Julianne Hough Wants to Play Elphaba in Wicked Film- Page 3

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/15/12 at 1:42am

Like her or not, it's obvious (to me anyway :P ) that Wicked would probably happily cast Michelle in the lead even if she is a "television star". She's precisely the demographic I bet the studio is counting on to make the film a big hit, it already has quite big brand recognition, they can do a Harry Potter and fill the older roles with well liked character actors, etc, etc. To suggest they'd never go with her because she's a tv star baffles me.

[hyperbole_and_a_half]

Posted: 5/15/12 at 2:44am

Could a film even happen though? Universal owns film rights for Wicked while Warner Brothers owns Wizard of Oz, and Warner has been slowly, quietly and deliberately filing copyright and trademark suits against anything even tangentially related to The Wizard of Oz, because they believe that film is the definitive cultural touchstone for anything Oz-related, public domain novels be damned.

For example, the ruby slippers, Glinda coming and going by bubble, Glinda (instead of the Witch of the North) sending Dorothy off to the Emerald City, and Elphaba's green skin are all concepts introduced by the movie--including them in a Wicked film would likely unleash Warner's lawyers in a most savage way.

If producers really wanted to get Wicked turned into a movie, these are things that could be overcome with licensing negotiations and/or rewrites, but smaller problems than these have killed much larger projects in the past. James Franco's Oz movie and the animated Oz film coming out next year are already feeling heat. I guess we'll have to see how it goes.

And, for the record, Julianne Hough is no Elphaba.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/15/12 at 2:54am

I believe all of those elements were dealt with in the stage version--they kept the ones they could manage to get away with (the bubble) and changed enough elements of others (the details of the slippers) to likewise deal with it. I *think* if it was allowed on stage, it won't have issue being on film. I know with intellectual copyright it's a tricky thing, but many of those details are things that wouldn't easily hold up. The ruby slippers were something MGM/Warners focused heavily on and have managed to keep, but having a witch with green skin would be harder.

[EatTheBrownie]

Posted: 5/15/12 at 3:28am

Part of the problem is also going to lie in the fact that Universal only owns the film rights to the musical and NOT the film rights to Maguire's novel... doesn't Disney own those?

There are countless parallels, references, and expansions of things in the movie that are detailed in the novel. Things that they disregarded for the stage version (like actually showing Dorothy) are things that will probably want to be explored in a full-length feature film. The entire concept of Wicked, in literature and on stage, relies on the audience's familiarity with the MGM film... prior knowledge of the actual Oz books is super sweet icing on the cake, but the film is essential.

Wicked, the musical movie, may have to rely on creating a very different looking Oz on film than the MGM film... which could honestly hurt it for mass audiences. If people are to believe that it's The Wizard of Oz told from the "other" point of view, Oz is going to need to look familiar.

And Disney will most likely have the ability to use ruby slippers (if they chose to) in their non-musical version. They already have screen rights to them (Return To Oz). Maguire was smart in the novel to leave their color extremely vague as not to bow down to pressure and just make them silver and still escape legal trouble by making them ruby.

Completely random, haven't seen Wicked since the pre-Broadway run... do the slippers still turn red with a lighting effect during Nessa's scene in Act 2?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/15/12 at 3:32am

I thought Disney's rights to the MGM aspects from return to Oz died in the mid 90s (there was some argument about them even keeping the Oz movie stuff in their Great Movie Ride at Walt Disney World)? But I could very well be wrong, it's all kinda vague.

I *am* pretty sure that somehow when Disney got the Maguire rights (which they claimed years back might be a miniseries--probably the only way to even try to attempt the novel), it was clearly worded out that it wouldn't interfere with a movie of the musical--that was part of the deal.

[EatTheBrownie]

Posted: 5/15/12 at 3:57am

Oh, maybe Disney's rights on the MGM stuff did end up dying out.

And yes, you're right about Disney's version not interfering, but the details (and something that Disney is oh so sneaky about) is that now there are two Wickeds. The novel which Disney owns film rights to and the musical, while based on the novel, now exists as a separate entity in Hollywood. It would seem that it all could end up in legal battles if the cards aren't played right.

Universal Pictures bought the theatrical (stage) rights to the property and Schwartz and Holzman were given creative freedom (assumed) to adapt it from the novel accordingly. Wicked, as a stage musical, now exists as a completed work and Universal Pictures owns the rights to turn that musical into a movie.

Disney has every right to legally challenge any part of the novel that doesn't appear onstage in Wicked but does appear in the movie. Luckily for Universal the production team did manage to slip in things like the Time Dragon, Castle Kiamoko, and other small nuances which could put certain things into a murky grey area if expanded upon on film.

Like I said, the least expensive way to do it would probably be to make Wicked (the musical movie) be it's own beast without referencing the MGM movie or expanding upon anything else from the novel. This could disappoint people though. The more expensive route would be to pay Warner Bros and Disney for the rights to use elements from both to capitalize on both familiarity (the MGM film) and much more intricate storytelling onscreen (the novel).

[iMartynn]

Posted: 5/15/12 at 6:47am

How wonderful for Julianne. She's an incredibly awkward, terrible performer. Yes it's true that she can dance, but remind me of the multiple dance breaks that Elphaba has?

Updated On: 5/15/12 at 06:47 AM

[Kalimba]

Posted: 5/15/12 at 7:56am

Oh Julianne Hough, how delusional. Her career is something like a piece of spaghetti. Throw it against the wall and see what sticks. She's a marvelous dancer, that's it. Yet someone feels the need to force feed her to the general public.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 5/15/12 at 10:35am

Don't worry, guys, I'm sure they'll end up casting Taylor Swift.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/15/12 at 12:29pm

Ha, Mr.Midwest! Then the board would *really* go crazy. As much backlash as she gets, at least I've seen Swift display charisma while she acts. But really, Elphaba/Glinda are roles that should go to the likes of Jennifer Lawrence, Rooney Mara, Carey Mulligan, Hailee Steinfeld, Blake Lively, etc.