TheatreFan4 said: "BrodyFosse123 said: "TheatreFan4 said: "Because he had to get in that he worked on the movie which is like... really annoying and self important, like nobody cares bro. Lol."
Sad you choose to read into their posts this way as they never at any time boasted nor gave off a self-important tone. They simply provided facts of what they saw on location and nothing more. Their postings were/are not only informative but the closest to confirming details, like how the large train is actually just a shell and isn't detailed inside and that the yellow bricks were disappointingly just painted styrofoam. Stupid little basic details but genuine "insider" info. "
Gurl, I don't know if you are aware of this... but that's what film making is. You mean to tell me the inside of the train isn't where they filmed the interiors? Blowing my mind. His posts are very... obvious trivia. I don't begrudge him for his facts, I got annoyed by him snapping at another poster for making a separate thought that wasn't even related to any information he provided.
"Well I worked on the film!"
Like damn girl, settle down."
I hold my hands up and say that I misread the post i quoted.
"bwayobsessed said: "TBFL said: "They recorded many differnt takes for the end of DG. I imagine they'll use one that hasn't been heard in the trailers, so people will still be surprised by the ending."
Full credit for this thought goes to the Sentimental Men podcast (highly recommend).
Because I was quoted, I read that as meaning I just repeated what they said on the podcast, when In fact, it was relating to what they wrote after. A simple mistake.
Really nothing to get so annoyed over.
PS - the bricks are actually flimsy papier mache. Look out for them in the Wizards workroom set :)
BrodyFosse123 said: "TheatreFan4 said: "Because he had to get in that he worked on the movie which is like... really annoying and self important, like nobody cares bro. Lol."
Sad you choose to read into their posts this way as they never at any time boasted nor gave off a self-important tone. They simply provided facts of what they saw on location and nothing more. Their postings were/are not only informative but the closest to confirming details, like how the large train is actually just a shell and isn't detailed inside and that the yellow bricks were disappointingly just painted styrofoam. Stupid little basic details but genuine "insider" info."
DramaTeach said: "The ending of DG doesn’t have the same run in that one. Interesting."
Listening closely it sounds like there was an edit and noise reduction or some sort of filter added. It sounds slightly distorted in one part. It might have been to add an echo but it was definitely a noticeable filter.
This WICKED film adaptation is going to surpass the original 2003 Broadway stage production in the same way the 1965 film adaptation of R&H’s THE SOUND OF MUSIC surpassed its original 1959 Broadway stage production.
BrodyFosse123 said: "This WICKED film adaptation is going to surpass the original 2003 Broadway stage production in the same way the 1965 film adaptation of R&H’s THE SOUND OF MUSIC surpassed its original 1959 Broadway stage production."
I hope so. Other than West Side Story 2021 and arguably Chicago, it's rare to find a movie adaptation of a Broadway musical that's a big improvement over the stage version.
The more I see of this the more excited I am for this to be released. I’m someone e who thinks the stage show is mediocre at best, act one up till meeting the wizard is a deadly boring slog. Somehow the film looks way more interesting. Three months to go!
Well I didn't want to get into it, but he's a Satanist.
Every full moon he sacrifices 4 puppies to the Dark Lord and smears their blood on his paino.
This should help you understand the score for Wicked a little bit more.
Tazber's: Reply to
Is Stephen Schwartz a Practicing Christian
BrodyFosse123 said: "This WICKED film adaptation is going to surpass the original 2003 Broadway stage production in the same way the 1965 film adaptation of R&H’s THE SOUND OF MUSIC surpassed its original 1959 Broadway stage production."
I find both versions of TSOM equally beautiful. But there are some things I like done better in the movie.
Kad said: "I'm sure she has a plum line or moment, not unlike Chita in the Chicago movie."
Rob Marshall beautifully showcased Chita’s cameo in CHICAGO - from the character’s name Nickie (an homage to her role in Bob Fosse’s 1969 film adaptation of SWEET CHARITY, to her rolling up her stocking exactly how she wore it in the original 1975 Broadway production of CHICAGO).
Is there anything that even shows they are using the green glasses in the Emerald City? They weren’t used in Maguire's novel, and even in the Baum books they were dropped after the second one. So I get why they were part of Hilferty's design for the stage, but I also wouldn’t think twice if they weren’t an “everyone wears them” element in the movie.
AEA AGMA SM said: "Is there anything that even shows they are using the green glasses in the Emerald City? They weren’t used in Maguire's novel, and even in the Baum books they were dropped after the second one. So I get why they were part of Hilferty's design for the stage, but I also wouldn’t think twice if they weren’t an “everyone wears them” element in the movie."
In the stage show they wear green glasses, and there has been pictures from the movie where the pair are wearing green glasses. But since we can evidently see the city actually is green, unlike in the book and the reason for the green glasses, I imagine they're more of just a fashion accessory and will be a fun moment for fans.
I thought I had heard something to the effect that they would be the stars in Wizomania, which would be a cute meta nod. Not sure if that has any basis in reality!
It wasn’t yet on Broadway at the time, but the Little Shop of Horrors movie put out a ton of merchandise, mostly Audrey II related. I have a lot of it, including games, trading cards and candy.
I like Wicked well enough, was/am a big fan of the books - so was always going to be disappointed in the changes so am very curious to what they now include. Saw it VERY early in its run, possibly previews - but with tickets from tkts - so early enough it wasn't yet a "hit". I went back many years later with my children (who are adults now). I will admit, I'm kind of itching to see it again before the film drops, but won't likely spend the money.
I go back and forth with being excited and dreading this. I think the production design looks amazing. I have no doubt that Ariana, Cynthia and Jonathan Bailey will look and SOUND terrific. And I like the rest of the casting that I am aware of. But I haven't been impressed with any of the actual acting I've seen. Erivo seems bland, Ari seems stereotypical (and I just really dislike her in so many ways.) I love JB, so my own rose tinted glasses will prevent me from ever seeing him in any sort of negative light. (Sorry, not sorry.) I HOPE they will prove me wrong as I AM looking forward to seeing this.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.