That all the choral/ ensemble numbers were cut. Especially the opening number.
Also that they cut a good half of "A Little Priest."
It's not a bad movie, but I sure missed the ensemble numbers.
The narration cuts were made for the better since they would have transferred to screen as well. As far as Little Priest, I am dissapointed they didn't do the full song but ultimately it probably had to do with the runtime and didn't bother me all that much.
shareWell here is my two cents on the matter, that if you want to have a movie at about 2 hours you have to make cuts to get into that time frame, well from what I remember reading they deemed Attend the tail of Sweeney Todd to be more theatrical then for a movie. And a lot of other songs that they shortened, not sure as the reason why but they switch God that is good and Jonna Act II around. Yeah and they cut out all the puns that are in the song A Little Priest. I guess is that because Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter are not comic actors.
shareWell, they cut all of the choruses. When you take a massive play like this and adapt it, you need to take an approach that has a perspective. Instead of just cutting things for time, they made the decision to take a particular approach to making those cuts that would scale down the movie and make it smaller and more personal. Removing all of the choruses and making all of the songs only involve the principal characters did just that. I love the original material, but it was a well thought out decision that works for the style of the movie.
In doing so they also lost some of the jokes from A Little Priest, but I don't think it's because the actors wouldn't be comfortable with humor. They've both performed comic roles before. I think it was an attempt to make the song more slyly comedic, and darkly humorous, and less overt. Not all of the puns were cut, since all of the lyrics are puns, but just a verse and the spoken dialogue within the song. I still thing the joking manner comes through in a character sense, even though it doesn't go for outright laughs.
I think switching the Johanna reprise works, because it's more natural after the act break to go with the song that follows multiple characters, and since they cut the choruses from God that's Good (which I agree, oddly cuts the title out of the song), they also removed Sweeney's chair building verse and put that in a different scene.
I actually think this order works better. This way, you have the chair already built, and then Johanna serves almost as a montage of murder scenes, so then by the time we get to God That's Good we have already seen Sweeney dispose of his victims and the message of why people are enjoying the food so much is much clearer, rather than seeing that afterwards.
The first time I saw this movie, I didn't know it was going to be a musical. That was the biggest disappointment for me. This movie would have been great without all the singing.
shareHahaha. That's like saying he should have made Sweeney Todd without all of the murder and cannibalism. These are kind of defining characteristics.
shareThat is not the same at all. The singing is completely irrelevant to the plot. Without the cannibalism and murder there would not be a story.
shareIt is the same in that you are saying you want it to be something it isn't. Why would someone adapt a musical and remove the songs? It makes no sense, and is incredibly stupid. People were annoyed enough that it's missing a lot of the original music anyway.
shareI want it to be a good movie, not a good musical. Stories get adapted into musicals all the time,so why not the other way around? Besides,the songs are just a way to progress the story, they are not necessary.
shareIf you don't like musicals that's your preference, but changing the fundamental structure of the story changes it from being the same work. There are versions of the Sweeney Todd story that are not musicals. They don't follow the same story, but you might like them better. This is an adaptation of a musical, one of the most revered pieces of theater in history, that's missing a lot of the great music as it is. It's a seminal work as a play, and highly regarded as a film as well. You're asking it to be something it fundamentally is not, and it's nonsensical.
shareIt is a movie version of a very beloved Stephen Sondheim Broadway musical, albeit a very badly made one.
Would you have them do a Rogers and Hammerstein II musical without the music that made people love the show in the first place?
The fact you were too stupid to know Sweeney Todd was a famous musical is your problem.
I don't care for any of those stpri
shareI get what you're saying and completely agree. It is a good musical but I personally would enjoy it more if it weren't. I find the story dark and fascinating. Taking the music out would give it an even darker feel. And, to all the die hard fans, I am not denigrating it as a musical.
Unveiling my first ever signature... Now where did I set my drink?
Ignoramus
shareI was bummed of the miscast of Carter- way too young
shareJohnny Depp RUINED this musical.
shareGeorge Hearn ruined the musical.
shareIan Adam ruined this musical. George Hearn wasn't in this version, but you knew that. The version with him in it only won him a Tony award ( to go with his other Tony, his Emmy, his Drama Desk award, and his Outer Critics award) and ran for years...but that's not my business.
share