Would CATS have been more successful if they had not waited 35 years to make it into a film?

They should have made an animated movie. It would disappoint lovers of the stage show but they would be disappointed by any movie adaptation.

I'm amazed they've still not made the movie of Wicked. Are they having problems with the L. Frank Baum estate?

NINE was such an abortion of a movie, on every level, but even so--the producers seemed to assume that average moviegoers were already familiar with either the Broadway musical (from 1982, then revived briefly in 2003) or Fellini's 8 1/2, the original non-musical source.

I think it's fair to say that most audiences weren't familiar with either. And thanks to the movie NINE, they remain unfamiliar.

Too bad, because there's some great music in it, and in more talented hands, the potential for a great movie musical about life, love, and moviemaking.

Cats is not a narrative in any tradtional sense. Movies are narratives. Successful ones with wide audience appeal tend to follow a single character in pursuit of a goal facing obstacles along the way. That is not Cats. It was successful as a stage show featuring a collection of Webber songs, great makeup and costumes, and beautiful ballet.

There is no circumstance under which Cats would have worked on screen, unless maybe back in the day as a 40-50 minute IMAX specific film. Ever. It's not that they waited too long its that nobody ever thought it would work. Until Tom Hooper who did it because he loved it as a kid, not because he had the world's greatest take. It was a handjob to his younger self. good for him.

You will see lots of takes here on what they could have done to make it a hit movie. All of them are wrong. Every single one. Maybe even my suggestion that it could have been an IMAX film is wrong as well (20 years ago they made special 3-D imax movies that ran about 40-50 mins long--most sucked but were cool to look at and by the time they got boring, they were over)

I didn't see the NINE movie but I got the impression they were trying to sell it as spiritual "sibling" to Rob Marshall's "Chicago."

WICKED will be 17 years on Broadway this fall. The first generation of fangirls are now young adults, but not quite old enough to bring their own children to the show (and the fandom). The original leads are far too old for consideration in a movie version. They may as well wait a few more years.

Unlike some of these titles, the show is still running and quite profitable. It's a different matter when something like INTO THE WOODS or EVITA appears after a long absence onstage. I actually liked most of INTO THE WOODS, but it was ridiculous to wait 3 decades for a film version.

If they had made it earlier, at least they couldn't have made it like this... I just finished watching the film. OMFG! The biggest sin: this musical is not very well sung. Rebel Wilson was just embarrassing. Next biggest sin: Andy Blankenbuehler's choreography. Most numbers were static -and didn't sync at all with the music. In the end, lay the blame on Tom Hooper, who was in charge of this fiasco. From casting to editing he made just about every wrong decision possible.

The horror! The horror!

I think the movie would have actually been better if they had just used costumes and makeup instead of the CGI. The original stage makeup and costumes were strange but it wasn't nightmare fuel. I mean the Wizard of Oz was made in 1939, but the cowardly lion looked appropriately lion like and not scary, if they could achieve it in 1939 they should be able to 80 years later.