Remdiner Universal pushed back the film adaptation of Wicked for Cats

[Oldies m]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 7:09pm

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 

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 7:20pm

Never fear. You’ll get your turn to see your favorite musical ruined by Hollywood soon enough.

[NOWaWarning]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 7:32pm

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.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 7:36pm

Thanks for the remdiner.

[joevitus]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 7:42pm

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

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 8:35pm

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."

This is a bad attempt at humour, no?

[Synecdoche2]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 9:31pm

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.

[bdn223]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 9:36pm

Plannietink08 said: "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."

This is a bad attempt at humour, no?"

Even if it isn’t when we consider Disney’s Oz the Great and Powerful made $230million domestically and nearly $500 worldwide in 2013....and nearly every review referenced how “WICKED DID IT FIRST AND BETTER” ummm theres plenty of money to be made. Wicked’s issue when it comes to film, is the piece is innately theatrical, and I am guessing Holtzman is having issues writing a screenplay that contains the Schwartz show-stopping songs, but doesn’t loose momentum.    Neary every song in the score would easily fall into the “montage” music video criteria, which would hurt the film. Add to that the musical takes place over 30+ years, but primarily takes place over the course of a 4 year period, then time jumps 10 years in the second act. How does one explain this one film? 

[GoblinKing2]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 9:50pm

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...

[HanonO]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 10:42pm

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

I mean, Shrek the Musical was budgeted at 25 million and was pretty intricately designed for a stage show. That amount is practically nothing in cinema terms. 

[HanonO]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 10:45pm

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.

[veronicamae]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 11:33pm

Remdiner the Message Board Cat

[TheGingerBreadMan]

Posted: 12/31/19 at 1:32am

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.

[bear88]

Posted: 12/31/19 at 2:50am

I'm with TheGingerBreadMan here. I have no idea how successful a film adaption of Wicked will be. There are a variety of hurdles it will face. And the film adaptation of Cats appears to have suffered because it's a really bad adaptation of a musical that seems impossible to adapt in the first place.

In the run-up to the Cats movie release, and even the aftermath, the argument was always that the stage musical was a worldwide phenomenon that had been a runaway hit for years despite critics' derision. Wicked is somewhat similar. Many critics and people on this board don't like it either,

There are three major differences. The first: Cats was a stage smash from the 1980s. Despite its impressive run, it's old. The show certainly still has its fans, but it's not a phenomenon anymore. It's an old show. The Broadway revival didn't last long. (In fairness, most revivals don't.) Wicked has been a smash hit since it opened and is still running now, on Broadway and on tours. That gives it a better chance.

Second, Wicked is based on one of the most beloved and well-known movies in history. Almost everyone has seen The Wizard of Oz at some point in their lives.  Cats is based on... how do you explain to the average moviegoer what it's even about? 

Third, Wicked has an obvious target market: women, certainly those familiar with the stage musical but including those who aren't. It's a female-centered story that has a different take on a familiar tale. It's one of my younger daughter's favorite shows. My wife likes it too. Cats' target market was "people who liked the stage musical." That's it. And when the word of mouth was awful, even those people decided to skip it. 

Again, I'm not predicting the Wicked film, whenever it's made, will be successful. But it is much easier to sell to the moviegoing public.

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 12/31/19 at 8:16am

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. 

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 12/31/19 at 10:11am

Honestly, I'd prefer Hollywood slow down with these musical adaptations. They have generally been pretty poorly done. I can't imagine WICKED will be a good film. It will be better than CATS, because it has a conventional plot and doesn't involve anthropomorphic cats, but I don't think it will be much of an artistic/critical success unless they get a director with great fondness for the material and a good vision with a great cast. As it stands, we'll probably get a star-studded, artistically muddled film.

There really hasn't been good stage-to-screen transfer in the last decade. CHICAGO and HAIRSPRAY were pretty much the last decent adaptations, IMO.

[bdn223]

Posted: 12/31/19 at 11:27am

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. 

[ChgoTheatreGuy]

Posted: 12/31/19 at 12:57pm

I think that ditching half of the score to the show would be a major plus to the film.  After seeing the stage show numerous times, there are two many songs that were "bathroom break" songs for me.  The biggest issue that I observed was that most people thought that the show was another musical version of "The Wizard of Oz" and would leave at the intermission because they hadn't seen the Tin Man, Scarecrow or Lion.  My biggest worry about the film is casting, I know that Idina and Kristen are way too old to play the parts, but I don't want Lea or Ariana in the film.  I think that a real actress that can sing would definitely be preferred...

[dangeresque49]

Posted: 1/1/20 at 12:35am

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. 

[dangeresque49]

Posted: 1/1/20 at 12:38am

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. 

[sabrelady]

Posted: 1/1/20 at 1:58am

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.

[bdn223]

Posted: 1/1/20 at 11:15am

sabrelady said: "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 creatingcharacters, ( Starlight Express?) Add in the " star power" of the cast and I think they saw glory AND money. Irresistible."

If I had to suspect it was Webber who actually pushed for the movie to get mad. He likely already had Swift, Hudson, Corden, and McKellan lined up when he pitched the movie. If I really had to bet the film was green-lit for 3 reasons:

1. Hooper had a “proven” track record with musicals due to Les Miserables. Although it should be pointed out constantly that Cats is a dansical and on of the biggest criticisms of Les Miz was that it was all close up shots, which cause the revolution to loose much of its heft, as well as killing any chemistry we saw between the actors. 
2. Cats is “beloved” classic musical from the 80’s that was a worldwide phenomenon, and much like every other musical released in the past 5 years it should be an easy play come awards season.
3. TAYLOR SWIFT- she may not have proven herself as an actress with both of the 2 films she’s previously appeared in flopping, neither was solely sold on her let alone aligned with her brands so perfectly. She’s the best selling artist of her generation, and the best selling artist of the past 20 years spread across 6 albums. Cats seemed to perfectly align with her brand as its well know among her fanbase that she has a  cats obsession. 

Unfortunately for executives the musical opened to reviews that no audience member could ignore. Its not as if reviews didn’t like the film, they actively hated it. 

Updated On: 1/1/20 at 11:15 AM

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 1/1/20 at 6:07pm

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. 

[n2nbaby]

Posted: 1/1/20 at 6:40pm

I’ve been thinking that Cynthia Erivo could be a good screen Elphaba. People are starting to recognize her thanks to Harriet and is about to become a (likely) two time Oscar nominee. Cast her in the lead, build the rest with celebs that people will get excited for.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/2/20 at 11:00am

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.