Fox has announced that they’ll be doing a new version of “Rocky Horror Show,” the 1973 play that was immortalized as a memorable film adaptation.
Fans are, of course, freaking out. Oh, what a horrible idea! How could they do it? It’s an insult! It’ll be terrible!
I don’t get it. Where were all the shrieking people when it was revived on Broadway back in the beginning of the century?
It’s a PLAY. It’s SUPPOSED to be done multiple times with different casts. We saw it several times back in 2001 with various actors. The narrator one time was Ðìçk Cavett and another time Penn & Teller. It was a lot of fun. And Terrance Mann was, quite frankly, a better Frankenfurter than Tim Curry. If Fox casts him in the new version (unlikely, but still…) you guys would be in for a treat.
Yes, the movie was great, but there is absolutely zero reason that a new one can’t be just as entertaining, and it will appeal to a new audience featuring actors they’ve enjoyed in other programs or films. I wish fans would learn to just chill the hëll out.
PAD
• 
I am fine with any remake of anything anyone wants to make. I would suggest it’s the natural order of performed entertainment that we’ve pretended isn’t so since motion pictures.
I never thought the movie itself was so great: for me, it starts out interesting with great music, then kind of falls apart in the second half (which is how I feel about Wicked as well). Maybe because I watched it as an actual ‘movie’ on VHS and not as an event.
I’ve heard the remake stories since the 15th anniversary. Some people who I used to pal around with were (gasp) HORRORFIED at the idea. These same people had just seen the stage play at the Bucks County Playhouse about a month before and were similarly unimpressed at its non-movieness. I took a more…something view. If it’s good, it’s good. Look at the remake of the Maltese Falcon, so good that many people don’t know it’s a remake. The very nature of what Rocky has become begs to have different interpretations and the desire to leave your own mark on it.
Some people are too possessive.
I guess , trying to understand that people that freak out, it could be because the remake can taint the original. For example. I love the original Inherit the Wind. A few years ago I watched a remake with my nephew and he thought it sucked. I felt the remake did suck as well and if I had no made him sit through the original with me after we saw the remake, he would have gone through life thinking inherit the wind sucked.
Not a strong argument , but perhaps some truth as to why people freak out. I got to see phantom of the opera with the original cast on Broadway and it was magical. 9 years later I took a date and the actors were just not as good. So I can understand the freak out to a point, but such is life.
I think some of the griping is a general weariness with remakes; it is almost impossible to turn on the entertainment news, anymore, without hearing or reading the words “remake” or “reboot.”
Of course,these gripes tend to be very specific (i.e. “I LOVED the last movie version of such-and-such … why do they have to remake THAT?”), as though a remake was going to be followed with the Men In Black breaking into homes to commandeer all previous versions of said work. With all due respect to Chris, a remake will not “taint” a previous version of a movie or a book; that work will still be there.
And some stories, like it or lump it, are inevitably going to be retold. How many times has Vesuvius buried Pompeii? How many times hath the Capulets and the Montegues spilled blood on the marketplace? How many Supermen have saved Metropolii (or Batmen, Gothams)? If all of the cinematic Titanics could be lined up, bow to stern, one could walk across the Atlantic, with a stop to cool one’s drink from the iceberg.
At one time a remake could literally lead to the previous version being made unavailable – i remember reading that when Stagecoach was remade in 1966, with Anne-Margaret, Bing Crosby, Mike Connors and Alex Cord (as the Ringo Kid) Fox actually took ou tan ad in Variety threatening legal action against anyone who exhibited the 1939 original.
(And that was, of course, long before Murdoch.)
“At one time.” That is hardly the case now. Coinciding with the release of the movie version of INTO THE WOODS, the video of the Broadway production was rereleased with an all-new cover. The release of TITANIC, in the movies as well as in its various home video formats, was accompanied by the rerelease of a fleet of Titancs. Nowadays, there is less excuse than ever for the vitriol, given the numerous different ways one can get the preferred version.
I was pointing out where some of the animus against remakes may have come from.
Personally, my problem with remakes is that usually they are inferior to the original (cooler special effects, prettier photography but less actual quality), and often, still, they displace the original from the market.
The reverse can also be true. I was happy when a movie version of The Singing Detective was announced because I believed that regardless of quality it would guarantee a DVD release of the TV mini-series, which indeed happened. In this case there is already a DVD and blu-ray though a version with new extras is possible.
I’m not necessarily upset about it in this case but more skeptical. The key advantage that plays have is a greater level of energy than movies and shows (unless a play is the slow moving artsy type which RHPS is not). With a show or movie the energy level is less so people are more likely to put energy into looking at the differences with the version they’re vastly more familiar with. And RHPS was a case of lightning in a bottle, not only due to the songs but also due to the pitch perfect cast. So my expectation going in is that it will pale in comparison to the movie version but I’m open to be proven wrong should I get around to seeing it.
From Fox’s perspective though if people are upset that is likely a win: being a TV movie people don’t have to pay for a theatre ticket or leave their house, so more people who hate the idea more than I do will view at least part of it to complain, which will make the sponsors happy which will make Fox happy. If it happens to actually be very good, better still, but the sponsors get their ads out either way.
@Mike – I appreciate your point about where the animus comes from; my point is that it is pointless (pointedly so) for said animus to continue. A new Rocky Horror is not going to lead to the disappearence of the 1970s movie; I’m with Mr. Nystrom on this one.
For what it’s worth, my wife tells me that at least some news sites are reporting that the original film will be pulled from release.
Haven’t seen it myself, but…
Whenever something like this happens, this scene from Red Dwarf always goes through my head:
RIMMER: Look, Casablanca! They’ve re-made Casablanca!
LISTER: Philistines. I mean how can you re-make Casablanca? The one starring Myra Dinglebat and Peter Beardsley was definitive.
Apples and oranges. Theatrical plays are different than films. In the latter, the performers age/die and need to be replaced if the show is to go on. In itself this creates change wit5h different chemistries between the actors and so forth. There is no reason to do a movie remake unless, as was the case with De Mille and Hitchcock, they felt the studio had interfered too much in the making of the original and the directors wanted a chance to show what they’d meant to do all along. Instead, the studio often tries to bank on name recognition and exhibit a certain lack of originality in going over a story which has already been told, rather than tackling one of the myriad novels or short stories still begging to be put to the big screen, but which are bypassed as studio resources are tied up with remakes, reboots and sequels. Put it this way: PAD, given a choice, as an author, which would you rather – seeing yet another remake being produced, or one of your novels finally being given the big screen treatment it cries out for?
Grrrr … “in the former”. Never was much good proofreading off a screen.
The biggest stumbling block, as with any casting of Rocky. will be finding someone with the sheer charisma and strong presence to pull off Frank. You can’t just have someone come on and act crazy in drag–you have to believe that Frank has the force of personality to impose his will on everyone present. My worry is that they will cast a well-known actor in the role just for the “isn’t it wacky that _____ is playing Frank N. Furter?” factor, with no concern for whether that actor can carry the part.
Easy. Tony Head.
PAD
He’s a little too old these days, i fear me.
To this day i am annoyed that i was in London when that version was on the stage and i decided to not even try to see it.
For those who would like to hear what it sounded like… (Though this isn’t a cast recording; it was a single he did separately, i think after he left the show.)
…and for those who would like to see what it LOOKED like…
And if you want to have both visual and audio combined: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKgVln8XmuE
Back when Tony was doing the episode of Buffy where Giles turned into a demon, the people making his demon costume initially planned to give him big demon feet, but he felt it didn’t look right, and suggested that he be given hooves instead. The production team said this could be done, but for the hooves to work, they’d have to be built round a pair of high heeled shoes. So they producers asked Tony “do you think you’d be able to walk around okay wearing high heels?” They didn’t understand at first why he found the question so funny, at least until he explained that he’d had “a little experience” of performing while wearing them.
…and a (pretty poor quality) video of the whole show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2GiDWLQFt4
I just hope Barry Bostwick is the narrator.
PAD
Ade Edmondson was in that London production – as Brad.
I’d love Tim Curry to be Dr Scott. Suitable for his current age and people wanting him in drag one more time would get a quick bit of that.
I don’t believe he’s done anything since his stroke in 2012 – let me check IMDB.
Well, he hasn’t been in front of the camera, but he’d done some voice work.
I don’t have a problem with a remake necessarily. My fears are solely based on the fact that it’s a) a TV movie, and b) on FOX. I worry that they will make it too sanitized in order to fit a prime-time network’s sensibilities.
I have seen RHPS no less than 200 times, and around 20 times with a Shadow Cast. My feeling is that even if the remake is terrible, it will still draw attention to the original. Rocky Horror fans constantly complain about the lack of merchandise available, and anything that proves that there is an audience for the stage play should encourage Fox to offer more licensed materials.
Amen, Peter. If you don’t like it, the original is still right there on the shelf. Nobody’s forcing anyone to watch it if they’re not interested, and who knows? It could be good. I love a good remake, because if the original story was worth telling, it’s going to have new relevance when reinterpreted for a new generation.
(That said, Matthew Broderick as Harold Hill? Dude, they must have been high.)
As someone who has like 30 different cast albums in his collection (about half actually owned on CD, but for some of the obscure foreign casts, I may have resorted to downloads of questionable origin) I have no problem with new casts. I think, though, that for many rabid fans of the film, they just have the 1975 film so ingrained that they can’t conceive of anything else. Heck, one of the times I saw the stage play, some dumbarse in the audience shouted out the call out line, “Not the book, the movie!” When I replied, “Not the movie, you idiot, the stage play!” I got a friendly nod from the narrator.
In any case… the 1995 Icelandic Cast was an awesome listen. Probably my favorite Frank besides Tim Curry. (Who, incidentally, was better on the 1974 Roxy Cast album then he was in the movie.) And Hot Patootie reimagined as a death metal song was, shall we say, unique.
So yeah, bring on the remake! If it is good, awesome! Another album to add to my collection. And if it is bad… Then so what? It won’t erase any of the other versions that I can continue to enjoy.
Yeah – the Roxie cast album, is, i think, the gold standard – if only because it includes “Once in a While” and has unmessed-with versions of “Charles Atlas Song” and “Eddie’s Teddy”.
And i agree – Curry’s performance on it is definitely more solid than in the film.
“Once In a While” was recorded for the film and it isn’t too difficult to find. I rather like Bostwick’s version of it. What seems to have not been recorded (since I’ve never found them anywhere) were Brad’s verse in “Over At the Frankenstein Place” and the Narrator’s verse in “Sword of Damocles.”
Man, between his verse being cut in “Over At the Frankenstien Place” and his whole solo song getting the axe, Brad got shafted in the film! I hope any potential remake rectifies this. Although, sadly, it wouldn’t surprise me if it doesn’t.
If it DOES include “Once In a While,” I hope it is based on the original version of the song. I don’t like the changes introduced in the New Broadway Cast album, with Frank infringing on the song. You have your own songs, Frank! Let Brad have his!
“Charles Atlas Song” I will grant you, since the lyrics changed for the film and seem to have remained changed ever since. (At least on pretty much every post-’75 English language album I’ve heard.) But other then changing the cadence a bit to accommodate how it was being sung, what was messed with in “Eddie’s Teddy”? I’m pretty sure there had been no change to the lyrics. I will agree, though, that Meatloaf’s performance of the song on the Roxy Cast album is a good one. (I understand he was a bit miffed that they didn’t let him play Dr. Scott in the film.)
That being said, I think my favorite version overall is still the film soundtrack. But it would be even better if they somehow magically found vocals for those missing verses in “Frankenstein” and “Damocles,” and swapped out Curry’s vocals with his performance on the Roxy Cast album, when he was still in his prime rather than being a bit tired with the role.
Oh… The “it” in the third paragraph of my proceeding comment is referring to the potential remake. Upon rereading the comment, it occurred to me that may not be clear.
Eddie’s Teddy on the ROXY album is brilliant. It’s much more do-wop/gospel than the film version. And, it’s worth noting, that the Rocky score is a great tribute to 1950s/early 1960s rock and roll.
Years ago, a friend was adamant that the ROXY version was better overall, but I was a diehard fan of the film and couldn’t see it. Now, I’m tempted to agree. Riff Raff kills ever song he’s on in ROXY and Janet’s vocal performance is far more rock and roll than on the film.
Y’know, I have several Broadway cast albums featuring Terrance Mann…
And yet every time I see his name it that context, the part of my brain that is unchanged from my teen years yells, “The bounty hunter from Critters can sing?!?!”
I agree with StarWolf that cast changes within an established show and revivals of shows are different from a remake for film. It’s not to say that you couldn’t or shouldn’t do the latter, but the success rate is not as high.
ROCKY, however, has the advantage of being based on a stage show. An original film or TV show is often either written with a cast in mind or the original cast comes to define the character.
What is a big disadvantage is that the film is uniquely suited for audience participation (more than a few pregnant pauses and so forth), and audience participation has come to define the work. In that sense, the film itself is “live theater” but one where the cast never changes.
Ethel Merman is a titan of musical theater but her versions of GYPSY and ANNIE GET YOUR GUN are not necessarily part of the public consciousness the way ROCKY is — especially Tim Curry’s performance. I’ve seen attempts to go distinctly in the opposite direction from Curry and it never works for me, personally.
Finally, a new film version can also benefit from being able to dub Rocky’s vocals. Stage adaptions I’ve seen appear to have a challenge casting an actor who looks like the Rocky we know from the film (pure beefcake) while also being able to sing and act. A recent version in Portland I saw had a Frank who was more physically impressive than Rocky.
I guess I’m just not ready to see it remade, because it seems like every film on TV show announced these days is a remake, or reboot.
I keep hoping for more original ideas.