• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

Cats Movie first trailer

Gideon

Registered User
Validated User
ISTM that musical theater tends to swing in one of two directions- either the set and costuming are quite spectacular (as in Cats), or they're quite spare (as in the new revival of Oklahoma, aka the Oklahoma that Fucks) so as to immerse the audience fully in the performances. And neither mode works particularly well on film, where you're not in the same physical set as the set or the actors. So a good movie musical needs to be able to stand up in terms of plot, much like any narrative movie.
Yeah, you also don't want to keep being reminded that this is a play, but the obvious costumes and over-size set keeps saying this looks like the stage show.

Istm a photorealistic style animation might have worked well.
 

Qooroo

Social Justice Spellthief
Validated User
So, now I have to beg the question: When are we getting the Hamilton Movie?
My guess? Not until they've toured the everloving shit out of it, and had productions everywhere with a big enough population. At this point, from a purely financial perspective, people are willing to jump through a bunch of hoops and pay top dollar to go see the stage show. I would imagine they'll try and milk that for as long as they can, and then film it.
 

Icon

Old enough to know better
Validated User
I do not have the problem some are having with the trailer, but I certainly am enjoying some of how it is being expressed. The Atlantic trailer review had me laughing so hard in parts further reading was impossible.

Edit: Fixed, it was The Atlantic.
 
Last edited:

Isator Levie

Registered User
Validated User
The Broadway comparison's a non-sequitur, anyway. What works on stage does not necessarily work in a movie. Hell, a big part of the appeal of a Broadway show is seeing it in person. With live actors. Looking at all those touches necessary to make the production work on stage and its limitations. I've listened to the original cast recording of Rent multiple times. I saw it on Broadway. I have not, to date, ever seen the movie, nor do I ever plan to see the movie, because the plot's hot garbage - I enjoy the music, which doesn't necessitate seeing the movie, and the appeal of seeing the show are all the parts that the movie can't do or won't do.

So a Broadway show playing for decades means little to nothing when discussing a movie. Cats might make for a rousing stage production, but the movie trailer looks anything but.
The Rent movie was made by a boring director.

Does this trailer not look appropriately weird?

Not all musicals work in film, but film has capabilities that can enhance musicals. Visuals, lighting and editing are supposed to really elevate Moulin Rouge.
 

Crinos

Next to me you're all number two!
Validated User
My guess? Not until they've toured the everloving shit out of it, and had productions everywhere with a big enough population. At this point, from a purely financial perspective, people are willing to jump through a bunch of hoops and pay top dollar to go see the stage show. I would imagine they'll try and milk that for as long as they can, and then film it.
Which is another explanation as to why it took so long to get this movie made.
 

CarpeGuitarrem

Blogger and gamer
Validated User
The Rent movie was made by a boring director.

Does this trailer not look appropriately weird?

Not all musicals work in film, but film has capabilities that can enhance musicals. Visuals, lighting and editing are supposed to really elevate Moulin Rouge.
Indeed, and I think that film's capacity for delivering stage spectacle is actually higher; studios are just reluctant to let directors push those boundaries. Use a direction that pushes the boundaries of filmed expression in the manner of, say, Spider-Verse and Scott Pilgrim, and I think you're on to something there. Musicals can arguably work better in film, it's just that they've been constrained to fairly milquetoast adaptations by and large, because of prior limitations on live-action tech. Now, with CGI bringing elements of animation into live-action, there's so much more potential.
 

Grumpygoat

Give a damn
Validated User
Not all musicals work in film, but film has capabilities that can enhance musicals. Visuals, lighting and editing are supposed to really elevate Moulin Rouge.
...Moulin Rouge is a movie that was then adapted for the stage. And Rent's just the example I used. It could as well have been some other show. And the issue isn't that a Broadway show can't work as a movie. It's that the two aren't related. A stage show will need extensive changes to work on film, to the point that the decades long success of a Broadway show is nearly irrelevant to it working successfully on film.
 

Kevin Mowery

WAUGH!
Validated User
I realized what bugged me the most in the trailer...

In the stage play, big fluffy hairdos are used to conceal human ears and suggest the shapes of cat ones:


In this movie they've just digitally erased peoples' ears and put on cat ones, and now the head shapes look off, primarily on the short-haired cat designs (the longer-haired ones more resemble the stage play wigs).
I think you're right. Adding some hairstyles to the humanoid cats, even keeping the cat ears and erasing the human ears does a lot to disguise that human heads are shaped differently than cat heads.

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with the bodies of the cats (it's a little weird that they're plantigrade, and even weirder that Taylor Swift's cat is wearing sparkly shoes, but I mean overall). The heads are weird, though. Some extra fur/hair on the head wouldn't necessarily make them look more like actual cats, but it would bridge the gap between human and cat better.
 

WistfulD

Registered User
Validated User
I do have to give them credit for having a vision and totally committing to it.
I honestly don’t know what to make of this.
If the movie ends up being what it looks like it will be based on this, my reaction will be the same as to Zack Snider's take on Superman -- "Thank you for daring to take risks, I genuinely appreciate the attempt to not take the safest, most conventional, and predictable avenue. Without such gambles, there would be no Monty Python, no Frank Zappa, no Hamilton. Heck, if no one said, 'okay, let's give that 'American Graffiti' guy entirely too much money and see what he comes up with,' we wouldn't have Star Wars. That said, for all those gambles that paid off and that we still know about decades later, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of experiments that fail. This, I think, is one of them. That's not bad, it is the nature of the beast. That does not change the fact that I don't actually find this thing all that good a product."

We're still smarting from Kevin Bacon's Hollow Man.
Now that was funny!
 
Top Bottom