Wicked (2024 film)
- Thread starter quinnmac000
- Start date
-
Signing up for a Premium Membership is a donation to help Inside Universal maintain costs and offers an ad-free experience on the forum. Learn more about it here.
- Sep 10, 2017
- 2,717
- 3,477
Sorry, not sorry... but the movie looks awful. It really did not need to be split into two films.
Also, another musical not being promoted as a musical. Why adapt it to film if you aren't going to embrace it. Sure it's only a teaser, but still...
Also, another musical not being promoted as a musical. Why adapt it to film if you aren't going to embrace it. Sure it's only a teaser, but still...
USH land...
Honestly; I love it. You can tell Chu is going hard in the terms of setting the stage of the scale and spectacle; and I think we'll hear more of the music as we get closer and closer to the film. Especially as they did not shy away from showing it was a musical back at Cinema Con.
Don't put that into the universe
It'll just feel like a bigger budget hand-me-down from Japan at this rate...Now if USH got a land for Phantom, that'd be totally fine. Just restore the old 1925 Opera House set!!
I'd be highly amused if they had a trailer for Part 2 attached to this.. hell, just do it BTTF II style with a teaser of 3 at the end.
I can't believe they're re-releasing OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL!
I mean...they literally used defying gravity the entire backgtround of the trailer....and i disagree...ACT I and ACT II would have the same issue that disney had with Into the Woods where each Act is very different. Act 1 is super fun and story of sisterhood and Act 2 is a story of a woman on a mission to take revenge and bring down a kingdom.
Just because they played Defying Gravity in the background does not automatically let the general NON-Broadway movie goers that it is a musical. Nowhere in that trailer alludes to it being a musical. It just comes off as ANOTHER "Wizard of Oz" movie from a different studio. Believe it or not, but there are people who don't know the musical exists, let alone the book
And no. The issue with Into the Woods was that it was complete crap & Disney made unnecessary story changes. You don't need TWO 2hr movies to tell the same story that the stage production can do within a roughly 2.5hr timeframe. Thankfully the original stage production was filmed. If people can sit through Gone with the Wind, Titanic, Avatar, LOTR, or any other 2+ hr movie, this being split is just ridiculously unnecessary.
While I'm not a fan of the musical, Universal had no issue releasing Les Miserable as one film. I want to pretend it doesn't exist, but.... CATS.
And no. The issue with Into the Woods was that it was complete crap & Disney made unnecessary story changes. You don't need TWO 2hr movies to tell the same story that the stage production can do within a roughly 2.5hr timeframe. Thankfully the original stage production was filmed. If people can sit through Gone with the Wind, Titanic, Avatar, LOTR, or any other 2+ hr movie, this being split is just ridiculously unnecessary.
While I'm not a fan of the musical, Universal had no issue releasing Les Miserable as one film. I want to pretend it doesn't exist, but.... CATS.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 9,692
- 47,562
If they’re going to be truer to the book (and it already feels like it is), then it probably does need to be two films. The musical basically eliminates the entire last third of the book in favor of a breezy “Glinda and Elphaba are enemies now” hand wave. It also completely destroys Fiyero’s backstory, which is way more interesting than what the musical bothers with.
The movie(s) have the opportunities to expand a fascinating world, than can easily turn into a true franchise with “Son of a Witch” and the other sequels. I think this will work.
The movie(s) have the opportunities to expand a fascinating world, than can easily turn into a true franchise with “Son of a Witch” and the other sequels. I think this will work.
Which is why I feel like they should've skipped adapting the musical entirely & went for the books alone. *gasp* I know..
Although, since they added new songs to this (and Part 2), then they could easily create new songs for the sequel(s) if they really wanted to continue the story.
- Aug 7, 2018
- 7,112
- 9,127
I think this looks great, it feels like the haters at this point wanna hate just to hate, or don’t like Ariana. The hate feels unnecessary.
I’m not saying this looks like a Mount Rushmore level film, but it looks like it was handled with a lot of care on first look. I’m very excited.
I’m not saying this looks like a Mount Rushmore level film, but it looks like it was handled with a lot of care on first look. I’m very excited.
If they're not expanding the story from the musical, then I agree there was no reason for this to be two movies, especially with the first act being much stronger and more interesting than the second. However, if they are trying to implement more from the book to strengthen the story, it might be worth it.
That being said... it's hard to get behind the visuals. They have the same flat, dull lighting and look that we've seen from so many big-studio, CGI-heavy movies in the last 6-7 years, even with the whimsical designs and aesthetic of the world of Wicked. The musical's effects and spectacle really sell it and make it impressive to watch in person, but I don't feel inspired or in awe when I see the effects and visuals here. I wanna have faith in this movie, but there is a LOT in the air here.
That being said... it's hard to get behind the visuals. They have the same flat, dull lighting and look that we've seen from so many big-studio, CGI-heavy movies in the last 6-7 years, even with the whimsical designs and aesthetic of the world of Wicked. The musical's effects and spectacle really sell it and make it impressive to watch in person, but I don't feel inspired or in awe when I see the effects and visuals here. I wanna have faith in this movie, but there is a LOT in the air here.
Two movies....lots of similar/shared production costs....More Profit, less chance of losing money. ....Probably the real overriding reason for two instead of one.
My guess is they are also fleshing out the parts people are most familiar with to make it more accessible, or at least as much as they can without Warner suing for copyright infringement on the 1939 Wizard of Oz. I was surprised to see Dorothy and friends in the trailer:
The fact they even have her in the 1939 MGM gingham dress says to me they have an agreement with Warner on it, and we may get more of the material covered in the Wicked movie than they could in the stage version.
The fact they even have her in the 1939 MGM gingham dress says to me they have an agreement with Warner on it, and we may get more of the material covered in the Wicked movie than they could in the stage version.
I've seen the musical in London and wasn't sure why it was a thing, but it is and I saw so many having joy.
I'd never take that away from anyone. The movie is clearly not for me but for everyone else I wish you a great movie.
Look you can express your personal opinion without hating or p!ssing on someone elses parade.
I'd never take that away from anyone. The movie is clearly not for me but for everyone else I wish you a great movie.
Look you can express your personal opinion without hating or p!ssing on someone elses parade.
- Jul 27, 2015
- 9,692
- 47,562
Evidently Avaric, ShenShen, and other characters from Shiz that are pretty important to the book but not mentioned at all on stage have been cast for the movie. They’re definitely leaning into the book.
Book with our Travel Partners
Latest posts
-
-
-
Halloween Horror Nights 33 (UOR) - Speculation & Rumors- Latest: BoSoxFan1022
-
