Into the Woods Official Movie Thread — Page 31

is that the real casting description? "Seeks approval in place of love, of which she's had none"? Trying to think of what in the play suggests that she hasn't been loved...

---

That description is totally whacked, right down to the "adult playing a child."

Danielle Ferland was 15 when she created the role. Others have been older, definitely, but that isn't the way it was cast originally, or played originally.

15 isn't an adult. And the rest of that description is just plain weird.

---

best12bars: You seem very wise on here so i have a few questions.

I am having trouble seeing this musical as a film. It just seems too theatrical to put on screen. How do you picture the set and cinematography to look like?

Updated On: 6/6/13 at 09:14 AM

I picture the "woods" being very "Grimm Fairy Tale," so I almost think this should be done on a giant set with CGI help for backgrounds. Stylized, exaggerated trees, surreal lighting, etc. I don't see it being filmed on location anywhere. I think the reality of a genuine forrest would make the characters look like freaks.

It should be its own world where fantasy is the reality.

As far as adapting the material, the biggest challenge is having so many characters step forward and essentially deliver inner monologues where they tell us (the audience) about something that just happened (off stage) previously and what they learned from it:

Little Red - I know things now
Jack - Giants in the Sky
Cinderella - Steps of the Palace

Others as well.

These will have to be rethought for film. I think narrated flashbacks should be used sparingly, if at all. I would steer away from that approach. So they will have to come up with other ways to present those numbers, or even rewrite those moments to make them work on film. It won't be easy.

The best thing about this material for audiences is that it takes familiar stories and characters and tells us something new about them. We get Lapine and Sondheim's wonderful ideas about life, love, happiness, and loss, funneled through the Grimm world. And people already love it (it's Sondheim's most produced show).

The best thing about this material for the studios and the "money" involved is that fairy tales with "different spins" on the characters are very popular right now, on TV, Broadway, in books, and on the big screen. So this is a no-brainer to put it into production. The subject matter is "hot" at the moment.

I do think Disney is going to go full-out on it, the way they did with Oz the Great and Powerful. They spent upwards of $200 million on that movie.

I have a feeling Into the Woods will have an equally huge budget and will very likely be shot in 3D.

---

best12bars: How do you think they will do the narrator? My main fear with this is that they are going to market it the wrong way. Its not really a children's movie at all. I don't want it to look like OZ because that film was just over the top. I feel llike into the woods should be more genuine and subtle. This shouldn't be a Summer block buster hit it should me a genuine and organic.

I have it in my head it will look a bit like Terry Gilliam's Brothers Grimm movie. And Disney are doing these huge live-action films like the Pirates films and The Lone Ranger so the potential for it ending up a little more 'grown-up' and with plenty of scope is certainly there. It's an interesting one for sure.

To be fair, of those three, "Giants in the Sky" is at least Jack giving new information to other characters. The other two, admittedly, are soliloquies. Arguably the more problematic elements of the score would be the Midnight sequences... likely to be cut like The Ballads of Sweeney Todd. I happen to be of the belief that, if done well and stylized, there's no reason to cut those sorts of numbers, that an audience will accept them just as easily onscreen as onstage if done well. But I concede that I'm in the minority on that.

As far as the Woods, I don't think it's too theatrical at all. Many great cinematic examples of "the Woods" are evident, from the Lord of the Rings movies (and Game of Thrones right now) to Harry Potter to The Cabin in the Woods. If anything, such a (super)natural setting lends itself better to the screen than the stage, where it can be produced in more literal detail and thus texturized and given more depth and sensation. I think it'll be a natural fit. And while I also agree Disney will likely sink Oz-like money and make it 3D, I would hope they'd follow the LOTR model and use a gigantic soundstage to preserve the organic feel of it.

The woods are just trees, and the trees are just wood, so I'd sort of hate to ask if CGI's what's in their basket.

---

It was pretty much a given that Dion Beebe would be his DP.

---

Any major ruminations on the Witch? I know it's not likely, but this could be great for Lady Gaga. She could sing it, is a great (and very theatrical) performer who can do both the glamorous and "ugly" aspects of the role, and has musical theatre experience. Any other names being floated around?

---

Wait. I knew that. The whole world knew that. Not sure why that escaped me. Probably because it was announced months ago.

---

^According to imdb, Mhyre is the production designer.

I picture this:



Or this:




Not this:

---

^ it's way to early to say (obviously), but I would assume that putting Streep in the supporting category would give her a better shot at winning her 4th oscar ( 5th if she takes it for August) then in Leading.