"Into the Woods" Movie Changes- Page 5

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 3:46pm

I just don't think he's very objective about his own work, which I totally understand. He will rise quickly to defend a long-dead author when the hubris of a new creative team thinks they can "make it better."

Yet when someone takes his masterpiece (Sweeney Todd) or one of his most popular musicals (Into the Woods) and makes major changes to it, he's okay with it and simply shrugs. Perhaps if this were a stage production and they (dared to) cut "No More," he would be singing a different tune.

As a film, though, he probably feels out of his element enough to let it go.

He's not THAT out of his element. He's also an Oscar-winning songwriter for film, not just a Broadway guy.

[BobbyBubbi]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 4:04pm

Even Forbes has decided to weigh in-

They think the changes won't effect box office, but all this negative press, even before a trailer has been released, might.

Sondheim probably should have kept quiet, I can't imagine Disney is very pleased with the can of worms he opened, and the media firestorm this has created.



Forbes: Disney's Into The Woods changes won't hurt box office. Updated On: 6/21/14 at 04:04 PM

[tazber]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 4:11pm

I don't think enough people (and I'm referring to the target demo for this film, excepting theater devotees) know who Sondheim is or know enough about ITW for his comments to cause any damage.

[James885]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 4:23pm

I agree with the article. While Into The Woods might be the most mainstream Sondheim title, it's hardly a household name among the general public. Most people will not know or care about the changes made for the film. And those of us who do will likely go see the film anyway.

On a sidenote, I didn't realize that 'Woods' was opening the same week as Hobbit 3, Annie, and Night At The Museum. Should make for an interesting race at the box office.

Updated On: 6/21/14 at 04:23 PM

[bwayobsessed]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 4:23pm

Most of us will probably see the film regardless (i know I will) simply because we love musical theatre. Outside of the theatre community, i doubt it will have much impact.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 4:45pm

That's some fierce competition. I can't imagine the film doing well opening against Hobbit and Night at the Museum (to say nothing of Annie and Paddington).

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 4:52pm

Paddington Bear?

[tazber]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 5:16pm

I bet one of those films will move.

I'm thinking Annie will be the first to blink.

I wouldn't be surprised if Annie moves to early 2015 altogether. There are a lot of wide open weekends in the first quarter without any family films opening.

Just a hunch. Unless it tests through the roof, which I don't think will be the case.

[Gymfan15]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 5:28pm

^^^ I doubt it. Annie has been advertising heavily; more than any of the other films listed so far. One could almost think that they are advertising so much BECAUSE they want to firmly stake a claim on that weekend as the Anti-Hobbit (i.e. the movie people with kids go see).

Hobbit won't move. It's too firmly established. Disney HATES backing down but they're the only one that I could see moving. Maybe none of them will, lol.

[tazber]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 5:40pm

Looking at the actual schedule** it's really not that unusual.

12/17- The Hobbit

12/19 - Museum
Annie

12/25 - Hot Tub Time Machine 2
ITW
Paddington
Unbroken (Angelia Jolie as director, Oscar hopeful)
Big Eyes (Tim Burton bio-pic about Margaret Keane)
Cameron Crowe project (untitled as of yet)

I don't see any of these films moving.


That seems crowded but the second half of December is always packed.

**These are all nationwide openings. I'm not including the plethora of Oscar hopefuls that will open in limited release on these dates also.

Updated On: 6/21/14 at 05:40 PM

[jo]

Posted: 6/22/14 at 2:54pm

Les Miserables moved away from direct competition with the previous installment of The Hobbit in 2012 when an opportunity arose ( Great Gatsby was moved to the following year). Although Les Miserables was not previously scheduled to go head to head against The Hobbit and had scheduled its original opening date a week earlier, a slight delay in post production ( it had a very short post prod time) moved it in direct competition for the succeeding week. Fortunately, The Great Gatsby also experienced delays and had to vacate its Oscar-bait schedule of a December 25 opening and paved the way for Les Miserables to get a Christmas Day opening date.

It may not be that easy to move Opening Dates especially for wide releases, as presumably contractual obligations may be involved, unless one major film vacates its schedule?

Btw, Box Office Mojo lists Annie as opening on exactly the same date as The Hobbit and Night at the Museum 3 --

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/schedule/?view=bydate&release=all&date=2014-12-05&showweeks=4&p=.htm

[MagicalMusical]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 12:33am

I will wait to see how the final film is, but for now, I think Rapunzel does need to die because of what the Witch sings after. "This is the world I meant, couldn't you listen?" as in "The outside world has things that can destroy/kill you and if you had listened to me you would be alive." Then "Couldn't you stay content, safe behind walls, like I could not", as in "Couldn't you be happy in a place where you're protected, like I couldn't be, especially since a man climbed over the walls I stayed behind to steal from me, and I had to live in the outside world which has bad people." And finally, "Now you know what's out there in the world" as in "Now you know death was what awaited you in the outside world." I don't think Rapunzel running away covers that?

But maybe it will because in the video we saw of Cinderella's wedding and the Giant's Wife causing an earthquake, the tremors made Rapunzel run, so she was running from the Giant and so that's how she encountered the destruction and bad in the world? Do you think that covers it, makes the Witch's words and feelings make sense?

Updated On: 6/23/14 at 12:33 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 12:37am

Speaking just for myself, I'm pretty sure I understood what the witch meant when she sang those words the first time I heard them in 1988. Meaning the lyrics are not particularly obscure.

[Hest882]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 1:07am

Henrikegerman, thanks for expressing my misgivings so eloquently.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 5:32am

Thanks Hest882.

So many on this thread seem to be ready to "decide what's right and what's good" by whether it makes money or not.

I've heard it said once that "you decide what's right" and "you decide what's good"

When did "you" become the box office?

Reading about these changes I envision this "you" leaving the movie asking:
"What was that?
Was that me?
Was that Sondheim? Was that Lapine?
Was it wrong? Am I mad?
Was that all?"

And right now, i feel like telling Disney, "you may know what you need, but to get what you want, better see that you keep what you have."

I can't help wondering how anyone who loves this show, any of us "children who listened" - could think that making this movie "nice" would make it "good".

One thing's certain.

"Good" or "bad" - and yes, I'm trying my best to remain "much more open hearted" about what waits in "the woods" - '"once we've had this "and"' Disney is bringing us for Christmas, it may well

"make the "or" mean more than it meant before....."
















Updated On: 6/23/14 at 05:32 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 6:14am

MagicalMusical---the Witch's Lament has been cut. You're right about the meaning of those lyrics, but there won't be any confusion in meaning because they won't be sung. They have been replaced by a new song.

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 8:12am

Wasnt that clip of Meryl singing from Lament? I was under the impression she sang part of it leading into the new song. Of course, that may have changed.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 8:25am

The first part is still in there. Then it goes into the new song.

I know that script was legit, because too many of the changes have proven to be true (including the scenes shot at Dover Castle).

But I also know it wasn't a final shooting script, by any means. Sondheim has said that "Moments in the Woods" was cut (probably), but it's still in the script I read.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 8:35am

bestie, Sondheim said that "Any Moment" will probably be cut, not "Moments in the Woods," right?

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 8:39am

Besty. As of the most recent screening (a few weeks ago), "Any Moment" was cut and "Moments in the Woods" was still there. Emily Blunt brings the song to life in a way that hasn't been done since Joanna did it. I suppose it's possible they cut the song before release, but that would be a downright shame. Blunt does a beautiful job with it.

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 12:08pm

I was watching "Haunted Mansion" and if they can show a person hanging himself within the first 5 minutes of the opening credits, why can't they show Rapunzel getting killed by a giant... far less extreme than that suicide scene.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 12:14pm

Was the person who was hanged also a recognizable Disney princess?

[Wildcard]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 12:16pm

Rapunzel not dying shows that not everything in life ends in disappointment. Every other character loses someone important. At least one character deserves a positive ending.

[ShakinBaconGirl]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 12:26pm

I wouldn't care so much if Rapunzel staying alive was being put in for artistic reasons, but that clearly isn't the case. This is just Disney not wanting a popular princess to die. I knew Disney wouldn't have the balls to do this.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 6/23/14 at 12:58pm

All of those who are complaining do not understand commerce 101 and how these decisions will, at the end of the day, actually benefit their business. If the business benefits, the chance of future movie musicals increases. It's a win/win.