Posted: 12/23/17 at 6:39pm
Posted: 12/23/17 at 7:06pm
Posted: 12/23/17 at 7:26pm
I personally think Into the Woods has a solid 10-20 years before we can even think about a revival. As great a show as it is, it does not have a place on Broadway right now.
In a world where we have many great revival currently running, and some more soon to be, unless there is some amazing casting or staging, I could see just getting totally destroyed.
Especially in a world with Wicked, many tourists (especially with children) looking at a wicked-into the woods esq. show, will almost certainly favor flashy 21st Wicked over a 1980's Sondheim show, as unfortunate as that may be.
Posted: 12/24/17 at 12:40am
10-20 years??? The 2014 movie was quite successful and made 213 million in the worldwide box office. I think there would certainly be enough interest in a full scale Broadway revival.
Posted: 12/24/17 at 12:46am
Posted: 12/24/17 at 11:39am
It is inconceivable to me that we will see a new revival in the next decade. The last major one lost its investment (one of the reasons cited was that it was too soon after the original). Anyone who needed their fix got one two years ago in the well-reviewed off-Broadway production. Any new attempt would result in financial failure. Except for a small group of people on this board (and similar ones not on the board), most people are not going to see Into the Woods multiple times).
I have to admit that I am always amused when this topic comes up. As a composer / lyricist, Into the Wood may be Sondheim's second biggest hit, after the wildly different Forum; however, it still only ran for around 700 - 750 performances (not a bad run), and struggled at the box office for a sizable portion of that run. As we all know, despite being incredible, he has never been super commercial. I remember years ago, right after ALNM opened at the Shubert, the producers moved it to the much larger Majestic to take advantage of the spectacular reviews, which was a huge mistake; in addition to getting lost in the Majestic, it turned out that the lion's share of the typical Broadway audience for musicals did not actually like ALNM (too sophisticated for them, no dancing).
Leading to my conclusion that a revival of Into the Woods, no matter how well received, would be a financial disaster, unless of course, Meryl Streep decided to reprise her role from the movie, and Emily Blunt and James Corden and Chris Pine, but it would close three weeks after their replacements came in.
Posted: 12/24/17 at 6:17pm
Personally, if I were investing I'd think an Into the Woods revival would have a better chance of turning a profit than almost any other Sondheim property right now. It's a very, very well known musical, it hasn't been on Broadway for a long time (I guess there was that off-Broadway production but that was a different beast), thanks to the Disney movie it probably has a more expanded reach into the general public/families than ever before (and ideally it would be produced with the Disney name), plus the show has a good opportunity to have some interesting casting choices. For example, a LuPone witch - or a Bernadette Peters Glenn Close-style reprisal.
Posted: 12/24/17 at 7:21pm
In the last revival I saw (at the Ahmanson
a year or two ago), the central character
was Milky White.
Maybe it's time we let ITW rest awhile.
Posted: 12/24/17 at 9:26pm
Bernadette reviving her role would be super interesting to see play out.
We can see with Glenn and Sunset, that even though her performance was considered a great by many, and got her a tony, that the revival didn't do particularly well, add on top of that that Glenn Close is likely more of a house hold name over Bernadette.
It would be big in the theater world, but I'm afraid it would have a underwhelming outcome, and I think that ITW should wait until the environment is that in which it could succeed.
Posted: 12/24/17 at 10:12pm
ljay889 said: "10-20 years??? The 2014 movie was quite successful and made 213 million in the worldwide box office. I think there would certainly be enough interest in a full scale Broadway revival."
The movie was very different from the stage show. Songs were cut, the timeline was rearranged, and Rapunzel's fate was very different. Anyone going to a revival of the stage show having seen the movie, but unaware of the changes, would be pretty shocked I think. They might not like the stage version, it's MUCH darker.
Posted: 12/25/17 at 2:39am
The movie was absolutely not pure trash. You can say you had issues with it, but Meryl killed "Last Midnight" and Emily Blunt did a nuanced "Moments in the Woods" and "Agony" was hysterical. The entire cast did their Sondheim homework brought their a game and it showed admirably.
There are WAY MORE musical movie adaptations I would call trash before Into the Woods.
Updated On: 12/25/17 at 02:39 AM
Posted: 12/25/17 at 3:28am
Posted: 12/25/17 at 3:53am
Posted: 12/25/17 at 7:27am
The only way I want to see a revival is if we can go back in time and do this...
Posted: 12/25/17 at 10:07am
Posted: 12/25/17 at 10:34am
Jordan Catalano said: "Meryl can do anything. Except sing. Using her real singing voice in this was only one of the two thousand missteps made with that film. "
Really? I thought she sounded great. I was surprised because I hadn't really liked her voice in Mamma Mia, but I thought she sounded shockingly good in Into the Woods, especially her Last Midnight. Oddly enough, Anna Kendrick, the actress with the most vocal experience, gave the worst performance, IMO.
Posted: 12/25/17 at 10:35am
Posted: 12/25/17 at 12:08pm
Posted: 12/25/17 at 3:42pm
Jordan Catalano said: "Meryl can do anything. Except sing. Using her real singing voice in this was only one of the two thousand missteps made with that film."
But did they? If I listen to "Stay With Me" or "Last Midnight" there are vast improvements over her attempt to 'sing' in Mamma Mia - I don't know if it's been totally debunked but I kind of buy the idea that Donna Murphy might have been spliced in for certain sections.
Posted: 12/26/17 at 12:50pm
Jordan Catalano said: "The movie was trash. Pure trash."
All a matter of taste. I enjoyed it much more than I did the show. To be more explicit, I actually enjoyed it, whereas I have seen the show only three times, but I have begun to hate it all three times about halfway through Act 1. I know it is sacrilege, but I did not like the score, and totally hate the repetition of the title number.
I enjoyed the score more in the movie (I have always assumed some filler songs were eliminated, some repetitious refrains of the title theme were probably eliminated, but I don't actually know, since I never even purchased the case recording).
Posted: 12/26/17 at 1:28pm
Bernadette reviving her role would be super interesting to see play out.
Why? You can watch the DVD thousands of times and it will most likely be better than watching her play the role in her 70s.
Posted: 12/26/17 at 1:39pm
Posted: 12/26/17 at 2:01pm
With Joanna Gleason as the Witch.
Posted: 12/26/17 at 2:08pm
Mister Matt said: "Bernadette reviving her role would be super interesting to see play out.
Why? You can watch the DVD thousands of times and it will most likely be better than watching her play the role in her 70s."
I was referring to how it would help a potential revival in terms of the box office.
Updated On: 12/26/17 at 02:08 PM
