^ "I have seen both the Broadway show with Mills and Debra Malone on the touring show..."
--------------------------------------
I stand corrected and apologize for what I interpreted as your not having seen the show in its original incarnation based on my recollections of previous posts. I must have been wrong.
Still, if the stage version "sucked" on some level as you said earlier, why would you see it twice?
--------------------------------------
^ "There are tons of films now being turned into broadway shows after the fact, and not the other way around so you have no point really."
--------------------------------------
But this is not the case with "The Wiz." The Broadway show came first in 1975, years before the film in question was envisioned. That is simply a fact.
Broadway musicals come from many sources: novels, short stories, straight plays, non-musical movies, comic strips, children's books (like L. Frank Baum's "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,") and even the Bible. Bringing film musicals to the stage is largely a "Disney thing" and a relatively recent phenomenon. It was certainly not prevalent in the 1970s.
--------------------------------------
"A film is forever and THE WIZ is the most ambitious OZ film since the 1939 version."
--------------------------------------
You've forgotten about last year's "Oz The Great and Powerful" which was more than a little "ambitious" and more than a little successful (weak as it may have been structurally...again just an opinion), and that "Wicked" has been showing in "little theaters in various corners of the world" (virtually everywhere, that is, including Broadway) for over a decade.
And....surprise..."Wicked" is being developed as a film (based on the show) by Universal, the same studio that brought "The Wiz" to the screen. Wisely, they're waiting for the show to announce closure before starting production. A film opening while a show is still running has been known to kill said show's box office. That was certainly the case with "The Wiz": "Phantom of the Opera," and "Grease" have been notable exceptions to this "rule."
-------------------------------------
"You used to argue that Mills was first choice for the film blah blah blah and I had to let you know that you were totally misinformed with that information too."
--------------------------------------
You must be confusing me with some other poster. Mills herself has said that she was never seriously considered. (She can't really act. She was considered as a replacement to play Celie in "The Color Purple" musical adaptation on Broadway, but dramatically it was felt she couldn't cut it.)
When John Badham (Rob Cohen's partner) was attached to direct the film, the thought was to hire an unknown, and perhaps a nation-wide search for a teenaged Dorothy. When Diana Ross was signed, John Badham dropped out and Sidney Lumet was hired. Read Richard J. Anobile's "The Wiz Scrapbook." http://www.amazon.com/The-scrapbook-Berkley-windhover-book/dp/04250396 33
--------------------------------------
"You obviously love the film very much because you are always here talking about it which I find hilarious."
--------------------------------------
If this is your idea of "hilarity" you clearly have a rather warped sense of humor. I have stated my opinion several times: Certain elements and portions of the film version are truly brilliant, but specific creative choices which strayed too far from the Broadway material (the success of which prompted the film's existence) hindered its overall success artistically and otherwise.
And my original assertion in this thread still stands: There weren't any people of color involved in top creative decision making positions on the film version of "The Wiz," and the stage production on which the film was based displayed African-American creativity stunningly.
reply
share