"Into the Woods" Movie Changes- Page 2

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 2:51pm

Very disappointing, indeed. And it's just another reminder of why it's so important to film the original stage versions of these shows, so we have permenant records of what they were meant to be originally.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 3:00pm

And the Baker's Wife dying has a little less impact than it did. She's supposed to be a little dissatisfied...and wondering what else is out there.

I wonder if she'll be kept alive, too. After all, she and the Baker are pretty much the protagonists. Would Disney really kill of a new mother, especially after all the trouble she went through to get pregnant? I mean, they don't have a problem with their main characters being orphans from the get-go (one or both parents are already dead), but now I'm wondering if they'll even kill her off.

Updated On: 6/18/14 at 03:00 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 3:02pm

It's only made apparent in the staging that the Baker's Wife and the Prince sleep together. Textually, she only refers to the prince kissing her, so it's not as much of a change as one might think.

As for Rapunzel dying and the Witch not having any motivation because of it, I trust the creators to maybe come up with something.

Updated On: 6/19/14 at 03:02 PM

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 3:18pm

Entertainment Weekly has a message for those who are unhappy with the changes.

"Now, before we all jump to conclusions, let’s remember a few things. One: We knew this would probably happen—the show is loaded with innuendo and adult themes, as is the norm for Sondheim’s great works. There was never a scenario in which the entire show would make it to the screen unedited. Two: Lapine and Sondheim’s involvement in the Rob Marshall-directed film should still be a great comfort. Perhaps it’s because of their veteran pedigree, but it’s a sign of good faith when a musical’s authors are as directly involved with a movie as they are. Three: We haven’t even seen a trailer yet. There’s no reason to assume, based only on this information, how the movie will turn out—frankly, I’m still utterly excited about it. And four: If you don’t like it, you can always re-watch the original stage production of over and over and over again on Netflix. (Or maybe that’s just me.)"


No dead Rapunzel, no horny Wolf: Stephen Sondheim reveals plot changes in Disney's 'Into the Woods'

[Wildcard]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 3:27pm

The sexual innuendo is still there. It's not similar to how it was portrayed on stage (no hanging ding-a-ling) but it's definitely there in the Johnny Depp sort of way. Don't forget, this was the reason Sophia Grace's parents used when she left the production.

[jo]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 4:05pm

Disney's INTO THE WOODS, not likely to be a true introduction to the real Sondheim, even for parents who will accompany their children to this ( most likely) General Patronage-rated movie?

I'm glad it wasn't Disney which produced Les Miserables ( Universal, through Working Title).

[Playbilly]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 4:09pm

If the movie is a big hit, I can certainly see future legit productions incorporating the changes ala Grease (and a certain extent Cabaret). Naive to think that might not happen.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 5:16pm

I seriously don't understand what all the fuss is about. The leaked script had all this information if I recall. The song "Any Moment" is there but I can see it being cut for time it has some funny lines and for once plot, but it isn't "Moments in the Woods." which IMHO IS the best song in the show. I think those bloggers have it mixed up.

As for Rapunzel, does it matter if she dies or runs away? The witch screws up her kid that's all that matters.
Disney's Into The Woods Cuts The Best Song From The Whole Damn Show

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 5:19pm

"Any Moment" is cut. "Moments in the Woods" is still there.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 5:30pm

I guess my beef is with that blog entry. Really the best song? It's one of the few non-park-and-bark numbers but that's about it.

I know this show is beloved by a lot of theatre people, but it really needed some work to work as a film. The script I read was solid and made sense. The visuals from the sets look good and that talent seems there. I understand being concerned about the age of Jack and Red but we haven't seen how it play yet.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 5:58pm

Given Disney's track record for adapting fairy tales, this is to be expected, rather than a surprise (much less an outrage). And as previously stated, the textual changes are actually few. Rapunzel's madness scene in the second act can easily end with total rejection and abandonment of the Witch. You could even just move the scene where she and the prince abandon the Witch with the babies from act one to act two. And is it really important for the Baker's Wife to have sex with the Prince, or is it MORE important that she experienced an adventurous "moment" with a prince? How far does it have to go for this particular character to question her choices? If the scene weren't chopped in half, as it is on stage, and went straight from the Prince's kiss to his farewell, leaving her in a stunned state of confusion, the song would still work. Just start with "What was that?" and go straight into "Wake up! Stop dreaming..."

I really don't see these as major issues. I do wonder...if Disney is scared of the "infidelity" angle, what about the reprise of Tragedy? Or is Disney okay with the double-standard that men are expected to be unfaithful? If they are keeping with the Moments in the Woods scene, then I suppose they are adhering to the proclivities of Cinderella's Prince.

[Hest882]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 6:17pm

"Given Disney's track record for adapting fairy tales, this is to be expected, rather than a surprise (much less an outrage)."

Well, Disney isn't adapting a fairy tale this time. They're adapting Sondheim's dark and somewhat twisted version. If they wanted a fairy tale mash-up they could have done that without Into the Woods the way Once Upon a Time did.

I'm not surprised. However, I am disappointed.

[a-mad]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 6:43pm

^ thank you... Mr Matt. Very well-written argument.

I love Into the Woods and would very much like a literal translation from the stage - but these changes don't strike me as being so radical that they change the major themes and messages from the stage. I don't think Sondheim would allow changes so extreme that they change the nature of the character's motivation(s) in each of their songs.

Not that this should matter... but as others have said, Into the Woods is not this mega-produced global behemoth that is going to be dissected by the GP for every little change made from the source material. Of course WE all care... but I think Sondheim is taking a practical stance in the matter. Does he want his work to be "censored"? Hell, no... But he is also aware that a major movie studio is going out on a limb producing a beloved work of his - thus exposing (most of) his book and music to masses that would never otherwise make an effort to seek it out... and in the process, bask in its sublime exquisiteness.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 6:57pm

Disney also made another fantasy story, with darkness, much lighter when they adapted it into a film. It soon became one of the best loved films of all-time.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 7:03pm

"Well, Disney isn't adapting a fairy tale this time. They're adapting Sondheim's dark and somewhat twisted version. If they wanted a fairy tale mash-up they could have done that without Into the Woods the way Once Upon a Time did. "

I don't see it all that dark either. The fractured fairy-tale has certainly seen it's day since it was on Broadway. I don't see it any darker than Harry Potter.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 7:17pm

The real issue for me isn't the cuts or changes, it's whether or not the points are lost along with them.

The Witch raises and shelters and manipulates Rapunzel, and in the end, Rapunzel runs away and eventually dies. The point is the "loss," not the "death." As long as the Witch can still sing and speak about her loss, I'm okay with Rapunzel not dying. It's almost more powerful that she willfully leaves, perhaps forever, rather than "leaves" because she is killed by the giant's wife.

Same thing with the Prince sleeping with the Baker's Wife. If the notion of infidelity and straying from the path is still in there, and we believe she might actually go through with it, then she can doubt and question and react to the choices. The point isn't the sex, the point is how would she feel or react if she were unfaithful to her husband and her current life.

If they lose those points, I will be as disappointed as any of you. If they show them in other ways, and they are effective dramatically, I'm okay with it.

[a-mad]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 7:29pm

^ THIS

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 7:54pm

The Jungle Book is another great example of Disney taking a "darker" story and changing it up, but still making a great movie.

I think the reason this is different is because they're doing an adaptation of a whole entity that is so familiar to us theater fanatics. It's not like they're taking a simple story written hundreds of years ago (that is really only familiar through other adaptations) and adding songs and story elements, they're taking the music, lyrics and story and already modified story elements and putting it on the screen.

I was mad when I heard they cut "Ever After," but I got their reasoning and have accepted it. I knew the Baker's Wife's shady rendezvous would be cut as soon as I read that Disney was producing it, and I'm glad to hear they're at least trying to keep that aspect of her character intact in some way.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 9:17pm

Still sounds better than the Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mande script in the mid 90s that came *this* close to being filmed.

Sondheim and Lapine seem fine with these changes--they wrote them. It's their show, not mine, so... Whatever. And I think the idea that future stage versions will use these changes is ridiculous--there's already ITW Jr.

Disney has done plenty of dark stuff, but having a character die *right near the climax* (as opposed to a parent dieing to really start the story) might be seen as too much.

However, I do think, while it's obvious these changes are being made largely because this wants to be a family blockbuster, they also probably make some sense as a film. The Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel script was basically just Act I. Lapine's new script combines both acts, but they still want a 2 hour movie that plays as *one act*. As ITW is right now, with such a vastly different second act, it just doesn't make sense as a movie. I'm not saying I love these changes (though I trust Lapine and Sondheim more than I trust Marshall's directing) but I'm sure they're partly there to make it play as a coherent piece--not a 160 minute piece that in some ways is two takes on similar material.

And wow--the way these is being talked about on ITW makes me suddenly think superhero fans are sane when they complain about casting way before even a trailer has dropped. I'm betting Sondheim wishes he hadn't said any of this at his teacher's thing.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 9:20pm

On re-reading, I thought they mentioned The Baker's Wife wouldn't die too. I guess not. Still I stand by what I said. But maybe they'll keep that--one death wouldn't be too much for a Disney PG movie--but several protagonists dying probably would.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 9:21pm

"Disney's INTO THE WOODS, not likely to be a true introduction to the real Sondheim, even for parents who will accompany their children to this ( most likely) General Patronage-rated movie? "

Sondheim would probably bristle at you not calling it "real Sondheim" (as would Lapine ). I believe they are going for a PG rating--the same as most of their live action "blockbusters" (see Maleficent which even suggests a rape.)

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 9:23pm

"If the movie is a big hit, I can certainly see future legit productions incorporating the changes ala Grease (and a certain extent Cabaret). Naive to think that might not happen. "

Except, from reports, the changes are VERY cinematic. And not just substituting songs. Sondheim and Lapine would have to prepare a new script for these changes--or local productions would have to illegally have someone try to incorporate dialogue from the movie.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 6/18/14 at 9:28pm

Matt, agreed 100%. I suspect Cinderella's prince being a cad will still be there (well it is in the earlier script)--it wouldn't be the first Disney PG film that *implied* a perfect partner was actually a serial cheater.

[SweeneyLovett]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 2:03am

My friend who saw the test screening said there was at least a scene alluding to their affair, but he said that he also saw a screening of Maleficent that was over 2 hours long and he's heard that was cut to smithereens. I can't comment since I still haven't seen it.

I certainly remember Any Moment from the script. I think presenting it the way it was in the original production would be fine for a PG film. Kid will just think they were kissing.

[jo]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 3:02am

>>>"Disney's INTO THE WOODS, not likely to be a true introduction to the real Sondheim, even for parents who will accompany their children to this ( most likely) General Patronage-rated movie? "

Sondheim would probably bristle at you not calling it "real Sondheim" (as would Lapine ). I believe they are going for a PG rating--the same as most of their live action "blockbusters" (see Maleficent which even suggests a rape.)<<<

Of course we do not know the extent of all the changes, but assuming the worst --

A PG rating might be too much of a pitch for the very young crowd. Maybe PG-13? But I would not be surprised that some may actually mistake it for the typical Disney entertainment ( its animated movies).


I had never been to a show by Sondheim (and was therefore more used to the traditional themes of a book musical) until I was introduced to the first staging of INTO THE WOODS on Broadway ( was that some decades ago?)! I was somewhat a little "shocked" by that intro to more adult/more unusual themes in a Broadway musical but was fascinated by it. And that has led to a few more shows...and many of the video collection of shows that have been filmed.

Will fans of the original theatrical version like the cinematic vision...that remains to be seen how they will find the film adaptation. Sondheim did not write Maleficent and it would be interesting how he would have approached the character had he included it in his INTO THE WOODS collection. Maybe I had used the wrong words ( "the real Sondheim") but the sentiment that Sondheim ( and Lapine) creates a different level of entertainment onstage is not unusual ...and could generate some apprehensions for the Rob Marshall/Disney adaptation.




Updated On: 6/19/14 at 03:02 AM