Early this morning, I heard the worst movie news in some time: Lionsgate is remaking its 1987 classic Dirty Dancing. Disgraceful, isn't it? New readers, you may want to revisit my earlier written praise of this awesome movie, so as to get a full appreciation of my feelings toward this news. I read the news this morning on The Tracking Board, and heard it confirmed on Ralph Garman's "showbiz beat" on the KROQ Kevin & Bean show. Rumor has it that the story will be updated to modern day, but I have yet to find that out conclusively.
There are a million problems with this. I hope that it is actually going to be set in the '60s, like the original. Not only would the cultural appreciation for Mad Men and its ilk make the story a little more marketable, but the central conflict between Baby and Johnny would actually make sense! I'm not so naïve that I think an upper-middle-class young woman fooling around with a summer resort dance instructor at least a few years her senior wouldn't still piss off her father in modern times. But we're talking about dirty dancing.
How many Save the Last Dance and Step Up iterations have to go by before filmmakers realize that a girl learning how to sway her hips, while potentially indicative of sexual awakening, is not quite the society-shaking protestacular that it might have been at Kellerman's in the early '60s.
I do wonder if this may be a remake of the stage musical based on the original, à la The Producers (failure) and Hairspray (success). Interestingly, both of those movies were set in the '60s too, but Hairspray had that awesome John Waters '80s vibe. This may be the most successful way to remake the movie. A modern take might incorporate krumping or something really awkward, and a straight retelling of the original movie would be a cheesy Psycho job.
This whole thing makes me feel very unsettled! In high school, when Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights came out, my friends and I came up with a few other potential sequels. The most popular remains Dirty Dancing 3: Tienanmen Square. Log line: He was a student revolutionary. She drove a tank. Through the art of traditional Chinese folk dance...can they find love?
Showing posts with label The Producers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Producers. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
chicken, egg, &c.
I had to have been in middle school when my dad first told me about the classic Mel Brooks comedy The Producers (1968). We rented it and watched it together, and ever since then, it has been one of my favorite movies of all time. Who can forget the first time they entertained the concept of springtime for Hitler? My dad had to explain to me some of the cultural cues of the late '60s that I was missing for all of the humor to stick, but otherwise, I had a blast. By high school, all of my close friends had seen it too, and we used to get a kick out of breaking pregnant silences with a hearty singalong of, "Germany was having trouble, what a sad sad story..."
In 2001, when we heard that Mel Brooks was adapting his movie into a stage musical, I was mostly excited. Though to be honest, I wasn't sure why the entirety of The Producers had to be turned into a musical, when the songs in Springtime for Hitler stand on their own. I ended up seeing the musical version when it came to the Pantages in Hollywood starring Jason Alexander and Martin Short. It was funny and entertaining, sure. But I was pretty underwhelmed, I guess. Then, in 2005, I made the unfortunate decision to watch the movie adaptation of the stage musical adaptation of the original movie, starring Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick who brought Zero Mostel's and Gene Wilder's roles to the stage in the first place. Oy. I understand that Mel Brooks was making mad dolla off of this morphing franchise, but really - a lot of the magic of the dialogue and the original genius actors was lost with the pointless new songs.
Now, hairstory (oh, I know I slay you) is repeating itself. In 2002, someone got the bright idea to turn John Waters' 1988 film Hairspray into a Broadway musical. About this, I can't say much. I have never seen the musical nor listened to the soundtrack, but I do know that it has been very well-received by audiences. I would tend to think that the source material is much more appropriate for the stage than The Producers was, because of Waters' fine skill with camp. Also, the whole thing is about music and dancing, not just a few scenes. Now, Adam Shankman, who brought us such comedy hits as A Walk to Remember and The Pacifier, as well as such artful masterpieces as Bringing Down the House and Cheaper by the Dozen 2, will be at the helm of the movie adaptation of the stage adaptation of the original.*
For some reason, I have a lot more confidence that the new version of Hairspray will be a lot better than the new version of The Producers even though I have not seen the musical, and it involves the most hideous looking version of John Travolta this side of treating his son's medical conditions by giving him a stress test. Certainly, I will miss Divine, Ricki Lake, and Jerry Stiller, but I think that at least Travolta and Queen Latifah have proven their experience in musicals, Christopher Walken is a great dancer (see bottom of post, beneath trailer, for proof), and Shankman is a dancer/choreographer. I'm curious if the original film's racial issues have been altered in any way for the new movie, though I would be surprised if they were, considering that even in '88 it was a period piece. But they changed the character of LSD from a hippie to a homosexual in The Producers, so you never know.
I'd be interested to know if any of my readers have seen the Hairspray musical, or can give any other insight, as I know very little about the details. Any thoughts on whether or not Hollywood may want to adapt Pink Flamingos for a younger audience?
(Spike Jonze is the shit.)
*Really, I can't hate on Shankman for directing really cheezy movies like Cheaper by the Dozen 2. Hell, The Pacifier was even kind of fun (maybe because I watched it with Czech subtitles in an empty theater in Prague, wondering what I was doing with my life?). As an aspiring screenwriter, I know that the key to success is most likely selling out as early as possible. How many times have I said, "If making it big means I have to crap out a few Scary Movie 8s starring DMX and Steven Seagal, then so be it." I'm personally hoping that Shankman's dance experience will shine, as I would love to see movie musicals really have a strong presence for modern audiences.
In 2001, when we heard that Mel Brooks was adapting his movie into a stage musical, I was mostly excited. Though to be honest, I wasn't sure why the entirety of The Producers had to be turned into a musical, when the songs in Springtime for Hitler stand on their own. I ended up seeing the musical version when it came to the Pantages in Hollywood starring Jason Alexander and Martin Short. It was funny and entertaining, sure. But I was pretty underwhelmed, I guess. Then, in 2005, I made the unfortunate decision to watch the movie adaptation of the stage musical adaptation of the original movie, starring Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick who brought Zero Mostel's and Gene Wilder's roles to the stage in the first place. Oy. I understand that Mel Brooks was making mad dolla off of this morphing franchise, but really - a lot of the magic of the dialogue and the original genius actors was lost with the pointless new songs.
Now, hairstory (oh, I know I slay you) is repeating itself. In 2002, someone got the bright idea to turn John Waters' 1988 film Hairspray into a Broadway musical. About this, I can't say much. I have never seen the musical nor listened to the soundtrack, but I do know that it has been very well-received by audiences. I would tend to think that the source material is much more appropriate for the stage than The Producers was, because of Waters' fine skill with camp. Also, the whole thing is about music and dancing, not just a few scenes. Now, Adam Shankman, who brought us such comedy hits as A Walk to Remember and The Pacifier, as well as such artful masterpieces as Bringing Down the House and Cheaper by the Dozen 2, will be at the helm of the movie adaptation of the stage adaptation of the original.*
For some reason, I have a lot more confidence that the new version of Hairspray will be a lot better than the new version of The Producers even though I have not seen the musical, and it involves the most hideous looking version of John Travolta this side of treating his son's medical conditions by giving him a stress test. Certainly, I will miss Divine, Ricki Lake, and Jerry Stiller, but I think that at least Travolta and Queen Latifah have proven their experience in musicals, Christopher Walken is a great dancer (see bottom of post, beneath trailer, for proof), and Shankman is a dancer/choreographer. I'm curious if the original film's racial issues have been altered in any way for the new movie, though I would be surprised if they were, considering that even in '88 it was a period piece. But they changed the character of LSD from a hippie to a homosexual in The Producers, so you never know.
I'd be interested to know if any of my readers have seen the Hairspray musical, or can give any other insight, as I know very little about the details. Any thoughts on whether or not Hollywood may want to adapt Pink Flamingos for a younger audience?
(Spike Jonze is the shit.)
*Really, I can't hate on Shankman for directing really cheezy movies like Cheaper by the Dozen 2. Hell, The Pacifier was even kind of fun (maybe because I watched it with Czech subtitles in an empty theater in Prague, wondering what I was doing with my life?). As an aspiring screenwriter, I know that the key to success is most likely selling out as early as possible. How many times have I said, "If making it big means I have to crap out a few Scary Movie 8s starring DMX and Steven Seagal, then so be it." I'm personally hoping that Shankman's dance experience will shine, as I would love to see movie musicals really have a strong presence for modern audiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)