Into the Woods Official Movie Thread- Page 209

[Showface]

Posted: 3/16/15 at 9:49pm

A sneak peek of Meryl Streep's segment of the "Cast as Good as Gold" featurette.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM-yTfXUlwo


It includes some fantastic B-ROLL!

[sarahb22]

Posted: 3/17/15 at 6:40pm

I watched the deleted clip. I think in his earlier days Sondheim would probably have done a lot more with that concept - expectations vs. reality - but this song just seems to repeat "She'll be back" over and over; there really aren't a whole lot of other lyrics besides that.

And the general tone of the song - "I'll be right here waiting when she comes back because I know she'll change her mind and ditch that schmuck prince" - doesn't really jibe with her later actions of basically killing herself. Why would she commit suicide if she's so convinced Rapunzel will return?

Yes, she looks a little doubtful at the end, but how much time passes between this scene and her 'death'? Maybe a day? In a day she goes from "I'll wait for her no matter how long it takes" to "Eh, screw it, I'm out of here"?

Without Rapunzel being dead or definitely out of her reach, I'm not sure sure I'd say this song really does anything toward making the witch's actions more plausible. If anything it muddies the water further, because it sounds to me like she's determined to stick around until Rapunzel comes back, not that she's on the verge of giving up.

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 11:01am

let's talk about DISNEY putting $85 million dollars to its' Cinderella, while only putting $50 million to INTO THE WOODS...could ITW have made a lot more money with more sumptuous visuals?...i think it would have...more money would have e created more Magic...

and now DISNEY has pulled INTO THE WOODS from circulation only $300,000 from over taking ENCHANTED...why?...in at least 2 weeks or 3 they could have made ITW the fifth biggest movie musical of all time...

while i am thankful the DISNEY bankrolled ITW in the first place, I blame DISNEY for infringing on ITW being a bigger better musical that could have even gotten more Oscar noms as well...as well as better placement of the all time movie musicals...

[degrassifan]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 1:01pm

Do you think Into the Woods would've made $300,000 in 2-3 weeks?

Disney did all they could for Into the Woods. They advertised it to death. In the end, it's all on the movie-going public, good word-of-mouth, and Academy members, and in the end, not everyone thought ITW was great. A lot of people I know said they enjoyed it the second time they saw it, so imagine those who didn't like it the first time around and didn't go back.

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 3/18/15 at 2:50pm

degrassifan...yes i do think that..it was making well over $200,000 a week in its last weeks...so that is not out of the question...and my point was i think if DISNEY had spent more money they would have made money...they felt the risk was not great if they only spent #50 million...and i say BOO to that...:)

[vitor.rc]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 5:53am

Never Before Seen: Sondheim Original Song - She'll Be Back [Into The Woods]

https://vimeo.com/123389059

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 6:28am

The movie is now less that $70,000 away from moving into the #5 slot as "highest grossing musical film" of all time.

I didn't realize it was still running in some markets. But it may actually get there if it is.

EDIT: Okay, I don't know why it's taken me so long to realize that this list only goes back to 1974. So I don't think it's worth all that much. The Sound of Music made $158 million in 1965, which converts to over a billion dollars in today's ticket sales. Even if you don't convert it, it's still high-ranking ... but before 1974, so whatever.

Stupid list.


Box Office Mojo link

Updated On: 3/27/15 at 06:28 AM

[Showface]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 5:57pm

It's OFFICIALLY #5!!

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=musical.htm

[Showface]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 5:57pm

It's OFFICIALLY #5!!

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=musical.htm

[sueb1863]

Posted: 3/27/15 at 9:15pm

YAY!!! :)

[jo]

Posted: 3/28/15 at 6:27am

The Box Office Mojo list is only for DOMESTIC ( North America) market box office receipts. If worldwide grosses are included ( please click on the individual movie titles and it will give you a summary of receipts of both Domestic and Overseas Markets), Enchanted (at $ 340 million) way exceeds Into the Woods and Hairpsray (at $ 202 million) manages to edge out ITW.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=musical.htm


To include both Domestic and Overseas receipts, the rankings are as follows:

1.Mamma Mia - $ 610 million
2.Les Miserables - $ 442 million
3.Grease - $ 395 million
4.Enchanted - $ 340 million
5.Chicago -$ 307 million
6.Hairspray - $ 203 million
7.Into the Woods -$ 199 million







Updated On: 3/28/15 at 06:27 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/28/15 at 8:53am

Worldwide grosses aren't considered much by Hollywood bean counters. Not just on Box Office Mojo, but other websites listings for grosses, including IMDb.com, Hollywood Reporter, Variety, etc.

They always mention it, but when it comes to tracking dollars, they point to DOMESTIC grosses, first and foremost.

EDIT; I think it's probably because they never factor in how much it costs studios to promote and distribute their films internationally. It's not included or factored into any of the budgets listed. So it's additional expenses as well as additional income. Also because the dollar exchange rate keeps changing, it's hard to track in "constant dollars" from one week to the next.

Just a guess.

But they don't talk about it much ... so you guess why.

Updated On: 3/28/15 at 08:53 AM

[jo]

Posted: 3/28/15 at 9:34am

Not according to this article from the BBC --

https://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20130620-is-china-hollywoods-future


And from THE ECONOMIST ( semi-bean counter ) --


https://www.economist.com/node/18178291


According to this article, the repatriated profits from domestic take for film studios is about 55%, from the overseas market take is averaging 40-45%, except for China ( where it is a low 15%), but when you look at the size of the foreign market, there is much financial incentives for studios to look that way.


Another semi-bean counter, The Wall Street Journal had already foreseen the expansion of the international market ( the article was written some years back) and was saying that movies in Hollywood are now being shaped to please overseas markets as well --

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704913304575371394036766312


And in this article from Variety, FOX Studio chief, Chairman Jim Gianopulos of Fox Filmed Entertainment, talks mainly of the challenge of globalization and of technology on the film business. In 2014, Fox was the first studio to reach $ 3 billion in box office grosses. Mr.Gianopulos came from a film distribution background.

https://variety.com/2014/film/news/20th-century-fox-jim-gianopulos-1201285695/







Updated On: 3/28/15 at 09:34 AM

[jo]

Posted: 3/28/15 at 9:57am

A very interesting example of the impact of the overseas market was the foreign take of Les Miserables ( $ 293 million vs $ 149 million for domestic receipts).

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=lesmiserables2012.htm

What is most interesting is that non- English speaking countries like Japan and South Korea recorded the second and third highest box office receipts ( $ 62 million for Japan and $ 39 million for South Korea). In contrast, the top international gross came from the UK (where the stage musical originated) at $ 63 million.

Using the profit repatriation rates from THE ECONOMIST, they made more money before marketing expenses from the overseas market than they did in North America.



Updated On: 3/28/15 at 09:57 AM

[Showface]

Posted: 3/28/15 at 11:30am

Well, erm..

Details, details, details....

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 4/12/15 at 11:54pm

Congrats to Streep for winning the MTV Movie Award for Best Villain.

MTV Movie Awards: Winners list

[MagicalMusical]

Posted: 4/16/15 at 11:38pm

The song "She'll Be Back" was cut for good reason. In it the Witch is "waiting right here" for Rapunzel to return, then a little later she decides to leave the world where Rapunzel still lives? By the way, the Witch never commited suicide, she asks to be punished like she was before and taken away from the place where the other characters are.

Boy does this film not make sense with Rapunzel not dying. It's like it's not the true Into the Woods without that key moment. If it had kept that and the prince and Baker's Wife having sex (not shown but implied) and a little more from the stage show, it would have been the true Into the Woods and maybe been more acclaimed and awarded.

Updated On: 4/16/15 at 11:38 PM

[DigificWriter]

Posted: 4/28/15 at 3:02am

I've only ever seen one stage production of Into the Woods -  a taped version starring Bernadette Peters as the Witch - and had not remembered much about the story until I decided to listen to the soundtrack for the 2002 Broadway revival of the show, and have to say that I think the film did an excellent job of adapting the story, although I did miss a few of the cut songs. The filmmakers also knocked it out of the park as far as casting is concerned, with my favorite performances being turned in by Meryl Streep, Anna Kendrick, JI've only ever seen one stage production of Into the Woods -  a taped version starring Bernadette Peters as the Witch - and had not remembered much about the story until I decided to listen to the soundtrack for the 2002 Broadway revival of the show, and have to say that I think the film did an excellent job of adapting the story, although I did miss a few of the cut songs. The filmmakers also knocked it out of the park as far as casting is concerned, with my favorite performances being turned in by Meryl Streep, Anna Kendrick, Emily Blunt, James Corden, and Daniel Huttlestone (although the rest of the cast is stellar too).

 

[ggersten]

Posted: 6/13/15 at 7:10pm

You knew it was coming...

[Bilbo3]

Posted: 6/13/15 at 8:22pm

But the film is perfect! Everyone said so!

[pnewelljr]

Posted: 9/12/15 at 9:02am

Just finally got around to watching it. I had been procrastinating because I grew up watching the OBC recording, and have seen it probably 50 times. That being said, I still wanted to share my thoughts.

 

1. The first act blew me away. They did a better job than I could have ever imagined. In my opinion this is one of the hardest musicals to adapt for film due to a variety of reasons (stark 1st/2nd acts; long, storytelling songs; gratuitous narration, etc).

 

That being said, all the choices made strengthened the film (i.e. removing the narrator. Something I was original very upset about when hearing, after seeing what they did I realized how much better off the movie was for removing him).

 

2. The acting and singing were (almost) all amazing. I was especially surprised with how much I enjoyed Kendrick, and her singing was amazing. Streep didn't quite do it for me. Her singing, while not nearly as bad as I expected, wasn't quite there.

• Little Red Riding Hoods Original Into the Woods segments were especially great, and she did a great job.

• Kendrick's singing was amazing. Her acting was good.

• The Baker's wife, the princes, and jack's mother were all on point.

 

3. The second act fell completely flat for me.

• The way they handled Children Will Listen being my biggest grievance. Probably my favorite, and the most emotionally impactful, song of the show. It is, in my opinion, the song the whole show is building up to, but unfortunately they tacked it onto the end and instead of being emotionally impacted, people were half ignoring it as they put on their coats. The other problem being:

• The stakes were almost all removed or lessened. The whole impact of the second act come from the high stakes, infidelity, death, loss, which is literally the whole point. They removed almost all of this, so when the witch kills herself, and they sing Children Will Listen, it has almost no impact at all. The only song that suffered less was No One Is Alone.

 

The saddest part, is that I went into it with an open mind, as someone who loves the source. It was actually the expectations created from Act 1 of the movie that messed it up. He did such an amazing job, and made great decisions with Act 1, that when Act 2 completely fell through it just made me sad. It shows how great this movie could have been, when instead (maybe because of Disney) we have to settle for good.

Updated On: 9/12/15 at 09:02 AM

[Hamilton22]

Posted: 9/12/15 at 9:21am

Yes the 2nd half of the film is very rushed and flat. I was very disappointed leaving the theater, as I enjoyed the first half so much. That actually seems to be the wide consensus with this film, we all love the first half and then that 2nd half.....oof.

Updated On: 9/12/15 at 09:21 AM

[Stage Door Sally]

Posted: 9/12/15 at 9:56am

I superprocrastinated to say the least. Just caught the film on TV this past week. Never saw the live musical, so had nothing to compare it too.

The first half of the movie was fine. The second was absolutely overwrought and confusing. As a movie experience, overall just not enjoyable. It doesn't matter that Meryl sang well or was beautiful enough. Ultimately, the film was disappointing as a film experience. I will not watch it again, no need. Glad I didn't pay to see it in the movie theater.

I read through some of the first posts on this massive thread from the time right after the film came out. It's very interesting to see the groundswell of praise for this film. Especially from some who nitpick and find minutiae to criticize about Broadway shows. But I reckon love is blind, so please keep that in mind when criticizing other people for their love of (imperfect) shows.

[pnewelljr]

Posted: 9/12/15 at 10:02am

Hamilton22 said: "Yes the 2nd half of the film is very rushed and flat. I was very disappointed leaving the theater, as I enjoyed the first half so much. That actually seems to be the wide consensus with this film, we all love the first half and then that 2nd half.....oof.

 

"

That makes me feel better. I had only read the posts right after release and was like wtf? Did we all see the same movie?

[Hamilton22]

Posted: 9/12/15 at 10:05am

Yeah you certainly aren't alone in your thoughts about the 2nd half. It really could have been a great movie. Oh well.