"Into the Woods" Movie Changes — Page 2

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.

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

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.

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.

---

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

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.

---

^ 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.

"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.

^ THIS

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.

"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.)

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.

>>>"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