Remdiner Universal pushed back the film adaptation of Wicked for Cats

Reminder we were supposed to get the film adaptation of Wicked this year but they deiced to push it back 2 years in favor of cats



Who ever did that was an idiot

Who cares? Wicked has been a big hit in the small community of people who like to go to the theater, for about a decade. Cats has been a big hit internationally with even people who hate theater and generally never go to any show, for about thirty years. Of course Wicked was put on hold for Cats.

Doesn't mean Wicked won't get made. Doesn't even mean it won't get made soon. But from a potential box office standpoint, it's very easy to see why Universal put Cats first.

My guess is, they had a better chance of Cats making money than Wicked, no matter how bad the former or how good the latter ends up being. There are just far more people who have loved Cats for far longer (not saying they should--just pointing to reality). Even a very good adaptation of Wicked will likely flop, whereas even a really bad version of Cats probably looked like easy money.

And Universal doesn't care about art or even just good entertainment. Universal cares about profit.

Updated On: 12/30/19 at 07:42 PM

I think that it's fair to say that Wicked is just as much of a hit as Cats historically, and much more so right now.

NOWaWarning said: "If Wicked was ready to go, they wouldn’t have pushed it back. Don’t put too much stock into its alleged 2021 release date either. They seem to be in no hurry."

I agree. As long as the producers continue to print money with the current productions and tours, they probably feel no need to bankroll an expensive special effects laden competitive product that has no guarantee of turning a profit. What would a properly produced spectacle cost? $150-200 million before marketing? Cats spent almost $100 million and by all accounts didn’t even look finished. And with movies needing to make 2-2 1/2 times cost to recoup, it would probably need to make half a billion dollar gross at a minimum, as well as risk damaging the brand if it turns out to be a dud. Admittedly I’m risk adverse, but if I were an exec I wouldn’t be in a hurry to pull that trigger. Frankly, I wonder if an animated version in the style of Frozen might be more appropriate anyway...

I'm almost of the mind that they should just professionally film the original cast on stage (or perhaps an original staged version with their choice of cast/director/designers) and then do a limited theatrical release in theatre-friendly cities once the and release wide on streaming/DVD.

I mean, Wicked onstage was budgeted at 14 million. That amount is practically nothing in cinema terms. Even Shrek at 25 million onstage is pocket change for a movie.

joevitus said: "Who cares? Wickedhas been a big hit in the small community of people who like to go to the theater,for about a decade. Cats has been a big hit internationally with even people who hate theater and generally never go to any show,for about thirty years.Of courseWicked was put on hold for Cats.

Doesn't mean Wicked won't get made. Doesn't even mean it won't get made soon. But from a potential box office standpoint, it's very easy to see why Universal put Cats first.

My guess is, they had a better chance of Cats making money than Wicked, no matter how bad the former or how good the latter ends up being. There are just far more people who have loved Cats for far longer (not saying they should--just pointing to reality). Even a very good adaptation of Wicked will likely flop, whereas even a really bad version of Cats probably looked like easy money.

And Universal doesn't care about art or even just good entertainment. Universal cares about profit."



I'm going to disagree with just about all of this.

First and foremost, Wicked is not simply a hit in a "small community". It's a worldwide phenomenon and has been for close to two decades (not one, as you stated). I would argue that Wicked is one of the most well-known musicals among people who are not regular theatre goers. It's an instantly recognizable name and people across the world know and love it. There's a reason why it's spent 16 years consistently being one of the top grossers every week (and still going strong) and has spawned multiple international productions and tours.

While Cats was certainly also a massive hit around the world, I do not believe that it has the same mass appeal and level of recognition as Wicked outside the theatre world. Sure, in our "small community", as you would put it, Cats could be considered the bigger success on stage, but in terms of marketing and generating interest among the movie-going public (which is a much larger and very different demographic than the theatre-going public), are people going to be more inclined to see an acid-fueled CGI nightmare of cats dancing and singing about who's going to be reborn, or will they want to see beloved, age-old characters in a prequel to one of the most adored movies of all time?

Regardless of what the actual quality turns out to be, I can nearly guarantee that when the film adaptation of Wicked is released, it will do far better than Cats (I predict both financially and critically), and Universal will be kicking themselves for thinking that ALW's fever dream was a higher priority.

I actually don't think Wicked is too theatrical to be adapted. I hope they don't go too CGI with things like Defying Gravity but it seems fairly easy to re-stage things to be more cinematic instead of playing out to the audience. I feel like the real problem is that a lot of the songs are duds but you don't want to alienate the audience that is expecting them. Examples: Dancing Through Life, Dear Old Shiz, Something Bad, A Sentimental Man, I'm Not That Girl (which isn't the worst but has some very bad lyrics). "I wasn't born for the rose and pearl." Look into your heart. You know I'm right.

VintageSnarker said: "I actually don't think Wicked is too theatrical to be adapted. I hope they don't go too CGI with things like Defying Gravity but it seems fairly easy to re-stage things to be more cinematic instead of playing out to the audience. I feel like the real problem is that a lot of the songs are duds but you don't want to alienate the audience that is expecting them. Examples: Dancing Through Life, Dear Old Shiz, Something Bad, A Sentimental Man, I'm Not That Girl (which isn't the worst but has some very bad lyrics). "I wasn't born for the rose and pearl." Look into your heart. You know I'm right."


I agree and Wicked will likely fall into the Grease category of musicals adaptations that truly adapts the musical for the film and drops half of the score. In reality they only need to include No one Mourns the Wicked, What is this Feeling, Wizard and I, Popular, One Short Day, Defying Gravity, As Long as Your Mine, No Good Deed, and For Good to appease fans. This is basically half the score, of which the only song that will be semi tricky will be No One Mourns the Wicked as half of the song is a framing device which is hard to adapt to screen and the other half is pure exposition which is just as difficult to adapt. In essence though this would very much lopsided the score in that the first half are classical musical theater numbers and then we have 3 back to back power ballads for Elphaba. Schwartz will likely have to write at least one new song for Glinda in the second half to replace Thank Goodness, that is more on the nose with her transition from Galinda to Glinda where she actually realizes shes in the wrong.


The other sticking point Wicked has thats a negative compared to other recent adaptations is that its more of a two hander instead of an ensemble piece. Yes Fiyero, Madame Morrible, Boq, and Nesarose all have solos in larger ensemble songs, the former two do technically also have duets. Nearly all these parts outside of As Long as Your Mine are relatively inconsequential to moving the plot forward and can much more easily be accomplished through dialogue, then song. Then the Wizard’s song’s are ummm the score’s “Henry Street”s that I honestly can’t imagine any director in their right mind leaving in the film. Therefore since outside of the upcoming In the Heights, and West Side Story adaptions, all adaptations have been sold on A List (or in Cats is case A and B list) ensembles, which you can’t hire if you don’t have parts they want to play.
Thus based on what I said above Wicked will require a lot of reworking to make even a decent film adaptation. Thus we have had the delays...Holzman still hasn’t turned in a script the studio has found suitable enough to formalize casting yet. Then add to that after the disaster the is Cats as an SFX driven musical I am sure any ideas of using SFX to simplify the film’s production have been thrown out. I am sure that if they cast someone along the lines of an Ariana Grande as Elphaba, she would of demanded a CGI green instead of spending 8 hours in makeup akin to Jennifer Lawrence in recent Xmen films, but they are likely rethinking this now. If anything Cats has reaffirmed is that people prefer practical costumes over CGI whenever possible, which effects a good quarter of the shows characters that would be in the film.

I have no idea how anyone would pay a bunch of money to see Wicked to leave at intermission. I don't think that actually is a thing.

The difference between Cats and Wicked can be summed up as Wicked has good material to work with and Cats does not. You can polish a turd and it's still a turd holds true. Cats is one of those shows that you just scratch your head and wonder how it ever lasted so long even after hearing the arguments for it.

I think universal execs just looked at the money Cats made as a show and went for it. They probably also thought they could tap into some sort of nostalgia thing since it's been a long time since most people have seen the show. I mean it is standard practice to green light a sequel to a bad movie just because the first made a ton of money.

I think universal execs just looked at the money Cats made as a show and went for it.

I think it's a bit more complex- I am sure the property was available at a good price( it is 30 years old) and Hooper sold them on it being the first CGI musical. Remember there are not many other musical shows that will lend themselves to special effects creating characters, ( Starlight Express ?) Add in the " star power" of the cast and I think they saw glory AND money. Irresistible.

Well, since you've been surprisingly accepting of my idea that they should really ditch like half the score of Wicked for a movie, I have to ask... should/can they write a better song for Fiyero than Dancing Through Life? There are a lot of pretty songs for male characters in musical theater. And I'm not saying it needs to be like "Where is the Life That Late I Led?" But Fiyero could butch it up a little. Even "Younger Than Springtime" works better.

Over their respective lifespans, Wicked has made FAR more money than Cats. I believe the #1 money-making musical is Lion King, followed in descending order by Phantom, Wicked, Cats, Les Mis, and Mamma Mia.