Universal's WICKED Films - News & Discussion Thread- Page 77

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 7:13pm

Jeffrey Karasarides said: "
Apparently, she won an Oscar for no reason.

"

As Some Do...

[veronicamae]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 7:38pm

I was at the screening last night if anyone wants to ask questions - I'll put answers behind the spoiler tag.

[n2nbaby]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 7:47pm

What the heck do they add to make it two and a half hours?! lol

[veronicamae]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 7:53pm

n2nbaby said: "What the heck do they add to make it two and a half hours?! lol"

Not a spoiler:

Dialogue and scene-setting/transitions. You add 5-10 minutes to each song as we know it, it adds up. You can't get away with tap-dancing your way across the stage to change scenes in a film, or if a character has to go to another location it's not 4 steps to their left. If that makes sense!

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 8:02pm

veronicamae said: "I was at the screening last night if anyone wants to ask questions - I'll put answers behind the spoiler tag."

How did Michelle Yeoh do with the beginning of 'The Wizard and I'? Same with Jeff Goldblum on his songs?

[veronicamae]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 8:09pm

Jeffrey Karasarides said: "veronicamae said: "I was at the screening last night if anyone wants to ask questions - I'll put answers behind the spoiler tag."

How did Michelle Yeoh do with the beginning of 'The Wizard and I'? Same with Jeff Goldblum on his songs?"

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Yeoh's speaking voice, to be honest, was a bit challenging for me to absorb. Her accent is heavier than I realized. And, to that end - she didn't do much singing; very spoke-sung. Clarifying: she didn't have an accent per se; she was endeavoring to speak clearly, but her pronunciation was challenging for me.


Re: Goldblum - Sentimental Man was fine - also spoke-sung. The "traveling salesman" part of No One Mourns the Wicked was properly sung but I found myself wondering if it was actually Goldblum singing. It was, but it did make me take pause. Was nothing to write home about.

 

 

Updated On: 10/29/24 at 08:09 PM

[Janaenae]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 8:13pm

I mean, what was your overall opinion if you can share? How did the audience react? 

Were there characters who were expanded on in any meaningful way? What was the best musical number? 

[veronicamae]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 8:23pm

Janaenae said: "I mean, what was your overall opinion if you can share? How did the audience react?

Were there characters who were expanded on in any meaningful way? What was the best musical number?"

We weren't put under any NDA or embargo, so:

I thought the film was spectacular! 

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Elphaba got a bit more backstory. Galinda felt a touch more real. Fiyero is a hair more fleshed out. Boq felt like an afterthought. Miss Cottle (Keala Settle) is in this and takes up what are usually Morrible's lines/actions (maybe because they were hers in the book originally?).

One Short Day was by far the best overall, but Defying Gravity, everything leading up to what we've seen in the trailer, was also impressive with how they made running to the attic of the castle a big part of the scene/song. Popular was fun; it and Wizard and I and DG got standing ovations.

This screening was for the Broadway family so the energy was extremely high - applause after every song, lots of reactions to the delivery of certain lines, and of course, to seeing their friends and surprises on screen.

And while I did think it spectacular, I do have some critiques, but I'm so close to the show - I've seen it 30+ times and it's a part of my daily life - and the average viewer isn't going to view it through my lens, so my critiques aren't things the gen pop will care about or even notice. I think they did a solid job adapting it.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 9:17pm

veronicamae said: "Dialogue and scene-setting/transitions. You add 5-10 minutes to each song as we know it, it adds up. You can't get away with tap-dancing your way across the stage to change scenes in a film, or if a character has to go to another location it's not 4 steps to their left. If that makes sense!"

Respectfully, it doesn't really make sense. In a film it should be easier to change locations than it is on stage, not harder. More crucially, there aren't many musicals that have basically doubled in run time when going from stage to screen, so there must be something different about this one.

ETA: Do you think this movie is so much richer in plot and theme as to justify being twice as long as the first act of the stage version?

Updated On: 10/29/24 at 09:17 PM

[NOWaWarning]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 9:52pm

veronicamae said: "I was at the screening last night if anyone wants to ask questions - I'll put answers behind the spoiler tag."

Are there any significant changes or does it play out pretty much like act 1 of the stage show with some extra padding?

[veronicamae]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 10:54pm

kdogg36 said: "veronicamae said: "Dialogue and scene-setting/transitions. You add 5-10 minutes to each song as we know it, it adds up. You can't get away with tap-dancing your way across the stage to change scenes in a film, or if a character has to go to another location it's not 4 steps to their left. If that makes sense!"

Respectfully, it doesn't really make sense. In a film it should be easier to change locations than it is on stage, not harder. More crucially,there aren't many musicalsthat have basically doubled in run time when going from stage to screen, so there must be something different about this one.

ETA: Do you think this movie is so much richer in plot and theme as to justify being twice as long as the first act of the stage version?"

I disagree; a scene changes in 10 seconds on stage. Yes, I'm aware that it can change that quickly in a film as well but instead of doing so, a person, for example, gets in a car and drives and more things are allowed to occur - like internal thoughts or environmental storytelling, rather than it just changing. Because the medium allows for it. But, you can see it for yourself and decide if you like it.

It didn't feel like it was long or boring - I don't know why it has to be "justified." If they tried to do the entire show in 1 movie and have it not be 3+ hours long, why even bother? Just go watch it on stage.

All that said, I don't want to debate run-time justification.

[veronicamae]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 11:03pm

NOWaWarning said: "veronicamae said: "I was at the screening last night if anyone wants to ask questions - I'll put answers behind the spoiler tag."

Are there any significant changes or does it play out pretty much like act 1 of the stage show with some extra padding?"

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

There are a few additions from the book - Elphaba bullied as a child, with her nanny (a bear). A few new scenes with her father. We see Galinda's parents as well. Dillamond meeting with other Animal faculty to discuss what's been happening.

One Short Day is 6 minutes long and has an entirely new song within it and is the biggest change.

So, Act 1 with padding.

 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 11:12pm

veronicamae said: "Yes, I'm aware that it canchange that quicklyin a film as well but instead of doing so, a person, for example, gets in a car and drivesand more things are allowed to occur - like internal thoughts or environmental storytelling, rather than it just changing."

This actually makes sense.

"If they tried to do the entire show in 1 movie and have it not be 3+ hours long, why even bother? Just go watch it on stage."

This doesn't. You're implying that film adaptations of musicals need to be longer than the source to justify their existence. Why make Cabaret, Chicago, Carousel, Hair... if they're not going to be way longer than the original musicals? In all these cases, we can enjoy the stage show and the movie for different reasons that have nothing to do with length.

[veronicamae]

Posted: 10/29/24 at 11:30pm

kdogg36 said: "veronicamae said: "Yes, I'm aware that it canchange that quicklyin a film as well but instead of doing so, a person, for example, gets in a car and drivesand more things are allowed to occur - like internal thoughts or environmental storytelling, rather than it just changing."

This actually makes sense.

"If they tried to do the entire show in 1 movie and have it not be 3+ hours long, why even bother? Just go watch it on stage."

This doesn't. You're implying that film adaptations of musicals need to be longer than the source to justify their existence. Why make Cabaret, Chicago, Carousel, Hair...if they're not going to be way longer than the original musicals? In all these cases, we can enjoy the stage show and the movie for different reasons that have nothing to do with length."

I said I'm not debating this but consider this: not every adaptation needs to be done the same way. This team chose to do it their way. I'm not sure why you're so invested in how long the film is, but I hope you enjoy it. Or don't.

[Musical Master]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 12:27am

What did you think of the production elements as a whole (the practical sets, use of CG, costumes etc.)? In comparison to Jon M. Chu's In The Heights, how are the musical numbers done this time around?

[nocek]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 9:36am

I understand your point! "Les Misérables" has an emotional intensity that really justifies the decision to sing live. It allows to capture the authenticity of the performances. On the other hand, "Cats" did suffer from the staging and artistic choices.

[veronicamae]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 11:49am

Musical Master said: "What did you think of the production elements as a whole (the practical sets, use of CG, costumes etc.)? In comparison to Jon M. Chu's In The Heights, how are the musical numbers done this time around?"

The practical sets were gorgeous! CGI was not obvious to me OTHER than when it was necessary, e.g. the Animals like Dillamond, the infamous sugar glider drummer we've seen in trailers, and similar fantastical elements that have to move and interact with the environment. I also don't remember any of the coloring/lighting criticisms that have been circulating being present in the film, so whether that's a factor of a finished product, a better quality/larger screen/projection, or simply not noticing. The costumes were beautiful (we've seen them in the trailers).

I only saw In the Heights once, so I'm not able to compare the two, unfortunately.

 

 

Updated On: 10/30/24 at 11:49 AM

[n2nbaby]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 12:12pm

How exactly does it end? With the final notes of Defying Gravity and then cut to black, perhaps with a To Be Continued… after?

[dramamama611]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 12:25pm

I'm totally with Kdog on this, it was my initial thought.  Stage NEEDS coverage - to hide a costume change or set change that can so be easily done in film with editing.

 

From what you've described, it sounds like they felt the need to justify two films instead of just telling the stage show.  Note - I love the original books, so I might even love this deeper dive - but I've always felt that Wicked the Musical was inspired by the books far more than a musicalization, so that they are very different properties, anyway.  

[veronicamae]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 12:35pm

n2nbaby said: "How exactly does it end? With the final notes of Defying Gravity and then cut to black, perhaps with a To Be Continued… after?"

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

It ends with the battle cry (lots of Elphaba flying around on the broom being chased by the flying monkeys takes place) and a to-be-continued, but I'm gonna be honest, I don't remember 100% if it was cut to black, because everyone was giving a standing ovation and I was crying. LOL

I DO remember they harkened back to The Wizard of Oz by using that "old time" font for the WICKED on the title screen and whatever the to-be-continued words were.

 

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 12:39pm

Another early screening on November 18, for Amazon Prime members.

[Musical Master]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 1:12pm

So far, the social media reviews have been very positive (leaning towards raves), but the real test will be when critics will be able to review it. The world premiere for the movie is getting closer, so I guess we'll find out soon enough.

[CJRochester]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 1:14pm

TaffyDavenport said: "Another early screening on November 18, for Amazon Prime members."

More info here: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/retail/wicked-movie-tickets-prime-fandango

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 1:22pm

The early responses from people like this should be taken with a grain of salt. Their responses tend to be effusive and it's a deliberate strategy by studios to let them post reactions ahead of actual critics. These people cheerleading for blockbusters helps keep their names on invite lists.

Sometimes critical & audience responses do mirror those people (like TOP GUN MAVERICK), but they're not good indicators.

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 10/30/24 at 2:10pm

How does the movie begin?  Is there any sort of framing device, time clock dragon business, Wizard of Oz reference, etc.?