Into the Woods Official Movie Thread — Page 203

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#5051

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/14/15 at 9:58pm

The witch loved Rapunzel so she...blinded her lover, hacked off her hair and exiled her to a lifetime of solitude in the middle of a snake-infested swamp? That means genuine love?

That's not genuine motherly love to me. That's possessiveness, vengeance, and "I'll show you who's in charge." Kind of a warped idea of love, I'd say. No wonder Rapunzel ran off!!

Mothers who genuinely love their children acknowledge when they become adults and encourage them to find stable, healthy relationships. Obviously the witch was never going to do that, and Rapunzel knew that as well. Hence the "I never want to see you again, ever!" If my mother stuck long painful thorns into my boyfriend's eyes, I'd be pretty ticked too.

You're right about the witch having no one to love, though. That's the problem - she thought possessiveness = love, and when her 'daughter' refused to be possessed, she lost it. That's why she blows a gasket; she can't reconcile that she was wrong in the way she raised her 'daughter', by shutting her away and refusing to give her freedom.

Updated On: 1/14/15 at 09:58 PM

#5052

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/14/15 at 10:01pm

No matter how warped...I still think the Witch genuinely loved Rapunzel...at least Streep's portrayal did. She did what she thought was best to protect her. Sure, she wanted her for herself. I didn't say it was perfect typcial love---The Witch had a very warped and twisted way of showing love, but I don't think it was just "possesive"---when I hear that, I think of "Mother Gothel" from Tangled.

UPDATE: The Witch *thought* she was just doing what was right "I was just trying to be a good mother", and I think that is evidence that the Witch did love her---but the Witch took it too far, deeming her a possessive mother. I think the Witch (again Streep's portrayal) really does fear for Rapunzel's safety in the world, and takes extra measures to shield her from it (minus the whole "PUNISH U 2 SWAMP" lol). In the play, the Witch is the sane one, while Rapunzel is crazy...in the movie the role seems reversed. The Witch can't let go of Rapunzel--she loves her and NEEDS to do EVERYTHING she can to protect her. Which, can be, I guess, a demonstration of possessiveness.

Updated On: 1/14/15 at 10:01 PM

#5053

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/14/15 at 10:16pm

The difference between the Witch and Mother Gothel is that the Witch actually LOVED Rapunzel whereas Mother Gothel loved what Rapunzel GAVE HER (which was the magic in her hair). I never felt really that Gothel even cared much for Rapunzel, even after being her "mother" for so long.

#5054

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 3:36am

I found the scene when the Witch says she has brought Rapunzel's 'favourite' berries to her a bit heartbreaking, given I knew what would happen. Streep's Witch loved Rapunzel so much I almost got the impression that the only reason she wanted to 'reverse the curse' was to strengthen her relationship with Rapunzel. Maybe that's an obvious thing to say, but I never felt it so strongly until this film.

Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.

#5055

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 6:38am

Well, it's not like the witch had a really great role model on how to be a mother. Look what her own mother did to her. That's probably where she got the idea that if you love your children, you have to inflict horrible punishments on them to keep them in line for their own "protection".

#5056

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 9:10am

Big letdown Oscar wise. No Pic/Director nods. 2 or 3 nods.Bit of a surprise.

Poster Emeritus

#5057

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 9:16am

I dont think its that much of a surprise, its a nice movie but it doesnt scream Oscar worthy in any category really.

I am surprised they chose to recognise Meryl Streep but not Emily Blunt, who for me walked away with the entire movie

#5058

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 9:22am

I still had a little hope it would sneak into the Best Pic category, but it performed about as I expected.

I would have loved to see Blunt get a nom, but there wasn't ever much of a chance of that happening.

#5059

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 9:25am

Yeah it's not much of a surprise considering there was little to no buzz about the film. They threw 'em a bone by nominating Meryl, but I would've preferred to see Emily Blunt nominated.

"You drank a charm to kill John Proctor's wife! You drank a charm to kill Goody Proctor!" - Betty Parris to Abigail Williams in Arthur Miller's The Crucible

#5060

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 9:27am

They got nominated for what I expected, I don't expect any wins.

#5061

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 9:32am

i was hoping for a best sound mixing oscar nom as well as BEST PIC...but some little flic named WHIPLASH which has only made $6 million got that 8th nom...****!

#5062

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 9:36am

What is the amount of money a film needs to take it (domestic and international) to make it worthy (in your eyes) of being a good film?

#5063

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 9:36am

I was hoping for Dion Beebee to be nominated for cinematography. That was deserved.

#5064

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 10:20am

its not the total amount of money a film makes...it's that a film like WHIPLASH was rejected by the movie going public and INTO THE WOODS was embraced...the only people who wanted to see WHIPLASH were Academy voters who were sent screeners...

Updated On: 1/15/15 at 10:20 AM

#5065

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 10:53am

I take it you haven't seen Whiplash. It's a great film. Much better than ITW in my opinion. A film doesn't have to be a box office hit to make it in with the academy obviously. Besides, whiplash had a limited release and was more of an art house film. It's pretty dumb to bash a film you haven't seen. Whiplash received much more praise by critics and audiences than ITW . I

#5066

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 10:56am

Was "Whiplash" really "rejected" by the movie going public, or did it just not get much exposure?

It seems to be very well liked by those who have seen it - based on its IMDb & RT scores, etc. I personally thought it was pretty great (and intense!) - and no, I'm not a member of the academy.

An independent or foreign film, no matter how good, has very little chance of ever making a ton of money. My favorite film of 2014, "The Tale of the Princess Kaguya," hasn't even made $1 million in the US so far. Give "Whiplash" a $50 million advertising campaign and a major release in 3000 theaters and I can pretty much guarantee it would have made a lot more than $6 million.

Anyways, it's nice to see a (relatively) small film like "Whiplash" among the bigger pictures.

Updated On: 1/15/15 at 10:56 AM

#5067

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 11:08am

Most of the movies that are nominated for the Oscars never seem worthy.

#5068

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 11:18am

I was not really holding my breath for Best Picture nom

But Emily Blunt.

That is an absolute snub.

She was fantastic start to finish. My only thought is because Into the Woods is such an ensemble piece she didn't stand out to them as the literal lead.

#5069

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 11:32am

Yet Meryl Streep did? Good as she is, her performance does not deserve this nomination

#5070

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 11:38am

The nominations didn't surprise me. ITW was not as overall amazing as 'Chicago', and the Academy tends to not favor fantasy/musical films, so ITW would have probably had to be BETTER than 'Chicago' just to get nominated.

But hey, at least we aren't the 'Hobbit' fandom. After "Return of the King" swept the 2004 Oscars including "Best Picture" I think some people had high hopes for "The Battle of the Five Armies", since it was really Peter Jackson's last chance at getting any awards.

But BoFA got exactly one nomination, a technical one for sound editing I think, and it's not favored to win. That has to be a huge disappointment.

I do feel bad for whoever is in charge of the Oscar telecast, though. The nominations are mostly pretty boring, and none of the BP noms have a huge or passionate fan base. It's going to be hard to get people to tune in this year.

#5071

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 11:39am

its not the total amount of money a film makes...it's that a film like WHIPLASH was rejected by the movie going public and INTO THE WOODS was embraced...

Well by that logic Guardians of The Galaxy, and Mockingjay Part 1 should've been nominated before Into The Woods, since both were 'embraced' by the public more than ITW.

And Whiplash was a fantastic film btw and deserved every nomination it got.

"You drank a charm to kill John Proctor's wife! You drank a charm to kill Goody Proctor!" - Betty Parris to Abigail Williams in Arthur Miller's The Crucible

#5072

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 12:16pm

The average moviegoer (where films get a mass majority of their revenue from) cannot recall a Best Picture winner over the popular films of that year. Meaning...best picture is only a title, not something that staples it to people's memories. Making it a hollow win.

1987. Remember the winner of Best Picture? It was Platoon. Know what that films about outside of it being about war? Remember the last time you saw it? Was it recently? Do you know anyone that gets excited when you mention that film?

1987 was also the year The Princess Bride came out. It didn't do so well...but it is the film that has sustained and grown in popularity. It is beloved and wasn't even nominated.

Updated On: 1/15/15 at 12:16 PM

#5073

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 12:17pm

Whiplash didn't get much exposure but it wasn't rejected by the public at all. It got raves at all the film festivals and it's going to win best supporting actor. I'm hoping they might re release it to a wider audience now that it has several Oscar nominations to its name. It's a thrilling film. The thing with into the woods is, it never got enough love or support from critics and Hollywood . No one was foaming at the mouth for this film and therefor didn't get any traction to warrant any award talk. If anyone is really surprised that it didn't do better with the academy then they haven't been paying attention or are just blind.

#5074

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 12:18pm

Yeah, that was one of the most moronic comments ever written on BWW. Whiplash is an absolutely fantastic movie with a limited release; mostly in art houses and the like. It deserves every single accolade it gets and was well-beloved by the critics. It's a great movie. You cannot compare it to a big budget fantasy flick like INTO THE WOODS. Comparing apples and oranges.

#5075

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 1/15/15 at 12:21pm

@J_jammer, you would be singing a different tune if into the woods was a frontrunner to win BP...

Maximum Thread Size of 5,000 Messages Reached
Please Start a New Thread!

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $89

Tickets From $72

Tickets From $65