Broadway vs Movie

I saw Rent on Broadway a few years ago. I was really hyped, but I ended up hating it. I disliked how confusing it was. I disliked the cast. I disliked how there was one set for the whole thing. In the musical, it seemed as though there wasn't much dialogue or anything connecting or clarify the story line between each song. I didn't understand any of it. I rejected the whole Rent hype.

I just got around to renting the movie, and even just half way through, I adore it. It's so much better than the live musical. The cast is perfect (granted, some of the cast in the movie was in the play I saw, but characters like Maureen and Joanne were replaced with horrible actresses), and the movie is much more clear.

Has anyone else had a similar experience?

The only time I've been able to compare a movie and a musical is The Producers.

I saw the play first and was amazed at how good it was. It was over-the-top and politically incorrect in all the right ways.

Both of the films were great, but I just didn't like them as much. I dunno if it's because I already enjoyed the play so much, but especially during the more elaborate parts ((SPOILER)"Springtime for Hitler" and "Keep It Gay" in particular) I found myself more entertained when they were performed on stage.

The only thing I've seen both onstage and on film is Cats. I adored Cats onstage, and I didn't on film. But they really move around a lot in Cats, like, they run around where the audience is and stuff. The film just couldn't convey the momentum and movement of the thing...

I enjoyed the musical version of the Producers over the movie musical version. Although the original Mel Brooks version is still the best (if dated in places). Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel were terrific.

I also liked the musical version of Man of La Mancha over the movie version.

I guess it's hard to replicate the energy of a live performance in a movie along with staging issues. Although I thought My Fair Lady did an excellent job.

Never saw Rent on stage, but I liked the movie version. Then again I like me a good Puccini.

The only time I can compare the movie to the musical was Little Shop of Horrors, and anytime you get to see a singing animatronic Audrey II is just gonna be better than the movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

The only thing I've seen both onstage and on film is Cats. I adored Cats onstage, and I didn't on film. But they really move around a lot in Cats, like, they run around where the audience is and stuff. The film just couldn't convey the momentum and movement of the thing...

---

This.

I can imagine a little Mr. Milf in tights wanting to see Cats and hoping and wishing and praying. :bigsmile:

I haven't ever seen a musical. I've been to the opera, if that counts. I adore the opera. I wanted to see Wicked, but that never panned out in Chicago.

I've seen a few, Music Man is much better as a play than the movie. I'm conflicted with Guys and Dolls. I love Frank Sinatra and I felt he really did a great job with his role but not so much for Marlon Brandow (sp?) who's peculiar way of talking makes it difficult to listen to him sing.

I enjoy both the musical and movie version of 1776, yet overall, I prefer the movie cause I felt the casting was damn near flawless. I've yet to meet a man who can play John Adams as well as the movie version. I like both versions of Little Shop of Horrors and I feel both versions offer something different. The movie version has such a famous cast that I sometimes feel you watch it more for the actors playing in it rather than the story.

I still hope to see a the play versions of Reefer Madness, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Evil Dead the Musical, and of course Avenue Q :cool: