All I know is that if it doesn't have some "wow" factor visually (a growing beanstalk, a giant walking around, SFX for Cinderella and her birds, etc.), they aren't going to impress modern moviegoers with just stars in appropriate costumes scurrying around in the well-lit woods.
Yes, I agree that most of it isn't set in a fantasy world like Oz or Wonderland that needs to be generated almost entirely via visual effects and CGI, but it is a fairytale world, where magic is commonplace and part of the story on many occasions. Cinderella's mother "evolving" out of the tree is another instance of total CGI, written in the script (and the story).
Even if it isn't wall-to-wall "magic," these moments will need to be impressive visually. The witch transformation, her exit, etc., will all need the same "wow" factor.
These days, $40 million is your average studio movie set in the real world with half the star power appearing in Into the Woods.
If nothing else, since most of the budgetary concerns are in post-production, Disney might look at the rushes, and assuming they're impressed, cough up an extra $10 million or so in these next few months.
We can (hopefully) assume that at least it was shot well, with good cinematography, in good locations, etc.
I realize that Merchant-Ivory used to work miracles with very small budgets on Howards End, Remains of the Day, A Room With a Veiw, etc. They all had a much "richer" look than they should have, given their low costs.
So as long as they isolate the key "magic" moments and still put some money and time into them to make them impressive, it will work ... hopefully.
Otherwise, you're going to hear a lot of snickering in the audience, and it won't have anything to do with the singing or the fact that it's a musical.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22