Hairspray

[foleyfan]

Before i start i realize alot of men on this forum will think its gay or crapor whatever but thats your opinion. So has anyone here seen Hairspray and if so what did you think of it?

I thought it was quite good actually i Started watching it thinking it was gonna be crap but it turned out alright and John Travolta is good in it.

[DC:UK]

I wasnt expecting much but I loved it, some really good catchy songs in there.

[Rant Casey]

I loved every second of it, the tunes were catchy and I dug all the performances, but Johnny boy gave the best one.

The song he and Walken did was great.

[ogsean]

I liked the original, because it's basically making fun of everything that the remake ended up being.

Haven't seen the remake, no desire, although my sisters and my mom love it.

[Calcifer Boheme]

I thoguht it was great

and the idea that musicals are automatically gay bothers me, but I'm not ranting now.

Point is, the movie was great. not quite the brilliance of the original but still very awesome.

And John Waters playing a flasher was hilarious.

[orton4life]

It was awesome, simply put. I can't wait to pick up the 2 disc version when it comes out tomorrow.

[Wato Stan Account]

ogsean said:

I liked the original, because it's basically making fun of everything that the remake ended up being.

Haven't seen the remake, no desire, although my sisters and my mom love it.

You're not smart movie wise. There's a huge difference between a remake and the musical version. If it was a remake it would be a shitty movie with no musical numbers. This was the movie version of the musical, which is a stage production with many musical numbers. See the difference? I love everything John Waters has done, he made most of my favorite movies. But I still love the musical. It's really funny, hell Waters even makes a really funny cameo.

[slappy]

I haven't seen it, but I will eventually.

[Barrett]

I wouldn't mind seeing it eventually.

[ogsean]

graves said:

ogsean said:

I liked the original, because it's basically making fun of everything that the remake ended up being.

Haven't seen the remake, no desire, although my sisters and my mom love it.

You're not smart movie wise. There's a huge difference between a remake and the musical version. If it was a remake it would be a ****ty movie with no musical numbers. This was the movie version of the musical, which is a stage production with many musical numbers. See the difference? I love everything John Waters has done, he made most of my favorite movies. But I still love the musical. It's really funny, hell Waters even makes a really funny cameo.

Well, if you're such a Waters fan you'd know he calls it a remake, just as Mel Brooks calls the Producers with Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane a remake. Let's consult IMDB:

Remake of
Hairspray (1988)
- This is the musical version of that movie.

Changing a single element of a film doesn't change the fact that it's based from the same basic blueprint. Hence, it was made once, now the same movie is being remade. Yes, it was remade with musical numbers incorporated, I know that. That doesn't make it an entirely new film, it is one based on an old one.

Wow. Yeah, you know so much more. Thanks for showing me up. I obviously needed to be put into my place.

[rkofan1]

i loved hairspray great songs great acting and hot zac efron

[Wato Stan Account]

ogsean said:

graves said:

You're not smart movie wise. There's a huge difference between a remake and the musical version. If it was a remake it would be a ****ty movie with no musical numbers. This was the movie version of the musical, which is a stage production with many musical numbers. See the difference? I love everything John Waters has done, he made most of my favorite movies. But I still love the musical. It's really funny, hell Waters even makes a really funny cameo.

Well, if you're such a Waters fan you'd know he calls it a remake, just as Mel Brooks calls the Producers with Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane a remake. Let's consult IMDB:

Remake of
Hairspray (1988)
- This is the musical version of that movie.

Changing a single element of a film doesn't change the fact that it's based from the same basic blueprint. Hence, it was made once, now the same movie is being remade. Yes, it was remade with musical numbers incorporated, I know that. That doesn't make it an entirely new film, it is one based on an old one.

Wow. Yeah, you know so much more. Thanks for showing me up. I obviously needed to be put into my place.

Because IMDb is SUCH a credible site. Whatever. Here's what I LOVE about you. You could be told that Hairspray was the greatest movie ever, everyone in the entire world could agree, it could every award, be praised by every critic, but because you wouldn't think it's as good as the original, you won't watch it.

Actually let me take that back. Let's look at Lions for Lambs, because Rotten Tomatoes, a critic review based site said it was crap, was it? No. YOU didn't form an opinion on it. You read RT, which is a bullcrapsite. Critics are viewed by film makers as low people. They get paid to spout their opinions.

I stand to say, Hairspray IS NOT a remake. It's based on the musical, which is in turn based on the movie. I've never seen a Mel Brooks or John Waters interview stating either is a direct remake. It technically is a new film, because the originals don't have musical numbers, same type of humor, etc. They do cater to different audiences. My aunt will not watch the originals of either movie, but she will watch the musical versions. There is a difference. My brothers film teacher doesn't even call them remakes. They're based off different mediums. They even include big differences from the original, thus not entirely based on the original script.

[Gore]

The girlfriend wanted to see it, but we didn't get a chance, so I'll catch it with her on DVD.

[ogsean]

graves said:

ogsean said:

Well, if you're such a Waters fan you'd know he calls it a remake, just as Mel Brooks calls the Producers with Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane a remake. Let's consult IMDB:



Changing a single element of a film doesn't change the fact that it's based from the same basic blueprint. Hence, it was made once, now the same movie is being remade. Yes, it was remade with musical numbers incorporated, I know that. That doesn't make it an entirely new film, it is one based on an old one.

Wow. Yeah, you know so much more. Thanks for showing me up. I obviously needed to be put into my place.

Because IMDb is SUCH a credible site. Whatever. Here's what I LOVE about you. You could be told that Hairspray was the greatest movie ever, everyone in the entire world could agree, it could every award, be praised by every critic, but because you wouldn't think it's as good as the original, you won't watch it.

Who said that? I actually plan on watching it, if only for my morbid fascination with seeing John Travolta dressed as a 250 lbs woman, and to see Chris Walken dance some more. You just assumed that the comment I made was negative. I said "It's funny how the remake is going to be everything the original was making fun of", which is the idea that conforming is wrong to do because it's what makes you popular. The Hairspray Musical was brought to Broadway because at the time musical versions of movies were a hit on Broadway. Now, through twisted logic, it has been remade into a movie.

Actually let me take that back. Let's look at Lions for Lambs, because Rotten Tomatoes, a critic review based site said it was crap, was it? No. YOU didn't form an opinion on it. You read RT, which is a bull **** site. Critics are viewed by film makers as low people. They get paid to spout their opinions.

Hmm, actually I just came accross the statistics on Lions for Lambs, when I was linked to it by another person. I haven't read a single review of it. My personal review will be up shortly, supporting my ideas and theories on why this movie sucked.

I stand to say, Hairspray IS NOT a remake. It's based on the musical, which is in turn based on the movie. I've never seen a Mel Brooks or John Waters interview stating either is a direct remake. It technically is a new film, because the originals don't have musical numbers, same type of humor, etc. They do cater to different audiences. My aunt will not watch the originals of either movie, but she will watch the musical versions. There is a difference. My brothers film teacher doesn't even call them remakes. They're based off different mediums. They even include big differences from the original, thus not entirely based on the original script.

Halloween has a completely different first hour than the 1978 John Carpenter film. So, based on your logic, it's not a remake because it delves into a completely different, and original aspect of the same character as the original?

If that's not a remake, then Hairspray isn't a remake. Nor is Producers. Please, go ahead and tell me that Halloween is not a remake because it incorporates new things that were not in the original John Carpenter movie.

And while you're at it, tell the authors of these 10 pages of articles they're wrong as well.

www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hairspray+remake&btnG=Search


I believe it was This Filthy World, where John Waters makes an offhand disparaging remark about the fact that the remake was being made without any of his creative input, but he still wished it the best because he was getting royalties.

[Tim of thee]

Wasn't Waters in the remake as the nudist in a brown trench coat?

[ogsean]

timmeth said:

Wasn't Waters in the remake as the nudist in a brown trench coat?

Yeah, he mentioned that he was going to be a flasher in the remake in This Filthy World.

[Barrett]

Hairspray - I watched it earlier. It was alright but not as good as I thought it'd be. The first 20-30 minutes or so were pretty good, but after that I just continued watching for the sake of finishing it. I pretty much hated everything that involved Travolta's character and his lousy Dr. Evil impression. I've also never liked Queen Latifa in anything I've seen her in, and that record still stands. There were a couple of catchy tunes but for the most part no songs really stood out as memorable to me. I was surprised that Amanda Bynes, Zac Efron, and Brittany Snow all seemed to just kinda be in the background for the most part. James Marsden continues to impress me with each roll I see him in (This dude played Cyclops? Never knew that!) and Elijah "Seaweed" Kelley stood out as well. Excluding Travolta's drag experience (which for the record, it's not that I don't like Travolta. I do. I really like watching the guy, and he's one of those guys that I love seeing on talk shows because I just like listening to him talk. But I did not enjoy this outing in the least. And it actually has nothing to do with my near-phobia of trannies and drag queens.), there were probably little things of each character that I found amusing. There were some parts that I liked and it surprisingly got a couple of laughs out of me, but overall I wasn't as into it or impressed as I thought I'd be.

6/10
I probably could've given it a 7/10, but that Travolta **** was just awful. I once saw an interview where he said he regretted turning down a role in Chicago. Is this how he makes up for it?

[Deleted]

Never did I ever think I'd see this forum argue about musicals.

[bad guy™]

Very good movie. Efron/Blonsky and Bynes/Kelly had great chemistry together. And throw that man/woman Johnny T in the mix, you have got a great movie.

[B®ÄУȟ ÏÄÑ]

I really enjoyed it. I never saw the origional but I'd like to. Travolta did an amazing job. The whole show cracked me up.