|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2022 16:49:11 GMT
This doesn’t exactly fill me with joy. As has been said here the recent dearth of musical movie adaptations haven’t exactly lit up the planet. I can’t help but worry that breaking the story into two will dilute the story too much and no matter what, the half without defying gravity will suffer the most. Every two part film inevitably has one considerably stronger piece.
They had better provide lavish production values with extraordinary ballroom/confrontation scenes if I’m to be convinced this was a great idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2022 16:53:39 GMT
This seems risky to me. A big stage hit doesn't equal a hit movie as we have seen many times before, plus Oz based movies (aside the Judy Garland original) don't have a great track record. Disney was banking on a franchise but oz the great and powerful was a box office disappointment.
The musical isn't the most complex story so they've got to make it dramatically compelling enough to hold people's attention and to get them coming back a year later. I thought The Hobbit would have warned Hollywood about what happens when you stretch a thin story out...but it still made a shed load of money so I guess that's all they care about.
|
|
855 posts
|
Post by stuartmcd on Apr 26, 2022 16:56:01 GMT
But they’re only going to make more money if the films are actually successful. It works both ways. They could make more money by splitting it into 2 movies or they could lose more money. Like I said movie musicals have really struggled at the box office and if Wicked Part 1 flops at the box office then heads will roll at Universal. At a time where the movie industry still isn’t making pre pandemic box office numbers and only big blockbuster superhero movies are drawing in audiences, this is quite a bold move from Universal. Of course it’s all about making money but this shows that they have quite a lot of faith that this will indeed be quite successful and won’t be another box office flop. It's not entirely true that musical movies have struggled, Disney did really well with Aladdin, Beauty and The Lion King and of course we can't forget The Greatest Showman. Wicked is established IP probably more so than Cats was. True and Aladdin made over a billion dollars! But all those examples were released several years ago before the pandemic. The movie industry has changed massively since then as have peoples viewing habits. You listed a number of Disney remakes. Well the newest Disney remakes such as Pinocchio and Peter Pan (which were originally intended to be cinema releases) have been moved to be exclusive to Disney Plus. Why? Because they will probably do better for the company to draw in subscription numbers then whatever money they would make at the box office. And also audiences are much more willing to wait for movies to go to streaming now. A lot of people are only rushing out to see the must see superhero movies that need to be seen as soon as possible which is why the 2 biggest movies since Covid are Spiderman and Batman. Nothing even comes close to those 2. And let’s be clear I am not denying that this isn’t about money. Of course it’s about money. It’s a business. I’m just saying that it shows a clear faith from the studio that this project will be successful. Nothing is a guaranteed box office win and a decision to split this into 2 would not have been taken lightly. Particularly with the reasons I’ve been trying to point out about the current state of the movie industry. |
|
7,183 posts
|
Post by Jon on Apr 26, 2022 17:01:52 GMT
True and Aladdin made over a billion dollars! But all those examples were released several years ago before the pandemic. The movie industry has changed massively since then as have peoples viewing habits. You listed a number of Disney remakes. Well the newest Disney remakes such as Pinocchio and Peter Pan (which were originally intended to be cinema releases) have been moved to be exclusive to Disney Plus. Why? Because they will probably do better for the company to draw in subscription numbers then whatever money they would make at the box office. And also audiences are much more willing to wait for movies to go to streaming now. A lot of people are only rushing out to see the must see superhero movies that need to be seen as soon as possible which is why the 2 biggest movies since Covid are Spiderman and Batman. Nothing even comes close to those 2. And let’s be clear I am not denying that this isn’t about money. Of course it’s about money. It’s a business. I’m just saying that it shows a clear faith from the studio that this project will be successful. Nothing is a guaranteed box office win and a decision to split this into 2 would not have been taken lightly. Particularly with the reasons I’ve been trying to point out about the current state of the movie industry. I would point that other films have done well that aren't Spider-Man or Batman like Belfast which was very successful in the UK and other films like Uncharted and Sonic The Hedgehog 2 did very well although the last two fall under based on existing IP. |
|
855 posts
|
Post by stuartmcd on Apr 26, 2022 17:23:16 GMT
True and Aladdin made over a billion dollars! But all those examples were released several years ago before the pandemic. The movie industry has changed massively since then as have peoples viewing habits. You listed a number of Disney remakes. Well the newest Disney remakes such as Pinocchio and Peter Pan (which were originally intended to be cinema releases) have been moved to be exclusive to Disney Plus. Why? Because they will probably do better for the company to draw in subscription numbers then whatever money they would make at the box office. And also audiences are much more willing to wait for movies to go to streaming now. A lot of people are only rushing out to see the must see superhero movies that need to be seen as soon as possible which is why the 2 biggest movies since Covid are Spiderman and Batman. Nothing even comes close to those 2. And let’s be clear I am not denying that this isn’t about money. Of course it’s about money. It’s a business. I’m just saying that it shows a clear faith from the studio that this project will be successful. Nothing is a guaranteed box office win and a decision to split this into 2 would not have been taken lightly. Particularly with the reasons I’ve been trying to point out about the current state of the movie industry. I would point that other films have done well that aren't Spider-Man or Batman like Belfast which was very successful in the UK and other films like Uncharted and Sonic The Hedgehog 2 did very well although the last two fall under based on existing IP. I’m not denying that other films aren’t doing well or turning a profit but it’s nothing like pre pandemic numbers and not coming anywhere near what superhero movies are making. All the movies you mentioned would have made more money before Covid. In 2019 alone 9 movies made over a billion dollars. Since the start of the pandemic we have had one movie make over a billion dollars which was Spider-Man. And that was essentially event cinema. The movie industry has changed. Fact. Even superhero movies aren’t guaranteed wins anymore. Eternals was poorly reviewed and flopped at the box office. You can’t skate by on mediocre movies. If the reviews come out for Wicked and it’s poor then it could easily flop at the box office and people will just wait to watch it at home. So all I’m saying is that the fact they’re making 2 movies is a tiny glimmer of hope that the current state of the project is looking pretty positive. |
|
|
|
Post by thesoberpanda on Apr 26, 2022 18:16:32 GMT
I would point that other films have done well that aren't Spider-Man or Batman like Belfast which was very successful in the UK and other films like Uncharted and Sonic The Hedgehog 2 did very well although the last two fall under based on existing IP. I’m not denying that other films aren’t doing well or turning a profit but it’s nothing like pre pandemic numbers and not coming anywhere near what superhero movies are making. All the movies you mentioned would have made more money before Covid. In 2019 alone 9 movies made over a billion dollars. Since the start of the pandemic we have had one movie make over a billion dollars which was Spider-Man. And that was essentially event cinema. The movie industry has changed. Fact. Even superhero movies aren’t guaranteed wins anymore. Eternals was poorly reviewed and flopped at the box office. You can’t skate by on mediocre movies. If the reviews come out for Wicked and it’s poor then it could easily flop at the box office and people will just wait to watch it at home. So all I’m saying is that the fact they’re making 2 movies is a tiny glimmer of hope that the current state of the project is looking pretty positive. 100% this ! You've only got to look at how fast big movies are turning around and coming on to Disney+ and I'm not just talking about Disney films since Christmas we've seen quite a few live action movies which have been on the platform that we've watched in the cinema less than 6 weeks prior ! There's definitely a market for the Wicked movie but it's probably a gamble for any studio in terms of marketing it, I also think that the poor reviews of Dear Evan Hansen (and obviously Cats) won't have helped Wicked's case in getting made studios want a decent return and won't invest in someone passion project if it's unlikely to turn a decent profit. Wicked would receive particular scrutiny I'd imagine as in my head I can see a fairly heavy visual effects budget along with high production values for set design unless they're going to do that with visual effects too (again cats won't be helping the case here either). I do agree that there has been some success in recent years with the likes of Tick Tick Boom, In the heights and Jamie but I don't think any of those have had the success that they would've had pre pandemic. Jamie lost its full cinema release after being pushed back several times font forget and In the heights although excellent and reviewed well, there weren't many in the screening I was at on opening weekend and it's the same across the board for many non musical movies. I'm in too minds, part of me wants to see a fresh movie version of Wicked, it's not one of my favourite musicals though so I'll probably approach it with a little trepidation. |
|
|
|
Post by fluxcapacitor on Apr 27, 2022 0:06:24 GMT
This seems risky to me. A big stage hit doesn't equal a hit movie as we have seen many times before, plus Oz based movies (aside the Judy Garland original) don't have a great track record. Disney was banking on a franchise but oz the great and powerful was a box office disappointment. The musical isn't the most complex story so they've got to make it dramatically compelling enough to hold people's attention and to get them coming back a year later. I thought The Hobbit would have warned Hollywood about what happens when you stretch a thin story out...but it still made a shed load of money so I guess that's all they care about. I think Oz The Great and Powerful suffered because it was specifically "Not Wicked" and always felt like a badly re-conceived version of the Wizard of Oz "prequel" purposefully not repeating any of the ideas from Wicked and rushed through production mainly so Disney could get there before Wicked could be made. I think Wicked as a movie would do instantly better, even if just due to its existing popularity. That said, I echo many views on this forum that splitting Wicked in two is a gamble and that first part will need to be meticulously done if they want people coming back for more. |
|
915 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Apr 27, 2022 0:29:08 GMT
They had to leave out so much of Gregory Maguire's plot when they adapted Wicked for the stage, so the chance to expand it and restore some detail might be good. But does the teenage fangirl audience want more than the simplified Wicked plot they know and love? Open to debate...
|
|
|
|
Post by sph on Apr 27, 2022 0:53:07 GMT
Weird it's going to be two movies... Bit of a gamble too. If the first one bombs or gets poor reviews then part two is sunk!
|
|
543 posts
|
Post by WireHangers on Apr 27, 2022 1:58:07 GMT
I noticed Chu said "all the cast" meaning they've definitely cast all the roles!
|
|
19,783 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 27, 2022 5:40:38 GMT
I predict not one but two Christmas turkeys… Gobble Gobble! 🦃🦃
|
|
|
|
Post by ladidah on Apr 27, 2022 6:50:17 GMT
Two movies is a bad idea. I still think the casting is too old.
|
|
3,486 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Apr 27, 2022 8:14:08 GMT
This doesn’t exactly fill me with joy. As has been said here the recent dearth of musical movie adaptations haven’t exactly lit up the planet. I can’t help but worry that breaking the story into two will dilute the story too much and no matter what, the half without defying gravity will suffer the most. Every two part film inevitably has one considerably stronger piece. They had better provide lavish production values with extraordinary ballroom/confrontation scenes if I’m to be convinced this was a great idea. Defying Gravity will close the first film and open the second. They're not 'that' daft. |
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Apr 27, 2022 9:12:04 GMT
Two movies is a bad idea. I still think the casting is too old. Presumably they'll film simultaneously? Or Cynthia Erivo will be nearly 40! |
|
641 posts
|
Post by christya on Apr 27, 2022 10:18:01 GMT
I was dubious enough about paying once for a film with this casting - twice, and wait a year between parts? Nope. I'll wait until it's on streaming or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladidah on Apr 27, 2022 10:21:24 GMT
It's a very strange cast. I wouldn't want to see a late 30's Harry Potter either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2022 10:33:02 GMT
This doesn’t exactly fill me with joy. As has been said here the recent dearth of musical movie adaptations haven’t exactly lit up the planet. I can’t help but worry that breaking the story into two will dilute the story too much and no matter what, the half without defying gravity will suffer the most. Every two part film inevitably has one considerably stronger piece. They had better provide lavish production values with extraordinary ballroom/confrontation scenes if I’m to be convinced this was a great idea. Defying Gravity will close the first film and open the second. They're not 'that' daft. Well they must think the audience is daft to pay to see the same thing twice then! I won't be, the cast isn't enticing enough that I won't wait for it to end up on streaming. |
|
366 posts
|
Post by Paul on Apr 27, 2022 10:34:17 GMT
They had to leave out so much of Gregory Maguire's plot when they adapted Wicked for the stage, so the chance to expand it and restore some detail might be good. But does the teenage fangirl audience want more than the simplified Wicked plot they know and love? Open to debate... They aren't making a film version of Maguire's book though, they are making a film version of the musical. In my opinion this musical does not warrant two movies and I feel it may be a mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2022 10:36:40 GMT
They had to leave out so much of Gregory Maguire's plot when they adapted Wicked for the stage, so the chance to expand it and restore some detail might be good. But does the teenage fangirl audience want more than the simplified Wicked plot they know and love? Open to debate... They aren't making a film version of Maguire's book though, they are making a film version of the musical. In my opinion this musical does not warrant two movies and I feel it may be a mistake. It sounds as if they are adding a lot more backstory; so effectively trying to make the musical and Maguire's book into one film, which means it won't be the Wicked musical so many love. Huge risk if that is what they plan to do, as the book is so much darker and is really the same in name only. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Apr 27, 2022 10:38:09 GMT
There are lots of ‘gaps’ in the musical of things happening offstage. Hopefully it’ll be these that get included and visualised. Lets not forget the two new songs Schwartz will have to write to get an Oscar nom for them both.
|
|
19,783 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 27, 2022 10:46:43 GMT
Who will play Dorothy? Surely she’ll have to be seen in the movie??
|
|
|
|
Post by FairyGodmother on Apr 27, 2022 11:53:02 GMT
I don't think it will work if you see Dorothy.
|
|
19,783 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 27, 2022 12:21:52 GMT
Does the bit where Dorothy is “seen” happen in the novel?
|
|
4,214 posts
|
Post by anthony40 on Apr 27, 2022 13:41:21 GMT
I have read the novel however it was many years ago and I (honestly) can't remember.
But given that the show is an adaptation of the book, I'd find it hard to imagine that it didn't.
In the grand scheme of things, this being a prequel, she's such a minor character that, just as in the stage show, Dorothy or Toto, don't need to be seen, except when the melting occurs.
Even with that, it could be filmed in such a way that it's just a set of female arms throwing a bucket of water that needs to be seen.
|
|
19,783 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Apr 27, 2022 14:20:30 GMT
Ok I’m calling it now.. they’ll CGI Judy into that scene.
|
|
