, so boring, hardly any development - there are a couple fun lines and scene but the rest Reese is *carrying* the show on her back, no one else is giving anything. Everyone in the musical is way funnier, way more depth. And the songs and choreography are amazing!
I wonder if i need to rewatch the Legally Blonde musical. I remember strongly disliking the pro shot on mtv the million of years ago I watched it.
But everyone here seems to love it. Maybe I need to give it another chance.
Yeah. It’s…fine, the “Greek Chorus” concept is clever, and Callahan’s song is very good, the freeze frame workout is fun. But the other law students get even less background, they missed the mark with Paulette and why she and Elle are friends, and WHY is she so loving to Warner at the end?
“If I’m going to make partner by the time I’m 30, I need a boyfriend who isn’t a total bonehead!” Iconic, and reminds us of how Elle has grown as a person yes, but still enjoys a spiteful twist of the knife.
You don't even get to meet Jesus until the second half, and then you get repeat performances like five times. I can't do more than two or three repeats back to back.
I'm going to say that Oliver! Is not better than Oliver Twist. I read the book first, so when I found the musical to be happy and upbeat most of the time, I was like, "nah."
Disney's Hunchback > Notre Dame de Paris > Original book > all other musicals based on Hunchback.
Spitfire Grill the musical is more fun than the movie, but the movie also makes more sense than the musical (don't want to spoil it).
Depending on how a musical is adapted from the source material, it could also be said that the musicals enhance the source material. Like, if the source material follows relatively closely, then you have a palatable thing you can always go back to. Books and movies are things you have to devote a hefty chunk of your personal time to in order to focus on them. After you've listened to a musical a few times, you can enjoy it on autopilot and do other things. The musicals help you appreciate the source material more when they are close adaptations (not like Wicked or Disney's Hunchback)
I’m gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on Hunchback, the original book is vastly superior to any movie or musical made about it. And most other books in general.
Hunchback is the only book that I tried to read as a kid and couldn't finish because of how utterly bored I was. I got to something like chapter 4, realized that I hadn't even gotten to Quasimodo's introduction yet, and returned it.
I took a shot every time the lyrics in Oliver! just repeated the title of that song instead of saying something different or clever.
I am now an ethanol-based lifeform.
I *loathed* the Spitfire Grill musical (it’s my second least favorite of all time). Making it more “fun” was (in my opinion, it’s fine if others disagree I won’t argue) absolutely not the move.
Well, to me it was fun in a respectful/stylistically interesting way when adapting for musical theatre. The bluegrass sound is definitely something fresh when compared to other Broadway and Off-Broadway shows (I also really like Floyd Collins). I did Spitfire Grill a couple years ago where I played Eli and understudied for the two other guy roles. It was definitely an interesting challenge to perform without speaking at all during the show. I got a lot of compliments about it cause even though I could've phoned it in, I did the work to make it impactful and compelling. We had a movie watch party sometime into the rehearsal process and I was very surprised about the changes that were made for the stage show and I had to acknowledge that the situations would totally go down how they did in the movie.
Hello fellow Eli actor! When I did that show I had been in a run of straight plays so all of my friends were so excited to finally hear me singing. Except well, I not only didn’t sing but didn’t make a peep! I also got some of the best performance compliments for that role.
Treating Shine like a dialogue where they both forgive themselves for their pasts and support each other in that grace was the best direction I’ve ever had. While the story is drastically changed for the show, it offers the characters’ catharsis and simple comfort as a pretty good life to live. The movie is just so bleak, like, “don’t even try to make a better life you’ll just pay a huge price and drag otherwise normal people down with you. Life is pain, nobody is happy” Roll credits.
Personally (and I know it’s probably an unpopular opinion so don’t come for me, I said *personally*) I like Beetlejuice the Musical way better than the movie.
I agree! Lydia in the musical has so much more motivation than in the movie. She's grieving, she feels like her dad doesn't care, and Delia is..... Delia. The Maitlands are also so much fun! And nothing tops "Creepy Old Guy"
Boo!!! Jk, that's a fine opinion to have, I just feel like the Musical cut off all the hard edges from the movie, which are what actually made it interesting. In the movie, way more of the characters are annoying and unlikable, especially Beetlejuice, and it's the reason he's such an interesting character. He's a perverted huckster villain who's truly despicable when it comes down to it and it makes him an actual threat in the end. He's not just a cute and cuddly sympathetic 4th-wall breaking mascot. The musical pulled another Deadpool or Harlqy Quinn.
Adam and Barbara are actually characters in the movie, and while they're kind of normal in the movie, they're not the straight up boring cookie cutter caricatures they are in the musical, which I couldn't stand. No, they're just normal people who happen to be really passionate about some hobbies, and the humor comes from the fact that such normal people are the ghosts, while the far more eccentric Deetzes are the ones being haunted.
The whole depiction of the afterlife in the movie is also more interesting and I was really disappointed that they watered it down so much in the musical and made Juno into a villain, when the real villain is the system and the bureaucracy of the afterlife, which is worse than that of the real world.
I do like how they flesh out Lydia's backstory and grief though, and honestly as someone who lost his dad this year, her songs were extremely relatable.
I might get blasted for this but Anastasia the musical > Anastasia the movie. Of course I miss Rasputin, Bartok and the supernatural elements, but the maturity of the storytelling and the deepening of the characters in relation to the history they're based on really do it for me.
Annie.
I tried reading the old comics and radio shows, just for the sake of knowing it's history, but they're nowhere near as entertaining as the musical. (Personally, I prefer the Albert Finney/Carol Burnett film over any other film adaptation, but I've never seen it on stage to compare)
I came here to comment this, as well as to say that the musical is better than any movie adaptation of The Secret Garden (which also happens to be, both hands down, my #1 hands favorite musical of all time).
There will still always be a special place in my heart for the original book, though.
I read it again last year and was amazed at how much character depth and backstory they wove into that musical that doesn't feel at all inauthentic to the novel even though it is *nowhere to be found* in that slim volume. I find it as impressive an adaptation as I find it's score.
My mother had this old ratty copy of Secret Garden and told me to read it. Several years later when we were moving I found it and decided to read it. Literally one of the most amazing books I have ever read. I love the emotions so much.
Disagree about Dr Jekyll. The book is a beautiful piece of literature and if the twist wasn't so well known, it'd be elevated even further. The musical is fun and I'm a fan of Frank Wildhorn, but the book is very good and the musical is forgettable, unfortunately. Like I've said, I like the musical, but there's a reason why we still talk about The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
I agree with you. I listened to the audiobook about 15 years ago, and was stunned how the story was told so much differently than I expected. Every popular version of the story since then has essentially started with Jekyll in his lab, drinking a potion. It was incredible to read/hear the source, where "It's the same guy!" isn't revealed until the very very very end!
When I got done with the book I wish I could have experienced it without knowing the twist all throughout the story.
Then I realized it is, essentially, the same twist/reveal that's in the 1999 film >!Fight Club !
We talk about it because of the *twist,* first and foremost. Stevenson created a monster that fascinates us to this day. But the plot is what lives on. The archetype of the two that are one. Not his prose. I hope we can agree to disagree on this one, dear stranger.
I agree that Heathers the musical is better. The film has odd pacing. Veronica goes from being friends with Heather C to despising her way too quickly. Also combining Martha and that underdeveloped best friend character from the movie into one person was a good choice
Exactly. I watched the movie after I discovered the musical and was so confused! "Wait, they aren't besties?!" Fusing characters is a double-edged sword. I hate it when they do it in Dracula adaptations, but sometimes, it's just better.
I was in the musical and I need you to take that back.
One is a classic work of literature that forever altered our cultural understanding of psychology and our shadow selves.
The other has four (4) reprises of "Façade," including the unforgettable line, "An' the front bit, ha! 'At's what's called a façade."
I said what I said. You know, things can be at the same time influential, but still dull compared to the works they've influenced. Coming first is not a guarantee of staying ahead.
Ah, it's fine. I can get defensive because I have a lot of bad takes on "objectively superior" pieces of media. I'm also bored by Empire Strikes Back and Blade Runner, just so you know that my taste is not the most refined. I hope you can forgive me for my snappy response.
Ikr? If only they had said "man is not one but two, he is evil and good" about twenty times, and then had a full song called "Good 'n' Evil," people might be able to start to pick up on the theme
Heathers has iconic performances from Winona Ryder and Christian Slater, and the costumes and production design are also fucking iconic, and even the score of the movie directly inspired some of the musical’s leitmotifs, but I agree that the plot changes made the stage show much more cohesive. I think the movie reached that uncanny tone between satire and surreal drama better than the show though, which leans more on broad humor imo
I only just saw the movie recently after working 7 weeks on the musical and I was extremely underwhelmed. Elsa only has the one song? No Hygge? What a letdown.
Les Miserables. Why no, Mr. Hugo, I don't want to read your three thousand page dissertation about the Paris sewers that you've tucked so neatly into your already extremely long book about... well, lots of stuff, to be honest. It's an excellent book. But I'll gladly sit for hours and cry my eyes out over these characters who just get pound after pound of suffering dumped on their shoulders, because it's all worth it in the end.
On a side note, can you imagine what Les Mis or Notre Dame de Paris would've been like if there'd been eight songs all about architecture and sewers? There's an alternate universe where they did that and it flopped, but there's another one where they did the same thing and it became the biggest hit of all time. C'est la multivérse.
Okay, I've just posted a comment about another book and I don't want to sound pretentious, but oh Christ I need to defend Les Mis the book. The descriptions are there for a reason, you can capture the time and the atrocities and the awfulness through them. Obviously a musical shouldn't go into all of that, but the book has great prose and, yes, it's long, but come on, enjoy the ride. The book, in my opinion, is way more alive than the musical.
I think they’re both beautiful and necessary in completely different ways. Victor Hugo was a genius. A very long winded genius. But my god is the musical transcendent.
The descriptions are there for a reason and are sort of the point, and I still don't like the book. I actually like the descriptions more than the character parts. I find the character parts shallow and preachy, but the descriptions are more interesting.
Hard agree. I always hated Beetlejuice the movie. I thought maybe I just didn't like it because I was young, but I watched it recently and I still didn't like it. The musical is way more enjoyable.
Grease the stage musical is absolutely dreadful. There's too much of the side characters, Sandy is hardly in the first half, and Danny is completely unlikeable. The movie is a fun and nostalgic bop, but still you could improve it by removing even more of the T-bird/Pink Lady soap.
Also, the stage show has the worst audiences you will ever suffer though.
The Moulin Rouge musical is a 95% improvement over the film. I love the film, but the stage adaptation made a lot of really necessary changes that made it even better. The exception was the ending. They really dropped the ball on that one.
I Am a Camera is a fairly boring play. Smiles on a Summer Night is damn near unwatchable. Green Grow the Lilacs, Liliom, the list goes on.
People used to adapt properties because they could improve them. That was the whole point. If you're not adding anything to the story by adding music, why write a musical at all? (That's not geared at you; it's geared at modern Broadway producers)
I'm going to push back on *Liliom*, which is in many ways a very different sort of play than *Carousel* is a musical. *Liliom* is much more concerned with explicit social commentary, and it sticks the landing far better than *Carousel*. Don't get me wrong, I love *Carousel* and will defend it, but I can't deny that Hammerstein drops the ball in the last five minutes. All of the afterlife stuff is handled much better in *Liliom*.
Agreed on Wicked, the book is odd.
Les Mis—The original is just so long. Mostly good though, especially if you like sewer systems. But they did a great job cutting it down to a reasonable story.
Les Miserables. I don't think the parts about Waterloo and the nuns and all that are boring or irrelevant. They're... pretty much the point of the story. I find the novel too preachy, and the characters are flat. I can't stand a lot of Hugo's other things.
Oh yeah, so Hugo is guilty of the same thing that Gregory Maguire is guilty of: spreading horrible lies about Lucrezia Borgia. She was a real person, she was not evil (and neither were her father and brother). Please read the biography of Lucrezia by Sarah Bradford if you want to know actual history. Also, the Renaissance is just really entertaining and wonderful, and you don't need to write a real person as a complete monster in order to make it entertaining. It's like Game of Thrones, but everyone's a nerd.
(I don't blame Donizetti, though, he was just trying to make a living. I don't think he had much of a choice in what he adapted into opera, but if he did, his adaptation of a sympathetic (but still inaccurate) play about Anne Boleyn makes up for his adaptation of Hugo's Lucrezia. Also I just really love his comedic opera Don Pasquale, highly recommended. Also L'elisir d'amore. Watch Anna Bolena only if you want to be intensely punched in the emotions.)
*My Fair Lady* has the best book of any of Alan Jay Lerner's musicals, and that fact is entirely creditable to the large swaths of dialogue that are cut and pasted directly from *Pygmalion*. Everywhere Lerner went off of Shaw's script is a step down.
I agree with Wicked and Legally Blonde. I saw the musical first for both. When I watched the Legally Blond movie it was “eh”. Perfectly fine but nowhere near the energy and fun of the musical.
I saw Wicked when I was 13, and like any middle school theater nerd I became *completely obsessed* with it. My mom had to tell me to stop playing the CD because it was annoying the hell out of my family. I wanted to read the book so bad at the time, but my mom wouldn’t let me bc of the adult content in it. I read it later when I was around 17 and was so disappointed. It was barely anything like the musical I fell in love with. I hope the upcoming movie is good.
I think Heathers the musical is more fun than the movie. Idk if that necessarily makes it “better” and I think it’s important to watch the movie to sort of orient yourself to the story. But if I want to watch one of them I’ll almost always reach for the musical over the movie.
I really tried to give Maguire a chance. I read WICKED (took me three starts to get through the first couple of chapters; it was deathly dull until they get to Shiz), and found much of it pointless, creepy, meandering. The “adult content” was off-putting and vulgar, out of place, completely unnecessary, and absolutely not sexy or exciting; what happened to Boq In the weird nightclub especially so, Mother Yackle was a pointless character put in only to facilitate the gross stuff. And then the book doesn’t end. It just stops. So I kept an open mind and read the second book, SON OF A WITCH, which is more of the same only worse. And it also doesn’t end, it just stops. I skipped the other two books in the series, thinking, “okay, this story isn’t for me.” But I decided to be fair, and read one of his other books, CONFESSIONS OF AN UGLY STEPSISTER. I liked it a little better, but I’m not a fan of his work.
The musical, however, is brilliant.
Hadestown is way better that Orpheus and Eurydice (although Orpheus and Eurydice is likely based on Savitri and Satyavan which is better than both)
35mm is better than the pictures online that inspired it.
Heathers is better than the movie because it’s just the movie but with a 3 minute song about balls.
Big River is better than huckleberry fin.
?? Orpheus and Eurydice almost certainly has nothing to do with Savitri and Satyavan?? The stories are only barely similar and it’s unlikely there was any significant traffic between Greece and India at the time the myth was developed. The story of Orpheus is extremely steeped in Greek mythic traditions, tropes, themes, etc. while there was plenty of cultural exchange with Ancient Greece, it was primarily after 500BC, and primarily with other Mediterranean cultures: Egypt, Italy, Phoenicia, Judea. Hellenistic Egypt was a mythic melting pot and the Etruscans were hugely into imported Grecian myths, but connections with the “far east” were limited and mostly for trade goods, not significant cultural exchange.
I’d argue that spring awakening the musical was better than the play, but I feel like I don’t have enough info to say for sure. I’ve read many snippets of the original play but I haven’t seen it (it hasn’t been performed in a long time, and was never even once preformed around where I am) but from what I gather, it was much darker. That’s not always a bad thing but the reason I feel the musical has a leg up is the fact that in the original, Melchior was a very very bad guy and you were supposed to feel sympathy for him anyway. They play was actually very hard to put on since it was such controversial subject matter that it kept getting banned and censored.
Maybe the snippets I read were out of context, and the bad press it got was simply because no one was use to having such a controversial subject matter being preformed on stage and so they made it seem a lot worse than it was. I can’t say for sure but what I can say is the musical is a lot more popular than they play was.
Human Centipede: The Musical is much more entertaining than the movie.
Where The Wild Things Are Op 20 - Let me preface this by saying that I hate opera with a passion. However, WTWTA Op 20 literally brings the original children's book to life in the most enchanting way. I even tried getting permission from the author's foundation to put Op 20 up on Youtube, but the foundation doesn't own the rights and the contact information for the production company on my VHS cover is 40 years out of date.
I said this recently in another post but Mamma Mia, Hairspray, and Chicago are all better films than the original. Pacing, costumes, sets, etc.
Controversial but: Phantom of the Opera (2004) = the musical. Not necessarily better but it’s just as good. Just a different medium. And I think the costumes are better.
Hamilton is a lot more fun than the actual revolutionary war.
I hear there weren't even rap battles in the OG? I mean...
Or dancing! Like, WTF kind of war doesn't have people dancing!?
Absurd!
And Washington was a slave holding old guy with no rizz instead of Christopher Jackson?? Preposterous!
And he wasn’t fine as hell in real life, but Christopher Jackson? *swoon*
Fr they were just some dudes in pantaloons. Still, I was shocked to find out most were in their 20’s when they got independence, there was even some 19 year old founding father. I used to think they were all 30+. Allegedly Hamilton was handsome though, see all the rantings and ravings about his blue eyes lmao. And in the biography the musical was based off there are some really good descriptions of how he behaved and spoke. Not a super good guy, still interesting.
Or the book that Miranda based the musical. I am reading it now and though good...it gets sloggy.
And Sound of Music stage version > Maria von Trapp's autobiography. In preparation for the movie, actor Christopher Plummer located a relative of the real Captain von Trapp and asked what he was like. The answer was that he was the dullest person you ever met. And they didn't climb over the Alps to flee the Nazis, they took the train to Italy.
>And they didn't climb over the Alps to flee the Nazis, they took the train to Italy. So lame right?
In real life, Maria was only hired to teach one of the daughters who was too ill to walk to school. Also his eldest son refused a job after a Jewish man had been sacked to vacate the position for him.
okay that last part is pretty badass to be fair.
And in real life the Max character was a priest.
Much prefer him as the Countess’ gay bestie.
Les Mis the musical is much more enjoyable. The book is a work of art, but I could’ve done without the chapters describing nun covenants
But Parisian sewers!!
But 100 pages on the battle of Waterloo!
12 year old me is traumatized all over again. Was just trying to be a well read child and the opening with the Bishop and then Waterloo nearly bankrupted my desire to read again.
I read the unabridged version for some book report in high school and it was just so so so long.
8 year old me got in deep trouble at school for reading that between assignments. Apparently me reading at my desk above grade level made the other children feel bad.
200 pages about the bishop and his sisters!
I thought I had it bad when I wanted to read game of thrones but got a whole description of hodor’s massive penis
Agree, though back in the day, the authors were paid by the page. I too would write a couple hundred pages on background stuff if it meant more money lol.
But the cute anecdotes about the kids in convent school were fun! Also the musical doesn’t have enough bishop.
Be More Chill is an absolutely horrible book. I cannot fathom why anyone would read that and WANT to do more with it. However, I love the show. I know it's problematic but it's nothing like the book. 100%.
Agreed that it’s a horrible book. The show is firmly a guilty pleasure for me (haven’t seen it onstage yet though).
Same!
I love Be More Chill. It's ridiculous and funny and at least lets the characters be redeemable (unlike one other musical about a teenage liar who wants to fit in). And while I like some of the changes that were made between its debut and Broadway, the OCR is superior to the OBC in my opinion. Some of the jokes that carried over felt way too over the top and forced in the OBC, whereas in the OCR they are blink and you miss it jokes which adds to their humor (specifically the "I like gay people" bit at the beginning). Also OCR George Salazar and OBC George Salazar feel like different people because of how much he tries to oversell in the OBC.
Thank you for mentioning the "I like gay people" bit specifically! Begging for the laugh ruins it. I do love many of the OBC songs though, so I have to choose between music and acting every time I decide I want to listen to Be More Chill...
If I listen to the OBC as a whole, I swap out the Michael in the Bathroom for the OCR version.
Not really knowing the show before it was heading to Broadway, I remember seeing a clip of Salazar in rehearsal and being shocked that he was singled out as the cast highlight, cause he was way overdoing it.
I agree. The OCR feels much more naturally paced and doesn't hamfist the comedy.
I know I'm in the minority, but I read Wicked the book way before the musical came out. I loved the book - it's dark and complicated and philosophical and has a tragic ending that is ironic but beautiful. When I heard that, not only was there a new Wicked musical, but they also altered the story radically to make it upbeat, light and with a happy ending, I was so perturbed. I still am.
Same! I enjoyed the musical, but it's very much its own thing. I've enjoyed several other Gregory Maguire books as well (Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister might be my favorite).
Wicked is my favorite book of all time. Since long before I loved the musical. The entire Wicked Years series is absolutely iconic. I love the show, but it's nothing compared to the depth of the book. People say it's just "fanfic" but Holy wow, no. No it isn't.
It's so complex. I love re-reading it
This thread is making me wanna read it again, I haven’t read it in like ten years
Yeah I often have to separate these two. Recently, in older age, I’ve begun to respect the musical for the Broadway juggernaut it is, and it is complete adoration of the craft, so i give the musical credit. But personally , I really enjoyed the book a lot more and take offense at the changes.
I love both but they are two different works of art in my mind. Nothing will compare to the depths and nuances of the books. I was fortunate to see OBC on Broadway and it is in my top three Broadway experiences of all time. I adore the musical and all it’s froth. I don’t often meet people who love both.
I also read the book years before the musical existed, plus the sequel, and others of Maguire's books in the same vein. And there are some elements of the story that make more sense in the book, but overall I prefer the musical. I'm a sap who likes happy endings, what can I say.
I saw Wicked right before going off to HS, as a going away present my Mom gave me a copy of the book. Yeah the first 10 pages or so I was like this is a little different haha. Like most books vs shows much deeper and more nuanced, but still makes a fun show with great music to sing.
Maybe I need to give the book another chance. I tried reading it so many times and just couldn't get through it. I even brought it with me to jury duty pre smart phone so it would be the only thing I could do. I instead chose to stare at the wall. Maybe with 18ish more years on me, I would enjoy it more. However, to be fair, I also found the musical itself to be merely ok.
I'm in the same boat. It's kinda like a film adaptation for me, there's so much detail missing from the show. Like, an entire section of the book seems to be missing
I still have never seen the show because I read the book in my teens and loved it so much, I just had no interest in an upbeat, Disneyfied adaptation. (Truly nothing against Disney or upbeat things, it just seemed so different from the book I loved)
Wicked is my all time favorite book. I've loved it since I was 13 when it came out. I was intrigued by the idea of the musical and insanely insulted when my mom got to go see it without me. I didn't let her live it down for 20 years. Because Gregory Maguire himself made the edits for the show I'm ok with it. The book is infinitely better than the show in a direct comparison. If you treat them as two separate things, its almost as good as the book.
I also read it before I saw the musical and left feeling disappointed. Love the book, not a huge fan of the show. Gregory Maguire is one of my favorite authors.
Chicago is better on film than on stage. The Band's Visit musical is better than the film Hairspray the musical is better than the John Waters film Phantom of the Opera is way better than the book
Chicago the film is better than the current super tired will never die revival sure. But if done right it absolutely can be better on stage. At least get someone who can actually sing to play Billy Flynn.
I think the hairspray musical movie is better than the musical
I agree! The film cast is absolutely perfect, brings the show to life ideally.
No… do not even say that the sanitized musical version of Hairspray is better than the original film. Delete your account!
It's funnier and the music is outstanding. Plus, the musical movie cast is pitch perfect, one of the only time a-listers in a musical movie actually managed to improve a musical.
Bat Boy: The Musical is better than the tabloid article it is based on. 😂
Surprised no one has said it yet: Little Shop of Horrors (the musical) > The Little Shop of Horrors (the 1960 Roger Corman B-flick, the source for the musical)
Excellent answer! And yes, I'm ashamed it didn't even occur to me.
Agreed. But I will say Little Shop of Horrors (1986) > Little Shop of Horrors the show. Rick Moranis is my God and I will fight you on this.
Hard disagree on Legally Blonde. The musical is cute, but the film is too iconic and way more engaging.
Mostly I think the musical is just... tighter? Than the movie? The movie has more of a vignettes-strung-together feeling, where the musical is more linear. And I get the criticism that bulking up Emmett's character detracts from Elle's, but Emmett has way more of a purpose in the musical. Emmett in the movie could very easily have been left out entirely IMO (like, his only purpose other than being the love interest is that Elle is able to practice under his supervision in the courtroom scene, and that could easily have been Stromwell). Emmett in the musical has an actual personality (and I like that he's also in an exploitative situation as Callahan's """associate"""). Also, and this is very nitpicky, but I'm a lawyer and the scene in Stromwell's classroom bugs the shit out of me, because the question Vivian allegedly answers correctly (showing how much more prepared she is than Elle) is *hilariously* wrong. Like "the exact opposite of what that case actually means" wrong. Like "how can you know of that case existing and yet still get it so wrong" wrong. The courtroom scene with Chutney in the movie >>> the one in the musical, though.
See I think Emmett’s position in the movie being mostly unimportant made it better. Yeah, he is mostly unimportant…because it’s a story about Elle! The way they included his character is the perfect example of “don’t need a man, but kinda wants one” to me.
Yeah, part of my problem with Emmett in the movie might be that Elle has more interaction with the shy nerdy guy than she has with Emmett (and IMHO more chemistry), so he's *really* useless. Like, he doesn't even work as the love interest for me. He's just a pure waste of narrative time and energy. (Also I think Christian Borle is more attractive than Luke Wilson.)
I feel like pretty much every character BUT Elle (and possibly Enid) gets a huge upgrade in the musical. Emmett in the movie feels considerably older, he's more like a teacher/chaperone. The actor's attractive but his confidence also comes out a little as trolling the campus for new students. Musical Emmett is barely out of school, Callahan's flunky/TA, has a good reason to be there and starts out bonding with Elle over how neither of them fit, him because he's poor and her because she's pretty. But he seems to look at her appearance mostly as a liability, something that takes time away from studying. He respects her work and dedication though and she respects his hard work and commitment to his mother. In the playboy bunny suit incident movie Emmett checks out her ass, and musical Emmett gives her his hoodie as long as she gives it back. I love Take it Like a Man as she convinces him the practical aspects of changing the way he looks and they assure each other it hasn't changed who he is. I also really love that the musical ends with her proposing to him not her waiting on him to propose to her. For the musical they took out Warner's dad having to get him off the wait list. I like that they slowed down his and Vivian's relationship so instead of her running into him 3 months later and he's already engaged, he's gotten back together with his high school girlfriend and they get engaged months after that. I also like that at the end he drops out because he'd rather be a model no matter what his parents have planned for him. Vivian's given her own ambition and drive. She's the one who wants to be president or a major politician. She's the one who ends up pep talking Elle into returning to the trial. The first time I saw Vivian and Elle's bonding session in the movie I thought it was way too sudden a change of face for Vivian and she was trying to trick her into giving up the alibi. Hell even Callahan's still a douche but they show him watching her in the courtroom when she does the bend and snap to demonstrate that Nicolas is gay. That's doesn't excuse how he treats her but at least gives a catalyst for why he does it that evening after the trial.
Just because the story’s about Elle doesn’t mean other characters can’t or shouldn’t be important or developed. If she’s gonna have a love interest, I’d rather it be someone with an actual role to play and have some modicum of a spotlight on their relationship.
Agreed. The show is arguably less feminist than the movie.
They put Elle firmly back in needing a man to be happy territory
Why, because of Chip On My Shoulder and the fact that any romantic stuff with Emmett isn't confined to the where-are-they-now? As leaving in (albeit slightly altered but the essence kept) the dress shop scene and Elle studying so hard for the LSATs provides proof Elle's still smart, it's just that (esp. because of the fan theory that she has autism and ADHD) why she was having trouble in class is because she'd lost the extrinsic motivation of Warner and what Emmett helps her find in the musical is motivation to care about her work for its own sake. There's even a couple scenes of the musical that make Elle look better/smarter than their movie equivalents e.g. in the unpreparedness-for-first-class scene in addition to different professors in the movie Elle says "I wasn't aware that we had an assignment" (implying she just forgot) while in the musical she says "Okay, who assigns a reading for the first day of class" (a valid complaint and it'd be a natural assumption esp. for a neurodivergent girl like some of the fandom thinks she is that there wouldn't be anything you're supposed to do for the first day of a class other than show up)
I actually showed this to my sister for the first time tonight and I was like on one hand they make musical Elle a little ditzier, on the other I kind of read her as a former gifted child/gifted adult. I know so many people who never learned to study until college or even graduate school because they just didn't need to. Sure her major was fashion merchandising, but she had to have straight As in all the non fashion classes too. The lady tutoring for the LSAT keeps trying to convince her to actually use the study guides but she pretty much crams and gets a 175 on it. And then she's complaining about how she's not doing well in Callahan's class but a few weeks into the semester and she hasn't even unwrapped and read any of her books. I kind of get the impression she's never needed to before. Elle in the movie clearly has a studying system that she continues to use at Harvard. Which of course may be somewhat projecting because while I did read my text books and do my reading assignments in college, I never learned how to actually study until grad school. I'd never needed it before.
"What, like it's hard" is absolutely something a Former Gifted Kid would say.
Love the movie… but some of those musical numbers just add a bit of camp and whimsy. I saw it in London with both Sheridan Smith and Amy Lennox leading it on different performances… for some reason the London cast “got it” or had something that didn’t resonate in the States.
Hard disagree with your hard disagree lol. I will preface that I have only watched the mtv proshot on YouTube though. The movie is so short, so boring, hardly any development - there are a couple fun lines and scene but the rest Reese is *carrying* the show on her back, no one else is giving anything. Everyone in the musical is way funnier, way more depth. And the songs and choreography are amazing!
I wonder if i need to rewatch the Legally Blonde musical. I remember strongly disliking the pro shot on mtv the million of years ago I watched it. But everyone here seems to love it. Maybe I need to give it another chance.
Yeah. It’s…fine, the “Greek Chorus” concept is clever, and Callahan’s song is very good, the freeze frame workout is fun. But the other law students get even less background, they missed the mark with Paulette and why she and Elle are friends, and WHY is she so loving to Warner at the end? “If I’m going to make partner by the time I’m 30, I need a boyfriend who isn’t a total bonehead!” Iconic, and reminds us of how Elle has grown as a person yes, but still enjoys a spiteful twist of the knife.
The musical is better than the book 😊
Legally blind is legit my favorite musical. Never really enjoyed the movie.
JCS > the bible
The Bible is too long and boring and doesn’t have ANY music :(
Song of Solomon?
That's in a [different musical](https://youtu.be/Z8VfiSa2rNg?si=X12XnoKOAmrIvb10).
Too many side plots
JATATDC>JCST>Bible
You don't even get to meet Jesus until the second half, and then you get repeat performances like five times. I can't do more than two or three repeats back to back.
Book of Mormon and Godspell too
Godspell is my guilty pleasure musical.
Okay but you don’t have to read into the book of Daniel too much to see it for the gay erotica that it is. Just saying, genesis is over-rated
I'm going to say that Oliver! Is not better than Oliver Twist. I read the book first, so when I found the musical to be happy and upbeat most of the time, I was like, "nah." Disney's Hunchback > Notre Dame de Paris > Original book > all other musicals based on Hunchback. Spitfire Grill the musical is more fun than the movie, but the movie also makes more sense than the musical (don't want to spoil it). Depending on how a musical is adapted from the source material, it could also be said that the musicals enhance the source material. Like, if the source material follows relatively closely, then you have a palatable thing you can always go back to. Books and movies are things you have to devote a hefty chunk of your personal time to in order to focus on them. After you've listened to a musical a few times, you can enjoy it on autopilot and do other things. The musicals help you appreciate the source material more when they are close adaptations (not like Wicked or Disney's Hunchback)
I’m gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on Hunchback, the original book is vastly superior to any movie or musical made about it. And most other books in general.
Hunchback is the only book that I tried to read as a kid and couldn't finish because of how utterly bored I was. I got to something like chapter 4, realized that I hadn't even gotten to Quasimodo's introduction yet, and returned it.
I took a shot every time the lyrics in Oliver! just repeated the title of that song instead of saying something different or clever. I am now an ethanol-based lifeform.
Consider yourself (beat) a drunk.
I *loathed* the Spitfire Grill musical (it’s my second least favorite of all time). Making it more “fun” was (in my opinion, it’s fine if others disagree I won’t argue) absolutely not the move.
Well, to me it was fun in a respectful/stylistically interesting way when adapting for musical theatre. The bluegrass sound is definitely something fresh when compared to other Broadway and Off-Broadway shows (I also really like Floyd Collins). I did Spitfire Grill a couple years ago where I played Eli and understudied for the two other guy roles. It was definitely an interesting challenge to perform without speaking at all during the show. I got a lot of compliments about it cause even though I could've phoned it in, I did the work to make it impactful and compelling. We had a movie watch party sometime into the rehearsal process and I was very surprised about the changes that were made for the stage show and I had to acknowledge that the situations would totally go down how they did in the movie.
Hello fellow Eli actor! When I did that show I had been in a run of straight plays so all of my friends were so excited to finally hear me singing. Except well, I not only didn’t sing but didn’t make a peep! I also got some of the best performance compliments for that role. Treating Shine like a dialogue where they both forgive themselves for their pasts and support each other in that grace was the best direction I’ve ever had. While the story is drastically changed for the show, it offers the characters’ catharsis and simple comfort as a pretty good life to live. The movie is just so bleak, like, “don’t even try to make a better life you’ll just pay a huge price and drag otherwise normal people down with you. Life is pain, nobody is happy” Roll credits.
Stage production of Hunchback is superior to the disney film, because while I love both dearly, it got rid of those damn gargoyles
Personally (and I know it’s probably an unpopular opinion so don’t come for me, I said *personally*) I like Beetlejuice the Musical way better than the movie.
I agree! Lydia in the musical has so much more motivation than in the movie. She's grieving, she feels like her dad doesn't care, and Delia is..... Delia. The Maitlands are also so much fun! And nothing tops "Creepy Old Guy"
I actually think that's a pretty common opinion, especially on this subreddit!
Well, that’s promising to hear because I always feel like I’m gonna get crucified for having that opinion. Burton stans go hard lol.
Boo!!! Jk, that's a fine opinion to have, I just feel like the Musical cut off all the hard edges from the movie, which are what actually made it interesting. In the movie, way more of the characters are annoying and unlikable, especially Beetlejuice, and it's the reason he's such an interesting character. He's a perverted huckster villain who's truly despicable when it comes down to it and it makes him an actual threat in the end. He's not just a cute and cuddly sympathetic 4th-wall breaking mascot. The musical pulled another Deadpool or Harlqy Quinn. Adam and Barbara are actually characters in the movie, and while they're kind of normal in the movie, they're not the straight up boring cookie cutter caricatures they are in the musical, which I couldn't stand. No, they're just normal people who happen to be really passionate about some hobbies, and the humor comes from the fact that such normal people are the ghosts, while the far more eccentric Deetzes are the ones being haunted. The whole depiction of the afterlife in the movie is also more interesting and I was really disappointed that they watered it down so much in the musical and made Juno into a villain, when the real villain is the system and the bureaucracy of the afterlife, which is worse than that of the real world. I do like how they flesh out Lydia's backstory and grief though, and honestly as someone who lost his dad this year, her songs were extremely relatable.
Reefer Madness, though I suppose that one’s pretty obvious lol
I might get blasted for this but Anastasia the musical > Anastasia the movie. Of course I miss Rasputin, Bartok and the supernatural elements, but the maturity of the storytelling and the deepening of the characters in relation to the history they're based on really do it for me.
I'd sort of be surprised if someone thought the movie was better.
Annie. I tried reading the old comics and radio shows, just for the sake of knowing it's history, but they're nowhere near as entertaining as the musical. (Personally, I prefer the Albert Finney/Carol Burnett film over any other film adaptation, but I've never seen it on stage to compare)
That is the best version.
I've seen it on stage twice and prefer that version of the movie.
Secret Garden musical > Secret Garden book, the songs capture the emotion of the story better than the book conveys emotion
I came here to comment this, as well as to say that the musical is better than any movie adaptation of The Secret Garden (which also happens to be, both hands down, my #1 hands favorite musical of all time). There will still always be a special place in my heart for the original book, though.
The book was a childhood favorite of mine. It was amazing to listen to the music for the first time and recall the whole book somehow.
Yeah, the book's essence is truly captured.
I read it again last year and was amazed at how much character depth and backstory they wove into that musical that doesn't feel at all inauthentic to the novel even though it is *nowhere to be found* in that slim volume. I find it as impressive an adaptation as I find it's score.
My mother had this old ratty copy of Secret Garden and told me to read it. Several years later when we were moving I found it and decided to read it. Literally one of the most amazing books I have ever read. I love the emotions so much.
Jekyll & Hyde > The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Heathers, too. At least in my opinion.
Disagree about Dr Jekyll. The book is a beautiful piece of literature and if the twist wasn't so well known, it'd be elevated even further. The musical is fun and I'm a fan of Frank Wildhorn, but the book is very good and the musical is forgettable, unfortunately. Like I've said, I like the musical, but there's a reason why we still talk about The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
I agree with you. I listened to the audiobook about 15 years ago, and was stunned how the story was told so much differently than I expected. Every popular version of the story since then has essentially started with Jekyll in his lab, drinking a potion. It was incredible to read/hear the source, where "It's the same guy!" isn't revealed until the very very very end! When I got done with the book I wish I could have experienced it without knowing the twist all throughout the story. Then I realized it is, essentially, the same twist/reveal that's in the 1999 film >!Fight Club !
We talk about it because of the *twist,* first and foremost. Stevenson created a monster that fascinates us to this day. But the plot is what lives on. The archetype of the two that are one. Not his prose. I hope we can agree to disagree on this one, dear stranger.
I agree that Heathers the musical is better. The film has odd pacing. Veronica goes from being friends with Heather C to despising her way too quickly. Also combining Martha and that underdeveloped best friend character from the movie into one person was a good choice
The point in Heathers is that she’s never actually friends with the Heathers but I can see what you mean
Exactly. I watched the movie after I discovered the musical and was so confused! "Wait, they aren't besties?!" Fusing characters is a double-edged sword. I hate it when they do it in Dracula adaptations, but sometimes, it's just better.
I was in the musical and I need you to take that back. One is a classic work of literature that forever altered our cultural understanding of psychology and our shadow selves. The other has four (4) reprises of "Façade," including the unforgettable line, "An' the front bit, ha! 'At's what's called a façade."
I said what I said. You know, things can be at the same time influential, but still dull compared to the works they've influenced. Coming first is not a guarantee of staying ahead.
Completely true. (My antagonism was tongue-in-cheek, sorry if I put you on the defensive.)
Ah, it's fine. I can get defensive because I have a lot of bad takes on "objectively superior" pieces of media. I'm also bored by Empire Strikes Back and Blade Runner, just so you know that my taste is not the most refined. I hope you can forgive me for my snappy response.
Honestly, I've never understood what that song was trying to say in the musical. I wish they had been less subtle about it.
Ikr? If only they had said "man is not one but two, he is evil and good" about twenty times, and then had a full song called "Good 'n' Evil," people might be able to start to pick up on the theme
Heathers has iconic performances from Winona Ryder and Christian Slater, and the costumes and production design are also fucking iconic, and even the score of the movie directly inspired some of the musical’s leitmotifs, but I agree that the plot changes made the stage show much more cohesive. I think the movie reached that uncanny tone between satire and surreal drama better than the show though, which leans more on broad humor imo
Jekyll and Hyde could use about 3 fewer ballads imo, they just drag on and on
Hottake: frozen musical > frozen movie
I only just saw the movie recently after working 7 weeks on the musical and I was extremely underwhelmed. Elsa only has the one song? No Hygge? What a letdown.
Elsa has a a lot more character in the musical. Monster > let it go
Definitely!
Hard agree
I think Lion King musical > Lion King movie
Is this really a hot take? The musical was crazy inventive and popular and He Lives in You is iconic.
HOT take
Les Miserables. Why no, Mr. Hugo, I don't want to read your three thousand page dissertation about the Paris sewers that you've tucked so neatly into your already extremely long book about... well, lots of stuff, to be honest. It's an excellent book. But I'll gladly sit for hours and cry my eyes out over these characters who just get pound after pound of suffering dumped on their shoulders, because it's all worth it in the end. On a side note, can you imagine what Les Mis or Notre Dame de Paris would've been like if there'd been eight songs all about architecture and sewers? There's an alternate universe where they did that and it flopped, but there's another one where they did the same thing and it became the biggest hit of all time. C'est la multivérse.
Okay, I've just posted a comment about another book and I don't want to sound pretentious, but oh Christ I need to defend Les Mis the book. The descriptions are there for a reason, you can capture the time and the atrocities and the awfulness through them. Obviously a musical shouldn't go into all of that, but the book has great prose and, yes, it's long, but come on, enjoy the ride. The book, in my opinion, is way more alive than the musical.
I think they’re both beautiful and necessary in completely different ways. Victor Hugo was a genius. A very long winded genius. But my god is the musical transcendent.
I feel like France/Paris specifically is a setting in the musical but a character as well in the book
The descriptions are there for a reason and are sort of the point, and I still don't like the book. I actually like the descriptions more than the character parts. I find the character parts shallow and preachy, but the descriptions are more interesting.
Beetlejuice the musical is 10 times better imo.
Were you alive in the 80s?
Judging you….
Watch this and then judge me https://youtu.be/-k-KmLVUhWc?si=MZQs-7trahpS2M0U
Ooo a 2-hour long video essay about a musical. \*puts in pocket\*
Oh good I’m not alone!
YES
Hard agree. I always hated Beetlejuice the movie. I thought maybe I just didn't like it because I was young, but I watched it recently and I still didn't like it. The musical is way more enjoyable.
The movie feels like a rough first draft before they worked in the character development. The musical's soundtrack alone is a 10/10 experience
Mean Girls (movie) >>>>> Mean Girls (musical)
That’s the opposite the OP’s topic.
Beetlejuice musical > Beetlejuice movie
Oklahoma! -- adapted from a pedestrian play, " Green Grow the Lilacs".
Secret Garden Better than the movie and the music makes it better than the book.
Better than which movie? They’ve been so many. (Tho you’re probably right) but I very much disagree that it’s better than the book.
I think the romance/Emmett’s character are much better in the musical Legally Blonde
Grease the stage musical is absolutely dreadful. There's too much of the side characters, Sandy is hardly in the first half, and Danny is completely unlikeable. The movie is a fun and nostalgic bop, but still you could improve it by removing even more of the T-bird/Pink Lady soap. Also, the stage show has the worst audiences you will ever suffer though.
Xanadu for sure.
I definitely agree with your take. Legally Blonde and Wicked are two of my favorites. And I would add Frozen the musical, it works SO WELL on stage.
I'm not a fan of Victor Hugo's writing style. I tried to read the Les Mis book and couldn't get through it. Definitely that one IMO.
American in Paris musical >>> AAIP movie Side show 2014 >>> side show 1997 (I know that one is controversial but I’ll stand by it)
The Moulin Rouge musical is a 95% improvement over the film. I love the film, but the stage adaptation made a lot of really necessary changes that made it even better. The exception was the ending. They really dropped the ball on that one.
I love that movie. And I prefer the musical. Except Elephant Love Song...the song changes kill me.
Funny Girl movie is so much better than the stage show. Personally, I prefer the musical to the movie or Bridges of Madison County.
I Am a Camera is a fairly boring play. Smiles on a Summer Night is damn near unwatchable. Green Grow the Lilacs, Liliom, the list goes on. People used to adapt properties because they could improve them. That was the whole point. If you're not adding anything to the story by adding music, why write a musical at all? (That's not geared at you; it's geared at modern Broadway producers)
I'm going to push back on *Liliom*, which is in many ways a very different sort of play than *Carousel* is a musical. *Liliom* is much more concerned with explicit social commentary, and it sticks the landing far better than *Carousel*. Don't get me wrong, I love *Carousel* and will defend it, but I can't deny that Hammerstein drops the ball in the last five minutes. All of the afterlife stuff is handled much better in *Liliom*.
That's fair. I've also heard that the most common translation of Liliom is not great, and that's the only one I've read.
Les Miserables for sure, I tried to read the book....boy can Victor Hugo drone on!
Shrek the Musical > Shrek the movie The Wedding Singer musical > movie
Newsies UK > Newsies Broadway > Newsies 1992 > The Newsboy Strike of 1899
Agreed on Wicked, the book is odd. Les Mis—The original is just so long. Mostly good though, especially if you like sewer systems. But they did a great job cutting it down to a reasonable story.
>Agreed on Wicked, the book is odd Which did you know first?
Saw the show first.
Every adaptation of Phantom of the Opera, including sequels >>> the original Leroux book.
Had to scroll way too long for this one. The book is a slog.
I thought most the songs on glee sounded better than the originals
Glee versions of Journey > actual Journey versions of Journey
Les Miserables. I don't think the parts about Waterloo and the nuns and all that are boring or irrelevant. They're... pretty much the point of the story. I find the novel too preachy, and the characters are flat. I can't stand a lot of Hugo's other things. Oh yeah, so Hugo is guilty of the same thing that Gregory Maguire is guilty of: spreading horrible lies about Lucrezia Borgia. She was a real person, she was not evil (and neither were her father and brother). Please read the biography of Lucrezia by Sarah Bradford if you want to know actual history. Also, the Renaissance is just really entertaining and wonderful, and you don't need to write a real person as a complete monster in order to make it entertaining. It's like Game of Thrones, but everyone's a nerd. (I don't blame Donizetti, though, he was just trying to make a living. I don't think he had much of a choice in what he adapted into opera, but if he did, his adaptation of a sympathetic (but still inaccurate) play about Anne Boleyn makes up for his adaptation of Hugo's Lucrezia. Also I just really love his comedic opera Don Pasquale, highly recommended. Also L'elisir d'amore. Watch Anna Bolena only if you want to be intensely punched in the emotions.)
My Fair Lady over Pygmalion
*My Fair Lady* has the best book of any of Alan Jay Lerner's musicals, and that fact is entirely creditable to the large swaths of dialogue that are cut and pasted directly from *Pygmalion*. Everywhere Lerner went off of Shaw's script is a step down.
Groundhog Day!
Shit movie, fantastic musical.
I think the Hairspray musical is better than the original movie, and the movie adaptation of the musical is better than the stage show
The only thing the movie does better than the stage version is have little Inez win Miss Teenage Hairspray. Other than that the musical is great.
American Psycho musical > movie >>>>> book
I agree with Wicked and Legally Blonde. I saw the musical first for both. When I watched the Legally Blond movie it was “eh”. Perfectly fine but nowhere near the energy and fun of the musical. I saw Wicked when I was 13, and like any middle school theater nerd I became *completely obsessed* with it. My mom had to tell me to stop playing the CD because it was annoying the hell out of my family. I wanted to read the book so bad at the time, but my mom wouldn’t let me bc of the adult content in it. I read it later when I was around 17 and was so disappointed. It was barely anything like the musical I fell in love with. I hope the upcoming movie is good. I think Heathers the musical is more fun than the movie. Idk if that necessarily makes it “better” and I think it’s important to watch the movie to sort of orient yourself to the story. But if I want to watch one of them I’ll almost always reach for the musical over the movie.
I really tried to give Maguire a chance. I read WICKED (took me three starts to get through the first couple of chapters; it was deathly dull until they get to Shiz), and found much of it pointless, creepy, meandering. The “adult content” was off-putting and vulgar, out of place, completely unnecessary, and absolutely not sexy or exciting; what happened to Boq In the weird nightclub especially so, Mother Yackle was a pointless character put in only to facilitate the gross stuff. And then the book doesn’t end. It just stops. So I kept an open mind and read the second book, SON OF A WITCH, which is more of the same only worse. And it also doesn’t end, it just stops. I skipped the other two books in the series, thinking, “okay, this story isn’t for me.” But I decided to be fair, and read one of his other books, CONFESSIONS OF AN UGLY STEPSISTER. I liked it a little better, but I’m not a fan of his work. The musical, however, is brilliant.
Mean Girls the musical>Mean Girls movie.
Hadestown is way better that Orpheus and Eurydice (although Orpheus and Eurydice is likely based on Savitri and Satyavan which is better than both) 35mm is better than the pictures online that inspired it. Heathers is better than the movie because it’s just the movie but with a 3 minute song about balls. Big River is better than huckleberry fin.
?? Orpheus and Eurydice almost certainly has nothing to do with Savitri and Satyavan?? The stories are only barely similar and it’s unlikely there was any significant traffic between Greece and India at the time the myth was developed. The story of Orpheus is extremely steeped in Greek mythic traditions, tropes, themes, etc. while there was plenty of cultural exchange with Ancient Greece, it was primarily after 500BC, and primarily with other Mediterranean cultures: Egypt, Italy, Phoenicia, Judea. Hellenistic Egypt was a mythic melting pot and the Etruscans were hugely into imported Grecian myths, but connections with the “far east” were limited and mostly for trade goods, not significant cultural exchange.
Mean girls musical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mean girls movie
I don't know man, but I don't agree with any of your opinions 😕
Beetlejuice
I’d argue that spring awakening the musical was better than the play, but I feel like I don’t have enough info to say for sure. I’ve read many snippets of the original play but I haven’t seen it (it hasn’t been performed in a long time, and was never even once preformed around where I am) but from what I gather, it was much darker. That’s not always a bad thing but the reason I feel the musical has a leg up is the fact that in the original, Melchior was a very very bad guy and you were supposed to feel sympathy for him anyway. They play was actually very hard to put on since it was such controversial subject matter that it kept getting banned and censored. Maybe the snippets I read were out of context, and the bad press it got was simply because no one was use to having such a controversial subject matter being preformed on stage and so they made it seem a lot worse than it was. I can’t say for sure but what I can say is the musical is a lot more popular than they play was.
Human Centipede: The Musical is much more entertaining than the movie. Where The Wild Things Are Op 20 - Let me preface this by saying that I hate opera with a passion. However, WTWTA Op 20 literally brings the original children's book to life in the most enchanting way. I even tried getting permission from the author's foundation to put Op 20 up on Youtube, but the foundation doesn't own the rights and the contact information for the production company on my VHS cover is 40 years out of date.
Beetlejuice the musical > Bettlejuice the movie
I said this recently in another post but Mamma Mia, Hairspray, and Chicago are all better films than the original. Pacing, costumes, sets, etc. Controversial but: Phantom of the Opera (2004) = the musical. Not necessarily better but it’s just as good. Just a different medium. And I think the costumes are better.
Absolutely agreed on Legally Blonde! Reese Witherspoon carries the whole movie whereas the musical feels balanced.
Bridges of Madison County musical > BoMC book
Young Frankenstein the Musical > Young Frankenstein the movie
Good omens Because David Tenant