Do most people prefer the stage musical?

I enjoy the movie as a separate entity. I like the way it was filmed, I liked the costumes and the sets, and I loved the casting. Everyone sang their parts well.

However, the lack of the inclusion of the chorus really stops me from enjoying it thoroughly. I've been in the show before and the chorus parts are amazing, a real challenge to any singer and really help to tell the story. Granted, I agree with omitting things like the 'Ballad' and it's reprises because it doesn't add anything to the movie. But removing the chorus from "Pirelli's" or "God That's Good" really makes it seem empty. You never get an idea of how the public feels about anything happening around them, they are barely featured in favor of keeping the camera locked on Johnny and Helena. I also very much so disagree with basically deleting Johanna's character. All we see of her is several doe-eyed shots and one flimsy, cut down song. If I could have any song put back in, I would lobby hard for "Kiss Me/Ah Sir" because it gives us a better sense of her character. In the movie she is just a pretty girl, but on stage we see that she takes after her parents more then we would have guessed.

I absolutely love both, but ultimately the stage musical. It had more darkly comedic moments which I think the film needed. I still thought all the actors were fine in the film, but their singing wasn't as strong as it probably should have been.

I certainly prefer the stage musical. I resent that so many of the songs are cut; even characters are cut in order to add in stuff that's not necessary. Plus, Bonham Carter just doesn't have the strength of personality to carry the Lovett role. She's a terrible distraction.

That said, Cohen's Pirelli was pretty terrific.

[deleted]

I have seen both the stage musical, with George Hearn and Angela Lansberry in 1980, and the movie. They are very different. I very much loved the stage musical, it remains my favorite live theater experience to this day, but it was a very larger-than-life, fun-house kind of experience, with a loud whistle that sounded periodically, big stage voices, and a much more minimalist set with a catwalk, unlike the realistic movie setting. I also love the movie, but it is much more of an intimate experience; the singing is very enjoyable but is more conversational. This seems appropriate to me given the intimacy of film versus a stage performance which must communicate to everyone in a large theater. I wish that more of the music had made it into the film, but I ultimately found the film to be very satisfying, and the choices that Burton made worked for me.

Well a professional cast who can sing and can also sing and act at the same time does wonders for a play like this one so yeah, the stage musical is better. Any version really.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

This fight between Johnny and George will never end, huh?

Two versions having its own interpretation, doesn't mean that the counterpart has to be "bad". It all depends on which version you prefer.

Every different decision, every direction Tim went for, together with Stephen S. was for a reason. Tim wanted to steer away from the old formula and instead refreshening it: While still keeping the key elements, he wanted to make his version more cinematic, giving this story a different angle, and Stephen agreed to that decision.

The reason(s) as to why the majority of George's fans are so against Depp's portrayal of the main character, and Tim's choices, are not only for nostalgic reasons, but because this movie is so different as a whole; the humor is taken out, which in my opinion, would just slow the movie down, and simply ruining the entire point of Tim's vision; also, humor and murder simply don't work together.

However, the main reason for this fight, is, in the end, between Johnny and George; the humor George brought to his portrayal, was probably to "brighten up the mood", sure, 'we're dealing with rape, murder and cannibalism, but hey, why so serious, why not add a little fun to it?'. Of course, it isn't all about comedy, so George decided to go for a raw, brutal and overall exaggerated Sweeney; (Theatrical piece, sure, but he took it too far, even for a broadway)

Being used to that portrayal, they are going to find Depp's Sweeney too calm; but you don't understand Depp's portrayal of Todd: We're dealing with a man who has lost his family, his everything, and is now being sent away, never to return to his home; add that with over a decade of loneliness, despair and injustice; of course Benjamin is going to be broken and longing for revenge. The source of his pain was still out there, safe with no consequences for his actions. Todd just couldn't let Judge Turpin get away with it; there is no time to be joking around. Here http://www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=195703 this article will explain this portrayal of Todd perfectly.

You're so caught up in Hearn's portrayal that you turn ignorant and blind to any other portrayal of Sweeney, especially Depp's; fans of George; are you jealous because Depp is more popular and gets more recognition than Hearn?

The only reason why I lean more towards the movie is that I liked the fact that it was unflinching in showing how utterly horrible murder is. The musical at times is a little bit too lighthearted in that regard. Not that there's anything wrong with dark humor and all, but you don't really feel the horror of what Todd is doing. The entire time you're like, "Oh, how charmingly morbid."

The movie, I was so disturbed by the murder and mayhem, but in a good way. I liked the fact that the movie was in your face making you flinch in horror from the violence rather than take a humorous approach to it. Not enough movies do that anymore. Movies make violence seem less horrible than it really is, and this is one of the only movies in recent memory that bucked the trend, that made you feel horror for the victims.

---
Emojis=💩 Emoticons=