Universal's WICKED Films - News & Discussion Thread — Page 68

It really does seem like Part 2 should be released next summer, a la the final Harry Potter, or (going back further) Back to the Future.

I was thrilled with the Barbie campaign! Like I said, it's merely anecdotal, from some other people in my life (both of the target audience for that film + others). There's only so much a film can get talked about & promoted before the general public gets tired.

But the choice to split into two films has always been creatively baffling. While income from the two combined will no doubt be higher than that of a single film, I'd love to read a deep-dive on the finances. Everyone is obviously being paid for two films, and they've got two post processes, two ad campaigns, etc. but it also allows some things like merch to remain largely evergreen for 18 months.

DEHFanatic said: "FYI there is a totally different trailer that was released on the Universal Brazil channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn0YG5IAwvk"

 

I think that is the international trailer. It does show a bit more.

I just wish they would show at least a few short snippets of production numbers with them singing.

 

Edit: So shortly after I posted my comment, this article popped up on BWW...

 

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Why-Isnt-There-More-Singing-in-Movie-Musical-Trailers-20240905 

 

Updated On: 9/5/24 at 03:28 PM

I think it looks fine. I enjoy the little Ms. Gulch nod. For better or worse the visual style looks reminiscent of most other current / recent big budget fantasy properties on TV and film these days.

Seems like they're really downplaying the fact that this is part 1 which seems like a strange choice. I've seen people make comparisons online to Dune but to me that's not really apt, as Dune Part 2 wasn't officially greenlit until after the critical and box office success of part 1, whereas the Wicked parts were filmed together. It's hard to imagine a situation where Wicked Part 1 bombs so badly that they just kill Part 2, which is already in the can and in the midst of post. Then again, considering Warner Bros killed / shelved several fully completed movies in the last few years, so maybe it's not so far-fetched.

Updated On: 9/5/24 at 11:35 PM

It (Stephen King) has no problem announcing part two being on the way at the end of the original. (and #2 hadnt even started production.)

I supposed that won’t be a problem as long as the run time is justified

Jeffrey Karasarides said: "Apparently, Part One will be 2 hours and 22 minutes long.
https://x.com/wickednewshub/status/1831990006233112688"

And remember close to 10 minutes of this will be final credits.

I saw a new interview somewhere when producer Marc Platt explained another reason why the film is split into 2 films. He said that Part One will focus on Elphaba and then Part Two will focus on Glinda, of course I don't know if that's him trying to give an excuse to this choice. Or that it's an actual valid reason for it. Either way, I don't care as long as the film can actually flesh out the story and characters which was two of Wicked's biggest weak points when it comes to Winnie Holzman's original book.

Oh, and writer Dana Fox is confirmed to be credited as a co-writer on the script alongside Winnie Holzman, according to the Writer's Guild of America.

It seems like the titles are "Wicked" and "Wicked Part 2" like "Jaws" and "Jaws 2" - which makes sense to me. Not sure why people are having such a difficult time w/ this.

Updated On: 9/12/24 at 11:11 AM

I think labeling something as "Part 1" just leads to confusion in the marketplace.

This is the same strategy as DUNE and the recent SPIDER-VERSE movie, the only difference is WICKED 2 has already been filmed and has a release date. The latest MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE called itself "Part 1" and was a financial disaster; now they've scrubbed that from its streaming and physical releases and the next installment will get a different title than "Part 2"

(Of course, one of our most famous movie franchises ever labeled its second movie "Episode Five" upon release and caused a bunch of people to say "huh???? There were 3 movies before the first Star Wars???" But I would chock that up to George Lucas being a madman more than anything.)

AEA AGMA SM said: "In 1977 the first Star Wars movie was only called Star Wars. The “Episode IV: A New Hope” wasn’t added to the opening scrawl until the 1981 re-release after Empire Strikes Back was released"

Yeah, but Empire was known as Episode V with no warning on its release in 1980. That's what they're getting at, that you learned Star Wars was 'Episode IV' when you sat down for 'Episode V' and also that there was 3 other episodes you hadn't seen.

----

Different Topic, do we know if there are any new songs in these movies? I think I read alluding to some before filming but no idea if that actually ended up getting into the film. 

Updated On: 9/12/24 at 05:14 PM

2 new songs, both in part two. Glinda's new song is called 'The Girl In The Bubble' and Elphaba's new song is called 'There's no place like home' which seems like such an obvious title/Wizard of Oz tie-in, that you wonder why they didn't use it before.

I may be one of only a few people on Planet Earth who has not seen "Wicked".  So, I am really excited about seeing this film.