Into the Woods Official Movie Thread — Page 66
#1629
Posted: 8/10/13 at 9:38pm
CHICAGO is a Miramax film. In 2002, Miramax was owned by Disney.
#1630
Posted: 8/10/13 at 9:40pm
And no one grew into anything new, we just became the worst of what we were."
#1631
Posted: 8/10/13 at 9:49pm
In which Disney had no hand in. Miramax was ran completely independent of Disney until 2005 when the Weinsteins left.
#1632
Posted: 8/10/13 at 9:56pm
Even if that's true (which I dont think it 100% is), Miramax was still a Disney owned company meaning that to answer that question of when did Disney last win an Oscar for Best Picture, the answer is still for CHICAGO in 2002.
#1633
Posted: 8/10/13 at 10:00pm
For sitting around and collecting money from it which is kind of the opposite of what the question was even about.
#1634
Posted: 8/10/13 at 10:01pm
"Well, when was the last time they produced a live action musical that was nominated, let alone won, an Academy Award? It seems like a valid concern to me (not that I share it, but I don't really think it's unfounded)."
No, it answers that question perfectly.
No, it answers that question perfectly.
#1635
Posted: 8/10/13 at 10:08pm
Jordan is right (I had forgotten about the Disney/Miramax connection, thanks for reminding me). Whether their name was front and center or they were a silent partner they were still involved.
#1636
Posted: 8/10/13 at 10:09pm
No, it doesn't. The question was about their creative abilities when it comes to live action musicals. Disney placed no hand on Chicago despite it being the parent company to Miramax. It may answer the question point blank in a smart ass sense, but it did not address the intent behind the question.
Whether their name was front and center or they were a silent partner they were still involved.
I think it does matter. Just because they can sit there and collect money for it doesn't give evidence to their ability to film live action musicals.
Whether their name was front and center or they were a silent partner they were still involved.
I think it does matter. Just because they can sit there and collect money for it doesn't give evidence to their ability to film live action musicals.
Updated On: 8/10/13 at 10:09 PM
#1637
Posted: 8/10/13 at 10:10pm
...he answered the question. It is not that serious :)
#1638
Posted: 8/10/13 at 10:11pm
Disney has owned Miramax since 1993.
As for the logo, it's not exactly that community theatre logo at all.
If you want to overanalyze this logo (and believe me, I produced or designed over a hundred of them for DVD and Blu-ray releases by Hollywood studios), the font used for "Into the" is more reminiscent of the Harry Potter font used for the film series. That's no accident, I can assure you.
As for the logo, it's not exactly that community theatre logo at all.
If you want to overanalyze this logo (and believe me, I produced or designed over a hundred of them for DVD and Blu-ray releases by Hollywood studios), the font used for "Into the" is more reminiscent of the Harry Potter font used for the film series. That's no accident, I can assure you.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#1639
Posted: 8/11/13 at 12:52am
Also there is no D23 next year. It is every two years. They didn't do a via satellite feed since there was nothing to show. They are still in pre-production/rehearsals
#1640
Posted: 8/11/13 at 10:52am
I've nevero heard if Sophia Whateverhernameis until this thread. That said, I agree with those who feel casting a 10 year old will rob the story off all the implied sexual undertones that are (at least to me) obvious in the lyrics of this song. I was assigned this song in college and worked in depth on the lyric analysis and frankly was too naive to "get it" even at 18 (granted I was really sheltered then). But I learned that yes, the second level that Sondheim clearly is referencing is sexual in nature and simply can't be implied (without it being beyond disturbing). I mean, why else is the wolf endowed? And take a look at the lyrics...excited AND scared....he drew me down, down a dark slimy path... Even the modulation at the end of that section.
Anyway....more of a rant than I intended....but I do feel that casting ANY 10 year old is a terrible idea.
Anyway....more of a rant than I intended....but I do feel that casting ANY 10 year old is a terrible idea.
“I regard the theatre as the greatest of all art forms, the most immediate way in which a human being can share with another the sense of what it is to be a human being.”
``oscar wilde``
#1641
Posted: 8/11/13 at 11:32am
Well, when was the last time they produced a live action musical that was nominated, let alone won, an Academy Award?
Prior to Chicago, unless I missed something, the last time any live action musical won Best Picture was Oliver...in 1968. Musicals, regardless of who made them, don't typically do well at the Oscars.
Prior to Chicago, unless I missed something, the last time any live action musical won Best Picture was Oliver...in 1968. Musicals, regardless of who made them, don't typically do well at the Oscars.
#1642
Posted: 8/11/13 at 11:42am
I don't think that the actor performing the song has to be aware of the sexual implications in the song for those implications to come across, that's why it's all implied and not explicitly stated in the lyrics. It's up to the audience to catch the references and understand it, not the actor; in fact, I'd say that it's better if the actor doesn't go out of their way to make the implicit explicit, it's called subtlety. We live in an age when we want everything spelled out for us, and I'd like it if this film worked a little differently. Plus, the text vs. subtext aspect of INTO THE WOODS comes from a long line of fairy tale tradition, depending on whatever age you're at, you'll get different meanings from the stories. I still think that if you've had sex, and understand subtext, you'll get the sexual references in the Little Red/Wolf interactions regardless of the age of the characters playing them, they're just there, but an 8 year old might not have even gotten the reference in the SitP production that (IMO misguidedly) had Little Red get eaten out by the Wolf.
"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"
#1643
Posted: 8/11/13 at 11:42am
The decade from 1958 to 1968 was the biggest Oscar heyday for musicals. It's actually AFTER the movie musical was considered dead and gone as a popular genre.
From 1958 to 1968, five of the 11 winners for Best Picture were musicals:
1958 - Gigi
1961 - West Side Story
1964 - My Fair Lady
1965 - The Sound of Music
1968 - Oliver!
Then nothing until "Chicago."
And I'll go on record here and say I strongly disagree with everyone posting who is adding multiple layers of overt sexual tension for Little Red. That tension is in the audience's perception of these songs and scenes with Little Red, not in the "child" herself.
Yes, she is described as a "child" and a "young girl" by the authors, not a teenager, not a young adult. If you think you had trouble "getting" the sexual tension as a performer playing Little Red, then Sondheim either failed the character by making her too wise and aware beyond her years, or you approached it from the audience's perspective, not the character's.
You may feel these songs are erotic and all about a young girls "awakening" sexually. You may think that a "cape and a hood" are metaphors from a condom ... and I think audiences can go there, definitely. But not the character herself. So again, I strongly disagree.
From 1958 to 1968, five of the 11 winners for Best Picture were musicals:
1958 - Gigi
1961 - West Side Story
1964 - My Fair Lady
1965 - The Sound of Music
1968 - Oliver!
Then nothing until "Chicago."
And I'll go on record here and say I strongly disagree with everyone posting who is adding multiple layers of overt sexual tension for Little Red. That tension is in the audience's perception of these songs and scenes with Little Red, not in the "child" herself.
Yes, she is described as a "child" and a "young girl" by the authors, not a teenager, not a young adult. If you think you had trouble "getting" the sexual tension as a performer playing Little Red, then Sondheim either failed the character by making her too wise and aware beyond her years, or you approached it from the audience's perspective, not the character's.
You may feel these songs are erotic and all about a young girls "awakening" sexually. You may think that a "cape and a hood" are metaphors from a condom ... and I think audiences can go there, definitely. But not the character herself. So again, I strongly disagree.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#1644
Posted: 8/11/13 at 11:43am
Ray, once again, you read my mind ... we are thinking alike on LIttle Red, absolutely.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#1645
Posted: 8/11/13 at 12:22pm
Reading the discussion about the sexual undertones in the Red scenes and now I can't get get the Lil' Red Riding Hood song by SAM THE SHAM AND THE PHAROAHS out of my head. Thanks : (
The casting of Sophia Grace, right or wrong, makes me want to see the movie even more. After seeing her on Ellen a few times can't help but be curious to see how this will come out. And I suspect this movie will now get huge promo from Ellen (which is great for the movie).
The casting of Sophia Grace, right or wrong, makes me want to see the movie even more. After seeing her on Ellen a few times can't help but be curious to see how this will come out. And I suspect this movie will now get huge promo from Ellen (which is great for the movie).
Updated On: 8/11/13 at 12:22 PM
#1646
Posted: 8/11/13 at 1:38pm
Some interesting paintings of Little Red Riding Hood throughout the centuries ...
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#1647
Posted: 8/11/13 at 1:43pm
I can just feel the sexual tension, Besty.
ETA: I agree with you and Ray.
ETA: I agree with you and Ray.
Updated On: 8/11/13 at 01:43 PM
#1648
Posted: 8/12/13 at 9:36am
Best: "You may feel these songs are erotic and all about a young girls "awakening" sexually. You may think that a "cape and a hood" are metaphors from a condom ... and I think audiences can go there, definitely. But not the character herself. So again, I strongly disagree."
Best -- the voice of sweet sweet reason. On this at least.
Best -- the voice of sweet sweet reason. On this at least.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
My blog: http://www.roscoewrites.blogspot.com/
#1649
Posted: 8/12/13 at 9:43am
Worst of all with the casting of a 2 year old is that the best line in the entire show, "You can talk to birds" will be completely lost. 
#1650
Posted: 8/12/13 at 11:52am
But the conception of Little Red in INTO THE WOODS is a girl on the verge of womanhood, hence the casting of Danielle Ferland and Luanne Ponce in the original production. The casting of Molly Ephraim proved problematic because (in my opinion) she was too young to navigate what I Know Things Now was really about. The performance didn't work. Now...it could be that a really talented 13 year old could have pulled it off, but what was in front of me was an actress too young to make it work.
To make a complete left turn, I felt the same thing about the revival of BYE BYE BIRDIE. Having an actual 15 year old girl singing How Lovely to Be a Woman felt awkward to me...like I was watching someone who couldn't find the comedy of the number because she was actually in the middle of her most awkward years. A different director might have found a way to make that work to their advantage...maybe.
That's not to say that this casting can't work. I'm more than willing to go with it. But at the end of the song, Little Red needs to know things now that aren't pleasant to know. What those things are in the film remain to be seen. It could, in fact, be a shallow reading of the text of the piece, leaving the more adult subtext behind. And that's fine. I just think that the song has lost something when performed by younger actresses, and may well lose something again.
To make a complete left turn, I felt the same thing about the revival of BYE BYE BIRDIE. Having an actual 15 year old girl singing How Lovely to Be a Woman felt awkward to me...like I was watching someone who couldn't find the comedy of the number because she was actually in the middle of her most awkward years. A different director might have found a way to make that work to their advantage...maybe.
That's not to say that this casting can't work. I'm more than willing to go with it. But at the end of the song, Little Red needs to know things now that aren't pleasant to know. What those things are in the film remain to be seen. It could, in fact, be a shallow reading of the text of the piece, leaving the more adult subtext behind. And that's fine. I just think that the song has lost something when performed by younger actresses, and may well lose something again.
Maximum Thread Size of 5,000 Messages Reached
Please Start a New Thread!
Please Start a New Thread!
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95