Universal's WICKED Films - News & Discussion Thread- Page 49

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/24/24 at 9:55pm

DramaTeach said: "I know everyone is concerned about Kristin Chenoweth and Idina Menzel having cameos, but I’m more interested in seeing Joel Grey. The man is 91 and I’d love to see him have one last hurrah in the movie. I don’t know if he’s capable of traveling to London for the shoot, but I hope it happens."

I doubt he will, and I double doubt that he cares. The man has had a second (or third) wind so good that originating a lead role in the biggest musical of the 2000s barely registers. His so-called twilight years have seen him not only become one of the world’s most acclaimed boudoir photographers, but turn a foreign language production of a musical into an unlikely international success. 

Whatever Joel Grey sees at night when he closes his eyes, it’s certainly not Wicked.

[uncageg]

Posted: 1/24/24 at 10:31pm

DramaTeach said: "I know everyone is concerned about Kristin Chenoweth and Idina Menzel having cameos, but I’m more interested in seeing Joel Grey. The man is 91 and I’d love to see him have one last hurrah in the movie. I don’t know if he’s capable of traveling to London for the shoot, but I hope it happens."

 

I interacted with him a lot in 2019. Unless something has happened between then and now, I'd say he is more than ok to make the trip. The man was so full of energy. He was 86/87 at the time and I had no clue he was in his 80's.

 

[BwayLB]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 1:47am

^ I hope so too. It’s making me wish the Pantages engagement can come sooner before the movie! I’ve been overdue to revisit the stage version for a while.

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 10:04am

Who is going to pay money to see a Wicked film that doesn't feature Defying Gravity?

 

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 10:24am

rattleNwoolypenguin said: "Who is going to pay money to see a Wicked film that doesn't feature Defying Gravity?

"

Huh?  Are you talking about Part II?  Because DG ends Part I - it's literally the reason they cited for breaking the movie into two parts.  

 

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 1:31pm

Rentaholic2 said: "rattleNwoolypenguin said: "Who is going to pay money to see a Wicked film that doesn't feature Defying Gravity?

"

Huh? Are you talking about Part II? Because DG ends Part I - it's literally the reason they cited for breaking the movie into two parts.

"

That is exactly what I mean. Part II is not going to have Defying Gravity. So what big set piece are the audiences showing up for in Part II?

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 1:32pm

The film wraps filming tomorrow. Wow. It'll all be in the can! I'm really hoping for some footage soon.

[QueenTwinnied]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 2:27pm

rattleNwoolypenguin said: "Rentaholic2 said: "rattleNwoolypenguin said: "Who is going to pay money to see a Wicked film that doesn't feature Defying Gravity?

"

Huh? Are you talking about Part II? Because DG ends Part I - it's literally the reason they cited for breaking the movie into two parts.

"

That is exactly what I mean. Part II is not going to have Defying Gravity. So what big set piece are the audiences showing up for in Part II?"

This honesty makes no sense. Do you see people walking out of Wicked at intermission because there isn’t a “big set piece” in act II? 

[Janaenae]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 2:59pm

Forgive me if I'm mistaken but I'm pretty sure people go to movies they feel a personal investment in. I don't think everyone is going in with the sole motivation of watching 1 musical number. People might care about hmm... the story? The characters? The friendship? The beautiful set pieces and costumes? 

I think it's weird to assume the only audience draw is Defying Gravity. I have my doubts about a two-parter sure, but it has nothing to do with the placement of a song. I worry that it'll drag the story and that it will fail to properly flesh out Act II in an interesting way. Anyway, who wants to bet on a Superbowl appearance? I think Oscars is more likely. 

[Fosse76]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 3:00pm

QueenTwinnied said: "rattleNwoolypenguin said: "Rentaholic2 said: "rattleNwoolypenguin said: "Who is going to pay money to see a Wicked film that doesn't feature Defying Gravity?

"

Huh? Are you talking about Part II? Because DG ends Part I - it's literally the reason they cited for breaking the movie into two parts.

"

That is exactly what I mean. Part II is not going to have Defying Gravity. So what big set piece are the audiences showing up for in Part II?"

This honesty makes no sense. Do you see people walking out of Wicked at intermission because there isn’t a “big set piece” in act II?"

I think you'd be surprised at the number of people who ask if it's over, at intermission. Even Harry Potter 7 part 1 had the courtesy not to ask audiences wait a full year before part 2.

If people don't like part 1, they aren't coming back for part 2.

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 3:22pm

QueenTwinnied said: "rattleNwoolypenguin said: "Rentaholic2 said: "rattleNwoolypenguin said: "Who is going to pay money to see a Wicked film that doesn't feature Defying Gravity?

"

Huh? Are you talking about Part II? Because DG ends Part I - it's literally the reason they cited for breaking the movie into two parts.

"

That is exactly what I mean. Part II is not going to have Defying Gravity. So what big set piece are the audiences showing up for in Part II?"

This honesty makes no sense. Do you see people walking out of Wicked at intermission because there isn’t a “big set piece” in act II?"

No, nobody is leaving at intermission because that ONE ticket buys them the ability to see the entire story that night. 

Whereas with the movie you are buying a ticket to see half of a musical that features the most famous song in that first half and they're asking millions of people to wait and buy another ticket to go back for Act Two a year later and see the rest of the musical that now does not feature the most famous song the show is known for.

 

 

 

[QueenTwinnied]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 4:23pm

I think you seriously overestimate how much the general public cares about Defying Gravity, especially when they probably don’t know who Cynthia Erivo is and the flying effect will be a lot of CGI. If Part 1 is good, people will come back to see the story finished and Ariana Grande stans are gonna see both parts regardless 

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 4:51pm

I have friends who saw WICKED on Broadway last week and had zero idea a film version was being made. Diehard fans of the show and those of us who follow this type of news are aware of the upcoming film. The mainstream masses are not only unaware of this WICKED thing but also that this film version will be in 2 parts. I’m sure many will go see the first part and never even see the second part. 

[willep]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 5:02pm

lol I imagine if people see the promos for Wicked, they will see the promos for Wicked 2. Not to mention their will almost certainly be a “to be continued” at the end of part one.

[Janaenae]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 6:54pm

This is such a genuinely weird debate. I don't know what the point really is. The marketing will definitely tell people who at this point have no reason to know anything, that it's a two-parter. It's 10 months away and they haven't released a teaser, so there's way to tell what the general audience is thinking. And so what if audiences don't show up for the 2nd movie? The 1st one will probably cover the costs of both films and if it's good, fans will still get to enjoy it regardless. 

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 9:16pm

rattleNwoolypenguin said: "No, nobody is leaving at intermission because that ONE ticket buys them the ability to see the entire story that night.

Whereas with the movie you are buying a ticket to see half of a musical that features the most famous song in that first half and they're asking millions of people to wait and buy another ticket to go back for Act Two a year later and see the rest of the musical that now does not feature the most famous song the show is known for."

Are you familiar with the films The Lord of the Rings? Yeah...

And it's not like they're asking anybody to take out a second mortgage to see part 2? It's $15. One would imagine Wicked Part 1 and Part 2 would not simply be that. There will be resolutions and new questions raised with the finale of Part 1. It will be a sequel. It is not just cutting the Broadway show in half and releasing it a year apart. You know that, stop acting foolish. 

If just as many people see Part 2 as they do Part 1? Then great! But I assure you, Universal is not banking on that for it to be a success. 





"

 

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 1/25/24 at 9:54pm

I mean, I could see the case where if Part 1 doesn't live up to expectations, a lot of people will "give up" on Part 2, so by splitting it into two movies, it does sort of add pressure to Part 1 to make people want to come back.  And it definitely depends on how exactly they end Part 1, but I could see audiences unfamiliar with the show thinking that it's a fairly decent stopping point--we see Elphaba's disagreement with Glinda/the rest of society and choosing to go here own way.  yes a lot of things are left unresolved, but open-ended conclusions are faiirly common now and unless the audience member is particularly interested in continuing the arc of where Elphaba goes from there, I could see them just saying "meh" and skipping Part 2.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 1/26/24 at 8:59am

I do think think the full year in between the two films is not a wise idea. A year is a long time, and while it gives time for excitement to build if part one is truly great, but if it is anything less than great, it will give everyone time to pick apart its flaws and build up a sense of indifference for part two. If they were releasing part two in the summer, part one will have recently stopped playing in the smaller secondary markets, it wouldn't have as much time to settle and build up as much negative energy if it is anything less than perfect.

[Globefan]

Posted: 1/26/24 at 2:27pm

Filming just wrapped 

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 1/26/24 at 2:42pm

jimmycurry01 said: "I do think think the full year in between the two films is not a wise idea. A year is a long time, and while it gives time for excitement to build if part one is truly great, but if it is anything less than great, it will give everyone time to pick apart its flaws and build up a sense of indifference for part two. If they were releasing part two in the summer, part one will have recently stopped playing in the smaller secondary markets, it wouldn't have as much time to settle and build up as much negative energy if it is anything less than perfect."

A year is not a long time between film sequels, especially when there's been 12 years between Avatars, 2.5 years between Dunes, 3.5 years between SpiderVerses...etc. The year between also allows for WOM to build on streaming after it's in theaters. Don't want to oversaturate the market with Wickeds. It also sets up something of a tradition - "we saw Wicked with the family last Thanksgiving, let's do the same again this year."

There's also the matter of VFX, editing, ADR, incidental scoring, and other post-production tasks. Sure they were able to do some stuff during the strike hiatus, but they're going to be working at breakneck speed just to get Part 1 ready for test-screenings (and then further editing) and ready to go by Thanksgiving (or earlier if it plays a film festival). And then immediately on to Part 2. The response from Part 1 could also theoretically allow for reshoots, retooling, fixing effects, etc. for things that get a poor response in the first film.

You don't want this to be a CATS situation where the VFX were barely done by the time the DCPs were delivered.

What's crazier is this Kevin Costner Western "saga" at WB, Horizon, which he independently financed and is releasing Part 1 on June 28 and Part 2 on August 16.

Updated On: 1/26/24 at 02:42 PM

[Globefan]

Posted: 1/28/24 at 3:41pm

Kerry Ellis will make an appearance in the movie. She commented under Jon Chu's IG post saying that it was great to be included. 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 1/28/24 at 3:57pm

The exact comment from Kerry:

“Very exciting xx thank you again for having us be part of this x”

Curious to know who “us” is. Other former wicked cast members, perhaps?

[Globefan]

Posted: 1/28/24 at 6:43pm

Call_me_jorge said: "The exact comment from Kerry:

“Very exciting xx thank you again for having us be part of this x”

Curious to know who “us” is. Other former wicked cast members, perhaps?"

Kerry was my first Elphaba on Broadway. 

[James885]

Posted: 1/28/24 at 8:10pm

ErmengardeStopSniveling said:

A year is not a long time between film sequels, especially when there's been 12 years between Avatars, 2.5 years between Dunes, 3.5 years between SpiderVerses...etc. The year between also allows for WOM to build on streaming after it's in theaters. Don't want to oversaturate the market with Wickeds. It also sets up something of a tradition - "we saw Wicked with the family last Thanksgiving, let's do the same again this year."

I'm honestly very curious to see the marketing roll-out for this one. I was (and still am) skeptical of their decision to split it into two movies. Felt like a risky move and seems even more risky now that movie theater attendance has been so erratic lately, with people really only turning out in droves for big 'event' movies.

It feels like the marketing department really's gonna have their work cut out to make this a must-see-in-theaters cinematic event like Barbenheimer, Dune, Avengers, or Across The Spider-Verse. And then they have to sustain that interest another year so that the people are invested enough to turn out again. I think that's a tall order for a non-comic book movie these days (for example, look at Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part 1 & Fast X part 1, two giant bombs from last summer).

I guess you could point to Dune as a good example of a two-parter non-comic book movie succeeding this way, although I would argue that splitting Dune was out of necessity and was definitely the right call, and also those movies have a much more star-studded cast than the Wicked movie does.
 

Updated On: 1/28/24 at 08:10 PM

[TBFL]

Posted: 1/29/24 at 3:34am

Splitting the film in 2 is purely for money making reasons, but as people have mentioned, it's also a huge risk because people might not come back for part 2, if the first one isn't any good.

There isn't a huge amount of difference from the stage to screen version. There are a few bits of back story, such as the film starting at Kiamo Ko in a flashback. Some scenes are added to fill in gaps, such as Elphaba, Glinda and Fiyero travelling from Shiz to Oz, on a huge Orient Express type train. Fiyero is now part of One Short Day,  There are dance breaks added in places (there are some amazing scenes in the Govs. Mansion!) , some new teachers at the school to expand the animals storyline and of course the two new songs in part 2, 1 each for Glinda and Elphaba. Info about the songs are in the spoilers, along with the Idina and Kristin cameis.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Glinda's song is a ballad called 'The Girl In The Bubble' and Elphaba gets a song called 'There's No Place Like Home' which is sung when she is banished from returning home and a great tie in to the original Wizard of Oz.film.

The cameo's for Idina and Kristin are in One Short Day and they play actors in the Wizomania cast.

There's no major new storylines that I recall. As Long As Your Mine is shot in a massive birds nest type set, high up in the trees. The sets are spectacular and the details in the sets and costumes are insane.

I am looking forward to seeing the film, when they have the cast and crew screenings before it's released in November, though some lucky folks will likely see test screenings before that.