Into the Woods Official Movie Thread- Page 183

[VotePeron]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 2:30am

Really, truly had a great time tonight seeing the film! There were just times it felt "disney-fied" that took away from it - like the deaths, and humor.

Also, "Act 2" REALLY bothered me. I think they really f*cked up here in order to make it PG-13 or family friendly. Gone was the message and punch of the original material, and in it's place was a super random extra 30 minutes of a movie that had seemed to have wrapped up already.

Still a huge fan of the film, but I wish they would have taken more risks instead of playing it safe.

[Bucky Builder]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 7:10am

Yes the second act didn't have the gravitas or the impact that makes Into The Woods so spectacular and profound. I think it has more to do with Disney putting time constraints on the film. If they had let them expand it to 2 hours and 20 or 30 minutes, then I think Act 2 wouldn't have felt so hijacked and unimportant.

My main problem with Act 2 is the execution of the deaths. Seemed like the director was afraid to do them. I'm especially taking about the Steward killing Jack's Mom. It's a wonderful scene in the play.

I think it was the best film it could have been under the Disney name and not being allowed to go over 2 hours, but the second half deserved better. The first half was great.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 8:02am

Love this fan art ... if MGM had made a "golden era" version of INTO THE WOODS ...

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 8:26am

I don’t find that KPCC piece persuasive at all, mostly because I disagree with his conclusions – “Giants in the Sky” didn’t frustrate me, I didn’t think Marshall’s woods look like Webber-meets-Disney (whatever on earth the hell that means), and the third act didn’t feel like a non-sequitur – but this argument particularly sticks in my craw.

…the big problem is that Marshall isn't nearly ruthless enough in rethinking "Into the Woods" as an honest-to-God movie. There are many moments (Johnny Depp ending a scene with a stagy howl at the Moon that virtually screams "and... fade out!;" the unseen death of a major character) where Marshall embraces the limitations of stagecraft when something bigger and more cinematic is needed, as if afraid to mar the pedigree of Broadway with Hollywood's debased visual stamp.

For Mr. R.H. Greene, does making an “honest-to-God movie” mean killing off all of the piece’s theatrical elements? The howl at the end of “Hello, Little Girl” is part of the song’s button. Sorry. Musical-theater songs have buttons. Even Sondheim, whose musicals, yes, often include subtle meta commentaries (though to imply they ever overwhelm is misguided), employs the old-fashioned musical button. So, if the howl is too theatrical and screams “and… fade out!” – though maybe Mr. Greene should see more theater, as this moment more accurately screams “and… blackout!” – what does he think of musical buttons? Don’t those always scream exactly the same thing? “Lights down! End of scene!” They’re stagey. Do we cut those for the movies? Do we cut orchestral flourishes? Do we excise all trappings of theatricality? Is the suddenness of characters bursting into song “too theatrical”? If these are his complaints in Sondheimland, Jesus Christ, what does he think of the films “My Fair Lady,” “Guys and Dolls,” and “Oliver!”?

Adaptation from stage to screen is a tricky business, but Mr. Greene wants to shear all of the theater out of musical movies, and that’s ludicrous.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 8:32am

He's probably perfectly fine with an 80-piece orchestra accompanying a chase scene in a non-musical movie.

Because that's so realistic.

[bigbelterbaby]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 10:22am

I saw this yesterday and have a few minor questions/issues.

first of all, I do not like how it's revealed early on The Baker has a sister, and it's Rapunzel, and then never mentioned again. This could be a major point of the story if they wanted it to be and have a scene with the Baker reuniting with his sister.

I also feel that at the start of the story, I would have liked to see Red Riding Hood's house in the village with her mother, before she goes to the Baker's. Then later when she says she's an orphan because her house collapsed with her mother in it, we would feel more for her. I don't understand how the Granny was killed? did the Giant pull down the tree Granny's house was in? Red's backstory and motives are lacking.

Same with Rapunzel. Why doesn't she have a song of her own? A song with her prince would have been good.

I also got annoyed seeing Cinderella leave the " festival at the King's castle " three times and never getting to see inside the castle. They could have shown the King and Queen. I assume if the two princes are brothers then their parents are the rulers of that kingdom.

In the early version of the script, the flashback of the father stealing beans from the witches garden included the Baker's mother, which would have been nice. "No More" would have been a nice moment at the end with the Baker and his father's ghost.

I wonder if they asked any of the original cast to make a cameo?
Tracey Ullman's death scene was silly. you can't die from hitting your head on a log.
I also wish when Emily Blunt comes in at the end she looked more like a ghost.
Perhaps a better view of the Giant and the Giant's wife (like seeing Jack in their home when he steals the harp) would have been good to flesh out that story better.


Also, after thinking about it- after the scene where Cinderella basically tells her Prince to eff off, they still could have squeezed in a bit where he ends up with Snow White instead, or he could have mentioned it. they couldn't with the other Prince if Rapunzel lives and they stay together....

basically they cut out a lot from the stage version and didn't add anything back in. The point of making it a movie should be to show or explain things better than what you can do on stage. they instead remained perhaps too faithful to the stage script and did not add anything extra that would have made up for the things they took out.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 10:48am

Those are some interesting points you bring up...

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 11:30am

bigbelterbaby, some of your questions have been answered already.

There is that moment in the opening where we see The Witch (Meryl Streep) getting cursed. And there are other moments that are flashbacks to what the characters are describing, which obviously you can’t do on stage. How did you decide what to include and what not to include?
JL: I included everything when I wrote it, and then we de-cluded it as we went along. (laughs) I think I started out really overwriting everything that I wanted to see and wanted to explain and wanted to do. Of course, then the script was 150 pages. It had to be 120 or less. So, then we chose what we wanted to see, what we wanted to do, what the budget allowed, what it didn’t allow, things like that. I think initially being the adaptor of my own work, I was excited to go do all those things I couldn’t do on stage.

So you did write a scene of the Kingdom of the Giants?
JL: Yeah, and I had the ball scenes, which were fun.

That could have been a lot.
JL: Yeah. You know, it was mostly financial. It wasn’t like I was going to add them as much as you would see them as you were singing “Steps of the Palace,” or you’d see them interspersed a little bit. Maybe the ball stuff was not, and the Kingdom stuff was more of a dumb show kind of thing.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/louispeitzman/behind-the-changes-that-brought-into-the-woods-from-stage-to#.ceNKvpQ6z
--------
CS: Was there supposed to be some sort of resolution between Rapunzel and the Baker since that’s meant to be his sister?
Marshall: No, you know what? James Lapine and I spoke about that. They don’t do it on stage, and James said, “We tried so many different versions of how to connect the dots,” he said, “it was one too many dots to connect.” He said, “It’s too complicated.” So, we didn’t do it on stage, and he said, “I don’t think we should do it in the film.”

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/features/390259-interview-chicago-director-rob-marshall-goes-into-the-woods#/slide/1

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 11:41am

At least Lapine considered these additions but in the end I do agree with his reasons to ultimately leave them out.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 1:30pm

I'm very happy to see these box office results.


Official Numbers Now In! INTO THE WOODS #2 At Box Office & Biggest Broadway Movie Musical Opening Ever

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 2:51pm

The numbers were already posted twice. Please see yesterday's posts in this thread.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 3:02pm

Wow! I did not know this!
Official Numbers Now In! INTO THE WOODS #2 At Box Office & Biggest Broadway Movie Musical Opening Ever

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 3:03pm

LEGS! It grossed over 6 million dollars on Monday, with the highest per theater figure among wide releases.

52 million in 5 days.

It's a remarkable figure that no one in the industry was predicting.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 3:06pm

Wow! The news keeps getting better.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 3:07pm

This is very good news indeed! I don't think the studios should be so shy about making musicals anymore, not with the success of CHICAGO, DREAMGIRLS, MAMMA MIA! and HAIRSPRAY. Those films proved that if a musical film is done and done well that it can be successful. Every genre of film has it's hits and misses, I don't quite understand why the musical genre is held to a different standard and so scrutinized.

[Musical Master]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 3:18pm

The musical genre in recent years has always been treated as the red haired stepchild of Hollywood... It's sad really but with INTO THE WOODS doing so well than most people expected should tell Hollywood to do more musical films.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 4:00pm

From Rotten Tomatoes.

Secondly, the music was extremely mediocre without a single tune that I can remember. Every time you think the story is going to move another character bursts into song. I enjoy musicals WHEN THE MUSIC IS GOOD. I understand that the nature of musicals is to have characters sing in them but the music seemed like it was to fill in for lack of story rather than for the value of the music itself and it resulted in glacial pacing. Towards the end of the movie (which couldn't come fast enough) I wanted to kill myself every time another song began. Yes, the music was that bad ("monotonous" is the word my wife used).

I am so glad that I don't know people like this. Friends, family, and co-workers of mine who have seen the film have all made positive comments.


Updated On: 12/30/14 at 04:00 PM

[Hagenisnotakitty]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 4:14pm

This little old woman is adorable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFtrizGLef4

I like hearing Into the Woods n00bs enjoying the whole thing along with its messages. It makes me feel a lot better about the film, and I’m really looking forward to seeing it again!

[BroadwayNerd24601]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 4:17pm

Some of the reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes really need to get their hearing checked. I honestly don't think that On the Steps of the Palace and It Takes Two sound alike, but apparently all the songs sound alike to them.

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 4:18pm

Next up, Hollywood- do A Funny Thing...Forum without cutting 75% of the original score! I think the screwball nature of the humor could be a very successful throwback to Old Hollywood comedies. ESPECIALLY if they could corral an all-star cast (Jim Parsons as Pseudolus anyone?)

[HorseTears]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 4:47pm

Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with every point the KPCC piece made (ex: like you said, the wolf's howl was an odd thing to highlight), but I do think the film suffered by being too faithful to the original material. Budgetary reasons or not, there's something so stagey about always seeing someone talk/sing about an experience instead of seeing them experience it - Cinderella at the ball, Jack in the giant's land etc. I do wonder what having - at minimum - having another writer joining James Lapine could have accomplished. But, at the end of the day, "book" scenes aside, that's the issue of so many of Sondheim's lyrics. What makes them so beautiful and contemplative and introspective on stage, makes them decidedly un-cinematic. As a theatre audience, our imagination is called upon to fill in those blanks, to make wild leaps in plot and theme. It's much more difficult to get a cinematic audience to do that. For what it is, I still think it's a good film, but I do wonder if, with some radical changes (that probably would have left devoted fans of the original - myself included - butthurt), it could have been much better.

[tenorphil81]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 5:47pm

As I listen to the soundtrack after seeing the film thrice over Xmas weekend, I'm still grinning at how well Chris Pine played the Prince. For me, he's one of the MVPs of this cast (including Meryl & Emily). I wonder why he's not at all in contention (or buzzed about) for a nomination. Is the supporting actor field just too crowded with better contenders?

[J_Jammer]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 5:49pm

Radical changes? More like trying to make it another generic film to comfort those that need so much because their imaginations can't handle a song instead of a useless visual of giants.

One of the reasons why I love into the woods is the lack of showing the audience every little thing. I don't need to be babied.

it was bad enough they made the Witch say she can't touch the items at least three times. I like that in the musical she can't ever say she can't touch them. She's always interrupted.

Updated On: 12/30/14 at 05:49 PM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 5:51pm

tenorphil81, I don't think it's so much that the Best Supporting Actor race is overcrowded but rather that the voters have a real lack of creativity. How else could one explain Chris Pine's hilarious and surprising turn being ignored over the widely-panned and uninspired performance Robert Duvall delivered in THE JUDGE?

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 12/30/14 at 5:53pm

I love Chris Pine and he's absolutely gorgeous, but his performance was not worthy of a nomination.