The Hell Is Up With The Dork Diaries Movie?!

On April 25th, it was announced that the Super Mario Bros. movie, starring the like of Chris Pratt (for some goddawful reason) was going to be delayed until next year. But that's not what I'm here to talk about today. Instead, what this annoucement has done has re-reminded me of another franchise I got into which also seems to be having a delay, but unlike the Mario film, which at least somewhat has a release date next year, this one just seems to have vanished without a trace.

So there's a book series I read at times called Dork Diaries, which chronicles the high school misadventures of a certain Nikki J. Maxwell as she makes friends, falls in love with the charming yet lovable photographer Brandon Roberts and goes up against bonafide bitch MacKenzie Hollister. Some people have described it as a girl's version of Diary of a Wimpy Kid, but UK marketing aside, it actually takes a different turn.

Overall, I've had a love-hate relationship with this book series at times. There was a period in which I was obsessed with it, then a period in which I disliked it, then a period in which I was obsessed with it again. At the moment, it's mostly reasonable pleasure with the series...though seriously, that crappy MacKenzie. She needs to get fucked.

If they offered dartboards like this, it would make my dream come true.

I could rant all day about how much MacKenzie sucks and all the horrible things I wish could happen to her (she's a manipulative cyberbully trying to ruin other people's lives, for crying out loud!), but it's not why I'm writing this post. I'm writing it because of something called "development hell".

On the 5th September 2014, a now-deleted post was uploaded on the Dork Diaries blog. Here's an excerpt from it that I managed to save before it vanished, complete with the original font size, just to emphasise its main point:

Lionsgate Summit Entertainment, the same people who made amazing movies like Divergent, Hunger Games and Twilight, will be filming a DORK DIARIES movie!!!

Yeah, sure, because vampire romance stories written by Mormons and gritty dystopians for young adults sure do mix well with high school comedies. Also, wasn't The Hunger Games the only one of these franchises to get decent reviews from critics? And didn't the Divergent franchise die a swift and anti-climatic death two years later?

Hey, if District 1 tribute MacKenzie does get a hit in, dreamy vampire Brandon can simply save chosen Divergent Nikki's life by turning her into a vampire too. Isn't that the outcome the audience wants to see?

Anyway, enough of that snarking. The film was supposedly going to be released in 2016. That didn't happen. They said it would then get released in 2017. It's now 2022. A source in early 2021 claimed that the "reason" why was because of COVID-19 restrictions, but given the unrealistic time frames and the fact that the film was already getting delayed, they were probably just trying to save face.

Next of all was a (also now deleted) blog post on the 15th May 2015 (a year before the supposed release date), which was asking fans to give suggestions for who they wanted to play the characters in this movie. The idea being that the film-makers would then look at the suggestions and take them into account. Most of the comments consist of:

1. People trying to think up big names that would be way too old for the role by now.
2. People trying to get themselves, or a a friend or family member hired for a role.
3. People saying that Meryl Streep should be the grandmother, which would certainly help to improve the film's quality given her track record. A lot of people also mentioned Betty White for the role, which considering recent events, is now sadly impossible.
4. People saying that Peyton List (the one who plays Holly Hills in Diary Of A Wimpy Kid and Emma Ross in Jessie) should be MacKenzie. And then some people complained that it shouldn't happen because she's too "nice".
5. Paying saying that Mia Talerico (plays Charlie Duncan in Good Luck Charlie) should be Brianna. They would have to age Brianna up from 6 to 13 if they want to consider this now though, and thus that would make her only one year younger than Nikki.
6. People complaining that other people's suggestions won't work because their suggested actors don't look like the characters that they are suggested for. There was also a priceless moment in which someone had to remind someone else that Ellen Albertini Dow (the rapping granny from The Wedding Singer) could not be Grandma Maxwell because she had died about a week before the blog post went up.

I will also post my suggestions that I made at the time right here:

1. Nikki J. Maxwell: Chloe Grace Moretz, Maddie Ziegler, Abigail Breslin, Kaitlyn Dias, AnnaSophia Robb or a friend of mine from primary school who may or may not have starred in Casualty at some point.
2. Chloe Garcia: Allegra Leguizamo (John Leguizamo's daughter).
3. Zoey Franklin: Ciara Bravo (though she would have be a white Zoey if that was the case). Also liked the suggestion of China Ann McClain.
4. MacKenzie Hollister: AnnaSophia Robb or Claudia Lee (the latter played Brooke in Kick-Ass 2).
5. Brandon Roberts: Ryan Potter.
6. Mr. Maxwell: Ray Romano (I unfortunately spelt it as Rino Romano in the actual post - completely different actor), Ty Burrell, Alan Tudyk or Brad Garrett.
7. Mrs. Maxwell: Amy Poehler, Tina Fey, Isla Fisher or Kristen Wiig.
8. Grandma Maxwell: Helen Mirren, Judi Dench or Julie Waters.
9. Principal Winston: Denis Leary, Alan Tudyk, Jim Broadbent, Brad Garrett or Scott Adsit.

Obviously I was a young and naive teenager at the time, though I still think some of these actors could work (mainly for the adults). You can tell that everyone really had their hopes up too high, myself included, if this was how they were going to consider roles for it.

Look, Boomstick could make the role work if he wants to. It certainly can't be worst than choosing Chris Pratt as Mario.

Now let's focus on the people who were hired to make this film and analyse them (as well as roast some of them in the process). When Summit Entertainment buying the film rights was announced, the book's original author Rachel Renee Russell said this:

"Summit Entertainment bringing Dork Diaries to life is a dream come true! My book series could not be in more capable hands. My fans and I are super excited to see Nikki Maxwell and her dorky world come to life."

"More capable hands", huh? Well, let's see what the analysis has to say about that.

Karen Rosenfelt and John Sacchi - The Producers.

Let's start with the producers first. These people have worked for Lionsgate for some time, mostly on the less impressive films. It's likely that Rosenfelt in particular was in negotiations to produce due to producing the Twilight films, since the original books are gushed over in the original Dork Diaries books (in a non-ironic way, unfortunately).

Can I just say that Rosenfelt's name is essentially a dark mark on most of the films that she produces? Sure, Marley and Me was fairly successful, but everything else she produces is just pure trash, The Twilight films do much better at the box office than with critics (just like the original books), Me Before You was pretty mediocre, the Percy Jackson films and The Book Thief are insulting adaptations of the original books, Yogi Bear is an equally insulting adaptation of the original cartoon and then there was the issue with The New Mutants film, which kept on changing its release date every single time and was eventually got released with little fanfare. Considering that I saw Rosenfelt's name attached to it, it's safe to say that nobody should have been getting their hopes up about that film.

Now onto Sacchi. Probably most known for producing Punisher: War Zone and being the executive producer of My Bloody Valentine 3D. Most of his films tend to be action flicks or horror thrillers that are mostly mediocre or average. The IMDb ratings for them at least are either 4, 5 or 6 out 10. So why he's now producing a light-hearted school comedy, I have no idea. Not much to say on him otherwise.

Mark Waters - The Director.

On 18th September 2015, the blog announced that Mark Waters would be directing the film. The post is no longer available on the website, just like the other ones, making it sound even more like a pipe dream than before.

Dear lord, this guy's directing career is all over the place! He was clearly cast as director due to his work on Mean Girls and the Freaky Friday remake (both Lindsay Lohan vehicles) and yes, they are fantastic films you should check out. However, I feel that most of Mean Girls' high quality can be attributed to writer Tina Fey and whilst Waters did not directed the hated sequel, Fey had nothing to do with it either.

Otherwise, Waters' directing career is just mediocre. Either the films get mixed reviews or they get slated. The Spiderwick Chronicles was okay for instance, but pretty forgettable after its release. Particular duds aimed for a young audience include Mr. Popper's Penguins (2011), a Jim Carrey vehicle that has barely anything to do with the original book, and the failed adaptation of Vampire Academy in 2014.

Plus there was the issue of this Mark Waters film being released in 2016 rather than Dork Diaries:

The original Bad Santa (which was directed by Terry Swigoff and somehow had the Coen brothers providing rewrites) received pretty good reviews and was the only film of Swigoff's career that was financially successful. This sequel on the other hand scored crap reviews from most sources - it has a 23% critics rating on Rotten Tomatoes, 34% audience rating on that same website, 1.5 on Bomb Report and 34/100 critics score on Metacritic (though IMDb and Metacritic audiences were "kinder" to it with a 5.6/10 rating and 5.3/10 rating respectively). Additionally, against its $26,000,000 budget, it only grossed $23,229,371-$24,079,268 overall (sources differ on what the actual final gross was). Swigoff had nothing to do with this film, so most of the blame has been placed on Waters and the co-producer Andrew Gunn.

Of course, Mark Waters then directed Magic Camp, which got released in 2020 on the Disney+ streaming service...after originally being planned for a 2018 cinematic release and then being replaced by Christopher Robin. And given that the film has 38% on Rotten Tomatoes, and his next film He's All That (a "gender-flipped remake" of She's All That) has 30%, I doubt those movies did any favours for his career either (though at least they're somewhat better than Bad Santa 2).

Annie Hendy - The Scriptwriter.

Not really much to say here compared with Rosenfelt and Waters, but still more than Sacchi. Hendy is an actress and writer known for the the comedy play The Catholic Girl's Guide to Losing Your Virginity (which I vaguely remember from somewhere) and the short black comedy film #twitterkills. The former won the "Pick of the Fringe" award from both critics and audiences at the 2006 Cincinnati Fringe Festival and was nominated for two Cincinnati Entertainment Awards, before going on to have sold-out performances. The latter has a 7.0/10 IMDb score and a 3.1/5 Letterbox score, and it won some awards at the 2014 HollyShorts Film Festival including Best Comedy. So this does seem promising in how this may affect the Dork Diaries movie's quality. That said, they aren't necessarily mainstream and they're not family-friendly either. Maybe this was intended to be her first foray into family-friendly and mainstream fare? There's some more information on her here in case you're curious.


So "capable hands"? Not really. If anything, they're the type of hands that could cause a potentially trainwreck (except for Hendy's, it seems). It's likely that these roles have changed since being announced and that we'll get a different producer, director and writer though. But who knows? Maybe the film won't happen anyway?

I won't be surprised if the film actually does get made, it ultimately ends up on some streaming service like Netflix or the like. It happened with the film adaptation of James Patterson's Middle School, despite earlier implications that it would be a cinematic release. Plus, the recent Diary of a Wimpy Kid movie was released on Disney+ (likely due to a combination of COVID-19 restrictions and because The Long Haul was a dreadful box office bomb). What's to prevent this film from going the same route?

What I'm trying to say is that given the fact that the movie seems to have some unrealistic expectations on release dates and casting, as well as some really iffy choices for people working on the movie, I expect it to be a "meh" experience at best and a trainwreck at worst. If it does turn out to be good, I'll be pleasantly surprised. But we'll just have to wait. Depending on whether it actually does get released or not.

Oh, and also, MacKenzie's a lying, cheating, manipulative, abusive, vain, diary-stealing, cyber-bullying queen bee who should have been expelled for some of the stuff she's done in the Dork Diaries books. Just saying.

Again, it would be awesome if they offered punching bags like these in real life.

Anyway, that will be it for this blog post. The film might happen, or it might not. If it does, good. If it doesn't...well, considering the people supposedly involved, probably for the best.

The Grinch vs. The Grinch - Comparing The Two Feature-Length Films

VS. 

So Illumination Entertainment's version of The Grinch was released two years ago. And it was...well, divisive is probably the best way to put it. Looking at the review websites for instance, you'll see that it has 60% from the Rotten Tomatoes critics, 50% from the Rotten Tomatoes audiences, 6.3/10 from iMDb, 51/100 from the Metacritic critics and 6.2/10 from the Metacritic audiences. Google users were noticeably kinder with 87% of them liking it, but that was the lone exception.

Not that different from the live-action film from 2000 with Jim Carrey then. That one has 49% from the Rotten Tomatoes critics, 56% from the Rotten Tomatoes audiences, 6.2/10 from iMDb, 46/100 from the Metacritic critics,  6.5/10 from the Metacritic audiences and 88% from Google users. Oh well, at least it's better than the abomination that was The Cat In The Hat with Mike Myers, even though it's partly the reason why the latter film exists in the first place.

As it's coming up to Christmas and The Grinch has always been a favourite Christmas tale for many people, especially Dr. Seuss fans, I thought it was best if I just re-evaluated these films to see if any of them was clearly superior to the other. I will be comparing them in the following categories: the Grinch himself, the people of Whoville who he initially detests, the aesthetics and tones, the soundtracks and the overall message of the stories.

Keep in mind that this will not count the Chuck Jones animated special from 1966, as that one is obviously the best adaptation already. It has the legendary Boris Karloff (known for his work in horror films) as the Grinch and the narrator, the theme song is superbly sung by Thurl Ravenscroft (most known as Tony the Tiger), the animation is both faithful to the original illustration and somehow ends up looking distinct from it anyway and it is much less heavy-handed about the anti-consumerism message it promotes. Need more proof of its quality? It has 100% from Rotten Tomatoes critics, 98% from Rotten Tomatoes audiences, 8.3/10 from iMDb, and 92% from Google users. Sure, there aren't any Metacritic scores up yet, but for now it doesn't matter. Pretty clear cut victory if you ask me.

The Grinch.

Let's start by analysing the Grinch himself - he is the one mentioned in the title after all. He's that miserable old grump who hates Christmas so much that steals all of the decorations and food from Whoville, only to realise that Christmas is more than just gifts and having a change of heart as a result.

There was never really any big backstory for why the Grinch originally had such a poor sentiment towards Christmas, other than the fact that his heart was "three sizes too small". The same went for the Chuck Jones special. The feature-length films however had to give him a "sympathetic" excuse involving childhood trauma in order to explain the way he is today. Sure, they need to expand for time, but the original incarnation of him was fine. Simply hating Christmas because he sees it as some ridiculously noisy over-the-top thing that only seems to be about gift-giving is a legitimate excuse. If anything, it helps out with the anti-consumerism message even more by painting him as the consumerist in the process.

Anyway, onto the 2000 version. This version of him was horrifically abused by the Whos when he was younger, simply because he looked different compared to them. The whole thing is an allegory for racism, especially once he yells out "IS IT BECAUSE I'M GREEN?!" after they screw him over yet again just before he decides to steal everything. I'm not that fond of the backstory - it villainises everyone else as a result and that's not the point of the original story.

Fortunately, the Grinch is still kind of a jackass in this version. Plus, Jim Carrey was at the peak of his career when he made this movie and did a surprisingly good job in the role. I'm not normally a fan of Jim Carrey's works - for instance, The Mask is kind of overrated when compared to the original gory comic book it was based on and Mr. Popper's Penguins is just a betrayal of the original book. But when Carrey does well, he does well. His hammy nature makes the character pretty enjoyable and his makeup job is convincing, especially once he dons the Santa suit. It's most likely that the film would have been an absolute mess without him onboard, as the live-action version of The Cat In The Hat would further prove.

The 2018 version gives him the backstory of being in an orphanage and having a PTSD-like reaction to Christmas as a result. Not as problematic as the 2000 version in that regard, but still clearly trying to make the audience sympathise with someone who plans to sabotage Christmas. It was interesting how he initially didn't join in with the Christmas festivities after saving the day due to his guilt over what he did.

The main problem is that the Grinch comes across as too "nice". Sure, it was sweet that he didn't bully his dog Max for once, but someone could have him be nice to Max in their own take whilst still having him come across as a proper villain. As someone said on a ProtonJon livestream I watched once, he's not so much evil as much as "annoyed". Which is technically true, as he seems to come across as more of a trickster archetype in this version, who's mainly stealing gifts to teach Whoville that Christmas shouldn't just be about gift-giving. Benedict Cumberbatch does a pretty good job with the voice and portrayal, though it's certainly unlikely to be as memorable as Boris Karloff or Jim Carrey's takes on the character. Overall, he's mainly a grump who still harbours trauma from his past. That is all.

Winner: The 2000 version. He's just so much more memorable and he truly does come off as a "mean one" at times, in contrast with his simply grouchy 2018 counterpart.

The People Of Whoville.

The people in Whoville like Christmas a lot...and that's pretty much the only thing the films have in common with regard to the depiction of the Whos. One is downright offensive whilst the other is more faithful to the original story.

So let's discuss the 2000 version. Jesus Christ what was up with the Whos there?! They have now become a bunch of obnoxious idiots who only care about presents, with Cindy, Martha and Cindy's father being the only exceptions. The WHOLE POINT of the original story was that the Grinch was the consumeristic one who believed that they were just as consumeristic as him. It was all a gross misunderstanding on his part. The Mayor in particular is handled in an appalling manner in this movie. He is the one who was most abusive to the Grinch and then tries to pin the blame on Cindy when the Grinch predictably steals everything after that dreadful "razor" incident. If you are like me and consider the original Whoville to be the same one in the original Horton Hears A Who! story, it completely goes against the Mayor's original characterisation.

The 2018 version is much more faithful in its portrayal of the Whos on the other hand. They still have flaws, but this time it's more because they love to have big celebrations with extravagant decorations and keep on going more over the top with every passing year. Otherwise, they seem pretty accepting of the Grinch even before the climatic moment when he turns good, and they don't seem to notice anything up with him beforehand. Plus, they don't seem to mind what happened with the presents and are a lot more accepting of Cindy as well. Like in the original book, it seems to be more of a misunderstanding on the Grinch's part.

Winner: The 2018 version. This one was a little too obvious. You know what, just pretend the ones from the 2000 version don't exist.

The Aesthetic And Tone.

Besides the fact that one is live-action and the other is animated, the main difference between the films is the tone they have. Essentially, one is downright weird (even by Dr. Seuss standards) and offensive, and the other is "safe" and a little bit bland as a result.

The 2000 version has a darker aesthetic, which is interesting, but it also tries to go for a rather vulgar and surreal tone, which pretty much falls flat. The "termites in his smile" scene makes sense, but the heart attack scene is just ridiculous (even if it does seem like the more realistic reaction to your heart growing three sizes). It's especially odd when you consider that Ron Howard directed the film, and he normally directs films that aren't like this. I guess maybe the studio were forcing him to go with this aesthetic?

Whilst Jim Carrey looks fine as the Grinch (especially once he puts on the Santa outfit) and Cindy looks adorable, most of the Whos look downright hideous. Okay, I guess they were trying to make them look as obnoxious as they acted, but really?! It's essentially like what happened in The Cat In The Hat with the weird Cat suit and those grotesques versions of Thing #1 and Thing #2. Yes, Dr. Seuss stories are normally bizarre themselves, but not in a vulgar way. No wonder we haven't had any more live-action adaptations since then.

The 2018 version goes for brighter colours and looks somewhat more faithful to the original illustrations. Well okay, it still looks like an Illumination Entertainment movie but the characters don't look ridiculous. Plus it relies less on the vulgar humour that the 2000 version did. It's unfortunately nowhere near as wacky as Dr. Seuss stories normally are, but it does have its moments at times.

Winner: The 2018 version. It's pretty much another standard Illumination Entertainment film, but it's still more faithful than vulgar humour and hideous-looking live-action characters. Well, at least as faithful as a relatively tame version can get.

The Soundtrack.

The Chuck Jones special was where we originally heard the classic "You're A Mean One Mr. Grinch". It is just awesome. Thurl Ravenscroft absolutely nails it with his bass and the lyrics do not hold back when describing the "vile" Grinch himself. It's not just the theme song though - the rest of the soundtrack is also pretty good quality, with a sort of old-timey feel to it.

 For some reason, both films decided to "modernise" the soundtrack to make it "relate" more with contemporary audiences. And by that, I mean use "trendy" music that will be extremely out of date a decade later or so - though considering this is 2020, the 2000 version is already out of date. Most notably, both involve rappers. Word of advice - don't do that sort of thing. It just becomes downright cringeworthy and will turn off viewers who aren't into that stuff in the first place.

The 2000 version goes for an fascinating route by having Jim Carrey sing the song in character as the Grinch. So rather than it being one insult after another hurled at him, it becomes more of a song revelling in his villainy. Kind of like what happened with "Macavity" when the Cats musical was adapted for the screen - actually no, on seconds thoughts, forget that even happened. Otherwise, they simply hired "modern" bands such as Smash Mouth and *NSYNC - bands that no doubt were more relevent in the 90s than today. Busta Rhymes also appears for some bizarre reason.

The 2018 version? Sadly, even the theme song is "modernised", which is now performed by the rapper Tyler, The Creator (yes, the comma is part of the name). Using Jackie Wilson's "Deck The Halls" is fine as that is already a timeless Christmas song and the same goes for the other oldies music that gets used (examples include The Supremes and Nat King Cole). Using rap music just because it's "trendy" is not (even if Run DMC is a brilliant band).

Winner: The 2000 version, if only slightly. "Updating" the music is simply a no-no for me in both cases, but at least Jim Carrey does the more interesting theme tune.

The Message.

The moral of the original story is essentially that Christmas isn't about material goods and is more about enjoying the good times with your loved ones. The book presents this message well, as does the TV special. The feature-length movies however try to be too forceful with the message, whilst at the same time completely undermining themselves by essentially being made for money purposes. Well, considering their quality and soundtracks, it seems that money was the main thing in mind.

The way the 2000 version handles the message is more forceful than thrusting an anvil into somebody's face. As I mentioned, the Whos are now consumeristic morons. Cindy is one of the only exceptions. It's only once Cindy's father stands up for his daughter that they realise how awful they have been towards the Grinch. This is especially bewildering when you consider the fact that the movie was mostly made as a cash-grabber and modernised its own soundtrack. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

At first glance, it would seem that the 2018 version fixed that problem by making the Whos nicer characters and the Grinch more of a lonely character with PTSD. Alas, the anti-consumerism message is undermined by the fact that the film does not practice what it preaches itself. Besides trying to modernise the soundtrack like the other movie did, this probably has even more merchandise associated with it than the 2000 version. Oh, and don't forget some of the weird memes it used in its advertising stage. "When guac is extra", anyone?

Winner: It's a tie. If anything, the original book and TV special managed to make the anti-consumerism message more noticeable without being forceful about it.

So after analysing both films in detail on these aspects, I can only conclude that these films don't really surpass each other. Obviously, they have different aspects that either make them better or make them worse. The 2000 version has the better Grinch and soundtrack and is a much more memorable film to top it off, for better and for worse. On the other hand, the 2018 version has more sympathetic characters in general and in a way is more faithful when it comes to tone, aesthetics and (in a sense) the plot. The only thing that can truly be agreed on by most people is that they don't match up with the original book and the Chuck Jones special.

In fact, most of these differences that make one film better than another are pretty subtle, rather than clear cut. And the review ratings show this perfectly. Critics were slightly more in favour of the 2018 version whilst audiences were slightly more in favour of the 2000 version (with iMDb being one of the few exceptions). If anything, it's probably best if we get a general opinion from everybody who watched these films.

I have created a poll in Google Forms here, where people can vote for which feature-length film they preferred, as well as comment on why they preferred it. I'm genuinely interested to see other people's thoughts on these films given how their critical and commercial reception so far appears to be similar. Meanwhile, I'm going to probably be watching the TV special all over again. It's certainly a treat, I can acknowledge that. ;)

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.

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