robster16 wrote:
We also do not know the extent of the part of the Genie in this particular version. Maybe it was innitially toned down from the original. I could see that Will Smith not being a Robin Williams ball of energy type of guy would have some extent on his screentime and appearance.
I can see this. Ritchie is known to favor the more street level characters, it's probably what attracted him to Aladdin in the first place. My guess is his original cut leaned a lot heavier on Aladdin (not a bad thing) and probably toned down Genie a bit, and now they've just realized they needed a bit more Genie in there.
disneyprincess11 wrote:
James Monroe Iglehart, by far, deserved the Genie in the movie!
My dream cast for this film was always the original Broadway cast, they were perfect.
That said, I get why Disney wanted a name for Genie. If they were going to stunt cast any role in the film Genie makes the most sense and Will Smith is arguably the best choice for a "big name" in the role. And if that was the price of getting unknowns in the lead roles and avoid another "Emma Watson can't sing" type scenario, I'm prepared to pay it. But yeah, it should have been James.
Sotiris wrote:
Alan's comments make me worry even more about Guy Ritchie's approach.
Will we be getting a movie that's ashamed it's a musical? That underplays and under-utilizes its musical theater aspect?
Quote:
Q: You’re working on a live action version of “Aladdin” with Benj Pasek and Justin Paul. How is that writing technique different from the movie and then the stage show?
Alan Menken: It’s still in flux of what’s going to be in the movie. One song in particular we’re very excited about, and I had a great time working with the boys. It’s my music, but influenced by having them in the room.
Q: This is Guy Ritchie’s first musical, so what has that been like?
Alan Menken: It’s been exciting and, at times, challenging. There are aspects of musical theater where he goes, “I really don’t want to do that.” So the songs will really be taken to new place.
Source:
https://www.ajc.com/blog/music/alan-men ... Znpj6dRWI/This really confuses me as the reports from cinema con earlier this year was that the film is having big song and dance numbers. Most reports called it a big Bollywood influence, personally I think it's more the success of the stage show, but either way there was nothing to suggest they were down playing the musical nature of the film.
From the way Menken says the songs will be taken to a new place, it sounds like there's a clash in how the songs are used to tell the story maybe? Like Ritchie doesn't like the traditional musical way of doing it, so they're using the song but staging/portraying it differently? It's hard to say as Menken's, understandably, being a little vague about the process.
Personally I'm still really excited for the film. But I think it will go one way or the other. It's not going to be a "safe" direct adaptation like Beauty and the Beast. I think it will be either a fantastic new take or completely miss the mark. I can't fully articulate way, but I just don't see a middle ground for it.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
