THE GREATEST SHOWMAN

[jo]

Do watch it on an expanded screen ( full screen) -- it is glorious! You can see much greater detail, esp her backup singers who are clad in the same dark blue palette but all looked different from each other, like a microcosm of today's society. The drummers were providing the familiar feet-tap appeal of this number. And young people must have screamed with glee when they recognized the patented choreography for THIS IS ME. How happy looking was @lacketylac on the piano, as it is mainly his orchestrations and arrangements that were used on this number ( presumably in the movie, too). Did you see Viola, Guillermo del Toro, Steven Spielberg, and others clapping

If I were the Oscar producers, maybe they should include a few musical numbers with strong, almost theatrical, presentation appeal in the next Oscars to keep the audiences from straying! The Dolby theatre and the home audiences worldwide must have been glued to the singers/dancers/drummers for the few minutes they mesmerized on stage with this number


Jo

[jo]

I came across this while looking for something else - a tweet by James Mangold in relation for the need for trailers and intense initial publicity for movies :

Mangold
Verified account
‏@mang0ld
@kakarrot4x The financial destiny of a film's release is determined in 1st week, thus no rational business entity will forgo trailers/tv etc

That is conventional wisdom that THE GREATEST SHOWMAN's box office history threw out of the window

Interesting that James Mangold was actually part of the team which completed the making of the THE GREATEST SHOWMAN, presumably to turn around some difficulties encountered during post-production and to counter possibly early negative feedbacks on the movie ( maybe from test screenings?).

[jo]

Sometime in 2016, there was a social media post from someone who showed part of a clip of himself with Hugh and Michael at Pearl Studios ( where the workshop was held) and then said that he was working on something for the project but which he could not talk about.
.
That project it seems is doing some choreography work for THE GREATEST SHOWMAN...plus doing a part in the movie himself!

His name is Daniel Cloud Campos and he played the Bartender in THE OTHER SIDE, a scene for which he also won fans for his own performance, plus of course the choreography for that well-admired scene. It is said that that number took some minutes every day of the two-month or so rehearsal period for the movie.

Prior to that, he did some advertising work in an ad directed by Michael Gracey himself --

[jo]

I found the old post here -- dated April 2016.

Apr 22, 2016 21:48:19 GMT -5 jo said:

OMG-- just a glimpse

This guy (Daniel Cloud Campos) uploads a video mostly of his time in NYC a couple of months back -- but it seems he was also there for a purpose.






Check it out at around 7'00" and he steps into obviously a studio/rehearsal room. He sees Michael Gracey who introduces him to the person sitting with his back to the camera. Who turns out to be Hugh smiley-excited001

This guy teases us - saying we thought we would see him rehearsing with Hugh. Earlier, he said that he was giving Hugh a private dance lesson . Re the footage -- nah, he says that is all private ... but he was all praise for Hugh. Then he goes out with Michael Gracey on the streets of the theatre district as they seem to be old friends or at least professional colleagues.


I wonder if he will be part of THE GREATEST SHOWMAN ON EARTH or be credited for being part of the creative team for choreography


Jo

At that time, the film still seemed to be carrying the title THE GREATEST SHOWMAN ON EARTH.

At around 6'20", he walks around PEARL STUDIOS until he finds the room with Hugh and Michael Gracey waiting for him.

Btw, it seems that initially, it was Michael Gracey who was handling the choreography function, but he passed it on to fellow Aussie Ash Wallen, with some of the work on a special basis handled by the likes of Daniel Campos.

Jo

[jo]

Hugh and Keala!


www.billboard.com/articles/columns/podcasts/8256080/pop-shop-podcast-keala-settle-on-greatest-showman-this-is-me

But, it’s The Greatest Showman that has likely brought her the most attention, as her rousing rendition of the anthemic “This Is Me” gave Settle her first Billboard chart hit, reaching the Billboard Hot 100, Adult Pop Songs, Digital Song Sales and Dance Club Songs charts, to name a few. It also peaked at No. 3 on the Official U.K. Singles Chart.
So, what is it like for her to now be introduced to the world, even though she's been around for years?

“It’s funny because I’ve always been hiding from it,” Settle tells Billboard. “I’ve been hiding from whatever this is — my entire life. There were pockets of this career — whatever you want to call it — where I said ‘I’ve tapped out, I don't want to do this, I’m gonna go be a stage hand. I don't want to do this. I don't want to talk to people. I’m afraid of people. I’m going to walk away from everything that this was and is.’



“The last time that I tried to do that was with Hugh Jackman (the star of The Greatest Showman)” on the set of the film." Settle says they had filmed her big “This Is Me” sequence in the film, with Jackman and other cast and crew watching, and at the end of the number “everyone was bawling and crying, and I was like ‘is everybody OK?’”

The performance moved Jackman so much, that the next day, he came up to Settle and told her “you have changed the course of what’s about to happen in this film.”

Settle, laughing, says she responded with, “So? What does that have to do with me? Because I’m running away after this film opens.” She says Jackman said, “‘You won’t be able to. I need you to know that if you can make a choice. You can go pull a Greta Garbo and run away and do that if you want, or trust me and know that I will have your back, non-stop, until you're in the ground, six feet under, and that my family will have your back, non-stop, until you're six feet under in the ground. Trust me that you can ride this through.’”


Settle says, “And I said — And I still do to this day, every day, that’s why I blame him every day, it’s his fault — and I said ‘OK I trust you, I trust you.’”


She says that she’s grateful for going all-in on The Greatest Showman experience.

“It’s made me see things that I never really cared to crack in myself, to peel things away that made me discover who I am. God knows what it’s doing for anyone else! I hope it’s doing it for them too.

“I’m actually having my own renaissance of just understanding that one of my biggest loves that I thought I had hated more than anything in the world is music. Creating it and telling stories through it and watching people not only be affected by it but share it with each other and then turn it in to what they need it to be and then give me ideas back so that I can make more of it — which is what has sort of started happening now. It’s one of the biggest gifts ever.”

[mamaleh]

Seems like having her back will exist in perpetuity if Hugh has anything to say about it, LOL. What a loyal and appreciative friend he is--and one to trust.

Ellen

[jo]

A descendant of PTBarnum talks about what THE GREATEST SHOWMAN meant to her --

parade.com/656274/nancyberk/the-truth-behind-the-greatest-showman-elinor-biggs-talks-great-great-great-grandfather-p-t-barnum/

[jo]

This is a real treat -- Hugh, Benj, and Justin talk to Josh Horowitz for half-an-hour and share so many inside stories about the film project, the actual movie and its reception, and their experiences!

www.panoply.fm/podcasts/happysadconfused/episodes/51ihoWC4rKSEWAig2SS2wE

[jo]

Phineas Taylor -- in his early 20's ?

Young Hugh -- early 20's ?

http://instagram.com/p/BKYB9j9j4I0

Or this ?

http://instagram.com/p/BF3mydrChHf

[jo]

This is also being posted here, because it is a very substantive interview with Hugh, Benj, and Justin with Scott Mendelson of Forbes on the film project and how things turned out to be, expected or unexpected...and what could be the future of the musical --

Mar 28, 2018 18:53:54 GMT -5 jo said:

This is not a review...

but an excellent article by Scott Mendelson (Forbes) on his recent exhaustive interview with Hugh, Benj, and Justin re the motivations, the expectations, and the realities of THE GREATEST SHOWMAN film project . It also touches on the substance and reasons for the appeal of the movie.


www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/03/28/hugh-jackman-on-greatest-showman-challenges-and-retiring-from-wolverine/#6aebad1a63ca

Hugh Jackman in 'The Greatest Showman'


I was fortunate enough to speak last week with Hugh Jackman, along with songwriters Justin Paul and Benj Pasek, about the shockingly leggy success of their P.T. Barnum musical The Greatest Showman. The film has earned $171 million domestic (and $400m worldwide on an $84m budget) from an $8.8m Fri-Sun (and $13.4m Wed-Sun) debut, making it one of the leggiest wide-release openers of all time.

The film is currently available digitally and on Movies Anywhere and will debut on DVD, Blu-Ray, 4K Ultra HD and VOD on April 10. The post-theatrical releases will contain a singalong edition and a Music Machine "Jukebox" feature, along with two hours of behind-the-scenes supplemental material.
And now, without further ado, here we go. ...



Scott Mendelson: Hi, thank you for taking the time to talk to me.

Hugh Jackman: I never get any calls from my business manager about the press, but anyway, you've been unbelievably supportive.

Justin Paul: Yeah, and we also love the article where you quoted all the song titles. …


Mendelson: That was hard work, so thanks for noticing! When did you first realize that this wasn't just a normal Christmas release for people?

Jackman: Probably not till the new year. It was around the Golden Globes weekend when it had gone up, and we were like, “Oh, we're gonna be OK,” like, we're respectable. I remember someone going, you know, “I think that we'll get the $70 or $80 million.”

Paul: We don't want to ruin the original musical for everyone else. A lot of it was just relief. Still, I don't think anyone thought it would just keep going and going and going.

Jackman: We were just talking before about how eerily like the story of P.T. Barnum the results of the box office have been. They're turning lemons into lemonade, and you know, being driven by people and critics maybe not liking but people loving it, it's so like the story, it's kind of uncanny.


Mendelson: The movie reminds me a lot of The Prestige. Obviously, it's not nearly as dark of a picture, but in terms of the value of entertainment in a harsh and sometimes brutal world. Well, first, why make an original musical versus just adapting the old Barnum show?

Jackman: I did Les Misérables, and I've done a bunch of musicals on stage, but I've never done an original musical, and I figured, this may be me at the top of my game, and if I can use that profile for anything, it would be [something original]. Whether I'm on stage or on the screen, I like to do original things. And this is coming from the guy who's done nine X-Men movies, by the way.'


Mendelson: I'm not going to drown you in X-Men questions, I promise, but was it a different kind of physical exertion to do basically nonstop singing and dancing?

Jackman: Yeah, they're both comparable. I would say a little more difficult on the filming days with singing and dancing because it's nonstop and you're just sort of dancing all day. But [leaving the Wolverine role] had nothing to do with the physicality of the role. Or otherwise, I wouldn't have done an original musical.

I couldn't think of another story to tell with that character. The idea for Logan came up, and that got me so excited, and I was like OK, that's the one. You know it's better to leave the party before you get kicked out.


Mendelson: So because people are going to want me to ask: You're done with Wolverine for now?

Jackman: I'm done.


Mendelson: Were there any deleted scenes, any musical numbers that didn't make the cut for The Greatest Showman? It's a very swiftly paced movie. And there are times it almost feels like a film that was cut as succinctly as possible to please the family audience. Was it just written very succinctly from the start?

Benj Pasek: We developed a lot of the movie as if it were a musical. We did four rounds of workshops. In anticipation of each of those rounds, we would write new material. There are a lot of abandoned pieces of music. By the time we got to shooting, we whittled it down. But for every moment in the film, there is a song that was cut.

Jackman: Yeah, there was a bunch of scenes written and then cut. Some of it had to do with pacing. We were [trimming] down subplots that ultimately didn't pay off. It's a really difficult thing to pace scenes into songs. That's why these guys won the Tony Award for Dear Evan Hansen, but it's very difficult to make a movie musical. Because people think, “Oh, I'll get, you know, Aaron Sorkin to write the book, and I'll get Jay-Z to write the music, like, it's so easy.” But the most difficult thing of all is that pacing and balancing between book to song.

Pasek: What was always the goal was to create songs that sounded like they were a mix of theater and pop. Hugh and [director] Michael Gracey always envisioned this as using music that sounds contemporary, and usually contemporary pop songs don't further narrative, so we were always trying to straddle both worlds. We were trying to find how you'd express something that can sound like it's something that belongs in contemporary music but that also is doing the necessary work of progressing story.

Jackman: We knew the reality is we had to play for family audience. And I mean down to 5-year-olds. We were at a high budget ($84 million), and so that was something we knew going in.

Pasek: That literally affects the minute count from song to song. It affects the length of songs. We want to give the moment what it deserves, but we also know that if we are trying to play to the family audience, and we've got kids in there, they're not going to want to sit through five-minute-long ballads.

What else are we doing to keep their attention, or are we cutting down the song form to accommodate to that? That’s why it does have swift pacing. Something that I think is cool about it is that it really does lets the music tell a lot of the story, or at least pick up a lot of the real estate.

Jackman: And thematically, how deep can you go as well? I know I heard a bunch of reviewers wanted us to concentrate more on the cynical side of Barnum and that historical side, but you have the realities of a 5-to-10-year-old audience as well to deal with.



Mendelson: What choices did you make in terms of what to emphasize about Barnum's actual personality? There were things that weren't going to belong in a PG-rated musical. What did you want to emphasize in that version of P.T. Barnum?

Jackman: I think it’s the version of "the man will turn lemons into lemonade," who sees things that others don't, that celebrates diversity. He can see an opportunity in diversity, but ultimately, he’s not a perfect man. His obsession to succeed and overcome the poverty of his youth possibly led him to take his family for granted, or even his circus family for granted. The subplot with Jenny Lind was probably dramatically about as far as we could take it.

By the way, and a lot of people thought that that was all just glossed over. It's much closer to the truth. I can tell you that I've read 37 books on him. Tom Thumb got married in his house and lived there for many years. A lot of the “oddities” lived with him, and he made them incredibly wealthy and famous. When he lost his money, which he did seven times in his life, one of the times, his backer was Tom Thumb.

You've got to remember, this is in the era of 1850, where they were considered by everyone else as cursed by God and the bottom of the rung and hidden by their families in basements. So he stood up for them. And so that part of [the story] is true.


Mendelson: Is there any possibility that we'll see more of his life? Either in a theatrical sequel or in a Broadway show? I can't imagine Fox is looking at these numbers and saying, "Yeah, we're done."

Jackman: We were talking about a live version of the show even before [the movie] came out. There was a discussion at one point in the eight-year journey of this movie of maybe going live first. I remember Stacey Snider calling me and saying, "Maybe we go live first."

When Keala Settle got up, stood in the middle of a room and sang “This Is Me,” with no makeup, no nothing, no anything, there was not a dry eye in the house. The musical really works live.

Pasek: One thing I think we are all so heartened by is the audience response and the fan response, and that it's coming from people all over the world. We're really thinking about whatever else could happen with this piece and with these songs, these performances — how can we get it to those people who have championed it and who have, in a way, made it theirs? How can we give something else back to them?


Mendelson: Why do you think the film connected in the way it did? Especially after opening weekend, especially after the Christmas holiday?

Pasek: Having Hugh and the amazing cast. We all feel like we're living in a very, very cynical and divisive world right now where you turn on the news and you're not seeing the world reflected to you that you want to see. The Greatest Showman, I think, is a world that we wish we lived in. It upholds all the ideals that we want to be true, and the morality we want to champion. I think that going to a theater and getting to escape into the world as we wish it would be, as opposed to the world that we are currently existing in, is a really, really great thing.

Jackman: The music is a huge factor. If we all had our time over again, we would have released the album probably around three months before [the movie opened]. There’s a quote about musicals that people love a musical because of the music, and it works because of the book. Everybody loved the music. In England, we are No. 1 for the 10th week in a row.
If [the soundtrack sales] hold on this week, we will equal Adele for the most weeks at No. 1 in the past 30 years. It has been downloaded a billion times. I still can't get my head around that. People's love of the music makes them want to run to see it again and again and again, because of how they feel.


Mendelson: Even for my fellow critics, whether they liked the movie or didn't like the movie, the songs were earworms. We all know that we're going to see drunken karaoke versions of “Never Enough” or high school drama auditions of “This Is Me” for the next decade or two. It has had that kind of impact.

Pasek: Yeah. They will continue to haunt us for a long time.

Jackman: We had a rule that when people listened to the music — and by the way, Michael Gracey did 1,000 pitches of the movie around the world. It was like a now quite famous 45-minute pitch that he did about the movie, where he would act out all the lines, and he had artwork for the whole movie.

He would play three or four songs, depending on how many he had. And at the end of the pitch, he would say: "I don't care what you thought of the music. Don't tell me now; even if you think it's the best song you've ever heard, I don't care. But I want you to email me tomorrow if you wake up and that song is in your head."

Because the big thing for everybody is that no one will hear 10 songs for the first time and like them straight away. That's why there's no original musicals. People must like the music first.

People say, "Ah, well, they just wrote a pop song." You know what? I literally challenge anyone: Go out and write 10 pop songs. Go write 10 earworms that everyone will think about. It's so hard to write — what these guys did, lyrically and musically, is so hard. And even the people who have done it historically, musically, like even like an Andrew Lloyd Weber couldn't maintain it his whole career.


Paul: We should bring him (Hugh Jackman) everywhere with us.

Jackman: It pisses me off when people go, "Ah, that's an easy form of art." Come on!


Mendelson: Yeah, (the soundtrack) has been on my phone for the last three months. The live-action musical is something that everybody says, "Oh, it's dead, oh, it's dead," but when you get one made, they do well. Especially around Christmastime.

Jackman: I remember Christmas was always a discussion. It was never talked about coming out at any other time.

Paul: Just the idea of the whole family getting together and watching a musical together, it just feels so classic, almost aspirational.


Mendelson: And it's something that you can't approximate at home. Which makes it very valuable in terms of the constantly threatened theatrical experience.

Pasek: It's true. It's really like we're seeing franchise films, we're seeing event films. And a musical will always be an event film. And so that's a hopeful thing.


Mendelson: What's next for everybody?

Jackman: I have a movie coming out called The Front Runner with Jason Reitman. I finished filming that last year, and honestly, we are working hard right now on working out a live version of the show. There's like three different possibilities currently. And that's the long answer for saying “unemployed.” But you should ask these guys. Because these guys are literally, like, you have 15 jobs currently.

Pasek: We're getting to extend our forced friendship with Hugh Jackman, so we made him be friends with us.

Jackman: No, no, it wasn't forced. I said if we do north of $250 million [worldwide], we'll stay friends!

Pasek: Yeah, we're getting to extend that friendship in talking about the live possibilities of The Greatest Showman. We're at work on a couple of things. First and foremost, we're doing an adaptation, the classic Disney animated film Snow White. We're doing that as a live-action musical. We're taking some of the old material and incorporating that and writing new songs as well.


Mendelson: Thank you very much for taking the time to talk to me. It's been a fun story to follow. You don't see legs like this anymore. It felt like something out of the 1980s.

Jackman: I'll give you a fun fact I heard from the head of Fox when I was in London. He says they're on the same screens they opened with after 12 weeks, which has never happened for them. I said, "How long do you think it'll last?" And he says, "I think it could play right through summer." It's kind of wild, crazy.


Mendelson: Wow. It gives me hope in a "Netflix and chill" world.

[jo]

There have been so many happy post-mortems of the box office sensation!

Even if there are still a few straggler-critics from community newspapers or other media who continue to look down their long noses on this movie which defied critical reaction!


Deadline.com is probably second to Forbes in covering the unbelievable 3-month run (Forbes also gave us very recently an interview with Hugh/Benj/Justin on the success of the film project)...but it also adds some insights on the success of the movie while talking other FOX organization people...and speculates on what lies ahead per the Fox people.


deadline.com/2018/03/the-greatest-showman-crosses-400-million-global-box-office-fox-marketing-analysis-future-plans-1202353898/

This Is $400M+: ‘The Greatest Showman’ Hits WW Milestone On Feel-Good Legs

by Nancy Tartaglione

March 29, 2018 3:26pm


When it comes to The Greatest Showman‘s theatrical business, it’s been a real sostenuto for 20th Century Fox and producer Chernin Entertainment after starting off on a low note at the Christmas box office.



Buried in the shadows of the behemoth holiday success of Star Wars: The Last Jedi ($1.3 billion global B.O.) and Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle ($943.7M) in addition to falling short of any electric awards season buzz, it seemed all was lost for the Hugh Jackman period musical about P.T. Barnum which opened to lackluster reviews and a dim $13.4M 5-day domestic debut.

However, Fox always had a sense based on the stellar female exit scores and the turnout by Broadway-philes that The Greatest Showman would ultimately be worthy of a standing ovation; a box office slow burn which in the U.S. and Canada played wide in north of 1,000 theaters for 11 weekends, 21 days longer than Last Jedi lasted at that threshold.

The latest high notes for this $84M budgeted musical? Last weekend The Greatest Showman hit $171.2M stateside, beating 2002 Oscar best picture winner Chicago ($170M) and becoming the third-highest grossing live-action musical of all-time after Beauty and the Beast ($504M) and Grease ($188.8M). Globally, it sang past the four-century mark with $407M becoming one of five big screen musicals to ever do so after Beauty and the Beast, Mamma Mia!, La La Land and Les Miserables.



For Fox, The Greatest Showman becomes their 4th highest-grossing title last year beating Kingsman: The Golden Circle ($410.9M). The movie has played and played with audiences leading singalong screenings and a soundtrack that won’t quit juiced by the Oscar-nominated anthem “This Is Me” from La La Land Oscar-winning songwriters Benj Pasek and Justin Paul. Deadline sources believe that the theatrical release will feasibly turn a $50M after global home entertainment TV streams, but soundtrack and music licensing rights are poised to drive that number to $100M (falling outside the top 10 in Deadline’s Most Valuable Blockbuster Tournament).

More importantly, at a time when Disney is pondering the fate of 20th Century Fox in its planned merger, the studio has more than proven its sustained worth in the older adult cinema sector, not just with the banner success of The Greatest Showman but in its six trophy Oscar run with Fox Searchlight earlier this month with titles The Shape of Water and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.


Overseas audiences, notably in the UK, Australia and Japan, continue to be tickled. In the UK, the movie bounced up to No. 1 in its 6th weekend of release after an IMAX component was added and held with small drops over the following weeks.
Given the response, discussions about how to keep the music playing are ongoing with musings of a Broadway transfer, an arena tour or a Las Vegas engagement being blue-skied.


The UK is its biggest offshore theatrical market with $55M through Tuesday, followed by Japan at $35M (which bowed February 16 and still has momentum) and Australia with $26M. (The one market that might have broken out but didn’t was China. It was a hot hub for La La Land last year but Showman just didn’t really find an audience there.)
Fox President of International Marketing Kieran Breen says, “It’s unusual to play so long from decent openings but not great. Very occasionally that happens with a Full Monty or Avatar. It says great things about the movie business that the audience dictates and is enjoying the film together. Those are the things you want to hear and see about movies.”

Fox President of International Theatrical Distribution Andrew Cripps marvels, “How many times do we run into the home entertainment date? That almost never happens.” Domestically, home ent kicks in at the end of this month and in the UK it’s April 10. Also in the UK, the soundtrack has been at No. 1 for 11 weeks, tying Adele’s 21 for the longest consecutive run at the top in 30 years (it’s likewise been No. 1 in almost every territory at some point, including on the domestic Billboard 200 and iTunes charts).


Here’s what some of the UK critics had to say about the movie: The Telegraph called it “completely and utterly bibbly bibbly quack-quack insane.” The Evening Standard said it was “a load of big top baloney.” The Guardian was kinder with “cheesy” but “charming.”

Producer Peter Chernin says critics tend to be “dismissive” of feel-good family fare. “We got smacked around a bit in reviews. A lot were like, ‘you sort of whitewashed the dark side of Barnum.’ It’s like, ‘Yeah, we did. We were trying to make a feel-good movie, not a muckraking exposé.’ They missed the point of what we were trying to do.”

Breen adds, “Even though the movie didn’t open as big as we originally hoped, in a lot of markets we have to credit the exhibitors for giving it the space and for allowing it to run on.” That allowed it to “find its audience and for the audience who decided they weren’t going to listen to the critics on this one.”

Chernin tells me, “We as an industry are under-serving the desire for audiences to feel good. We do a great job on spectacle, we’re good enough on intense dramas and comedies. But what we don’t tend to do a good enough job of is things that make people really feel great together.”


He suggests that the domestic opening was misinterpreted. “We almost started looking at it as paid sneaks. We held back a fair amount of our marketing for that weekend. The real opening was December 25. The week between Christmas and New Year’s is a huge opportunity for families who want to go to the movies together.” But, he allows, “We were nervous those days in between.”

Breen says it was a tough sell, but, “I don’t remember a movie that had such an evangelical following inside of Fox. Somehow the storytelling, the characters, the music and the Hugh of it all made it feel like we badly wanted it to succeed.”

To be sure, women drove business (in places like Japan and Korea, notably, they make the moviegoing decisions). Domestically at open, it counted a 73% female audience and an A CinemaScore. Awards-wise, with critics not warming to the pic (now at 55% Rotten), it sat out many races, and suddenly picked up three Golden Globe noms and an Oscar mention for Best Song.

But in-house passion for the pic was evident early on. At CineEurope in 2016, director Michael Gracey presented his vision through sketches and images during a half-hour walk-through that some at the time found indulgent. Fast forward a year and in June 2017, The Greatest Showman had the Barcelona crowd of European exhibs dancing in the aisles with Jackman telling them from the stage, “This is a film about taking risks and celebrating what makes each and every one of us different, special and unique.”


Having Jackman as frontman throughout the process clearly didn’t hurt. “We worked very close with him on social content,” says Breen. “He posted like crazy from everywhere he went, he was a real champion. This was a role he was born to play and he felt the responsibility of that.”

It “makes a big difference” to have a star so invested. “He attends marketing meetings from day one and comes up with ideas. He’s a creative guy who’s been in the business a long time and knows the value of touring, marketing, distribution and social.”

The combined social following of the movie’s talent that includes Hugh Jackman, Zendaya, and Zac Efron resonates with 185M followers. Fox’s marketing team worked with 18 core YouTube influencers from around the world with a combined following of 42M. Notably, they recorded their own versions of “This Is Me” at Abbey Road in London with Keala Settle and Jackman, among other activations.

Also globally, the “This Is Me” challenge involved a package containing video choreography, backing tracks, music sheets and more being sent to schools and theater groups who created their own interpretation.

Ways to keep the property going are being floated. Chernin says, “We’re doing a lot of work right now thinking about what are the next potential opportunities, talking to Hugh and Michael and Benji and Justin. It could be Broadway to Vegas to an arena tour. It’s clearly struck a chord so what’s the most fitting for the material.”

Would Jackman be involved in any future iterations? “Clearly Hugh is not going to spend the next ten years on an arena tour,” Chernin laughs. But, “one of the great things is that it is so overwhelmingly emotional for everyone who worked on it. Hugh has been so moved by the audience response.”



For now, the singalongs continue with Japan getting in on the gig from this weekend. Fox will be opportunistic in the future and may bring the singalongs back to theaters after the DVD release across various markets. “Every so often,” hints Breen, “you’ll find a Moulin Rouge on somewhere in the UK.”

He continues, “We had big religion on this even though it was a hard sell. But give us a big problem and we’ll find a solution. From the opening I was kind of gutted, so I’m just really happy to see it get its moment and the audience rally to it. In this time when the world is a tough place and people are uncertain and worried about where it’s going, this offers a very optimistic and uplifting, almost cathartic, response to some of the crap that’s going on.”

[jo]

If I may share my own sentiments -- and no offense meant -- on the above article from Deadline.




Personally-speaking, based on following the developments on this project since Day 1, the benefit of some insider information while the project was still at the workshop stage/the greenlight process/the developments during filming, the way Fox handled the marketing thrust, the daily observations from social media responses, the many interviews with the 4 key creatives - Hugh, Michael, Benj and Justin, plus all the post-mortems now --

I am not keen on some of the observations shared by the marketing team, who seems to be trying to bask in the reflected glory!

Save for Peter Chernin, co-producer and funder ( through his outfit) who has been supportive of the project early on ( they signed up right away...Chernin was very supportive in his personal tweet messages and occasional interviews), I find the comments from the Marketing people somehow self-serving.

To me, the handling of the promotion and marketing was not able to focus from the start on the true appeal of this movie. The two trailers were not well-received ( and it took them 4 months or so to release the 2nd trailer). They did not focus on the appeal of Hugh Jackman enough as the titular lead -- on his ability to draw in musicals fans both on film and on stage and from his hosting appeal... on his ability to show overall versatility coming from the success of LOGAN ( as well as his popularity as Wolverine)... on his value as an interview magnet and media tour rep. They were also focusing on the trapeze team too much ( remember all those billboards, lobby banners, street posters, etc) because they thought that they would have even a greater appeal ( thinking the main market is the millennial crowd), not realizing that this movie is a magnet for all ages and across borders! Also, no offense meant, but Zendaya did not project too well handling talk show interviews. Belatedly, they focused on This Is Me, with Keala ( when Hugh early on told the LA CinemaCon crowds early on - March - that the real breakout star would be Keala). The marketing team also tried to drive the international appeal by drawing on pop stars for the millennial crowds to reprise This Is Me, but it seems that the project was scrapped because we did not see it materialize as part of the actual publicity material. In the media tour, Keala was also an after-thought.

The real appeal was not also not only on This Is Me...but on the entire score -- please see all the fan reactions I have posted of all manner of covers! This Is Me is a great favorite because of its anthem, but there were other songs that drew strong following. They should have also studied which professional artists both in the USA and overseas did their own covers, not just as a fun social media posts but as part of their professional repertoire. They should have analyzed the comments on YouTube of how fans were reacting to different songs and maybe did their follow-up publicity based on the evolving sentiments!

The one thing that was an excellent magnet for the movie, which may have been the idea of the marketing group ( although I have my own doubts as the idea could have come from Hugh or Michael himself) -- was the release of the two workshop numbers from the final workshop. This Is Me drew over 15 million hits while From Now On racked up close to 10 million hits. Those behind-the-scenes stories, because of their success even if released only a day before December 20, must have also suggested the eventual publicity material on the behind-the-scenes features for the home video?


A few other things I am not too keen on --

*The sentiment that Hugh's presence did not seem to hurt the publicity or the movie ("
Having Jackman as frontman throughout the process clearly didn’t hurt")! Excuse me!!

Hugh not only gave his 101% commitment to support the movie but ...

Shouldn't this be " Hugh's presence was the main driving force in the movie, with his performance that even the critics could not ignore and which social media and YouTube comments were in awe of!!"

Whether this observation came from the marketing people involved or Deadline.com -- that is very unfair to Hugh. It was he who carried this project on his Atlas-like shoulders --- including the back-breaking back-to-back filming after LOGAN! And in what universe did they see comments ( written or verbal, in interviews or social media or actual film reviews) which said that Hugh was not the main attraction or that his presence was only tolerated??


*The marketing people saying that the film project was like an Evangelical mission at FOX (implying everyone concerned) -- the only true evangelists were Hugh and Michael! Maybe some kudos to Emma Watts.

The film did not get a greenlight early on, the release date was moved one year later, the hesitance of topbrass Fox to do it as a movie (" Maybe try it on stage first?"), maybe the decision to bring in James Mangold because they did not fully subscribe to Gracey's initial output, the reviews that the film project had to undergo before being given the go-signal, etc...maybe they all followed suit when they realize they might have a treasure in their hands ( in the second half o January 2018?).

What is still in the dark for me was the seeming conflict between the movie press/critics community resulting in the initial negativity. Someone even said on a twitter exchange initiated by Guy Lodge ( UK-Variety contributor) that he could not fathom why there seems to be a "pre-hate" attitude towards the movie which was still to be released. How could there be negativity about the test screenings when Hugh said in a very recent interview that the test screenings were showing maybe something like 95% in favor of the movie? Okay -- maybe they were able to gauge why the movie might not sell with critics -- but did they not see that it could be a big movie audience hit? The major elements were there -- the musical score, the excellent cast who are true-triple threats, the production values were in place... so why did marketing go wrong in not anticipating the audience reaction?



In fairness, what I thought was a manifestation of FOX support was the $ 100 million marketing and distribution budget given to the $ 84 million production budget ( before tax cuts?).

Also, in fairness, Stacey Snider seemed to have come around, eventually! The initial push came from Emma Watts and her deputy.

*There were some excellent interviews with the main creatives ( Hugh/Michael/Pasek and Paul). Foremost was the supportive and insightful articles from Variety ( the first Jackman full interview and including that article from Chief Film critic Owen Gleiberman which derided the reactions of critics)! There were also some very informative interviews and articles on the songwriters Pasek and Paul. The post-mortem interviews conducted by Scott Mendleson of Forbes, Josh Horowitz, by the skeptical NYTimes, and maybe this Deadline article -- are probably the marketing people's belated recognition that maybe it was other factors which brought on the success. In fairness to Marketing -- kudos to them for this late effort to let the people appreciate the film better...

*But I had hoped the Oscar campaign team had done better work! Or was it Fox's loss of faith in the movie which resulted in the movie not being submitted for awards consideration, except for This Is Me! Sometimes, in my wicked moments, did the failure of This Is Me to win an Oscar might have been a bit of karma for the seeming injustice to the movie creatives/actors in general?


*Deadline's own analysis may be a little less than sterling -- she mentions the support of Broadway-philes? Really? The Broadway community itself was practically negative, plus did you ever see a Broadway actor show strong support either in social media or in interviews! Who loved the musical score? Not the theatre(stage) fans but all the wide diversity of cinema audiences who loved what they saw sung and performed! I shudder at some of the negative comments from Broadwayworld message board ( and also ATC to some extent), openly deriding the quality of the music. Was it jealousy and envy? Was it because they were strong fans of other composers and stage actors. I opened several threads ...but was very surprised at the negativity of the reaction to the movie and the musical score.

Deadline also failed to highlight, that while the females where the overwhelming and heavy influences and fans... they could have noted the social media reactions from the male sector which surprisingly also became fans, even if in some cases, they would preface their comments with " I am not usually a musicals fan ...or I was only dragged to this movie but ..." ), but when you see the uploaded photos of viewing parties, as well, it is surprising how many males turned up. And look at all the covers ( in full costume from red jacket to cane and tophat) from young boys trying to be the next greatest showman


My 2 cents' worth -- no offense meant -- I just feel that there is a bit of basking in other people's glory going around -- and now even taking full credit... when the honors belong to some people who worked so hard on and were very committed to the project.


Jo

[jo]

Quo vadis, The Greatest Showman ?

Ways to keep the property going are being floated. Chernin says, “We’re doing a lot of work right now thinking about what are the next potential opportunities, talking to Hugh and Michael and Benji and Justin. It could be Broadway to Vegas to an arena tour. It’s clearly struck a chord so what’s the most fitting for the material.

I wonder how much will depend on Hugh's view of the movie and how much commitment he can give it in its second life?

Vegas -- hmm... Hugh's Viva Laughlin ( really a Las Vegas story) did not succeed. Will THE GREATEST SHOWMAN repurposed as a Las Vegas add to or diminish its artistic reputation? Can it attract enough audiences ( what about people from overseas)? Does Hugh ( or his cast) want to perform there...how will that help or put his career in an even higher artistic plane? Hmmm... this kind of follow-up project may not seem as doing full justice to the movie as an artform - sorry.

Arena Tour -- presumably this will be semi-staged? This means it can be staged in key cities of the world?

Broadway -- a pinnacle if they want to put in a more artistic gloss to the movie musical, but adapted to a Broadway staging?


Not mentioned as an option --

Another option -- a concert staging, which will focus more on the musical score, with a bit of introductory scenes?



And a very far-off option suggested by quite a number of fans --

Why not a sequel??



In the final analysis, does Fox just want to make more money even if it means losing some of the artistic appeal of the movie musical?

And maybe to some extent -- Hugh's level of interest and commitment in the kind of follow-up that his dream project should get?

[jo]

Deadline sources believe that the theatrical release will feasibly turn a $50M after global home entertainment TV streams, but soundtrack and music licensing rights are poised to drive that number to $100M

After home video streams?

Are these based on what marketing or other FOX people or producers like Peter Chernin might have shared...

Or just Deadline.com's estimates?



It is always talked about in Hollywood circles and among serious movies fans that nobody knows the kind of "creative accounting" employed by movie studios to determine their net profitability on a specific film project.

My own questions:

*Does Hugh Jackman have a profit participation clause in his contract? He also does not get producer's credit but was widely known to have the leadership involvement in the project. If he does have a profit clause -- is that a front-end or a back-end type of participation. Whatever it is, and if there is one, has this already been included in determining net profitability?

*What kind of shared overhead ( the salaries of Snider and other key execs, other studio overhead that is assigned to the films that are being made and released currently) was factored in? What about share in other expenses of the organization which do not form part of general overhead ( financial costs, etc). Overall the factoring in the share of General Overhead and Non-Overhead expenses is the issue which finds the most skeptics when determining net profitability.

*Was the revenue stream from home video ( digital release, BluRay, DVD, streaming services) estimated based on past experience ( and knowing that this is no longer as rich a source of profitability) of hit movies in general or movie musicals in particular? One thing, though -- the profitability of The Greatest Showman was not estimated correctly ( an understatement!) and nor its source! So...there's the unpredictability factor. Plus the audience proprietorial attitude towards this movie has been extraordinary...and could result in a stronger support for these revenue streams. Some have also mentioned that this will make great gifts ( someone ordered a number to give as gifts for Christmas 9 months from now - LOL).

*The ancillary revenues which do not apply to non-musicals (unless we are talking of film scoring albums, which could include some songs) is the soundtrack album - we know the extraordinary success of this revenue stream worldwide! But what is the share of Fox in this?

*Did Fox really spend $ 100 million in promoting and distributing the film? A side question -- was the money spent on marketing the movie wisely spent or did it seem like carpet-bombing and hoping it will reach some target? I also wonder if the $ 84 million production budget ( told to Variety) is already net of tax credits ( NY State mainly) and/or product tie-ins? On another note -- had FOX Marketing correctly forecast the impact on family audiences and across all ages -- could they have sold more merchandise than the variety offered on the FOX site. No canes or tophats or Pink Wigs or Fake Beards or even Ringmaster jackets were offered - yet they seemed to be what all those social media photo uploads were showing for the amateur performers!




On the other hand --

Fox may chose to disclose a more optimistic profitability level when it does its quarterly reporting to shareholders! That is part of what increases the market value of shares ( and therefore improves overall market cap - short for market capitalization)! Any big corporation will enhance its profitability profile as much as it can, without running counter to regulatory authorities ( IRS)! Trust me


Who knows




Comptroller Jo

[hughmanity]

 Loved (as always)  reading  your insightful and edifying comments on the Deadline article  However, I do think the statement about Hugh as a frontman not "hurting"  the promotional efforts  was made with tongue planted firmly in cheek and with clear recognition of what an asset he was. It's like someome saying, "Clearly,  having snow when we wanted to make a snowman did not hurt".   Anyway, that was my take, but who knows?  Happy, healthy Passover and Easter to all. 

[jo]

No problem with your take on it, Hughmanity

I know that maybe they were trying to make light of the problems that bogged down the marketing efforts, but it sounded too flippant to me. I just wished the marketing people gave full credit to the efforts of the people who mattered. Or if it was Deadline's way of expressing the value of Hugh Jackman as frontman for the movie -- the writer was disrespectful without realizing it.

After all that Hugh had undergone to get this film project done and released -- they (or the writer) could have left the supposedly lighthearted comments to other aspects of the whole studio efforts. I wonder if they realized that Hugh had to do double-time during his weekends while filming LOGAN to do some pre-production work for SHOWMAN ? He was doing chemistry tests with the various actresses being cast for the key roles - Michelle and Rebecca were only 2 of the various candidates for the roles they finally landed. He was doing the workshops while still winding up The River...and while preparing for Broadway to Oz --true, those were not FOX projects but it only speaks of the deep commitment that he had for the project. If I recall right, he was also helping in the casting ( E.g.,remember how he asked Taron to give him a video of Taron's singing performance at RADA where he won the Sondheim Appreciation Society award for best performer?) and trying to entice the students from the acting school associated with Circle in the Square (where he was winding up his stint with The River) to audition for roles?

There was a $ 100 million marketing and distribution budget ( according to Variety) but I am not too sure if that was all well-spent. And now they are trying to share in the success story in full as if their marketing efforts did the job very well.

Also, maybe my thoughts are colored by my own perception of how well the Deadline writer Nancy Tartaglione does her work as International Writer for the Box Office section of the website. I would have appreciated it more if maybe the chief editor Mike Fleming, Jr. did the post-mortem story as that would have been more incisive. Ms Tartaglione only cited the Cinemascore rating and actual profile of those who rated the movie. She could have spent more time analyzing the Audience Score at RT, the readers reviews at Metascore, the demo profile at IMDB of those who rated the movie, maybe even spent more time to analyze the various audience feedbacks ( IMDB reviews, Amazon readers reviews, the comments on YouTube and even social media reaction samples). NYTimes at least reached out to readers to see why the movie succeeded. If she is a trained analyst, that should not have taken all that much time, unless she spends most of her time doing her core work at Deadline - which is getting box office results on the international front?

She also cited only China as the fail on the international front ( did she know that scheduling of the movie right before the dead period, in terms of people's attention, preceding and during Chinese New Year might have explained the relatively poor results of only around $ 15 million? Did she know other countries like Brazil, South Korea, a few European countries also showed lackluster results ( Why? Was the marketing efforts there inadequate or mis-directed? She should have asked the Marketing people's response to that? France which was not even a fan of Les Miserables also did not have spectacular results even if there was a big promo with Galeries Lafayette and Hugh came over for the premiere -- does the French people musicals taste really dovetail with a movie like The Greatest Showman? For one, they really liked LaLaLand very well. Maybe Ms Tartaglione should not have limited her insights based on the interviews with the Marketing people at FOX and an interview with Peter Chernin? Scott Mendelson from Forbes, Josh Horowitz, Stephanie Goodman of NYTimes did better jobs to understand the phenomenon. And maybe she should not just have taken what the Marketing/Distribution people said as gospel truth... and looked more deeply into that, given that she is supposed to be the International Writer for Deadline?

Jo

[jo]

From the Forbes interview ( Scott Mendelson) --

Mendelson: Is there any possibility that we'll see more of his life? Either in a theatrical sequel or in a Broadway show? I can't imagine Fox is looking at these numbers and saying, "Yeah, we're done."



Jackman: We were talking about a live version of the show even before [the movie] came out. There was a discussion at one point in the eight-year journey of this movie of maybe going live first. I remember Stacey Snider calling me and saying, "Maybe we go live first."

When Keala Settle got up, stood in the middle of a room and sang “This Is Me,” with no makeup, no nothing, no anything, there was not a dry eye in the house. The musical really works live.

Pasek: One thing I think we are all so heartened by is the audience response and the fan response, and that it's coming from people all over the world. We're really thinking about whatever else could happen with this piece and with these songs, these performances — how can we get it to those people who have championed it and who have, in a way, made it theirs? How can we give something else back to them?

An arena tour could be the most favored option --

*It would likely be the best option to get most of the key cast involved, given their busy schedules?

*It can be done within a relatively short span of time -- maybe a schedule of a week or two (or even longer for NYC and London) in key cities?

*The staging could be relatively simpler -- but the music and choreography can be easily duplicated?

*Profitability-wise, if this can be performed in large performing venues, maybe break-evens could be easier achieved?

*And most importantly -- it could be the option that will likely serve the purpose of a Thank You letter to fans all over the world!


On the other hand, it may miss the chance to win Broadway honors as well as the opportunity to be the closest adaptation of the movie (with its established appeal). But is that still a primary objective? The run would have to be much longer because a one-theatre schedule will take a much longer breakeven period ( including more elaborate production designs). How long can Hugh Jackman commit to a long schedule? Since A STEADY RAIN -- it's been 3-4 months at most. Will it be the same with another actor ( who can sing, dance, and act)?

Hmm... there wasn't much support from the Broadway community - did we even see one tweet from any Broadway personality hailing the movie and the music? The Broadway chaterati were often more derisive than supportive of the movie and the music

We'll see how this evolves



Although of course it is really their decision -- I have a feeling that it is Hugh's favored option that will prevail


Jo

[jo]

Will someone from the movie project be there?

[jo]

This image of Hugh Jackman in a Ringmaster costume as Barnum has become one of his now most enduring cinematic images.

Almost like his Wolverine persona!

[jo]

Michael Gracey talks about life during and after The Greatest Showman!


www.if.com.au/the-greatest-showmans-michael-gracey-ponders-his-next-move/


He mentions that FOX put up only half of the Production Budget of $ 84 million, but he did not mention that the studio was committed to market and distribute the movie ( to the tune of an additional $ 100 million, per Variety). In addition, the studio was involved at the approval process, pre-prod, principal photography/filming, post-prod...and then the distribution and marketing functions.

I wonder who financed the long development process ( the workshops/ the scriptwriting/ the songwriting/the concept preparation/etc)? Was that also financed by Fox in general? By Hugh? Or by Fox and Hugh?


What I am most interested in is the possibility of a live adaptation ( stage musical or arena tour or concert version). Presumably, the staples will be Gracey, Jackman, and Pasek&Paul! Fox has a StageProduction unit now ( although we do not know if that will be folded in to the Disney umbrella when the acquisition is (supposedly) completed by summer of 2019).

So, it is "QUO VADIS - The Greatest Showman?" for me!


Jo

[jo]

He credits Jackman with fighting for years to make the film with an untried feature director and rejecting suggestions that an experienced filmmaker would be a safer bet.

Not only that - Gracey had the advantage of having possibly the best all-around choice for THE GREATEST SHOWMAN. There may be other actors with triple-threat talent and who straddle both film and stage...and who could commit to such a very long gestation period...

But which other actor has such a commanding presence in this kind of a movie, who has the charisma to draw in people, and who could provide the leadership needed as in a theatre company ( of actors)?

Plus the looks to make Jenny Lind fall in love with him


Jo

[jo]

Gracey would love to see a Broadway adaptation of the film, which he has discussed with Jackman, Pasek and Paul.

Is he leaning more towards a stage adaptation for Broadway...or was that just the assumption of the writer when talks about a live adaptation is involved?

I think whether it does get recreated as live entertainment will depend on the financiers ( presumably FOX...or Fox/Disney) as we are likely talking of no earlier than the 2018/2019 season.

On a practical basis, it will likely depend not on Gracey or Pasek&Paul because their involvement will be mostly front-end. It will likely depend on Hugh's commitment to a long run ( enough to reach at least breakeven level) or a shorter run ( via an arena tour in major cities of the world) or even the least-likely alternative of a concert version. Given that Hugh is also now trekking towards a new path in his career ( beyond Wolverine), it is likely that he will also give enough time to further deepen his film involvement. If you consider that his next release is an indie movie ( The Front Runner) and possibly another indie movie ( Bad Education), it seems that he is interested in getting more involved in drama and maybe the occasional action/drama? If he does Broadway, as he has done after TBFO in 2004), it has always been limited engagements on Broadway and short arena tours for TBFO-arena and his Turkey/Australia shows.

I could be all wrong, though

Jo

[jo]

What do you think of a future movie team-up of Hugh Jackman with Rebecca Ferguson?




They did have such a strong chemistry in THE GREATEST SHOWMAN!


Maybe a period drama or a modern day thriller?


Jo

[jo]

They lucked on the two young actresses who portrayed Phineas and Charity's daughters! Each one was outstanding!

According to Michael Gracey in the director's commentary, Hugh and Michelle developed a warm rapport with the young girls on the set, playing with them and making them completely well at ease. They were like parents to the 2 girls!


Jo

[jo]

I'm also posting this here ( originally posted on FAN REACTION thread by ME/FAN )

Apr 18, 2018 20:02:04 GMT -5 jo said:

Just like TIGHTROPE which is a very beautiful song that seems not to get enough discussion --

the dancing of Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams in A MILLION DREAMS seems not to have attracted enough attention!

In this rehearsals video clip, one can see ( rather briefly) the moves that Hugh and Michelle had to perfect to get that dance number flawlessly executed!




Consider the following --

*The song itself is such a winner that anything that comes with it ( such as a dance number) may naturally take a backseat
*Unlike the muscular choreography ( dance or action moves) of the other musical numbers, the dance number of A MILLION DREAMS harks back to dance classics in the tradition of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rodgers! Swoon-worthy! Not only that, action star Hugh executes such difficult dance lifts that only a few dancers can probably do it with such impact!
*The dance moves in THE GREATEST SHOW, COME ALIVE, THE OTHER SIDE,THIS IS ME, REWRITE THE STARS and even FROM NOW ON can ( probably) be perfected by continuous rehearsals until it is move-perfect! With Hugh and Michelle's dancing in A MILLION DREAMS, unless you have the grace of classical dancing, no amount of rehearsals will make it an exceptional performance!
*There are more dance moves in A MILLION DREAMS compared to all the other musical numbers accentuated by dance!

*Probably a biased opinion -- but who in the cast can look as great a pair dancing those classical moves and giving out a very romantic vibe? Hugh is handsome and tall and athletically graceful! Michelle is fair and beautiful and naturally graceful! Those lifts from Hugh needs such muscular gifts from the male partner. Michelle doing that pirouette into the tent-like sheets is so breathtaking!

In a sense I am reminded of Hugh and Josefina dancing a part of the dream ballet in OKLAHOMA!


*There have been quite a number of dance covers to the song A MILLION DREAMS...but always with modern interpretations! Is it because they acknowledge how difficult and needing extreme grace to channel those Hugh and Michelle classical dance moves?


I think the EXTRAs or the DIRECTOR'S COMMENTARY in the BluRay/DVD and the publicity thrust (seemingly biased - as to demographics) failed to highlight this hidden gift to musical fans ( especially to those who love the golden days of Hollywood musicals).

Maybe someday -- there will be an acknowledgement and even attempts to see if dance lovers can emulate what Hugh and Michelle have given us in A MILLION DREAMS!

Jo ( Fan!)