|
Post by Yoyti on Nov 6, 2014 19:08:50 GMT -5
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!! I'M SO EXCITED!!!!!!!!! I have two complaints with the trailer, though. One, though Meryl Streep seems to be perfectly fine singing the role, I did not like how Stay With Me was incorporated into the trailer. Second, the trailer not only pretty much spoils a major branch of the story, they used one of the best lines of spoken dialogue in the show while doing so! That aside, at this point it's mostly only Chris Pine I have reservations about singing-wise (I mean, the role calls for a pretty strong baritone). On the whole, I'm very much looking forward to this movie.
|
|
|
Post by Zylaa on Nov 6, 2014 23:08:28 GMT -5
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE sums it up. <3
Yeah, now that you mention it, I'm not sure why they used "Stay with Me," of all the songs. And agreed, it's a shame that this trailer spoils...well, basically that Act 2 exists. >_>
But I am so excited about this movie. So excited. And so hopeful. I wish...
|
|
|
Post by Avery on Nov 6, 2014 23:11:21 GMT -5
I'm excited but also afraid it's going to crash and burn spectacularly. XD; So not getting my hopes super up until reviews and whatnot start coming in. Will see it regardless, but I am a jaded musical fan. 8D;
|
|
|
Post by Nova on Nov 7, 2014 1:10:18 GMT -5
I cannot wait! <3
|
|
|
Post by Jayeee on Nov 7, 2014 13:34:46 GMT -5
*Joins in* EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!
This makes me feel excited! Well, excited and scared.
|
|
|
Post by Yoyti on Jan 2, 2015 13:31:04 GMT -5
I saw this today. On the whole I enjoyed it. It was very well cast, though Chris Pine's accent really threw me off. He should have done what Anna Kendrick did and not even try. I have just three minor gripes about the singing. One, Daniel Huttlestone as Jack scooped in Giants In The Sky, presumably to sound more pop-ish, and it suited neither his voice nor the song. Two, Johnny Depp as the Wolf did not sing out the "when you're talking to your meal" line. Maybe it's creepier to mutter it, but I came for the musical! And finally, it would seem Meryl Streep did not have the top note at the end of the lament, since she went down the octave. Also, the title card. What was up with that? I really thought it was going to show up after the prologue! Also, music cameo from A Little Night Music! Beyond that, I'll be using a spoiler tag. The biggest disappointment for me was that both of the songs written for the movie were cut. The OBC video is always available for fidelity to the original show, but this would've been the first and only version with those songs. One of those songs, Rainbows was written for an earlier attempt at an Into The Woods film, but I guess it'll never see the light of day. The blue moon thing seemed odd at first, but then I realized it sort of answered my gripe about the stage show of why the Witch didn't tell them all this earlier when she wants the curse removed too, and the deadline seems arbitrary. It's not that a blue moon isn't arbitrary, but it is something that the Witch has no control over. I didn't like how heavy handed they were with the plot twists. In the stage show, the fact that the Witch was cursed, that the items are to remove the curse on her, and that she can't touch those items, are implied and hinted at, but the facts themselves are left as a plot twist at the end of Act I. Same with the second beanstalk. It seemed way too blunt that they not only showed it growing in a close up shot, but also felt the need to narrate it. That's another thing. The narration. I guess they did pretty well with the narrator as the Baker, and I understand why they couldn't kill him off, but I do think the Mysterious Old Man should have been left in, if only so that it wouldn't seem so random when the Baker's father shows up. I was disappointed when No More was cut, not just because its a wonderful song, but also because it's more effective at bringing the Baker back into the plot. Without the song it's just "I'm leaving you! Whoops! Changed my mind!" I guess I understand why I Know Things Now and Giants In The Sky were sung to the Baker, because extended monologues don't work as well on film, but then On The Steps Of The Palace happened. I did not like the new lyrics. More specifically, I did not like how they jumped around between first and second person, sometimes within the same sentence! I did laugh a little at the, probably unintentional, nod to Sunday In The Park With George, where Dot pauses the action, steps out of her dress, and walks around the stage a bit singing, before stepping back into her dress (which has remained this time hovering where she left it) and resuming the action. I was kind of disappointed and confused that I Guess This Is Goodbye and Maybe They're Magic were cut. They're both short songs, and they clearly didn't care about staying low key (Agony was about as over-the-top as I could hope, but it made me miss the reprise even more -- and also the bridge section of Any Moment and the whole second half!), so the hamminess of Maybe They're Magic shouldn't have been an issue. Not to mention Maybe They're Magic concludes with one of the best lines in the show! Some of the plot streamlining was very well done. Re-arranging the scenes to get around Rapunzel's death while maintaining the structure was very well done. One particularly conspicuous thing I noticed was Cinderella's line "I'll gladly help you with your house. Why, there are times I actually enjoy cleaning!" While it got a laugh out of some of the audience, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense if we don't see that the Baker's house has been destroyed. I don't think they really all needed to be at the procession at the end of Act I. They could have done a montage where everyone's at their respective homes living happily ever after, and that would have covered the Act I finale and the Act II opener, also giving an opportunity for the Witche's second rap. Finally, some of the lines, however much I love them, don't come across nearly as well on screen as they do on stage. Case in point: Little Red's "Oh dear, how uneasy I feel." (I didn't like how the scene was done where the Baker kills the wolf.) If it seems from this that I'm being too critical of the film, let me be clear that I really enjoyed it, and on the whole it was very well done. It's just a lot easier to enumerate the points where they went wrong than where they went right. In part because where it went right is also where the stage show went right, and you all know how much I love the stage show. I will say, though, that Meryl Streep's Last Midnight is quite possibly the best one since Bernadette Peters. Also, now more than ever I want a movie adaptation of Follies.
|
|
|
Post by Aria on Jan 3, 2015 8:22:04 GMT -5
This is one of those examples where I think it's better to be totally out of the loop (I've never seen/heard Into The Woods before) so I will be watching this film and taking it on face value. I feel this about Harry Potter as well. A lot of my friends really enjoy the films and haven't read the books, but I cannot stand them. The books are just perfect to me, and because of that, the films were a huge disappointment.
So many good actors in this! James Corden was a shock for me. Gavin and Stacey is just, urgh.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jan 4, 2015 0:31:59 GMT -5
I dunno, my friends who'd never seen the Broadway version didn't really care for the movie, but I liked it a lot. I was kind of surprised how good it turned out, because I was kind of expecting a big mess. They didn't like any of the songs. D: Which is like, so sad for me, because I love all those songs. I guess they just don't care for Sondheim.
The one part I -really- didn't like was Johnny Depp's. When I saw his costume, I felt he occupied an uncomfortable spot between human and wolf, and just looked utterly ridiculous, which was totally confirmed watching it. They should've gone more human or more wolf, because that song with that look was just all sorts of off. (Not to mention, it's WAY weirder at the last part of the Wolf's story.)
But Agony was the best thing ever, which makes me so happy because it's my favorite of the songs. X3
|
|
|
Post by thedoggirl on Jan 7, 2015 12:48:50 GMT -5
I saw this Saturday with my mom and we had a great time! I've watched the stage version (via dvd) a few years ago. I did love the movie, but I would definitely recommend people who haven't seen either to see a stage production first. I did love it, but there are a few things I'd like to point out. The movie kind of gave Rapunzel a happy ending... I remember in the play Rapunzel's husband took after Prince Charming's behavior. :T (At least we can be happy for movie!Rapunzel.) Also someone who had only seen the movie asked why the Baker never figured out Rapunzel was his sister and I couldn't remember if that was addressed in the stage version. I agree that the Wolf's costume was a bit odd. It didn't bother me too much as he wasn't on screen very long. (He was sufficient creepy either way. *shudders*) I guess it would have been better if like other people said they went with more human or wolf... What would have been interesting to me is if he slowly got more wolf-like. Just my opinion anyways. *shrug* I felt like in the second act the dark humour aspect of Into the Woods focused mostly on the dark part. This isn't necessarily bad. I thought in the stage act two was filled with (morbid) humour: although terrible things were happening to the characters, somehow it kept you laughing in expected places. I'm not saying the movie didn't do that. I'm saying the movie did it differently, having more emphasis on the unfortunate fates of the characters. I enjoyed the casting of Jack and Little Red Riding Hood because sometimes the actors look/are too old for parts meant for children. I think they did a good job in the movie. Now this is a little, insignificant nitpick, but did anyone get confused about the part when the Baker noticed Jack had his wife's scarf? I thought it was a bit weird that the kid found the Baker's wife at the bottom of a cliff, took her scarf and then (in a sense) forgot about it. Granted there is an angry giant hunting him, but he seemed to have forgotten to tell the Baker. I would assume he took the scarf to give to the Baker, but Jack didn't plan on bringing it up... The Baker noticed it himself. Maybe I'm just over-thinking things. I heard on the radio this morning that some people really hate or really love the movie. Disliking it doesn't make them awful people, but I thought I'd bring up their complaints/critiques. The movie is a musical. Not everyone was aware of that and not everyone likes musicals somehow. Some people were upset because they figured PG meant it was a kid's movie. Kids may like it; however, this wasn't really advertised as a kid's movie to my knowledge. Honestly, I wish we didn't equate PG as solely movies for children. Yes, children's movies are going to be G/PG. I'm only wondering why 'mature' movies have to always be filled with profanity/crude jokes/excessive gore/etc. (It would be hypocritical to claim I never see or enjoy media containing these things, but I don't like them in and of themselves.) If Into the Woods wasn't PG, what could they have gone with? PG-13 by making certain scenes more graphic? (As in the step sisters trying to force the shoe on) I think people were also taken aback by the not so happily ever after. I remember one of the radio hosts read a comment that went something like: "Since when does Prince Charming cheat? Hate this movie!" I can understand in a way why people wouldn't care for the ending. That being said this story was making a point! While I do enjoy happy endings, in this particular story, a picturesque finish was not possible, given what the story was telling us. Be careful what you wish for and if you are prepared to do anything to get what you want, you should also be prepared for the consequences. (That's what I personally took from it.) In this story, the prince is so obsessed over what he can't have. I found it interesting that in his final scene with Cinderella he didn't refer to her by her name. She was "the maiden that ran away." (Forgive me if I got the wording off.) Truthfully, if people are upset about a fairy tale being gloomy/gory, many 'original' (or maybe un-Disney-fied is a better term) fairy tales are similar. While I do enjoy Disney adaptations, I also am fascinated with other versions. (I love looking at various myths, legends and fairy tales.) Overall, I love the story (both the stage and movie.) I feel like much of the dislike comes from people anticipating a happily ever after kind of story. If anyone disagrees with my opinions, they are (obviously) free to let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Yoyti on Jan 7, 2015 16:42:13 GMT -5
I saw this Saturday with my mom and we had a great time! I've watched the stage version (via dvd) a few years ago. I did love the movie, but I would definitely recommend people who haven't seen either to see a stage production first. Addressing your points: Not just Rapunzel's Prince, (please, the character's names are Cinderella's Prince and Rapunzel's Prince) taking part in the reprise of Agony, but also that Rapunzel dies in the stage show. Shortly after the narrator is killed, and after the Herald hits Jack's Mother on the head, but before she dies, Rapunzel runs on stage, has a brief, almost wordless confrontation with the Witch, and runs off stage, promptly to be crushed by the giant. Opinions vary as to whether this was an accident or Rapunzel committing suicide by giant, but this scene was really the turning point of the show. Also where the Witch sings the lament. Rapunzel being the Baker's sister is never addressed at all. But it's not a frivolous point, because it connects the Baker's story with the Witch's. The structure of the story requires the Baker to be connected to the Witch, and the Witch to be connected to Rapunzel, but the Baker and Rapunzel need not be connected. They are siblings as a byproduct of how the Baker was written in, but it need not be addressed. That would be interesting. I did find it a bit bothersome that the original stage wolf, who had to wear a costume and makeup and all that and still jump around stage, looked significantly more like a wolf than the movie wolf, when CGI and motion capture and Johnny Depp were available. But I guess it worked. I thought it was the reverse. After the narrator's death, there's very little humor. The only comic relief after that comes in with Any Moment and Moments In The Woods, plus a few one-off lines which the movie left in. ("You can talk to birds?", "I was raised to be charming, not sincere", etc;) The movie cut Rapunzel's death, cut the implied death of the royal family, cut No More, cut Granny's suggested death, and more. The movie had a slightly grimmer atmosphere, but that's more a byproduct of dim lighting, darkish colours, lack of a live audience (applause, laughter, all those little noises that keep you in touch with reality) and other stuff which all seems to be the norm in movies nowadays. Also, there was more a feeling of constriction since as a movie, the movie could show trees at all angles, whereas on stage there has to be this huge open space in front of the characters so that the audience can see them. So that's more a byproduct of being a film than anything in the adaptation. Agreed. It was dealt with in the stage show, and that definitely bugged me in the movie. In the original show, the Witch explains that Jack was "weeping over her like she was his own mother" (dramatic irony!), and Jack says that he buried her in a footprint. So it doesn't actually explain why Jack took the scarf, but it's better handled. I'd like to talk briefly about a nitpick I have, not with the movie or the show itself, but in the common conclusion that the moral of the story is "be careful what you wish for": The only person who's wish has any negative consequences is the Witch's wish. Cinderella going to the ball had no bearing on anything the giant did. The baker and his wife, to get there wish did distribute the beans, but they didn't know about what magic the beans contained, they were on their quest at the behest of the Witch, and their wish was a direct consequence of the Witch's wish. Jack never wished for riches or adventures or giants, he got pulled into that on the side while his wish was originally only that Milky White would produce milk. Similarly, Little Red's adventure hinged nothing on her "I Wish" (which was followed by a verse that does not at all resemble a wish anyway). It just doesn't hold. There are plenty of morals in the show, (they're even outlined and refined at the end of the successive midnights in the stage show), but I have a hard time believing "be careful what you wish for" is one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jan 7, 2015 21:37:15 GMT -5
I dunno, I feel like the moral is more Real life doesn't just end when you get the one thing you want in the whole world ever. It just continues on, with or without you, regardless of karma or what you did or didn't "deserve."
As for Rapunzel, I didn't think it was so important that she die rather than leave. It has pretty much the same effect on the Witch, affects no one else in the story, and in both instances ends Rapunzel's screentime. And this way, the Baker's wife's death gets a little bit more impact, instead of pulling a Harry Potter "Oh yeah, they're dead too" moment.
|
|
|
Post by thedoggirl on Jan 7, 2015 21:41:44 GMT -5
Those are good points. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of becoming greedy with wishes... for example Jack only wished his cow friend would produce milk (as you said), but later he kept taking the giant's treasure to buy back his cow/prove that the harp was real. Perhaps I didn't really understand what I meant by be careful what you wish for. Ironically, I did hope or wish if you rather someone would address my opinions. I am super rusty on how the stage version went. I probably should have refreshed myself. xD And from what you said about Jack and the Baker's wife makes more sense. Maybe in the movie I just thought he came across as more distant than visibly upset at finding her. Thank you for explaining certain things and sharing your opinions. I should re-watch the stage version. c:
|
|
|
Post by thedoggirl on Jan 7, 2015 21:51:30 GMT -5
I dunno, I feel like the moral is more Real life doesn't just end when you get the one thing you want in the whole world ever. It just continues on, with or without you, regardless of karma or what you did or didn't "deserve."
As for Rapunzel, I didn't think it was so important that she die rather than leave. It has pretty much the same effect on the Witch, affects no one else in the story, and in both instances ends Rapunzel's screentime. And this way, the Baker's wife's death gets a little bit more impact, instead of pulling a Harry Potter "Oh yeah, they're dead too" moment.
I see your what you mean. I find that the story speaks to me in that the characters thought if they only got the one thing they wished more than anything, then they'd be happy. But they found out sometimes what you think you wanted wasn't what you needed.
And I wan't upset that movie Rapunzel got a "happy ending" (or at least didn't get stomped). Without the stepsisters, stepmother and other 'minor' characters there much in act two, lots of deaths would have gotten rid of most of the people onscreen fast.
|
|
|
Post by Nut on Jan 7, 2015 22:46:38 GMT -5
I haven't seen the movie (since it doesn't come out where I live for three more weeks) but I always thought the primary moral of the musical was that right and wrong or good and bad are not black and white. What helps you may hurt someone else, and what hurts you may help someone else; what you want most in the world may not be what brings you happiness and fulfillment, and what is a terrible experience for you may teach you things you needed to learn so you can have good experiences in the future. There are two sides to everything.
To me, it is in large part a story of learning that there are other perspectives and viewpoints than the ones you’ve been raised with, and that there’s no single one that’s necessarily more or less valid or likely to be “right” than all the others. You have to decide on your own what you believe is “right” and choose your actions based on what you believe will lead to the best outcome, but even then it’s not going to make everyone happy. You win some and you lose some, and you need to be aware of the consequences of your actions and attitudes—and know that there can be both good and bad consequences of the exact same behavior.
I’ve seen complaints about the story’s dark twist, but I don’t see it as going for the shock value of “all the good, safe things you like are actually bad and dangerous!” so much as it’s emphasizing that even your smallest actions have both positive and negative consequences you may never even realize, and that growing up means trying to appreciate others’ perspectives and weighing the possible consequences before acting, and accepting that we all make mistakes and sometimes hurt others or ourselves without meaning to, but we have to keep moving forward and trying to do better next time anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Yoyti on Jan 7, 2015 22:48:41 GMT -5
I dunno, I feel like the moral is more Real life doesn't just end when you get the one thing you want in the whole world ever. It just continues on, with or without you, regardless of karma or what you did or didn't "deserve."
As for Rapunzel, I didn't think it was so important that she die rather than leave. It has pretty much the same effect on the Witch, affects no one else in the story, and in both instances ends Rapunzel's screentime. And this way, the Baker's wife's death gets a little bit more impact, instead of pulling a Harry Potter "Oh yeah, they're dead too" moment.
That's a fair moral. Honestly, I've never really read into the moral of Into The Woods that much. Although of course all the pre-existing fairy tales come with their own morals.
As for Rapunzel, it's not so much important to me that she die, as it is that her death in the show is effectively a marker in the story saying "this is getting serious." (It's really the narrator's death that signals it, but that's handled in a semi-humorous way, and neither the characters nor the audience really know how the narrator's death is going to affect the story. But the transfer to screen messes with the whole dramatic arc of theater, most obviously with the removal of the intermission (I didn't really like how that was handled; I feel like they could have combined the fake=out ending with the Act II prologue, by making a montage resembling the prologue seemingly to wrap everything up before introducing the giant), and therefore combining two tension arcs into one. This was handled very well in West Side Story. The movie swapped Cool with Gee Officer Krupke, and also moved I Feel Pretty earlier, thus preventing a sudden drop in tension where the intermission would be. (Intermission immediately drops tension anyway, so I Feel Pretty as an Act II opener is not a mood killer, and sets up the subsequent revelation to be even more of one). I'm getting sidetracked. The point is that when you're removing the intermission, the live audience, and the visible scene changes, things feel different, and so things have to be reworked. I don't know if Rapunzel's death would have had the same kind of effect on screen. Obviously the narrator's death is an issue on screen, and maybe Rapunzel's death couldn't have been the same kind of milestone. Jack's Mother could have taken the whole force of the milestone, especially as up to this point, she's been a minor and mostly comic character, and on top of that, a mother. It felt to me that in the stage show all the deaths got more attention especially Jack's Mother. (Also, I kind of missed the Witch's line: "Wake up! People are dying all around you!"
As for the Baker's Wife's death, I felt the reverse. I thought that was an extremely well executed moment in the show, with the right amount of impact, whereas in the movie, it just sort of felt like "okay, yeah, that happened." I'm not sue I could pinpoint why, unless I saw the movie again, but I think part of it might be that the movie showed too much of the giant too early, and then she suddenly becomes just vague sound effects when the Baker's Wife dies. And since they left out the line where Jack buries her in a footprint (not to mention she fell off a cliff rather than being crushed), it's entirely possible in the movie that the giant wasn't at all responsible for her death. I think I might have preferred it if we saw some of the giant there, and maybe see a foot descending. Reducing your character's cause of death to vague sound effects and some sort of sudden downward motion (without showing the cliff she fell off of, I might add), that's how you open a horror movie when you don't want to reveal the monster too early. We know what the monster is. Heck, we've seen her on screen and even heard her speak!
I really don't want to seem like I didn't like the film, because I did. I just can't help but analyze it and compare it to the stage version.
|
|