Into the Woods Official Movie Thread- Page 201

[DAME]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 1:07pm

I wonder why they never thought of JLO for the witch?

[ggersten]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 1:32pm

I don't have anything to at this time. Just wanted to be the 5000th post in the thread.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 2:07pm

I think most people consider a film that makes money a hit.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 2:09pm

Except for "Birdman."

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 4:01pm

"You decide what's right. You decide what's good."

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 4:06pm

"You decide what's right. You decide what's good."

Nope. Apparently Metacritic and RT does, according to the movie geniuses who are gracing us with their presence (and "knowledge") on this thread! Who knew?!

[east side story]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 4:58pm

"Everyone thinks that Patricia is a lock for the Best Featured Actress Oscar but here's what I say: Don't be so sure about that."

There is no race. After the BAFTA passed on nominating her, I would not be shocked if somehow she is left out when Oscar nominations are announced later this week. I know it's hard to think outside of the Broadway bubble, but Into the Woods is not the runaway hit most of you want it to be. Every person I spoke to was very mixed. Many of whom all mentioned other cast members as being the standout.

Regardless, Arquette is unstoppable, and rightfully so. As far as I'm concerned, all four acting races are locked up even before nominations are out. Keaton, Moore, Simmons, and Arquette.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 5:20pm

This coming from a self professed Arquette fanatic....

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 5:33pm

I know it's hard to think outside of the Broadway bubble, but Into the Woods is not the runaway hit most of you want it to be.

It isn't?

So how would you classify a movie that has grossed over $100 million in less than a month?

[DAME]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 5:34pm

And it hasn't even finished opening word wide yet. It is a HUGE hit.

Updated On: 1/12/15 at 05:34 PM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 5:35pm

Exactly! Talk about living in a bubble! Clueless much?

[east side story]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 5:56pm

Perfectly coherent.

The movie has made money. Absolutely. Many people have gone to see it, and come out either mixed or not particularly caring for it. The only true fans of the film are theatre fanatics, not the general movie going public. However, being that is backed by the Mouse, all that matters is the box office. So yes, those theatergoers paid to go see it, but they more often than not have been left cold. Ask anyone who is not in the Broadway bubble, as I mentioned earlier.

It may grab a few technical awards, but it's not exactly in the final heat for Best Picture. Anywhere. It just does not have enough support from the film industry.

[Len6677]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 6:05pm

"Many people have gone to see it, and come out either mixed or not particularly caring for it. The only true fans of the film are theatre fanatics, not the general movie going public."

How do you figure this? I've seen people complaining about it but I've also seen plenty of non-theater fanatics saying they loved it. Check out Twitter, Instagram, etc and you'll see plenty of very positive reactions. It's not accurate to say that all people who are not theatre fanatics leave this movie negative or mixed on it.

[Consistency]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 6:30pm

"The only true fans of the film are theatre fanatics"

No, not so much. It's true that the general public is more mixed than, for example, the people on this site - but there are definitely people who aren't familiar with the show going to see the film and liking or loving it. That group would include several members of my family.

"Ask anyone"

Ok. I did. All of my coworkers who had seen it have enjoyed it, and none of them are "theater fanatics" - one loved it so much that he bought the soundtrack on the way home from the theater.

Most of what I overheard as I was leaving the theater was positive too.

We only have anecdotal evidence to go on at this point, but I simply don't think that "more often than not people are being left cold" is an accurate statement. It is true that there's more passion about it in the theater community, but that's to be expected no matter how good or bad it is.

Other than that, I agree that it's not likely to be a big awards contender (we'll see on Thursday I guess when the Oscar noms are announced.) It's also true that it was practically guaranteed to make a certain amount of money just based on the Disney name - but the word of mouth has been more mixed than downright poisonous. Updated On: 1/12/15 at 06:30 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 6:52pm

The amount of money the movie has made isn't an opinion. It's a fact.

If you don't like this film, that's fine. But don't fool yourself about facts either. That's bubble-dweller talk.

Now back to my opinion ... haha ...

I too have coworkers who never saw the play but at least went into it knowing it was BASED on a play and not expecting a Frozen/Shrek fairytale mashup. They both loved it. Also bought the soundtrack, and they ask me questions about what other Sondheim shows should they listen to.

That makes me so friggin happy.

They were also stunned when I told them he wrote the lyrics to West Side Story. And it reminds me of how "weird" and unusual the score was to the population at large in the late 1950s ...

... how Mary Rodgers, who attended opening night, remembered watching people walk out of the theatre during the show ...

A few years later when the film came out, the soundtrack went on to become one of the highest selling soundtracks of all time (to this day).

Seeing this "strange" and "weird" movie come out in today's world, written by the same man who has endured more than his fair share of walk-outs during his illustrious career, makes me so happy to watch the public do everything from freak out to boo it to embrace it and love it ...

This is nothing new to Stephen Sondheim ... but it sure is a nice little bit of history repeating itself.

[Bucky Builder]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 7:07pm

" I do have to wonder why some people expend so much energy attempting to take away other people's joy, though. It's a strange hobby."

I must apologize. I didn't realize posting scores and saying it's not a hit would kill your joy for this film. I'll leave you to grieve. So sorry for your loss.

[sarahb22]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 7:15pm

I get a kick out of going to Twitter and Tumblr and doing a search for "Billy Magnussen" and "Into the Woods". There are TONS of posts, mostly positive, and a lot of buzz and fan involvement among young people. That's great. It's certainly gotten Billy a lot of attention.

[sarahb22]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 7:23pm

"I must apologize. I didn't realize posting scores and saying it's not a hit would kill your joy for this film. I'll leave you to grieve. So sorry for your loss."

Yeah, I'm so broken up over 'Into the Woods' success. Not.

[Bucky Builder]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 7:37pm

@Sarah, You are obviously young (and in love with Billy) so I doubt my words will mean much, but I must tell you this for the future:

Sometimes, People aren't all going to like the same things on the same level. It's not because they are trying to hurt the film or "take away other people's joy". It's simply because they just happened to not be taken by it for whatever reason. Sometimes people disagree on things and that's okay. It's a discussion thread, not a "Praise the mighty ITW" thread. I'm happy you liked it. I more or less liked it also. However, there are people on this board and in this world who didn't like it for reasons othe than "This is a musical?" "these songs sound the same" and so on. They have valid reasons for not liking it and them commenting is in no way "taking away joy". :)

Updated On: 1/12/15 at 07:37 PM

[sueb1863]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 8:20pm

Are people seriously using the reactions on an IMDb message board to gauge overall public reaction to a movie?

If you checked out the Les Miz IMDb board you'd be convinced the public loathed the movie and it was a massive flop. There are people who live on IMDb for no reason other than to run movies down. It's not moderated so anything goes.

The only accurate gauge for public sentiment towards a film is box office. If they like a movie it makes money, if they don't it doesn't. ITW is making money so the general public is liking it and going to see it. If they didn't it would have been # 6 or 7 last weekend instead of #3.

By the way, one of my coworkers who wasn't happy with what she'd heard about the changes saw it and thought it was "brilliant" and loved it. So there's that.

Updated On: 1/12/15 at 08:20 PM

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 9:44pm

I think that the major problem is that Rob Marshall is not a good director and whoever did the marketing should be shot dead.
Rob Marshall made Chicago and it was great, but he may never have another great film ever again. There were total WTF moments throughout the entire film. I would have hated this film too if i hadn't already been in love with the source material.
I thought that it was a good adaption, but everything great about the second act was cut up to hell. The entire story lost any power behind it and it became completely nonsensical.
That combined with the emotion less studio sounding singing and the tiptoeing around anything related to death made for a movie with zero emotional punch.

[Bucky Builder]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 9:54pm

I'm not sure Rob Marshall is completely to blame. He made a great first act. I think Disney is the culprit for the half assed Act 2. If they had let it be 20 minutes longer it could have been great.

"I thought that it was a good adaption, but everything great about the second act was cut up to hell. The entire story lost any power behind it and it became completely nonsensical.
That combined with the emotion less studio sounding singing and the tiptoeing around anything related to death made for a movie with zero emotional punch."

My exact feelings also.




Updated On: 1/12/15 at 09:54 PM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 10:13pm

Yes, I'm sure Disney is very upset with their marketing for the movie. You know, it only helped them turn a very faithful film adaptation of a dark Sondheim fairytale musical into a holiday tentpole that passed the $100 mil mark, thus making double the $50 mil they originally invested, within three weeks of its release. Yup, they should fire that terrible marketing team!
And God, Rob Marshall clearly sucked. He only managed to turn in an INTO THE WOODS adaptation with confidence. I hated how he cast actors perfectly suited for their roles--from Lucinda and Cinderella's Mom to the Witch and the Baker's Wife--and was able to capture beautifully sung performances from them. I hated how he took a musical in which characters basically sing about things once they happened (in other words, a very uncinematic show) and made each number naturally emerge from the plot in inventive, seamless ways. Oh, and he really screwed up by effectively making people who thought they knew INTO THE WOODS front and back, re-discover the piece and find humor, pathos, heartbreak and joy in the most unexpected moments.

[Showface]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 10:22pm

I have read the IMDB forums, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Blogs, Tumblr posts etc. I agree with best12bars that those who didn't like it do not out number those who do. These negative people happen to have REALLY LOUD voices.

If the film were so poorly received, then why is it so successful? Word of mouth has been spreading rapidly.



Something I noticed about who ended up liking it, and who didn't (or was mixed).



FANS WHO DID NOT LIKE IT PROBABLY:
-Are the same fans who will throw in negative reviews, put more weight on the negative review, and use that as an argument as to why the film is not good. Not accusing anyone on the thread of doing it....I'm just saying.

-Are the fans who do not understand that things have to be adapted (meaning: changed) for a film medium. This does not mean "OK YOU CAN PUT THIS ON A FILM BUT YOU MUST KEEP EVERY SINGLE LINE SONG AND LYRIC IN IF YOU DONT I WILL NOT BE HAPPY". What comes with adaptation: changes. "But I did enter understanding that!" Did you? Did you really?


THE FANS WHO DID LIKE IT:
-Like to think optimistically about it. I do this...do I sometimes just ignore the negatives and put more weight on the positives? Yep! Did I enter the film knowing I was going to love it? Yep! Honestly, I feel no fan really entered the film objectively, but I have no evidence for that part, so I will leave that argument be.

-Understand adaptation





Now, I have said it before. Yes, I am saying it again! The film was perfect! Rob Marshall did an excellent job handling the film. The morals packed a huge punch, if not larger punch, in the film. I could not have asked for a better film! I loved the singing--so full of emotion and heart from all of the actors, and the pre-recorded music was wisely blended with live singing.

Bravo, Rob Marshall!
Bravo, Disney!
Bravo, the cast of the Into the Woods movie!






Updated On: 1/12/15 at 10:22 PM

[sarahb22]

Posted: 1/12/15 at 10:24pm

I agree about the second act being too chopped up. I would have taken out "It Takes Two" (which really doesn't advance the plot at all and could have been replaced with dialogue) and kept "No More." Cutting out that number really truncated the whole central conflict of the story, e.g., will the child of a bad parent end up being just like the parent? As it is we don't get enough of the Baker's fear to feel anything when he talks to his father about screwing up. It's too brief, and to me comes off as contrived.

And "No More" is such a beautiful song, better in a lot of ways than "Children Will Listen" which comes across as rather platitudinous (if that's a word.)

"It Takes Two" is cute but disposable. I enjoyed Blunt's and Corden's performance, but would have happily waited until the 'extended edition' to see it if it meant 'No More' was going to be in the movie.

The other major problem is the timing between the happy ending and the giant showing up. In the play it's a year; more than long enough for the characters to both get their happy endings and become bored and dissatisfied with them. At the beginning of Act II we see that, despite getting everything they wished for, the characters still want more. That makes them human and relatable.

In the movie, the giant shows up while Cinderella is still in her wedding gown. There's no time for ANY of the characters to even settle into their new lives, let alone wish for anything else. It's too quick, too jarring; it doesn't seem to have a point. Cinderella's Prince strays before his wedding night. The Baker's wife succumbs to temptation before the baby's gotten its first tooth. All this makes the characters seem fickle and shallow, not human. Not relatable.

The bummer is that we know Marshall never filmed the other songs, so there's no chance we'll see a "director's cut" with 'No More' in there, or any time lapse between the happy endings and the appearance of the giant. A pity, because I would be interested to see how the inclusion of those elements would alter (and perhaps improve) the story. I wonder if it's too late to do reshoots...