"Into the Woods" Movie Changes- Page 4

[little_sally]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:31pm

Wait, has "No More" definitely been cut?

[Kad]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:31pm

"But considering the other films of the Burton/Depp brand it definitely performed below expectations."

As ljay said, I think it performed above expectations, considering what it was.

And it even snagged an Academy Award for art direction.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:33pm

I blame Burton for cutting the chorus AND for Bonham Carter's meager singing. She's not the best singer in the world, don't get me wrong, but when she didn't have Burton standing over her to quiet her and make her whisper or sing in half-voice all the time, she can be much better. I thought her work in Les Mis (brief as it was) showed me that if she had been cut loose a bit, her Lovett could have been really riveting. I still think she gave a good performance, but Lovett has the potential for greatness, and it wasn't realized in the film.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:35pm

Wait, has "No More" definitely been cut?

SPOILERS:




Yes. There is a new (brief) dialogue scene between the Baker and the ghost of his dead father that replaces it. I'm hoping we'll at least hear the melody in the underscoring during this moment.

[Kad]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:40pm

I'm not surprised these cuts are taking place, especially in the second act, which does start to lag and become ballad-heavy.

[tazber]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:41pm

little_sally, yes NO MORE has been cut.

As much as I love the song (it's one of my faves) I can understand that particular change because I think the entire narrator/father has been truncated.

Regarding Sweeney's B.O. performance, I must have been misinformed. I do recall reading that it was ultimately a disappointment for the studio but perhaps that was only in comparison to the other Depp/Burton movies.

Either way I'm not a fan of the movie. I don't hate it, but I find that I rarely can make it though without switching to the DVD of the Hearn/Lansbury production.

Updated On: 6/20/14 at 12:41 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:43pm

I'd love to hear what Diane Paulus has to say about this. Maybe she should weigh in in the Times.

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:49pm

What connection does Diane Paulus have with the Into the Woods film?

[Kad]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:51pm

Henrik was referring to the kerfuffle that occurred when Sondheim weighed in on the changes made to the Porgy and Bess revival in a piece in the Times.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:52pm

None. I refer to Sondheim's scathing letter to the Times k'vetching about Paulus's contemplated liberties with Porgy & Bess.

[tazber]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:55pm

Thank goodness Disney didn't call it "Stephen Sondheim's Into the Woods".

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 12:56pm

I think it should be said that you can't look at the domestic budget (alone) for a movie, which doesn't include the domestic marketing costs, and then use that against the worldwide box office receipts, again, without adding in any international marketing budgets.

So, yes, Sweeney Todd (movie) lost money, big-time, if you add in the global theatrical marketing and distribution on top of a $50 million production cost, $150 million in total worldwide receipts doesn't cut it.

EDIT: Okay, "big-time" is relative. Best case scenario would be that it broke even, but I seriously doubt that. It certainly didn't make any money after global distribution, marketing, and publicity expenses are factored in.

Updated On: 6/20/14 at 12:56 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 1:48pm

Thank goodness Disney didn't call it "Stephen Sondheim's Into the Woods".

I think they should have called it "Disney's Frontier Fairyland Princess Bonanza of Kooky Karacters and Krazy Kritters."

That'll bring 'em in.

Or in their recent trend of one-word oversimplified adjectives like "Tangled" or "Frozen," I vote for "Preggers" ... or "Overhexed."

[jpbran]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 4:09pm

"Disney's 'Barren'"

[jpbran]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 4:16pm

Regarding Sweeney Todd, I've always heard "around half of anything over double the budget" is considered profit. So, that would be $20-30m in profit from box office alone, not including media sales (DVD, BD, iTunes, soundtrack, TV rights, etc.) Compare it to 3/4 of other musicals released in the last 20 years, and I'd consider it a success.

Regarding the changes to Into the Woods, I'm really taking a 'wait n see' approach. Other adaptations have taken more liberties, OR jettisoned/instrumental-ized large amounts of the songs (Cabaret, Hair, Grease. etc.) If this gets across MOST of the story and MOST of the spirit, I'll be happy.

Can you imagine if the BWW message boards were around when Cabaret was in production or released to theaters?

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 4:24pm

^^^^^^
"They're cutting Fräulein Schneider!! And Sally will be American? It'll surely be trash. How could Kander & Ebb let this happen!"

The film version of CABARET is a great example of a completely overhauled stage property that turned out to be a classic. Of course, Rob Marshall is no Bob Fosse...

[tazber]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 4:27pm

"Disney's 'Barren'"


HAHAHAHA!!!!!

Can you imagine?

[BobbyBubbi]

Posted: 6/20/14 at 4:42pm

Sweeney Todd was received favorably by critics.

I understand the need to adapt, and make the original subject matter cinematic.

Sweeney Todd, visually, was glorious. Tim Burton was the perfect choice for director. I could have done without Carter’s low-energy rendition of “Worst Pies,” (especially when her predecessor came out on that stage on fire, and “Worst Pies” is the song that really kicks off the show, IMO) but other than that, I walked away from the film pretty happy. Depp and Carter had good chemistry. Which I don’t I think would have happened if one of the other ladies up for the part had been cast (names flung around at the time were everyone from Meryl Streep to Annette Bening to even Barbra Streisand).

Also hearing that score, recorded by a full symphonic orchestra, blare out those first notes to “SWING YOUR RAZOR HIGH” was a thrill that sent shivers down my spine.

But, aside, if anyone has any further information as to why “Worst Pies” was downplayed, I would certainly like to hear it. I think Carter could have done it justice, but it seemed as if she was directed to under play for fear of being too over the top.

Anyway, back to Woods-

I don’t personally think just because I’m considered a “die hard” of the show (whatever that is supposed to mean) I’m not entitled to an opinion, or that I'm some how "lucky" the film is even being made. Who was screaming for a "definitive" (gag, barff) film version anyway?

I’ve been involved with three different and reputable productions of Into the Woods in summer stock. Played Jack all three times. If there’s a next time I hope I’m up for a different part, but that's a different story. Jack is my type, I’ll probably be playing him till I’m 40. My point is, the show gets done a lot, and while I’m not an expert on Into The Woods, its certainly a show I have spent a lot of time with.

The second act does lag a bit, IMO. The second time I did Into the Woods the director thought so as well, and had us speed through it twice and then we slowed it down to a rather quick pace but still manageable enough for the audience. He made us mindful of self indulgent pauses, and the show moved faster. I personally thought this helped a lot. So I get why they cut “No More” for the movie. Some adjustments had to be made.

I remember when first saw the original taped production in choir, in the sixth grade. The show blew my sixth grade mind. So smart. So witty. Just incredible. I got so much from it, and the show is about a lot of things, but one of the first things that hit me was that this show seemed to be a subtle and nuanced “fu*k you” to Disney (and society really) for screwing up the original Grimms’ Fairy Tales and fables, and giving them glossed-over happy hollywood endings. People die, people commit infidelity, every thing doesn’t always end happily ever after, these are the facts of life, and unavoidable truths we are forced to face as we grow older.

Anyway, when you start making changes, even small ones which these publicized changes are, the whole thing (the message, the story, everything) starts to unravel, and you’re left with a rather moot point. At what point does it become enough?

But by all means, make the film more pleasing for Uncle Bob, Aunt Phyllis and the kids down from Wisconsin for the holidays. The problem is, they were never going to see it anyway, and its us “die hards” who were actually going to schlep ourselves to the theaters to see this on Christmas day.

If you continually put watered down kool-aide in front of Uncle Bob and Aunt Phyllis who don't know any better, (which Rob Marshall seems to like to do), that's what they'll come to expect. And that to me, is not okay.

. . . Okay, I’ll still be there. Only time will tell, and I hope they have found a way to hit all the right moments even with the changes. But I’m glad the original production was taped and edited beautifully so we always have it.

Updated On: 6/20/14 at 04:42 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 10:06am

I agree we should try to keep an open mind. I agree the Cabaret film adaptation supports that.

However, there is a big difference.

In 1972, the changes for the movie of Cabaret were meant to make the story edgier, realer, more provocative, and much sexier than the original version of the show. And much less like a standard musical.

In 2014, the changes for the movie of Into the Woods appear to be quite the opposite.

While I am one of the few people who actually like Wyler's second movie of Children's Hour, the analogy of his earlier These Three - a movie that toned down daring material central to that play but miraculously made the changes work - is much more optimistically to the point.

But, at the end of the day, it's sad that we live in what is, in many ways, an age that balks at what provokes, disarms and disquiets us, especially when we are talking about works which work precisely because they provoke, disarm and disquiet us. Into the Woods is a musical that needs to challenge our moral core. Otherwise, what the hell is it?

Skeptical but trying my best not to prejudge.



Updated On: 6/21/14 at 10:06 AM

[Brick]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 11:46am

I get so tired of hearing Sondheim's thoughts on the interview Paulus and McDonald gave to the NYTimes being so completely misconstrued and overly simplified.

Sondheim didn't take issues with making changes to the material, but rather the hubris he felt they had by speaking about the piece like it needed their help. He think of PORGY AND BESS and one of the greatest pieces of musical theatre, and has had a hugely successful life, so he felt them speaking about it as if it was broken and they were doing it a favor, irritated him. And because he is so fond of Dubose Heyward;s lyrics, he objected to the name change to GERSHWIN'S PORGY AND BESS. He made the swipe at Paulus, noting they should call it PAULUS' PORGY AND BESS, because of the hubris he perceived, but truly, he was bothered by the Gershwin estate taking credit away from Heyward. I remember by season's end, people were already remembering it incorrectly, saying he hated the revival and it won the Tony in spite of that, when he always maintained he was not judging the production since he hadn't seen it yet, but the way they were speaking about it.

It would be a hypocrite here if he were adapting someone else's material and speaking ill of it in the process. Or if this was to be SONDHEIM'S INTO THE WOODS.

Now the Franklin Shepard comparison is purest, but a little closer.

[uncageg]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 12:57pm

No More is my favorite song in the show. As much as I want to see this on a bog screen I will most likely rent it. I am just not one who always agrees on cuts and changes for film versions of shows.

I am a huge Sondheim fan but lost a little love for him when he allowed them to cut The Ballad of Sweeney Todd...from Sweeney Todd. JMO

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 2:17pm

I'm trying to keep an open mind about "No More," but I would be lying if I said it wasn't already a huge disappointment to me. I realize it was cut for time and because the second half of the film will drag with too many ballads in a row. I guess they had to chose this or No One Is Alone. I actually wish they would have done truncated version of both instead. They make two different points, both important to the development of the story and the characters.

We'll see, but that's the one cut that I'm struggling with already.

Updated On: 6/21/14 at 02:17 PM

[James885]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 2:57pm

While I'll miss "No More" in the film, I can certainly see why it was cut, considering that the whole Mysterious Man/Baker's father thing has been jettisoned. I also understand the need to be mindful for time considerations - the second act of the show definitely has a tendency to lag.

I'm very curious to hear the new song for the Witch.

Regarding the changes for the Sweeney Todd film, while I did miss the choral singing it didn't particularly bother me. Like Best12bars said, the core story is strong enough so that it still stands on its own, even without the chorus - although the choral singing does serve to enhance it even further.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 3:12pm

While I'll miss "No More" in the film, I can certainly see why it was cut, considering that the whole Mysterious Man/Baker's father thing has been jettisoned.

If you've read the leaked script, read on, if not STOP HERE.




It actually hasn't been jettisoned entirely, just re-thought. The baker's father is a character, seen first in the flashback during the Witch's Rap. He then shows up in a brief scene where "No More" used to be, as the ghost of the Baker's father. He has a conversation with his son. So while he's not seen "mysteriously" throughout the story, helping the Baker and his wife find the ingredients for the potion, his presence is still part of the film.

I just hope that small scene works dramatically enough to serve as a substitute for these lyrics:

BAKER
No more questions,
Please.
No more tests.
Comes the day you say, "What for?"
Please- no more.

MYSTERIOUS MAN
They disappoint,
They disappear,
They die but they don't...

BAKER
What?

MYSTERIOUS MAN
They disappoint
In turn, I fear.
Forgive, though, they won't...

BAKER
No more riddles.
No more jests.
No more curses you can't undo,
Left by fathers you never knew.
No more quests.

No more feelings.
Time to shut the door.
Just- no more.

MYSTERIOUS MAN
Running away- let's do it,
Free from the ties that bind.
No more depair
Or burdens to bear
Out there in the yonder.

Running away- go to it.
Where did you have in mind?
Have to take care:
Unless there's a "where,"
You'll only be wandering blind.
Just more questions.
Different kind.

Where are we to go?
Where are we ever to go?

Running away- we'll do it.
Why sit around, resugned?
Trouble is, son,
The farther you run,
The more you feel undefined
For what you've left undone
And, nore, what you've left behind.

We disappoint,
We leave a mess,
We die but we don't...

BAKER
We disappoint
In turn, I guess.
Forget, though, we won't...

BOTH
Like father, like son.

BAKER
No more giants
Waging war.
Can't we just pursue out lives
With out children and our wives?
'Till that happy day arrives,
How do you ignore
All the witches,
All the curses,
All the wolves, all the lies,
The false hopes, the goodbyes,
The reverses,
All the wondering what even worse is
Still in store?

All the children...
All the giants...

No more.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/21/14 at 3:27pm

"I get so tired of hearing Sondheim's thoughts on the interview Paulus and McDonald gave to the NYTimes being so completely misconstrued and overly simplified."

Brick, I get your point. In some ways my comment was a cheap shot and just meant as a goof.

But while you are correct that almost all of Sondheim's specific concerns about Paulus and company aren't the equivalent of his merely "taking issues with making changes to the material," my reading of Sondheim's attack was not entirely consistent with yours.

Sondheim was particularly upset about the goat cart being replaced by a cane. He wrote:

"It’s reassuring that Ms. Parks has a direct pipeline to Gershwin and is just carrying out his work for him, and that she thinks he would have taken one of the most moving moments in musical theater history — Porgy’s demand, “Bring my goat!” — and thrown it out. Ms. Parks (or Ms. Paulus) has taken away Porgy’s goat cart in favor of a cane. So now he can demand, “Bring my cane!” Perhaps someone will bring him a straw hat too, so he can buck-and-wing his way to New York."

I agreed with him.

But perhaps there are others who agree with me that the Baker's Wife's infidelity and her self-accepting, wistful reflection in its immediate aftermath are among the most compelling and disarming "moments" of musical theatre. And one of the most original in its exploration of a common - a good woman indulging her desires in a socially unacceptable way; and honoring her own "mistake". Giving voice to this in musical comedy is a very rare thing. Sure, there are people who see her immediate death as some kind of facile retribution. That is hardly the point. Just the opposite. She is not killed as punishment for her sins. She is killed at a point in which we see her at her most recognizably imperfectly human and lovable.

And perhaps there are others who agree with me that "No More" is among the most moving moments in musical theatre.

Sondheim archly criticized the cane replacing the goat cart in Porgy as a trivializing choice.

And so there is some irony in his glib acceptance of changes in the film version of his own work which strike many of us as equally if not more misguided.

Updated On: 6/23/14 at 03:27 PM