"Into the Woods" Movie Changes- Page 3

[binau]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 5:34am

"Sondheim is such a pushover!"

Sondheim, or the guy who actually wrote the musical AND the screenplay? (I.e., Lapine).

Updated On: 6/19/14 at 05:34 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 7:59am

Considering Rapunzel's actions in act 2 can be describe as "brief, irrational, and hysterical" right before her offstage death- having her do ANYTHING other than that will make her a stronger female character.

[tazber]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 8:22am

I agree with Besty. As long as they keep the darker themes intact then changing some of the events is fine.

ITW works best when taken as a parable about making choices in life and dealing with the consequences of your actions. I hope they retain that thematic aspect.

If it becomes just another fractured fairy tale with no deep waters to explore below the surface then it will be a failure as an adaptation in my book.

But I have hope that they will do it right. (Please god let them do it right!!!)

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 9:06am

When I wrote that post (yesterday), I was thinking about "These Three," the 1930s MGM adaptation of Lillian Hellmann's "The Children's Hour." The censors of the day wouldn't let them even suggest the lesbian theme. Instead, Mary Tilford's "little lie," which was never uttered on camera, implied that her two female teachers were involved in a menage a trios with the "handy man," one of their fiancés.

The remake, starring Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine, didn't shy away at all from the original lesbian accusations and scandal.

Guess which movie is far more powerful. The first one. Part of it is allowing the audience to complete the circle. Our "dirty little minds" can imagine just exactly what little Mary is implying here.

And the point of her actions isn't lost because MGM removed the lesbian aspects. The point is about the damage that can be done by rumors and distrust and dishonesty. The way our own "evil" can destroy us and the people we love around us, even if nothing scandalous is actually going on. It's the "potential" for the actions that consumes everyone. Mary's lie has a slight air of truth about it. That's enough to do them in.

EDITED: Because I hate autocorrect.

Updated On: 6/19/14 at 09:06 AM

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 9:53am

Bless you, Besty. BEAUTIFULLY PUT!

[Owen22]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 11:36am

I can handle these changes. It's the cutting of "No More" that still stings, as it's one of the more pointed remixed storybook morals in the piece. And a number that, if done well, can make me weep openly.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 1:24pm

When Disney also finally decided to move forward with an animated film adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's 'The Snow Queen', they made it a loose adaptation. It was a dark story and it does not easily translate on film. Disney made some big plot changes and also made the title character misunderstood rather than a villain.




Inside The Research, Design And Animation Of Walt Disney’s Frozen With Producer Peter Del Vecho Updated On: 6/19/14 at 01:24 PM

[Wildcard]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 1:48pm

I just hope that this wasn't a "Little Shop of Horrors" situation where they have a film that was very close to the stage version (which the screened version of this film was) and then changed after test audiences wanted a happier ending. Then again, if that was the case, they can just cut the film in half and end it after the first act.

[wiggum2]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 2:44pm

They should just release a Into the Woods Junior as well

[BobbyBubbi]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 4:48pm

^^ That's for sure.

I guess I don’t understand. If Disney can put out a film like Saving Mr. Banks, a film that deals with sophisticated themes; alcoholism, family violence, and suicide (all dealt with delicately and beautifully IMO), whats wrong with the death of Rapunzel and a little heavy petting between the Bakers Wife and Cinderella’s Prince? It’s not like they need to show them fu*king.

Updated On: 6/19/14 at 04:48 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 5:03pm

I hope they at least left in the part where The Bakers Wife goes down on the Prince while the Wolf does her from behind.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 9:21pm

I still choose to believe that it was internet outrage that got Sophia Geace sacked, so perhaps that kind of magic will happen again.

[BobbyBubbi]

Posted: 6/19/14 at 10:01pm

"I hope they at least left in the part where The Bakers Wife goes down on the Prince while the Wolf does her from behind. "

Can I play the Bakers Wife then?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 5:01am

All one can do is to try to keep an open mind. But what a challenge. And what a tall order for the filmmakers. To sanitize this beloved "problem musical" and not destroy it, to remove its hard edges and retain its brilliance.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 8:51am

The question, I suppose, is whether the creative team behind the movie is, well, creative enough to find ways around the sanitation. If Disney has issues with plot points being too dark, Marshall/Lapine/Sondheim can certainly comply with that while still finding ways to hint at these moments without actually outwardly showing or saying anything.

Stanley Kubrick had to work round the clock to please the censors in the early 60's when he was making his adaptation of "Lolita," and the result is a flawed, but fascinating film with a ton of wicked innuendos ("What was the decisive factor? My garden?" "I suppose it was your cherry pies"), that isn't a totally faithful adaptation of the book but is a very good film in its own right. Certainly better than the awful 90's remake with Jeremy Irons that didn't have to work around the same limitations as Kubrick. Of course, Marshall is no Kubrick but my point is that there's still hope for ITW to retain its darkness while complying with some of these edits.

[lotiloti]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 9:43am

I recall, Sondheim standing on my stage. Introducing a pre-release screening of 'Sweeney' to the West End glitterati. He said 'this is not a movie of the show. It's the movie version of 'Sweeney Todd' Unlike so many on this board, he understands that movies are a very different animal.Any changes made, would have been with his full consent and probable assistance.

[tazber]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 9:55am

And the movie tanked critically and commercially.

So maybe he should offer less assistance and be more strong willed in keeping his work intact.

[LucyEth]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 10:08am

Everyone is talking about this film as if it were a Disney acquisition, a property they were dying to film. My guess is that Rob Marshall, who made a boatload of money for the studio with the last Pirates film, was given carte blanche to pick his next vehicle, and this was it. The studio may have been reluctant to film the show and only agreed to do so if it met certain conditions.

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 10:14am

The SWEENEY movie has an 86% on Rotten Tomatoes:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1183955-1183955-sweeney_todd_the_demon_barber_of_fleet_street/

And with a $50 million budget, it grossed $152 million worldwide:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=sweeneytodd.htm

Is that really considered tanking? I'm not a big movie person, so I'm honestly asking.
To me, that's damn right impressive for a dark (R rated) Sondheim piece.



Updated On: 6/20/14 at 10:14 AM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 10:17am

“Mutter mutter mutter mutter, yes, Rob M.
Mutter, no, Rob M.
Mutter mutter mutter mutter”

That's director Rob M.

"Mutter mutter mutter mutter mutter
Do it, Rob M.”

Click

Sorry, fanboys

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 10:32am

It's not as if any film version of a musical well appease the hardcore fans and purists. Even if the film retained the "darker" elements of the plot, people would just bitch about everything else. AS much as people have cried out for a film of Follies, can you just imagine the carnage should it actually ever happen?

[Consistency]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 10:33am

"And the movie tanked critically and commercially."

Wait, are we talking about "Sweeney Todd" here? Because that particular adaptation was actually pretty well received by the general public and critics.

It has an 86% "Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes (plus an 83 on Metacritic and an IMDb score of 7.5), and it made $150 million at the box office on a production budget of $50 million (which really isn't too shabby for an ultra-violent, R-rated musical.) So it doesn't seem particularly accurate to say it "tanked" either financially or critically.

Of course, I know plenty of theater buffs who think it has a lot of problems - and others who think it's an outright terrible adaptation. But I imagine Disney is a lot more considered with the reactions of "general audiences" than with the relatively small population of theater buffs.

That is to say, if these changes will help make the film more accessible and enjoyable to general audiences, then I can understand why they want to make them.

Of course, I too will mourn the loss of some of those songs and scenes. Though it may turn out to be a perfectly good film *cough*in spite of Rob Marshall*cough*, it can be pretty hard for those of us who know every word of the original material to approach the film objectively. It's the same reason it's often difficult to watch a film adaptation of a favorite book - even if the film is good in its own right, if it doesn't capture all of our favorite scenes then it will almost always seem like a disappointment.

[Edit: And now I see that ljay889 already posted almost exactly what I was going to say in response to the "tanking" comment.] Updated On: 6/20/14 at 10:33 AM

[tazber]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 10:44am

Yea, you guys are right, "tanked" is too harsh a word for its box office.

But considering the other films of the Burton/Depp brand it definitely performed below expectations.

In truth though, I don't think its success or failure had much to do with the changes and cuts. Most people were unaware of then anyway.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:24pm

The film version of Sweeney Todd was a disappointment to me and others for various reasons.

My main complaint was cutting all chorus singing, particularly the Ballad of Sweeney Todd.

The basic story was kept intact, however, and that's why I think it was a (largely) successful screen adaptation.

But a key element was missing for me because of the cut choral sections. That's where the story of Sweeney is elevated beyond a gruesome revenge story of a serial killer. The ballad sequences made it larger than life. It became the LEGEND of Sweeney Todd, not just Sweeney Todd.

At its core, it works as a smaller story, because the "tale" is still powerful. But I really missed the epic telling of it, and as a result it had far less impact than any stage version I've seen of it, despite so many good things in the film.

[tazber]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:29pm

I agree, Besty. All that and also Depp and Carter's "singing".

You know what? I'll give Depp a pass. He didn't reach Russel Crowe levels of awfulness.

Bonham Carter should be legally prohibited from ever singing in a professional capacity again however.