"Into the Woods" Movie Changes- Page 7
"Into the Woods" Movie Changes
Stephen Sondheim Inc#150
Posted: 6/24/14 at 9:12am
I love it if for no other reason than this:
Life is often so unpleasant
You must know that, as a peasant
But also, aside for that humorous line, I love the point the song makes about the transience and ephemeral nature of life's unexpected little moments.
Stephen Sondheim Inc#151
Posted: 6/24/14 at 11:25am
Does anyone know when a trailer (or even a teaser...) is expected to appear?
We've already seen 2 trailers for Annie... and it opens around the same time... and we've already seen a teaser for Cinderella (from Disney) which opens 3 months AFTER ITW.
Hopefully we'll see something soon. Of course, we also haven't seen anything yet for Mockingjay Part I, which comes out in November, and will probably be the highest grossing film of the year...
Stephen Sondheim Inc#152
Posted: 6/24/14 at 11:28amThe Entertainment Industrial Complex is strong in this thread.
Stephen Sondheim Inc#153
Posted: 6/24/14 at 4:16pm
Even though I agree (and even "misremembered") that "Any Moment" plays like an intro to "Moments in the Woods," they serve as a great counterbalance of perspectives.
For the prince, this is "any moment." It's fun, but forgettable. He doesn't value it beyond the immediate interaction.
For the Baker's Wife, this is a special "Moment in the Woods." It's wonderful, but it also rattles her. She goes though a roller coaster of emotions, imagining what her life might be like under different circumstances.
It's the same shared "moment." For one, it means everything. For the other, almost nothing.
Forget the sex or the "almost sex." You really need both perspectives to see how shared events in peoples' lives can be perceived very differently.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Stephen Sondheim Inc#154
Posted: 6/24/14 at 5:12pmI've been wondering, is Rapunzel just as crazy as she is in the stage adaption (the random outbursts of screaming, odd behavior, etc.)? Or did Disney tune this down?
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/21/06
Stephen Sondheim Inc#155
Posted: 6/24/14 at 5:42pmExpect everything to be toned down for the cameras. Not everything that works on stage translates the same way on screen.
Stephen Sondheim Inc#156
Posted: 6/24/14 at 6:31pm
Let me preface by saying, I haven't seen a finished product so I'm going from my general reservations I formed the second Disney was announced as being attached to the property.
I expect things to be toned down from stage to screen. I understand what reads as crazy onstage comes off as inhuman on camera. But there are ways to allow her to still be delirious to near operatic proportions. I mean the grandeur of her unhinged behavior not her litteral high notes. She's been locked in a tower by a witch, seen her mother turn on her and the man she loves, wandering through the desert alone with twins...of course she's nuts!
What I would take issue with is if Rapunzel is treated as a Disney's Tangled style heroine. If it's portrayed as I have understood it where she tells her mother and husband to eff off, gets on the horse and rides away an empowered princess, I would feel the integrity of the piece is beginning to erode and we're getting too close to Disney family fare. I'm all for giving little girls empowered role models (something Disney has really only started to do, or at least do well, in the recent past) but this is not the film to do it with. I wonder if a big reason Rapunzel doesn't die is because Disney said we don't want a heroine from one of our animated films dieing.
Into the Woods has never been about happy endings, it's about the consequences of blindly chasing happy endings. I worried that Disney wouldn't have the stomach to go for the true themes but was hopeful Sondheim and Lapine would stay true to their piece. The more info that gets leaked the less hopeful I am but it's Sondheim so of course I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Stephen Sondheim Inc#157
Posted: 6/24/14 at 7:09pm
I have a feeling that Rapunzel will be less damaged than the wreck of a princess we see in the stage show. Even beyond letting her live, Disney would probably be unlikely to show one of their princesses- a recent one, in fact- as mentally ill bordering on quasi-autistic.
One of the few things "wrong" with Into the Woods in a cultural sense is that it subverts not only the traditional fairy tale archetypes, but the "strong, empowered female characters" who were just beginning to be de riguer during the original Broadway run. The Baker's Wife has an affair, and dies immediately. Cinderella wishes for romance, and finds herself trapped in a loveless marriage. Little Red turns from innocent girl into nearly a psychopath. The Witch is given a choice between beauty and power, and finds that she chose wrong. Rapunzel is a broken, helpless woman, seduced easily and killed off just as easily.
It could be company censoring to make Rapunzel less insane, and a little more empowered, but I believe it may not be a change for the worst. The idea that "you can take action, be assertive, go for what you want and NOT be damned for it" may or may not go against the message of ITW onstage, but I can't say it's necessarily a bad thing.
Stephen Sondheim Inc#158
Posted: 6/24/14 at 7:26pm
A very amusing opinion on the film's changes...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=got2nHHpy3s
Stephen Sondheim Inc#159
Posted: 6/24/14 at 7:31pm
"...Disney would probably be unlikely to show one of their princesses- a recent one, in fact- as mentally ill bordering on quasi-autistic."
That is exactly what I was thinking, which is why I asked that question. I find it very odd, but ironic that Disney won't allow to let one of their recent characters to die, but will allow the Baker's Wife to die (which is obviously great since it is a major part of the plot). But let's be honest, if Disney had adapted their story into a film in the past, the wife wouldn't have been killed off in this either...
Shows to say, Disney is very protective about keeping the magic alive for their own use.
Updated On: 6/24/14 at 07:31 PM
Stephen Sondheim Inc#160
Posted: 6/24/14 at 7:40pmso, 'Lament' is the only song that we knew that was cut?
Stephen Sondheim Inc#161
Posted: 6/24/14 at 7:42pmNo, "No More" and "Ever After" was cut. Supposedly "Any Moment" is cut now too.
Stephen Sondheim Inc#162
Posted: 6/24/14 at 7:55pmThanks. Any Moment probably cut? I thought that Sondheim has said that in the final version that he saw after the meeting, the song was there. btw
Stephen Sondheim Inc#164
Posted: 6/24/14 at 8:10pmIm saddened that "No More" was cut. It's one of my favorite songs from the piece and helps to define the Baker's shift from resignation to redefining what life will mean for him now. It's such a poignant song, and really not that long.
Stephen Sondheim Inc#165
Posted: 6/24/14 at 8:13pm"No More" is a great song, but by the time it arrives, it would slow the movie way down. They're already stopping the action with another ballad ("No One Is Alone"), so I imagine they want to wrap it up fairly quickly. This is one number that I think can be easily rewritten into dialogue (not sure if the Mysterious Man is a part of the film though).
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/21/06
Stephen Sondheim Inc#166
Posted: 6/24/14 at 8:17pmYou're not gonna miss "No More" once you see James Corden's acting in that scene.
Stephen Sondheim Inc#167
Posted: 6/25/14 at 6:07am
I don't buy the argument that Into the Woods is misogynistic argument. Are the male characters painted in any rosier colors? The princes are cads. Jack is an oaf who's woefully ill equipped for the world without his mother. The baker runs from every challenge until No More. Before that song he literally abandons his child. The show may portray it's woman as damaged. But it doesn't let the men off the hook.
Stopping to think about it what bothers me is Disney has a history of dressing up misogyny as girl power. They don't need to do that here. Let the complexity of the characters remain.
Stephen Sondheim Inc#168
Posted: 6/25/14 at 6:13am
I don't buy the argument that Into the Woods is misogynistic
I have never heard that before. And it's clearly not the case.
I realize people take away different things, but that is a stretch and based on everything I've ever read from Sondheim and Lapine about the show, not what was intended.
Stephen Sondheim Inc#169
Posted: 6/25/14 at 9:19am
but the "strong, empowered female characters" who were just beginning to be de riguer during the original Broadway run.
I'm not sure that's the archetype, at least not one that had just come to play in the mid-80s.
the Witch is given a choice between beauty and power, and finds that she chose wrong.
She wasn't given a choice. Until she goes to use her powers after her transformation, she had every reason to believe she still had them.
Updated On: 6/25/14 at 09:19 AM
Stephen Sondheim Inc#170
Posted: 6/25/14 at 9:20am
I will say that one of my criticisms with the stage show has always been "character death fatigue". They just start dropping off like flies in Act 2 and I think its a bit much to take in from a sensory point of view. Put that in a movie where you are already trimming almost an hour off the show and you're going to amplify that fatigue even more. Death isn't the only form of loss and separation we experience from one another, and the witch being abandoned by her daughter's choice and not happenstance is actually quite effective. Also, Rapunzel is really a third tier character, so if they are going to make drastic changes, I'd much rather it be her than someone else.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/29/05
Stephen Sondheim Inc#171
Posted: 6/25/14 at 10:13am
"One of the few things "wrong" with Into the Woods in a cultural sense is that it subverts not only the traditional fairy tale archetypes, but the "strong, empowered female characters" who were just beginning to be de riguer during the original Broadway run..... It could be company censoring to make Rapunzel less insane, and a little more empowered, but I believe it may not be a change for the worst. The idea that "you can take action, be assertive, go for what you want and NOT be damned for it" may or may not go against the message of ITW onstage, but I can't say it's necessarily a bad thing."
Well said, darguek, a Rapunzel empowerment could be handled intelligently without thematic sacrifice. Shel need not meet the original tragic end for her denouement to resonate.
There are potential changes here which could work well by serving the material and making it more mainstream palatable without insipidly bowdlerizing or homogenizing ITW.
And if they make mistakes, perhaps we will can muster the will to honor them.
Stephen Sondheim Inc#172
Posted: 6/25/14 at 12:05pmI"m not saying that it's misogynistic, and I hope I haven't been construed as saying so. I'm just pointing out that, even more than the male characters, the female characters tend to be stuck in Catch-22s, and that this change could, if it's carried out well, make that less universal without blunting the impact of the moment on the Witch and the Audience.
Stephen Sondheim Inc#173
Posted: 6/25/14 at 3:14pmI think I must be the only person who really doesn't care about "No More" being cut. I've always felt that the three ballads in a row is a bit too much even on stage, let alone in a movie.
Stand-by Joined: 9/29/04
Stephen Sondheim Inc#174
Posted: 6/25/14 at 9:36pm
I was really kind of hoping all this crazy ness would force Disney to release a trailer of some sort to say to the fans, "see! You will like it! We got Meryl!" No dice so far.
I think if the first teaser was kind of in line with the first Nine and Les Mis trailers,showing a bunch of images to one of the shows main songs (like a haunting version of Children Will Listen while the trailer highlights the darker nature of the story.. Won't happen, but it would be cool!)
Videos
