Into the Woods Official Movie Thread- Page 74

[MagicalMusical]

Posted: 9/8/13 at 11:28pm

Wait, the Wolf later turns into an "actual" wolf? So, does this mean he looks human at first (please, God, no, that would be like a werewolf) or he is just a wolf in a suit standing on his hind legs that later loses the suit and has all paws on the ground?

[Wildcard]

Posted: 9/8/13 at 11:33pm

Logan, you should hang out with Dave19 and just stay away from movie musicals. Stick to the filmed stage production and you can stay happy. Don't give yourself an aneurysm.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 6:33am

Wait, the Wolf later turns into an "actual" wolf? So, does this mean he looks human at first (please, God, no, that would be like a werewolf) or he is just a wolf in a suit standing on his hind legs that later loses the suit and has all paws on the ground?

The Wolf is described in the script very much the way he looked on Broadway (minus the exposed "suggested" genitals, of course).

But since we haven't seen the makeup or Colleen Atwood's costume designs for the movie, who can be sure?

[logan2]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 8:56am

Wildcard, thanks for the concern, but I LOVE movie musicals. Telling me to stay away from movie musicals is like telling me not to suck dick. Sorry, no can do, it's part of my nature.

Unlike David19, if I'm remembering correctly, I don't really care about lyric or key changes. I just think they could have been more creative in casting the Witch than bland, over-used, here come those tired old tits again, Meryl.


So when and if the Follies movie gets off the ground - let me guess - everyone's gonna want Streep as Phyllis. Yawn.


Updated On: 9/9/13 at 08:56 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 9:37am

logan2---I don't think you fully understand that without two key names: Meryl Streep and Johnny Depp, there would be no film version of Into the Woods being made right now.

They were the reason that Disney gave it the green light. Why? They are both box office draws, and their track record of (fairly) recent hit films far outweighs any of their misfires. They are as close as the movie business gets to a "good bet."

None of the other actresses you listed have the same box office clout that Meryl Streep does. Actually, very few do, currently. This has nothing to do with what anybody thinks of her enormous talent, this has to do with her bankability.

Because Meryl and Johnny signed on, Rob Marshall finally got Disney to say "yes" to the whole thing. That's the way it works.

I know many people growl about Madonna in "Evita," but it was the same thing back then. You either got a film version of Evita starring Madonna, or you got nothing. Many names were bantered about for that role, but the project never got off the ground. Too many reasons to say "no." Finally, when Madonna signed on, it went into production.

[logan2]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 10:04am

Oh What the eff ever. I don't fully understand? You condescending prat.

Weren't you the one the other day who said Meryl wasn't even the name that got it greenlit? It was Johnny's name that finally got it the go ahead? You back peddling son of a ...! And Johnny's no longer bankable - don't you read the trades! lol!

Bette Midler's last film groossed $77 million dollars compared to The Iron Lady $30 million and Hope Springs $63 million. The Witch doesn't have to be in her 60s, Sandra Bullock or Cate Blanchette could play that role and they are more bankable than Streep.

Disney was making this film no matter what - it was about timing and availability - not the right stars. and if they worried about box office draw - they could just shove Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift in it. They'd be great as Jack and Little Red Riding Hood.

If you think Meryl is the only name that could get this picture made - you are embarrassingly laughable. I'm so sick of your STREEP-ITIS. Go take some antibiotics.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 10:13am

I should have stuck to my "troll alert." Lesson learned.

You really are an idiot. No condescension here. You're an ass.

I'm done feeding you.

[logan2]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 10:20am

Ah, I'm a troll because I disagree with your assessment and pointed out your errors. If calling me an idiot and an ass makes you feel better, than you go right ahead, sweetheart.

I would call you a see you next Tuesday, but you lack the warmth and depth.

Updated On: 9/9/13 at 10:20 AM

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 10:41am

No, you are a troll because you are obviously trolling for a response. Don't forget, to troll is a fishing term and not a fairytfairytale creature. Your choice of vocabulary and general attitude makes it seem like you are simply trying to get a reaction, therefore we believe you are trolling for a response.

[logan2]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 10:54am

I answered a post that was addressed to me and then I'm called a troll? Wasn't best12bars trying to get a response from me? Isn't he the troll then?

Nice double standard you got there jimmy. If you don't want a response from someone then don't address your post to them. And I'm the idiot. Sheesh~

And your post was trolling for a response from me. How dare you, troll.

And I swear by all that is holy I am not looking for a further response from you. Trust me.








Updated On: 9/9/13 at 10:54 AM

[jpbran]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 1:58pm

Well, this sunk into a bitchy, condescending mess...

[logan2]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 2:31pm

Right?
So to start the thread back up in another direction. Besides Streep, who in the cast is everyone the most excited about? I think Emily Blunt as the Baker's Wife is exciting me the most. And of course Baranski and Ullmann doing wonderful comic turns in their roles.

After pointing out the grosses of Midler's films versus Streep's films - I started thinking about Midler as the Witch. How terrific would that have been? Midler singing Stay With Me would be incredible and she would have nailed the comedy parts of the role. Maybe the emotionally sad scenes wouldn't work as well with her though.












Updated On: 9/9/13 at 02:31 PM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 3:01pm

Logan, those numbers don't actually mean much, you gotta look at profit margin and factor in marketing costs if you want to talk about box office in a way that's productive. THE IRON LADY was made for $14 mil and cost little to market; for a British film about a British figure from the 80s sold solely on the name of Streep (who, you guessed it, was the only reason the film was made, and definitely the only reason TWC picked it up) to make $30 mil domestically is considered a huge success. Not to mention the fact the film did terrific business on DVD and iTunes due to Streep's Oscar win. Bette Midler would not be able to sell such a difficult project in today's market, hell, even young and pretty girls like Reese Witherspoon and Renee Zellweger can't open movies that well anymore. Streep has consistently proved she is one of the very few women today (along with Sandra Bullock and Cameron Diaz) who can open a film and turn a profit. Besty's point is spot on and, honestly, you can call a lot of people on this board--myself included--condescending, Besty's posts are informed and informative. So as I've told you in the past, take a bong hit and calm down.

[logan2]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 3:50pm

"Troll alert"

[Wildcard]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 3:56pm

Movies are a director's medium. Even if any of the actresses you want is cast, they can be told to perform the songs in a way you don't want. Depp could definitely act with mischief and a slight smile but that was directed out of him for Sweeney Todd. You can't judge the film before it's released. Other than that, your disdain for Streep is just fanboy entitlement. Well, guess what, you're not the only audience for this film.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 4:09pm

logan2---how many times are you going to edit your posts? You cut out really horrible remarks about Meryl Streep's 60-year-old "saggy tits" just to make yourself look better in this thread.

You troll for an angry reactions, and you get them, and then you delete the offensive remarks?

You're not just a troll, your a cowardly troll at that.

[logan2]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 4:28pm

I didn't edit out anything about Meryl's tits. It's still up there

"bland, overused, here comes those tired old tits again Meryl"

Now who is trolling, best12bars? But you still lack the warmth and depth to be a real C U N T.

[logan2]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 4:31pm

I will reply to my own message so it won't say edit and confuse best12bars

I usally add to my posts, but never take away from them.

If you don't like my responses to you, then why do you keep addressing posts to me?

That's the very definition of trolling, troll.

[logan2]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 4:31pm

Give me an example best12bars of nasty things I've edited to "make myself look better". You of all people should know I don't censor my mouth.





lying troll. Updated On: 9/9/13 at 04:31 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 4:35pm

I think I just found the first person here I'm going to block.

Glad we have this feature!

[logan2]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 4:37pm

Because you were wrong about me deleting the remark about Meryl's tits?

[logan2]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 4:37pm

And I tried to change the topic away from Meryl and it all collapsed again!!

I blame you rayandallthatjazz lol!!!

Updated On: 9/9/13 at 04:37 PM

[jpbran]

Posted: 9/9/13 at 6:11pm

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/10/13 at 9:25am

Saw this on Facebook ...


Daniel Huttlestone in a recording session

[thirtythirtyninety]

Posted: 9/11/13 at 9:02am

http://www.eonline.com/news/457544/emily-blunt-pregnant-expecting-first-child-with-john-krasinski

perfect timing. Or is it? I'll refrain from misusing the word "ironic".