[ SECRET POST #2222 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2222 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.
[Adenauer and DeGaulle]


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________














[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]













16. [SPOILERS for Celeste & Jesse Forever]



__________________________________________________



17. [SPOILERS for Superior Spider-Man, Scarlet Spider]



__________________________________________________



18. [SPOILERS for DMC: Devil May Cry]



__________________________________________________















[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]














19. [WARNING for incest]

[A Tale of Two Sisters]


__________________________________________________



20. [WARNING for suicide]



__________________________________________________



21. [WARNING for eating disorders]



__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #317.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

14. http://oi47.tinypic.com/fn5jtf.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed. It was definitely the best tack for their performances, acting-wise, because they were throwing themselves into it fully. But I wish the director had made them go back and dub the song if, in getting the best acting take, they hadn't also gotten the best singing. I thought Hathaway knocked it out of the park, but Jackman and Crowe (and gah, Sacha Baron Cohen!) needed some help in places.

[vlredreign]

Adam Lambert, is dis you?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't even know what you're complaining about. I think it's the use of a mic, but seriously? Mics are important when you're recording sound; be glad they didn't autotune that shit.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think they're complaining about the mics, or sound quality. But that they would have gotten a better singing performance out of some of the actors if they hadn't recorded everything live. So the actors wouldn't have had to focus on acting and singing at the same time.

[(Anonymous)]

The thing is, anyone from 'future generations' who immediately associate Les Mis with the bad singing is going to be someone who wasn't going to pay attention to better versions anyway. The musical has been going for nearly thirty years and there are are a million recordings, concerts, etc. out there for people who want to hear them. Either people won't know anything about Les Mis and then discover the film and not care, they'll already know about the musical and the film will supplement it, or they'll discover the film and it'll lead them to the musical.

[feotakahari]

If it's any consolation, a substantial minority of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes felt the same way you did. It didn't sink the film, but I don't think it'll be the next big thing, either.

[(Anonymous)]

I kind of agree. What's the point of making a musical film if the singing's sub-par? Or at least worse than it could have been with some studio work.

If you're interested in the story, hey, there's this great book the musical's based on. You don't even have to read the unabridged version if you're just into it for characters and plot, and no singing of questionable quality.

While, what the musical should give you (and a musical film), is, above all, in addition to plot and some characterisation, good music and singing.

[fauxkaren]

The thing about Les Mis is that it is 98% sung, so if you're going to do the pre-recorded track thing, you're basically going to have to record the entire movie before you even start filming.

I think it would have felt incredibly stilted and awkward.

I liked the way the singing live on set worked out.

[(Anonymous)]

Me too.

[(Anonymous)]

Is something wrong with my ears? I didn't think the singing was bad at all. Well, Russell Crowe wasn't the best, but he wasn't nearly as bad as I feared.

[kallanda_lee]

While I agree the music was not as powerful as on stage, I LIKE what they did with it.

A movie is not a stage musical. Even as it was now, it was really just a weird hybrid form.

Theatre and stage productions are about BIG emotions, BIG movements, BOMBASTIC songs. You sort of have to do that, because the actors are fairly removed from the audience, and unless you're in the first 3 rows, you can't even see the facial expressions.

Films are more intimate in that sense - they work with close-ups and other techniques to get under a character's skin.



They toned the music down because it would be too much at times in such an intimate setting. The singing on set gave it a genuine and lifelike quality.

No, it's never going to be the best voices and the best cast nor the best recording - but I'm actually fine with that.

It's not the stage version - it's the film. I expect it to be different. And I think they did a decent job, and it's probably better for not pandering to purists.

[(Anonymous)]

same op as 13?

[(Anonymous)]

Are you me? I feel the same way about the movie as well.

Plus, the camera angles didn't help.

[wauwy]

I loved the movie but some of the singing really needed improvement, I agree.

And the "keep the camera on close-up for five minutes straight" wasn't artistic, it was boring and lazy.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry, but I have trouble taking someone's opinion seriously if they write "Les Miz". If you're a snob, you're really terrible at being a snob. At least get the spelling of your favorite stuff right.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that has anything to do with singing on set, though. Musical movies generally pick actors for their acting abilities, not their singing, and they even did that back when the singing was recorded in a studio and not on set. So you should be complaining about musical movies in general and how they have actors sing the parts instead of professional musical singers, not about the singing on set.

[visp]

If I want great singing I'll go to an opera. If I'm going to watch a movie, I don't care how well you sing if you can't make me care about the characters. The power of Les Miserables (book or musical) has always been in making you care about these "miserables" whom otherwise you'd never deem to "look down" and notice. Why should I give a shit about some diseased whore? Because she sings well? Or because she's a loving mother willing to do anything for her child, and a human being with dreams and wants who's been cruelly beat down by life? Why should I care about some ex-con who later makes some money and is constantly running from the law? Why should I care about some young idiot with lofty aspirations of revolution?

Without the good acting, they're all just a bunch of annoying, whiny emo twits, navel-gazing as they warble on about their feels.

[cadremage]

I suppose this is why I tend not to like musicals. If the music is fantastic but the script sucks, then you've lost me. I'll download the soundtrack but pan the play and never see it again.

I've never seen Les Miserables. This secret has made me decide that there's truly no reason to.

[al28894]

Ahh, now I can see why that can be a problem. But, in my honest opinion, I think most musical directors would just stick to the "acting first-dub later" formula because of both time and budget constraints, plus other matters.

[avatarmn]

I understand this criticism. Personally, what it ultimately comes down to for me is that it's a movie, not a record. The acting comes first, and the movie is greatly improved as a whole by live singing. An album performed in studio would be a welcome addition, for just listening to. But there are dozens of other recordings of Les Miz by better singers, both live and studio. For what this version of Les Miz is, which is a film, they made all the right choices.

[(Anonymous)]

Completely disagreed. The music in that movie was fantastic, and the acting was spot-on.

So uh, screw off?

[zing_och]

Heh. I mostly dislike watching musicals, especially filmed musicals, because the singing isn't my cup of tea - it's usually very far away from the plot and the characters. I love this movie because it gets the characters and the movies closer together and makes me care about them more. (As does the book, but really, that's something entirely different. I love the music! Just not most musical style singing.)

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't seen the movie yet (going to tonight) but in general, I would rather have them sing not as well on set then have them not really sing and be dubbed later and have it be obvious that they are dubbed. The was my main issue with the Phantom movie, as it was obvious that Emmy Rossum was not actually belting out the song when she filmed the scene. So while it would be fine to have them sing full-out while filming and then dub over later, I think if you can only have one, I would definitely go with the former.

And yeah, movie versions can work without needing the strongest singing. I love Johnny Depp as Sweeny Todd but he could not pull the roll off on stage.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see why they couldn't have made a non-musical movie. I loved the stage show myself, but if the music in the movie version is going to be sub-par, there's no reason to add it in at all.