New Poll: Should INTO THE WOODS Move to Broadway After Its Central Park Run?

[nrosky]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 10:28am

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 10:43am

I'd vote yes if they got rid of that ridiculous child narrator.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 11:06am

Yes as long as O'Hare is replaced and Adams gets a lot better.

[dreaming]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 11:07am

henrik-I think one may hinge on the other in that statement. (Just my opinion, of course.)

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 11:23am

Sorry - this is a ridiculous poll but I'll vote out of curiosity. This is like going into a buffet and asking a fat person if the food is good.

On another thread someone explained that those who love Sondheim and Into The Woods will certainly run to see it. Then after that rush who will be left go? This is similar to Follies a few months back.

I hope it transfers just to see what happens. If it doesn't transfer we will never know either way but I've stated my position.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 11:26am

I love Sondheim and INTO THE WOODS is my favorite show.

But will I rush to see this again? Nah. Not unless they change it BACK to the perfection it was before all this tinkering was done.

[hyperbole_and_a_half]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 11:26am

Finally got to see it. The central gimmick here is that the show takes place outside. I can't imagine that set fitting inside any but the largest Broadway houses and I don't think this revival could fill all those seats. Most negative notices have been about the casting and costumes so they'd have to address those as well...

So, in order to transfer, they'd have to redesign, recast, re-rehearse and recostume the show--in short, we're not talking about a transfer, we're talking about a brand new production. I don't think that's going to happen.

[Holster2]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 1:11pm

I agree with hyperbole, but I do think it will happen. I will not be shocked if there is a spring transfer. They will have to redesign the set, but two of the central complaints in the reviews from what I see is about the big/crazy set and the too busy and unfocused choreography. Scaling the set down would help simplify the choreography, presumably. I have seen the show twice now, and I think it would benefit from a few changes to reign it in a little.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 1:40pm

This is like going into a buffet and asking a fat person if the food is good.

I don't really think it is, but okay.

[macnyc]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 1:42pm

I'm not a Sondheim expert by any means, but I think Follies is a much better show, and the recent incarnation was a much better production too.

[tazber]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 1:45pm

ETA:
I don't know why there is a post from me here. All I did was vote.

Weird.

Updated On: 8/10/12 at 01:45 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 2:22pm

So, in order to transfer, they'd have to redesign, recast, re-rehearse and recostume the show--in short, we're not talking about a transfer, we're talking about a brand new production.

Perfectly stated. If they do all that then I would support a "transfer" of sorts.

[tazber]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 2:38pm

I haven't seen it so I can't comment, but weren't most of the reviews favorable?

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 4:36pm

Would only want it to transfer if it's a vastly different production than what's currently playing.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 4:36pm

People are hesitant now because they realize that while he's in the minority among critics, Brantley actually hit the nail on the head and said exactly why this production isn't completely successful.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 6:11pm

Dreaming, O'Hare's departure is no doubt necessary for Adams to get it right. I'm not entirely sure it's sufficient.

Updated On: 8/10/12 at 06:11 PM

[IdinaBellFoster]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 7:44pm

Brantley also echoed what many suggested: Mueller and Adams should switch roles.

I personally think they both fit very well where they've been placed, but Adams would play much stronger as Cinderella.

Updated On: 8/10/12 at 07:44 PM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 8:51pm

For once, I whole heartedly agree with Brantley's review, word for word!

ETA: The Public Theatre's transfers usually don't vary greatly from what we see in the park.

Updated On: 8/10/12 at 08:51 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 9:12am

I would love to see Mueller stay as Cinderella and either that Adams, whom I still think could be stellar, completely shift what she's doing (and have her look in the role majorly altered), or see what someone else would do with the role.

There is no practical way Adams would switch to Cinderella. It might possibly be unlikely she would have taken the role to begin with, but to switch roles would probably be more awkward than to be replaced, which could always be chocked up to her unavailability.

And I love what Mueller is doing.

I also love this production apart from Adams and O'Hare. The center of the show is hollow from the Baker and his Wife's constuming to their bombing in terms of chemistry, warmth, charm, stage presence, vocally for O'Hare, and, in Adams case, shockingly, even her inability to deliver an honest, original, non-obvious, non-mundane gesture. I may be in the minority, but I think everything else and everyone else in this production is splendid. And I am extremely surprised that Murphy wasn't better reviewed.

If they want a big Broadway star for the Baker's wife, replace her with McDonald, York, Noll or O'Hara.

If they want a big (or somewhat big) overall name, there are other choices: Cotillard, Witherspoon, Ambrose (who would be a brilliant Cinderella by the way), Winslet, Weisz or, "more than anything!" Collette!











Updated On: 8/12/12 at 09:12 AM

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 12:35pm

"I love Sondheim and INTO THE WOODS is my favorite show."

Oh, Brother! Oh! Mr. Meadowbrook! O! Oysters!

"But will I rush to see this again? Nah. Not unless they change it BACK to the perfection it was before all this tinkering was done."

Funny, it's Oh, Kay!, it's OK by them to make mincemeat of our beloved fairy tales. But to dare tinker with this masterpiece? No, No, Nanette!

Serves 'em right.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 12:42pm

I swear, if you existed, I'd divorce you.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 1:15pm

Kad, marry me!

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 1:57pm

I love you for quoting that, Kad. Was just saying it to someone yesterday.

[Quiche2]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 5:14pm

I agree with Jordan's first comment, I'm only saying no because of that stupid 12 year old narrator. Please go back to an old man, please.

[RainbowJude]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 11:10pm

I voted no. This concept has had its moment in the sun and that a move to Broadway would be pointless, particularly given that this production is designed to play outdoors and appear as if the whole thing is an extension of the park itself. (I would not mind seeing the filmed version of the production as it played in Regent's Park released to DVD/Blu-Ray. I'm a bit over watching it on the computer. And although I have not seen the show in Central Park, everything looks a great deal less effective than it did in its parent production.)

Jordan and Quiche, I don't mind the idea of a child narrator per se, but I do not like the idea of having the second act be his nightmare to justify not killing him. If you're going to have a child narrator, have the guts to kill him off so that the show actually gains resonance from what is already there in the show thematically rather than from a framework that is more tacky than it is effective, and more redemptive than it deserves to be.

Updated On: 8/11/12 at 11:10 PM