[SapphireNight]

Please can you help! I need to collect some information about people’s perceptions of musicals which have both stage and film versions, for a university assignment. I would really appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to answer this short questionnaire.

This short questionnaire is referring to the stage/filmed musicals of Rent, Chicago, Evita, Cats, Phantom and Joseph.
Please answer each questionnaire for one particular musical. If you can spare the time, please repeat the questionnaire for each of these musicals you have seen (or, any other musical which has both been staged in the theatre, and made into a film.)

Any help is much appreciated!

1. Are you a fan of the film, stage version, or both?
2. Did you see the film first, or the stage version first?
3. Which do you prefer/enjoy more?
4. How do you feel the film compares to the stage version? Eg, changes made- are they warranted; do they work?
5. Do you have any other comments on the way the musical was adapted?

6. If you haven’t seen one version (ie, only the film, or only the stage version), are you interested in seeing the other? And why?
7. Do you feel the film is trying to appeal to a wider/film/more commercial audience, or to the musical’s fan based audience?
8. Briefly, can you describe how it tries to appeal to this audience (if you can).
9. Do you think that the methods used to appeal to that audience get in the way of what the core of the musical is in itself? Ie, is the musical still being true to itself?

Thank you

[Set_Buildin_Dad]

1. Are you a fan of the film, stage version, or both? both
2. Did you see the film first, or the stage version first? Stage show
3. Which do you prefer/enjoy more? stage show
4. How do you feel the film compares to the stage version? Eg, changes made- are they warranted; do they work? I like the way the film version allows us to explore more areas of the opera house including the flys, the underground tunnels, and a more interesting phantom's lair. I didn't like the changes to the story or the graveyard scene.
5. Do you have any other comments on the way the musical was adapted? Except for the adaptations above and the casting I was OK with the film. It remains one of my favorite films of a musical show.

6. If you haven’t seen one version (ie, only the film, or only the stage version), are you interested in seeing the other? And why? n/a
7. Do you feel the film is trying to appeal to a wider/film/more commercial audience, or to the musical’s fan based audience? I think it is trying to reach out to the stage show's fan base, but this is not necessarily limited to the people who saw the show in person. Many people were interested in the show, but couldn't afford it or couldn't travel to see it.
8. Briefly, can you describe how it tries to appeal to this audience (if you can). It tries to appeal primarily through it's music and spectacle. The spectacle part succeeds, but the singing could have been stronger.
9. Do you think that the methods used to appeal to that audience get in the way of what the core of the musical is in itself? Ie, is the musical still being true to itself? I don't think so in this case.

[HarmonicSoul]

1. Are you a fan of the film, stage version, or both? I was a fan of the movie, but now I am more of a fan of the stage version. So I suppose stage...
2. Did you see the film first, or the stage version first? The film.
3. Which do you prefer/enjoy more? The stage version. But that is mostly because I got uppity and decided I could only enjoy it if the singers were actually legit. XD (No offense to Emmy/Gerard lovers.)
4. How do you feel the film compares to the stage version? Eg, changes made- are they warranted; do they work? I thought that some changes in the film, such as the sword fight after "Wandering Child" rather than the fire balls, improved upon that moment dramatically speaking as well as logically. However, one part that they changed really confuses me: The Point of No Return. Rather than the Phantom being entirely covered, he is in this tight-fitting outfit that conceals nothing body-wise (except, of course, the mask). You can easily tell that this man is not the over-weight Piangi, and so does Christine (theoretically). Thus, Christine's perspective changes and in the film, it seems that she is enjoying singing with the Phantom rather than acting on a stage with the person she thought to be Piangi. Entirely different portrayals.
5. Do you have any other comments on the way the musical was adapted? N/A

6. If you haven’t seen one version (ie, only the film, or only the stage version), are you interested in seeing the other? And why? I've seen both.
7. Do you feel the film is trying to appeal to a wider/film/more commercial audience, or to the musical’s fan based audience? Definately a commercial audience. None of the singing was close to the somewhat operatic content of the stage version. Gerard Butler was way too attractive for the role; many found themselves saying "I wouldn't have minded staying with him" because of his appearance and not because of his genius and passion (which, to me, is the point if you find yourself liking/sympathizing with the Phantom).
8. Briefly, can you describe how it tries to appeal to this audience (if you can). The criteria for the casting seemed to be in this order: attractiveness, singing ability, acting ability. The somewhat operatic quality of POTO was almost lost in the film version.
9. Do you think that the methods used to appeal to that audience get in the way of what the core of the musical is in itself? Ie, is the musical still being true to itself? I think that part of the beauty of the Phantom's character is that he is not attractive in any way whatsoever, yet his genius and passion for the woman he loves makes most sympathize with him. But other than that, I think it stayed fairly true to itself.

[Megziid]

This short questionnaire is referring to the stage/filmed musicals of Rent, Chicago, Evita, Cats, Phantom and Joseph.
Please answer each questionnaire for one particular musical. If you can spare the time, please repeat the questionnaire for each of these musicals you have seen (or, any other musical which has both been staged in the theatre, and made into a film.)

Any help is much appreciated!

CHICAGO
1. Are you a fan of the film, stage version, or both? Both
2. Did you see the film first, or the stage version first? Stage
3. Which do you prefer/enjoy more? Stage
4. How do you feel the film compares to the stage version? Eg, changes made- are they warranted; do they work? The film is very different, but I think with Chicago each change was necessary for the change of Medium - e.g. the musical numbers being seen "through Roxie's eyes".
5. Do you have any other comments on the way the musical was adapted? Kept the biting commentary of the original while creating a 'filmic' quality and appeal to more than just fans of Music Theatre. Very Sexy.

6. If you haven’t seen one version (ie, only the film, or only the stage version), are you interested in seeing the other? And why? n/a
7. Do you feel the film is trying to appeal to a wider/film/more commercial audience, or to the musical’s fan based audience? Both - and that was Rob Marshall's genius.
8. Briefly, can you describe how it tries to appeal to this audience (if you can). Chicago manages to get past the potential 'breaking into song' cheesiness by having most of the musical numbers as part of Roxie's imagination, it uses popular actors (who thankfully can actually play their parts) and it oozes sexiness in its costuming and choreography.
9. Do you think that the methods used to appeal to that audience get in the way of what the core of the musical is in itself? Ie, is the musical still being true to itself? In the case of Chicago, I think the musical is very true to itself. It's still very relevant today, which helps, but also that the changes made were all to assist the transfer to film, and were made by someone who understood the original medium enough to know what was necessary to keep.


EVITA
1. Are you a fan of the film, stage version, or both? Both
2. Did you see the film first, or the stage version first? Film
3. Which do you prefer/enjoy more? Stage
4. How do you feel the film compares to the stage version? Eg, changes made- are they warranted; do they work? The film turned into very much a star vehicle for Madonna, and lost much of the criticism and cynical observation thst for me defines the show.
5. Do you have any other comments on the way the musical was adapted? I hated that Madonna's Evita was allowed "Another Suitcase" - Evita needs to dump Magaldi, not the other way around, suddenly we begin to feel sorry for Eva when she's actually using all of these men for her own purposes. [b]

6. If you haven’t seen one version (ie, only the film, or only the stage version), are you interested in seeing the other? And why? [b] I have only seen the film as Evita has not been available for production in Australia for some time. I would love to see a proper production of the stage show, again because parallels can be drawn with other political situations today, and I also think that it's simply a good show
7. Do you feel the film is trying to appeal to a wider/film/more commercial audience, or to the musical’s fan based audience? Definitely trying to appeal to a newer audience - just look at the casting of Madonna, and more importantly, the changes thaty made for Madonna which were detrimental to the story. That said, the rest of the production is relatively unchanged, so I think there was still an intention of wanting to be faithful to the show[b]
8. Briefly, can you describe how it tries to appeal to this audience (if you can). [b]Stunt casting.
9. Do you think that the methods used to appeal to that audience get in the way of what the core of the musical is in itself? Ie, is the musical still being true to itself? If they hadn't made Madonna's Eva more sympathetic, I think it would have been a better film. Changing that changed a fundamental element of the story.


The Phantom of the Opera
1. Are you a fan of the film, stage version, or both? Both
2. Did you see the film first, or the stage version first? Stage
3. Which do you prefer/enjoy more? Stage
4. How do you feel the film compares to the stage version? Eg, changes made- are they warranted; do they work? I loved the film when I first saw it, but over time I have come to a feel much more disappointment at all of the missed opportunities. I actually didn't mind Gerard Butler's performance - his singing was pedestrian, but I believe he understood the character and his acting was very, very good. I was very disappointed with Emmy Rossum - her voice was nowhere near the standard required to be convincing, and there was little moving in her interpretation of the character. I feel that Joel Schumacher didn't understand the story at all, which showed in his decision to change his setting from the Paris Opera House to a fictional one, and his interpretation of the Phantom's back story, which eliminated any explanation of the man's extraordinary genius.
5. Do you have any other comments on the way the musical was adapted? I loved the production values, the lush orchestrations, sets, costumes, and I wish that the same care was afforded to the material itself.

6. If you haven’t seen one version (ie, only the film, or only the stage version), are you interested in seeing the other? And why? n/a
7. Do you feel the film is trying to appeal to a wider/film/more commercial audience, or to the musical’s fan based audience? I believe that Joel Schumacher was honestly trying to tell a beautiful story, and that ALW and co genuinely wanted to bring it to both a new audience and to those who already loved it. But they also wanted a big commercial success.
8. Briefly, can you describe how it tries to appeal to this audience (if you can). I think they relied on the reputation of the stage musical too much. A film is a very different medium, but I don't feel that they tried to sell the actual story. Certainly by casting people like Gerard Butler and Emmy Rossum for the 'attractiveness' factor they were trying to market to a younger audience, but so much of the publicity was 'the classic story finally comes to the big screen'.
9. Do you think that the methods used to appeal to that audience get in the way of what the core of the musical is in itself? Ie, is the musical still being true to itself? The film of Phantom troubles me becasue there was so much that had the potential to go right. They did the material a great disservice by changing the structure of act 2, the Graveyard scene makes no sense if it happens before the managers and raoul begin pressuring Cgristine to take on the opera. Also mucking arouond with both Christine and the Phantom's back stories makes it harder for the audience to understand Christine's immense vulnerability and how and why the Phantom takes advantage of that.

[SapphireNight]

Oh, Megziid, I think I could kiss you. And HarmonicSoul and Set_Buildin_Dad, thanks guys for answering this thing so quickly!!
Still got just under a week, so keep them rollin in! Cookies for all!!!

[Mademoiselle Lanoire]

Why didn't you post this in the general forum? You'd be getting a lot more responses.

[theatre_grl]

PotO
1. Are you a fan of the film, stage version, or both? both
2. Did you see the film first, or the stage version first? film
3. Which do you prefer/enjoy more? stage--by far much better, even though i got nosebleed seats, lol
4. How do you feel the film compares to the stage version? Eg, changes made- are they warranted; do they work? Some of the changes make sense--not everything could be the same-- but some of them hurt the musical, eg madame giry's story made the timing impossible
5. Do you have any other comments on the way the musical was adapted? not really
6. If you haven’t seen one version (ie, only the film, or only the stage version), are you interested in seeing the other? And why? N/A
7. Do you feel the film is trying to appeal to a wider/film/more commercial audience, or to the musical’s fan based audience? Obviously; that's why they used famous actors who cannot sing broadway/operatic styles, and that weird fight scene.
8. Briefly, can you describe how it tries to appeal to this audience (if you can). opps, I did in the last question
9. Do you think that the methods used to appeal to that audience get in the way of what the core of the musical is in itself? Ie, is the musical still being true to itself? It's still pretty much being true to itself, the only things that hurt it were the changes made that weren't specifically for appealing to an audience, ie. madame giry's story

[Vice]

1. Are you a fan of the film, stage version, or both?
STAGE show.

2. Did you see the film first, or the stage version first?
Film. *grumble*

3. Which do you prefer/enjoy more?
Stage.

4. How do you feel the film compares to the stage version? Eg, changes made- are they warranted; do they work?
I dislike the film. They cut lyrics from "Music of the Night", changed the order of several things, and cut some things. (I know this from reading the libretto and listening to the OLC recording.)

5. Do you have any other comments on the way the musical was adapted?
The movie has a slight stalker vibe to it, and Butler's voice to too harsh for Erik. (Too Rock-&-Roll-y...)

6. If you haven’t seen one version (ie, only the film, or only the stage version), are you interested in seeing the other? And why?
I've yet to see the stage play, but I'm trying to get down to Vegas to see it. (Eight hour drive. I live in Northern Nevada.)

7. Do you feel the film is trying to appeal to a wider/film/more commercial audience, or to the musical’s fan based audience?
The movie was marketed towards the general public as opposed to the fanbase of the musical. I have noticed, though, after a fan of the movie is exposed to the other media available, they tend to begin to dislike the movie.

8. Briefly, can you describe how it tries to appeal to this audience (if you can).
???

9. Do you think that the methods used to appeal to that audience get in the way of what the core of the musical is in itself? Ie, is the musical still being true to itself?
???

[SuperKabob]

CHICAGO
1. Are you a fan of the film, stage version, or both?
Both.
2. Did you see the film first, or the stage version first?
Film.
3. Which do you prefer/enjoy more?
Honestly, I can't choose. They both are amazing.
4. How do you feel the film compares to the stage version? Eg, changes made- are they warranted; do they work?
The changes in the move are necessary for the entire concept to work on screen.
5. Do you have any other comments on the way the musical was adapted?
Well, it was adapted perfectly. The interwoven vaudeville-ish acts make perfect sense on stage, just as the vaudeville fantasies would only work in the movie
6. If you haven’t seen one version (ie, only the film, or only the stage version), are you interested in seeing the other? And why?
n/a
7. Do you feel the film is trying to appeal to a wider/film/more commercial audience, or to the musical’s fan based audience?
I think the film was definately made as a film, not as a musical. If that makes any sense.
8. Briefly, can you describe how it tries to appeal to this audience (if you can).
^^did that cover it?
9. Do you think that the methods used to appeal to that audience get in the way of what the core of the musical is in itself? Ie, is the musical still being true to itself?
It is definately true to itself, as both things have the same message. The ways they acheive it are the tiniest bit different, but overall, it is the same story.

PHANTOM
1. Are you a fan of the film, stage version, or both?
meh. I don't consider myself a fan, but I enjoy the stage version more.
2. Did you see the film first, or the stage version first?
film
3. Which do you prefer/enjoy more?
stage
4. How do you feel the film compares to the stage version? Eg, changes made- are they warranted; do they work?
The film made it really, really pretty and took away a lot of the substance.
5. Do you have any other comments on the way the musical was adapted?
The changed did not bother me, but a lot of the director's choices did.
6. If you haven’t seen one version (ie, only the film, or only the stage version), are you interested in seeing the other? And why?
n/a
7. Do you feel the film is trying to appeal to a wider/film/more commercial audience, or to the musical’s fan based audience?
The film was trying to appeal to everybody as a love story, but the show does have such a large fanbase that they could not help but appeal to it.
8. Briefly, can you describe how it tries to appeal to this audience (if you can).
eh...uh....*can't*
9. Do you think that the methods used to appeal to that audience get in the way of what the core of the musical is in itself? Ie, is the musical still being true to itself?
Sure, its being true to itself, but the movie took away a lot of the quirks of the show. And it COMPLETELY changed the Don Juan scene. I don't really understand the tango dancers (if that fits under a different question, imagine I answered it in a different place.)


EVITA- (haven't seen the show, but I am absolutely obsessed with the recordings)
1. Are you a fan of the film, stage version, or both?
The stage. In theory. I can't imagine I wouldn't like it.
2. Did you see the film first, or the stage version first?
film.
3. Which do you prefer/enjoy more?
In terms of sound, definately the stage
4. How do you feel the film compares to the stage version? Eg, changes made- are they warranted; do they work?
Viewing each as a seperate entity, yes, they work. But seeing the film as the stage, the changes completely changed the portrayal of Eva. Not to mention madonna's voice took a lot of power out of the role.
5. Do you have any other comments on the way the musical was adapted?
They. Keep. Singing. To. The. Camera. It may work to adress the audience on stage, but it DOES NOT work to sing to the camera. Yes, Antonio, I'm talking to you.
6. If you haven’t seen one version (ie, only the film, or only the stage version), are you interested in seeing the other? And why?
YES YES YES YES YES I want to see the stage. The closest I've come is the recording and seeing Patti in concert.
7. Do you feel the film is trying to appeal to a wider/film/more commercial audience, or to the musical’s fan based audience?
Look who they cast. Of course they were trying to appeal to a larger audience. (And probably failed, as my mom turned it off after about thirty minutes and declared it unwatchable)
8. Briefly, can you describe how it tries to appeal to this audience (if you can).
The Casting. The Casting. And the watering-down of Eva. And the Casting. Did I mention Antonio Banderas?
9. Do you think that the methods used to appeal to that audience get in the way of what the core of the musical is in itself? Ie, is the musical still being true to itself?
Definately it got in the way. *is being redudant* Giving Eva "Another Suitcase in Another Hall", which I'm guessing originally was intended to show what Eva did to other people, even before she came to power, given to her, made the audience pity her. The stage's intent was to have no pity for her whatsoever. (maybe exept for the bit at the end of the waltz...)