Megamusicals - Fun Spectacle Or Commercial Pap?

At the moment, I'm in one of those particular moods in which I get utterly fixated on something and then go completely into depth on it, even if it's something that I'm normally not engaged in otherwise. For some reason, possibly because of researching the original Cats to compare it with the abysmal film adaptation, I recently became fascinated by megamusicals.

These are a particularly controversial type of musical. Critics who dislike them accuse them of being "McMusicals", only being released to gain as much profit as usual and establish franchises. However, they have been hugely successful with audiences over the years, often gaining big fandoms and becoming ingrained as part of pop culture and memes.

This article's main aim will be to explore the brief history of the megamusical genre, both its format in the 1980s and its format in the 21st century. Its main traits will be identified and I will state my overall opinion of them at the end. I will also identify examples that match the genre's requirements and discuss the highs and lows.

The 1980s - The Beginning

Most people agree that it was Andrew Lloyd Webber who first made megamusicals a thing. He had a few hit musicals such as Joseph And The Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat (1968) and Jesus Christ Superstar (1971) in the seventies that had some megamusical traits, but it was Cats (1981) that ultimately codified the traits that would be associated with them. He would then really made a name for himself with The Phantom of the Opera (1986), based on the Gaston Leroux gothic novel of the same name. These megamusicals would define the format associated with them at the time.

Most eighties megamusicals tend to be sung-through with maybe a few spoken lines every now and then. The sets are big, the casts are big (often focusing on an ensemble cast rather than a single protagonist) and the costumes stand out big time. Often there will be a story that explores certain universal themes, but it lacks a lot of depth and is only a minor feature when compared to the spectacle. The music is very catchy and consists of modern pop and rock songs, often including power ballads and big orchestrations. Commercially, they will be very successful and popular with audiences, though critics will be more mixed about them.

To explain these points in further detail, I will be briefly analysing Starlight Express (1984), the megamusical Lloyd Webster very loosely based on Thomas The Tank Engine. Whilst it is not as famous as Lloyd Webber's other works such as Cats and Phantom, it's still pretty enjoyable and it puts these aspects to good use.

1. Major focus on spectacle and visuals? Check. The musical is performed on rollerskates and there are train tracks designed to go around the audience so that actors can skate around them. It's a very immersive experience to say the least. Additionally, the costumes themselves look really nice and accurately portray the trains that they are imitating as well as the character's personalities.
2. Storyline that explores universal themes but is only second nature to the spectacle? Check. The main plotline is about a steam train called Rusty who wants to win the big race and impress the aloof Pearl, but must compete against the bullying diesel engine Greaseball (who is essentially Elvis as a train) and the arrogant electric train Electra (very apt). It's essentially the classic underdog story that we all know about and explores the idea of not giving up on your dreams and having more confidence in yourself, so not anything new here (of course, maybe the fact that it's applied to trains could be classified as original).
3. Large ensemble cast? Check. Though Rusty is the main protagonist, there's quite a lot of focus on other characters and their own subplots as well, such as Pearl's search for her ideal partner,  Greaseball and Electra's rivalry and the dining car Dinah's turbulent relationship with and undying devotion for Greaseball. There are also groups of similar characters such as the National Trains and the Rockies who don't have single members stand out, but they are still memorable as groups.
4. Soundtrack with catchy pop songs and power ballads? Check. For example, Greaseball is inspired by Elvis Presley and Electra gets a song called "AC/DC" as a reference to the famous Australian rock band.
5. Does very well commercially? I'll definitely say check on this one. It's had a decent run in the West End, and then there's Germany's obsession with it. Not only is it the longest running musical in Germany so far, but they even made their own theatre specifically to put on that show. Complete with the classic train tracks around the audience for crying out loud! And family events that are held backstage too!

I mean, LOOK AT IT! And that's just the standing ovation we're looking at here! (Note: This was a 2018 production of Starlight Express at the Starlight Express Theatre in Bochum, Germany.)

Starlight Express is an interesting megamusical. Sure, the plot has some weird themes and messages (seriously, steam engines being more efficient than diesel or electric?) and Pearl is a complete bitch at times. But it's fun and engaging with a brilliant set, lavish costumes, catchy music and memorable characters, and I was rooting for Rusty throughout that show the whole time.

I'd also like to point out that the spectacle of Starlight Express is partly the reason why this would not work as a movie. Not only would there be a loss of audience immersion, but the way that the characters are portrayed onstage means that it would be hard to find a way to properly depict them on the silver screen. Keep them in costumes and on roller-skates, and it just looks like people in costumes and on roller-skates. Turn them into actual trains, and it loses the dancing from the original show (unless they tried to have dancing trains, and that would just look stupid). The best they could possibly do is try and go for the Chicago film root of showing them as trains in "reality" and as people during the "fantasy" segments, but that would just get confusing quickly, even if the events of the show are implied to be in the head of a young train fanatic.

Sometimes, some of the megamusicals such as Phantom, Les Misérables and Miss Saigon do have serious stories that play an important role in the show. But the spectacle is still grand and the script is still sung-through. For instance, Phantom has the famous chandelier scene, Les Mis had the turning stage (which was sadly removed from recent productions) and Miss Saigon has the helicopter.

This format doesn't really get used much anymore. Blame is usually placed on the Broadway failure of Lloyd-Webber's Aspects of Love, but that wasn't actually a megamusical in the first place - it was just advertised as one despite being more of a soap opera. The most recent users of this format are the critically-reviled Love Never Dies (the Phantom sequel that we never asked for) and the critically and commercially successful Hamilton. Hamilton plays around with the format though - it's sung-through, features modern music, has a grand plot that focuses on themes of social justice and the rise of fall of the titular character and has impressive lighting, but it doesn't really have grand sets and scenery.

The 21st Century - The Highs And The Lows

The format of megamusicals changed in the 2000s, starting with the shows The Lion King (1997) and Wicked (2003). The sung-through format was mostly dropped and more spoken dialogue was used instead, and the plots started to have an equal role to the spectacle. The sets and costumes were still flashy though, such as the Indonesian puppetry in The Lion King and the dresses that Elphaba and Glinda wear in Wicked.

Keep in mind that The Lion King was not the first successful Disney megamusical. That would be the stage version of Beauty and the Beast, but that one barely had any success in the United Kingdom due to being seen as a "sentimentalised big-budget pantomine". Additionally, The Lion King and Wicked were what started the 21st century trend of adapting famous works for the stage and advertising them for families and tourists, similar to the megamusicals of the eighties.

Either way, Disney is a good example of the 21st century megamusical in action. Aside from the works I've just mentioned, they've also adapted Aladdin, Frozen, Mary Poppins and The Little Mermaid. Frequently, these musicals will use songs that were planned for the original films but never made it in for some reason, with the use of Jafar's song "Why Me?" in Aladdin being a good example. They also make changes to make the plot and characters work better onstage, such as when they turned the parrot Iago from Aladdin into a human. Nevertheless, the plots are still mostly faithful to the original stories and you can expect the same lavish scenery and costumes that they had in the films and other megamusicals.

Results vary each time. Disney is nearly always successful with their stage adaptations of their films (Britain seems to be the only exception of where they do well, and even then we like The Lion King), though reception to the Frozen stage adaptation has been more mixed. Wicked is also very successful and has fully integrated pop culture, up to the point in which it arguably overshadows the (much darker) book it was based on. The Shrek musical adaptation is more of a mixed bag - some people love it, some people hate it and some people like myself are in-between. But it still does well commercially, as indicated by the many times I've seen it promoted over in my home country.

Of course, sometimes it goes wrong. Like with the Spider-Man musical (2011). Yes, we all know it was a thing.

If by "famous", they mean the reputation it received for the turbulent production, the injuries the actors suffered on the set, the fact that its creator was fired and had her career killed, and the fact that it had numerous preview showings...yeah, I guess you're right in a sense.

The full title is actually Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark, but I never got what the subtitle was supposed to mean. Besides, given the infamous reputation this musical gained for the injuries the actors suffered due to faulty wires and sets, other people were right to name it Spider-Man: Notify Next Of Kin instead.

What makes this particularly depressing is that the idea for it came from Julie Taymor, the same woman who brought us The Lion King musical. Due to her primadonna attitude on set and her bizarre ideas for Spider-Man, she was ultimately fired from the production. Still didn't stop it from flopping. It holds the world records for most previews shows for a musical, and I'm pretty sure that they could have outweighed the actual amount of shows that were put on when it finally had a proper release, had it not ultimately finished in 2014 instead.

The main problem with the Spider-Man musical, appalling safety conditions aside, is that it doesn't really bring anything new to the megamusical genre. Cats essentially popularised said genre in the first place. Starlight Express obviously had the roller-skates and the train tracks. The Lion King featured the Indonesian puppetry. Wicked was based on a much darker story that served as a retelling of The Wizard Of Oz and explored the backstory of the witches. The Spider-Man musical however...is just an adaptation of the comics and Sam Raimi movies. Even the stunts on the wires have been performed in other shows beforehand.

My Conclusive Thoughts

So my overall opinion on megamusicals? Well, as someone who's not a massive musical expert or fangirl, but shows an interest for them anyway, it ultimately depends on the production and the mood you're in. I desire a good story in a musical most of all, but I have a deep interest in spectacle too. The Lloyd-Webber ones are always fun to watch for instance (Love Never Dies being the only exception), even if the plots can be weak at times. The Disney ones can also be pretty good at times, though The Lion King is clearly the best.

I feel that in order for a megamusical to be successful, it has to be innovative. The spectacle has to be unique and it shouldn't take away from the emotional impact that it's supposed to have on the audience. I have a field day watching the roller-blade stunts in Starlight Express, admiring the puppets in The Lion King and witnessing the different musical styles in Cats, but the Spider-Man musical and Love Never Dies do nothing for me. We shouldn't have a massive glut of megamusicals, but it's nice to see one once in a while.

The Most Important Lesson To Take From The COVID-19 Quarantine

[Note: In case I accidentally come off as insensitive with this blog post, I would just like to start out by saying that I offer my deepest sympathies to those who have been affected by the ongoing coronavirus. I can't necessarily understand what it is certainly like, as I haven't had it yet, but I certainly understand how horrible the current situation is as well as the grief of those who have lost loved ones as a result. I am so sorry you have to go through this pain.]

I try not to talk much about the ongoing coronavirus pandemic on my blog posts, especially when we take into account the worldwide lock-down that has occurred as a result. It just doesn't help my mental state at all. I would prefer to just talk about stuff to look forward and stuff I like such as my obsession with Death Battle!, my excitement over the upcoming Jackbox Party Pack 7 and things that I'm normally not obsessed with but have taken a recent interest to.

However, it is important that I make reference to said quarantine anyway, as it strongly links with the argument I am making in this article. Obviously, we all know that the main important lesson about the pandemic is that some world leaders are just idiots, but we can't get political here. So here's the main message I would like to get out there.

We live in an extroverted society. With the possible exception of Scandinavia, most countries tend to pressure people into connecting more with others. They have to use social media, they have to attend the latest events, they have to have loads of friends. If you're an introvert or loner on the other hand, the main assumption is that you're some tragic freak who wears goth clothes and needs to be "cured" of your loneliness. After all, people are stronger when they're together, right? And why would you want to be cooped-up inside all day not doing anything "special"?

A completely accurate and realistic depiction of an introvert...according to extroverts. (Note: Picture from Pokemon X And Y.)

It seems that most people have a bad case of FOMO (a.k.a. fear of missing out). It mainly involves feeling anxious about not being part of some major social event, such as parties, conventions or just hanging out with others in general. I guess the idea is that if you're not getting involved in these events on a day to day basis, you're not cool enough. So apparently people who prefer to have alone time are not cool either.

Of course, we can't do any of that at the moment. Conventions have been cancelled, theatres and cinemas have been shut down and other upcoming social events have had to be held off. Extroverts can't get outside the same way that they could before the lock-down. They now have to live the same lifestyle that they suspect that introverts do until everything opens up again.

I was talking to my mother about this a few weeks back when we were coming back from a walk. Her prediction is that some people who were originally extroverts could possibly become agoraphobics in response to the lock-down. Having spent several months cooped up inside their own houses and having to distance themselves from other people, they will likely be uneasy about going outside again and going near said people again.

Quite likely, some of those new agoraphobics will be ones who previous mocked other people for not being extroverted like they were. This obviously won't be the case with everyone, but it will be for some of them.

There is however a small solution to this. It may not help out in the long-term, but it can help you feel better in the short term.

The opposite of FOMO is JOMO (a.k.a. joy of missing out), which was coined by the tech blogger Anil Dash (here's his blog here - it has some really interesting stuff about technology and mental health). Essentially, it's about having time to yourself and mindfulness, in contrast to worrying about trying to stay connected. As an ambivert (a cross between an extrovert and an introvert), I've taken on this philosophy myself and let me tell you, it works wonders. I still keep in contact with friends and family, but I don't feel forced to "catch up" with what's "hot" at the moment.

So here's my advice. Try to take some time to yourself for once. Try not to get too fussed up about events you may be missing out on. You can still find ways to keep in contact with others if you want to, but don't let it pressure you. Good friends will acknowledge that we all need our alone time at some point. Find some stuff you can do by yourself such as reading some good books, drawing or watching online videos. Additionally, find some good films or TV programmes that you can enjoy by yourself, or some good video games. If you are able to get out of the house as well, try and visit someplace like the woods where you can get some private time to yourself, possibly to meditate and think about more positive things. Hopefully, this takes away all of the stress of not being able to connect with others as easily.

Most importantly of all, I hope this makes us all understand the situation of introverts better. May it make us realise that we shouldn't be mocking introverts for the lifestyles they lead, and instead we should be more considerate as to why they may be like that, as well as how they're not that different from others as a whole. There's nothing wrong with being extroverted at all, but please understand that there's nothing wrong with being an introvert either. Or an ambivert for that matter.

My Review Of The Jackbox Party Pack 2

The Jackbox Party Pack 2 poster.

Okay, now that Jackbox made their second announcement on the 2nd April, this is a good time to be posting this review. The game announced was The Devils and the Details - this was actually meant to be an April Fool's joke but as the trailer got posted a day afterwards, there is the chance that they may make this an actual game on the seventh party pack.

Either way, here's my review of the games from Party Pack 2!

Quiplash.

Alongside Cookie Masterson, Josh "Schmitty" Schmitstinstein (voiced by Phil Ridarelli) has also had a major role as a host in the You Don't Know Jack franchise, starting off with Television and then moving on to many more after that. He may not currently be hosting that particular series for the party packs, but he gets to return to the spotlight in what is definitely the key game of Party Pack 2.

The premise is that you are given a prompt that you must write down an answer to, and your answer will then be pitted up against someone else's. Everyone else then votes on which answer they like the best or they feel is the funniest. You get points based on how many people vote for your answer, but you receive a bonus if you win the most points, and an even bigger one if you "QUIPLASH!" the other player by receiving all of the votes in a game with a large amount of players.

There's a reason why this game is my favourite one of of this party pack. Not only is it an extremely colourful game with really cute characters in it, but this one gets really crazy with the prompts and answers you can receive. Whether's it asking you to come up with an alternative substitute for toilet roll, the secret to a happy life or a terrible name for a 1930s gangster, the only limit to your answers is your imagination. It's all in good fun.

...Well, most of the time anyway. (Note: Screenshot taken from Achievement Hunter's first playthrough of the game, which can be seen here. Somehow, the audience voted for the second option, which explains the orange guy's victory.)

My favourite part of this game though is the Back Talk achievement. If you write down a particular answer to a question (e.g. answering "Something you'd most love to smash with a wrecking ball" with "Miley Cyrus"), Schmitty always has a witty comment in response, allowing Ridarelli to really show off his acting chops in the process. Just be careful answering "The world's most boring video game" prompt though. He will certainly not be happy if you put down a particular answer there (no spoilers, though!). X)

Fibbage 2.

Cookie Masterson is back for this sequel with the same sardonic humour he had in the first game. I won't delve too much into this game, as it's essentially the same premise. However, I will talk about the new additions. For instance, the art style is even quirkier than before - for example, the player icons are now eyeballs and chameleons pop up on the correct answers. Giving this new aesthetic to the game really matches the game's personality itself.

A new feature is the "deFIBrillator", which allows a player to remove all the answers on their device except for one lie and the true answer. This is particularly useful on an extremely tricky question with similar sounding answers, but the fact that you must still choose between the two remaining options means that it isn't a cheap cop-out. Overall, a satisfying sequel to what was already a fun game - and it finds ways to improve on it too.

Earwax.

A very quirky and fun game that takes a seemingly ridiculous premise and then actually makes it work. In this game, players must find two sounds that match a particular prompt. One person is selected to be the judge for a particular round, and they must choose which sound they like the best in said round. People can vote on the sounds they like the best and whilst it does not actually choose the winner, it could potentially influence the judge's decision. The first person to win three rounds wins.

The host is the robotic-sounding M.O.T.H.E.R. (I didn't see the voice actor's name in the credits, but I know from other Jackbox sources that it was Ryan DiGiorgi), who is mostly very chipper and helps add to the game's wacky tone. Additionally, there are many different sounds to choose from, ranging from "All hail the king!" to explosions, meaning that your choices aren't limited when it's time to pick your two sounds. Pairing the answers up with some interesting prompts, you're bound to get some wild results.

Just a warning though. Most of the voice clips are family-friendly, but a few of of them essentially consist of orgasms that get very intense. Remember to keep that in mind when playing with younger players - hopefully you managed to find a way to censor said options before starting. Otherwise, you're safe to go!

Bidiots.

Now this is an interesting one to discuss. The premise of the game is that you must bid on each other's artwork in hopes of making a profit. On your device, you will be told which pieces of artwork you should be bidding on and the price that you should be aiming for. If you lose money on a bad purchase or sale (or worst of all, somehow buying your own artwork - yes, this can happen), you have an option to take out a predatory loan (which comes with a very catchy theme song everytime). However, said loans will be taken back at the end of the game. Another option is to "screw" someone into bidding on artwork they don't want, making them more likely to lose money on a bad purchase. Overall, the person who makes the most profit wins.

The rounds are pretty much the same, thus making gameplay repetitive (by this, I mean that each round is just bidding on artwork and then taking a loan). Additionally, audience participation is not possible for some reason and the screw function can break the game if you can't find somebody to use it on. Nevertheless, it's still pretty entertaining. The gameplay gets very hectic at times given its nature, which I always enjoy in a party game like this. The noises that the bidders make when trying to win the artwork are also priceless, especially when they occur within seconds of each other. Additionally, there's a fun little easter egg where if you type in your player name at the beginning, you can sometimes get a special place-card associated with said name rather than the regular ones. I won't spoil the results you can get, but definitely try it out.

In particular, I would like to discuss the host of this game, because he is utterly hilarious. He is voiced by Tim Sniffen, who has worked with Jackbox games for a long time and is both a talented voice actor and comedian (he also voices Donny in YJKJ 2011, the green room organiser who loves to use long complicated words that he doesn't understand). The posh voice he puts on is priceless and it's especially funny to hear his exasperation whenever the loan sharks come by. And I never get tired of the way he announces the different prices as well. It cracks me up every time. X)

Bomb Corp.

This is Jackbox's own take on the bomb-defusing game genre, similar to ones such as Keep Talking And Nobody Explodes. The premise is that you are working as a bomb-defuser, with your boss Greg (voiced by Matt Young) guiding you through. Most of the gameplay consists of you defusing the bombs that your new company makes, but there are other tasks such as organising folders (that also contain explosives) and clearing out your desk. So overall, not very different from a normal day job. ;)

Personally, I feel that this is the weakest of the Party Pack 2 games. It doesn't really stand out compared to the others and the amount of players that can take part is very limited in comparison to your regular Jackbox game, with audience participation also not being a feature. However, it's still pretty charming and the different tasks it offers you should keep you occupied - it's good that they don't go for the same tasks every time and choose to vary the rounds. Additionally, Greg adds some witty comments throughout gameplay that work well for the situation that you're in. Overall, it's a good game to play if you only want to play a solo game or with one friend.

Drawful 2.

Okay, for some reason this game does not appear to be on the party pack, which is why I placed it last. Like with the Fibbage 2 review, I'll just discuss the new features it brings to the series. The host is now voiced by Elizabeth Archer, but she still has a similar personality to the host from the first game, which is a nice touch. Another new feature is the chance to use not one, but two colours. This will definitely add something new to your pictures which could help out with particular prompts.

Add the new art design that stays faithful to the original game and there you have it - another satisfying sequel. Still confused as to why it isn't on the party pack though.


Overall, this pack has its ups and downs. A couple of the games aren't as memorable as the games on other party packs, but as it is Jackbox we're talking about here, even the weaker games have their charm. Additionally, Quiplash is an absolute joy, the game sequels add a lot to the original games and Earwax is great fun.

As soon as the third game gets announced, I will be posting my review for the third party pack. This one's a real treat, I tell you!

How Les Misérables Predicted The Main Problems With Cats: A Study In Film Flaws And Musical Adaptations

I mean, it's certainly joyful for those who like cinematic garbage.

So, the Cats movie adaptation was a thing. It got slated by almost everybody as soon as the first teasers dropped, received even more negative reviews as soon as it actually got released, it bombed at the box office big time, it got nominated for nine Razzies and won six of them, including Worst Picture. Everyone now remembers it for being one thing - a cautionary tale about how NOT to adapt a stage musical for the silver screen.

Most people agree that the director Tom Hooper is to blame. He was the one who came up with the idea of the cats being CGI humans, after all. Sure, the fact that the studio rushed Cats for a Christmas release made things worse, but it's likely that it would have still been a trainwreck even without factoring that in.

So exactly went wrong? How did one of the most beloved (if also polarising) musicals end up being turned into a cinematic abomination?

To find the answer, I'll be looking back at Les Misérables, another musical adaptation that Tom Hooper directed back in 2012. Despite winning several awards and doing much better at the box office than his recent venture, I feel that it contains what we identify as the "original sins" (a term used by TV Tropes) of his directory work.

So What Is A Franchise Original Sin?

I'm a massive fan of TV Tropes terms, and this is one of my favourite. The "franchise original sin" is defined as being an issue that started in previous works, but only became apparently and unbearable in later works. For example, Joss Whedon works such as Buffy The Vampire Slayer tended to have a strong female characters getting broken down by tragic events. Sometimes they weren't even action girls, but genuinely sweet girls such as Penny from Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog (I highly recommend you check this one out, it's both hilarious and genuinely depressing at the same time). This was perfectly fine when it was just his own characters (it helps that in Doctor Horrible, the male protagonist became even more broken that Penny did), but people finally lost it when he tried to do the same to Black Widow (a character he did not create himself) in Avengers: Age Of Ultron. As a result, he now has a reputation for being someone with outdated views on feminism that originally seemed revolutionary in the nineties.

Now you may wonder why I chose Tom Hooper's musical adaptations for applying this term to. Well, first of all, it's something I've noticed being brought up in other online articles and videos and I wanted to expand on it further (especially since there isn't a TV Tropes article about it yet). Secondly, it's a topic that will still be relevant at the moment but will be outdated if I were to release this blog post later.

And thirdly, I was originally going to apply the term to the Ice Age films. But that would take up too many blog posts for now. So I'll deal with that later and stick with this for now.

Comparing The Films

So a bit about the Les Misérables movie. It is obviously based on the musical of the same name, which in turn was based on the novel by Victor Hugo. It tells both the story of a failed French uprising (which happened before the proper French revolution) and the story of Jean Valjean, a former crook who is trying to live a new life but is pursued by the determined Inspector Javert. It is what would be classified as a megamusical - it is entirely sung-through with barely any spoken lines, it has a grandiose stage set and a large cast and it makes a lot of money. To adapt something like that, Hooper had to make quite a few changes in order to make it better fit the feature film format.

The most iconic of the Les Mis movie posters.

When the film was released, it gained a worldwide gross of $441,809,770 ($148,809,770 domestically and $293,000,000 internationally) against a $61,000,000 budget. Not only did it snag the world record for the highest opening day gross for a musical film, but it also beat Mamma Mia! for the highest-grossing opening weekend for a musical film in the United Kingdom. It was nominated for many awards, most notably helping Anne Hathaway to win the Oscar, the BAFTA and the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress.

Les Misérables was a success, but it had its problems. People who disliked the movie criticised the bizarre use of cinematic techniques (the shaking cameras and close-ups were among some of the main issues) and some of the casting choices such as Russell Crowe's infamous stint as Inspector Javert. Now, I'm currently not a huge fan of Doug Walker (a.k.a. The Nostalgia Critic) and his works, especially after the whole "Channel Awful" controversy, but I have to admit that he does a very good review on the film that explores the main point about critical reactions - either people loved it or they hated it.

These issues would then carry onto Cats. Like Les Misérables, the cinematic techniques and special effects were absurd, and it was more intent on having as many famous actors and celebrities as possible without worrying about whether they would be well-suited for their roles or not. Sometimes, well-established characterisations of characters were altered in questionable ways just to reflect the personality of their actors more clearly. Many people even brought up the problems of Les Mis in order to further emphasise their criticisms of Cats. But unlike Les Mis, Cats would only dominate the Razzies rather than anything designed to show it a little bit of respect.

So what saved Les Misérables? Simple. A combination of some genuinely brilliant actors and the lack of crappy CGI, as well as source material with a strong plotline.

The casting.

To go in depth on casting, many of the stars of Les Mis are recognisable actors such as Hugh Jackman, Amanda Seyfried and the previously mentioned Hathaway and Crowe. And whilst some of them have experience in musical theatre, some of them don't. With Crowe, he only had experience in folk rock. I also did some quick research on the casting choices and although the brilliant Samantha Barks ultimately got the role of Éponine, two of the stars being considered for the role included Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift (though the latter went on to be in Cats).

Taking the final cast and the original casting choices into accounts, it's clear to me that there was more concern for big names that people could "relate" to than actors who had musical theatre experience. But aside from Crowe, most of us were willing to push that flaw aside. Jackman and Barks were highly praised, along with newcomer Eddie Redmayne, and Hathaway stole the show with her award-bait performance as the fallen woman Fantine.

Even if we were to remove the crappy CGI from Cats, none of the performances in the latter film are truly Oscar-worthy. Sure, plenty of the actors seemed to be having a fun time and apparently wanted to do this for a while (Swift really hams it up and steals the show as Bombularina despite said character having her characterisation butchered), but that's about it. And even if there was potential for an award-bait performance, the CGI makes it harder to notice, as we're too focused on that and the faces are covered up by that weird fur stuff.

And then there was the casting of Rebel Wilson as Jennyanydots, which was hated by even the most die-hard defenders of the film. Her crude stage personality did not fit the character well and quite rightly. This isn't anything new though. In Les Mis, Sacha Baron-Cohen and Helena Bonham-Carter are cast are the wily Thénardiers, and their quirky and risque stage personalities are associated with the characters. Most notably is the moment when Monsieur Thénardier steals money from a man dressed as Santa Claus being humped by a prostitute, a scene curiously described in the Nostalgia Critic review as "Santa rape". I have looked up to see if that scene was in the original show - apparently it wasn't.

And if you expect me to post a picture of the offending scene...urgh, you really disgust me.

The Thénardiers are nasty pieces of work anyway. They swindle people out of money and mistreat Cosette when she's a child. Plus, they were always a twisted form of comic relief anyway. So that weird sex scene can be somewhat forgiven, especially since the Thénardiers weren't the ones having sex with Santa themselves. But Jennyanydots is a motherly if stern matron who teaches mice and cockroaches to improve their habits. With Wilson playing her, she becomes a more ghastly figure who tortures them rather than looks after them. It is her alone who strips off her fur to reveal a tacky dance outfit similar to ones from the 1940s underneath it, her alone who eats the cockroaches that happen to have kid's faces CGI-imposed on to them.

The same goes with the Bustopher Jones segment, where he gets played by James Corden. Bustopher is meant to be a high-class cat with refined manners and taste...and yet in his segment, the cats are eating from rubbish bins. Um, I'm sorry, does that scream "high-class" to you? I don't think so.

The worst part of the Bustopher segment is that Corden only uses that stage persona for the crappy films he appears in. When he's doing television in Britain, such as on Gavin & Stacy and The Wrong Mans, he doesn't have that particular image. Makes you wonder why it changes for the big screen.

The plots.

Another notable difference between both films was the story that they adapted. The original musicals are part of the "megamusical" genre, which features musicals with entirely sung dialogue and impressive spectacle. Sometimes in megamusicals, the plot is only given secondary focus so that the audiences can focus on the music and technology instead. However, due to the original Les Mis being based on a novel rich with plot and characterisation, this was not a problem at all. With musicals like that, all that needs to be done for the silver screen is maybe some expansion on the plot (possibly even adding spoken dialogue if necessary) and the adaptation's good to go.

With the original Cats however, that musical was based on Old Possum's Book Of Practical Cats by T.S. Eliot, a selection of poems that only linked together due to the theme of cats in them and some minor references characters from other poems. The plot itself is simply about members of the Jellicle tribe trying to get a chance to go of a journey to the "Heaviside Layer" and be reincarnated, even though it seems that many of the cats (excluding Grizabella and Gus) are still young and healthy and could possibly do with sticking around a bit more. The plot itself is not that much in depth and some people have come up with some interesting interpretations of it (my favourite one possibly being that the cats are all dead and in the afterlife anyway). Consequently, trying to expand upon it resulted in new issues, such as trying to expand the role of the very minor character Victoria and have her replace the more prominent Jemina, and turning the sexually-confident yet ultimately well-meaning Bombularina into a devious supporter of the villain Macavity (um, slut-shaming much?).

Summing It All Up

I think by now I've summed up what I feel were the main comparisons with both films. They're adapted from sung-through megamusicals that may or may not work better onstage, they feature all-star casts involving actors that may or may not be suited for the characters they have been assigned for. But in general, Les Mis is at least able to distract us from some of those flaws with its good points, something that Cats was unable to do.

Overall, this just goes to reveal Hooper's biggest flaw. He has several grandiose and ambitious ideas for adapting musicals, but he doesn't know how to put them to proper use. Cats just made said flaw more obvious.

Think of Cats as the inverse Springtime For Hitler from the comedy classic The Producers. With the latter, the titular characters try and put on the worst show possible with an offensive script and terrible actors, but ultimately they create an accidental success that is seen as a satire of the Nazi regime. With Cats, it's the opposite. Hooper clearly thought that he had found the "perfect" special effects and the "perfect " cast for a film based on a well-loved musical, but combined together, they ended up creating an absolute trainwreck.

Looking back, it's easy to track down Hooper's decline in cinema. He had massive success with The King's Speech, did okay with Les Mis and The Danish Girl and then sucked with Cats. He could potentially have a comeback if he does a better film afterwards, but given the points that I've brought up, it's unlikely that he will completely be able to cover up the flaws in his film-making style again. Which is not a completely bad thing, but it's still something to keep in mind.


[10th April UPDATE: Coincidentally at the same time that I uploaded this article, online reviewer Lindsay Ellis uploaded the video "Why Cats?" that brings up some of the same points that I do. I did not know this until the 9th April, and I am so happy that she has explored this topic as well. This one actually goes further into the analysis of "Oscar-bait" musical adaptations such as their origins. Seriously, she does really good videos and I've feel they're gotten even better over the years, especially with the increasing emphasis on film theory and analysing details. I'll put the link here so that you can check it out - it's a really interesting analysis and a fun one too. Remember to check out her other videos as well. ;)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6iqAip-ZNo