Into the Woods (2014)

First official picture from the film version of Into the Woods. It shows Meryl Streep as the Witch.

Can we just be thankful that Sophia Grace Brownlee's parents decided that she was too young to play Little Red Riding Hood and got replaced by Lilla Crawford? Still, I do find it interesting that pre-teens are playing the roles of Red and Jack who are normally performed by teenagers or older. It reminds of the casting of Toby in the film version of Sweeney Todd.

Speaking of movies featuring Johnny Depp, I wonder how the Big Bad Wolf will be handled. Will he be anthropomorphic or a talking animal? Will it be make-up or CG?

It will be interesting to see how Rob Marshall will bring this musical to the big screen.

edited 27th Sep '13 6:23:50 PM by DS9guy

I don't know too much about the musical, but I like Anna Kendrick and Chris Pine, so count me in.

Dude, what's with the musical hate? There's really no point in taking away the songs in this one since it was a musical to begin with.

edited 27th Sep '13 8:39:05 PM by Mort08

I hope this isn't a musical film adaption...I just wanted it to be a normal film, just like what happended to...er, AH FUCK.

Well, we all knew this shit was coming. Thanks, Disney. I was never that interested in this film anyway.

edited 19th Jun '14 12:04:09 PM by Mort08

I'll repost what I said this morning when I saw the news...

And... This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Disney is Disney-fying stuff to the point of, well, missing the point.

Those are all big parts of the theme for the work. The show is all about growing up and realizing that life isn't a fairy tale (or, that fairy tales weren't 'Disney' in the first placeSECONDPLACE!) and all sorts of other metaphors for the relationships between parent and child and parent to parent.

It also has themes of temptation; staying on the path or straying to the woods. Doing the latter will reaffirm you to the former through experience and learning, which is the entire point of Little Red's Arc in Act One; She strays from the path and gets eaten for it which puts her through a feeling like she needs to toughen up for the world, though it also becomes a mask of confidence to her.

The Baker's Wife's liaison with the Prince has to do with her full show arc; She's always looking for bettering things; a better house, better job, better money, and, subtly, a better husband or for her husband to be more. After being with the Prince, she realizes her folly and learns to appreciate what she has... just before being crushed...

And its Rapunzel's death that inspires the Witch to grow ugly in Act II so... I REALLY hope they removed and wrote through the changes instead of simply cutting out stuff. : /

Looking at the information again, I have further thoughts...

If Rapunzel doesn't die, then the Witch hasn't much reason to get so pissed off at everyone in Act II. Her entire Act 2 Arc hinges on Rapunzel's death. You can't just cut that...

Also, fuck that nonsense that censorship being reality that you have to deal with. No-no. Its the reverse way around; CENSORSHIP is the result of people being unable to deal with the topics at hand and, thus, reality.

The All-girl's high school near by my high school did Into the Woods and I would have auditioned for it if I had known because Into the Woods is one of my favorite musicals. But, if they cut out Rapunzel's death, the Baker's Wife's Liaison with the Prince, and the Wolf's relationship with Red, I would be pissed and I'm quite certain I might have quit the production all together because that's simply Bullshit.

I really hate that I'm even considering this idea because I REALLY hate people that say these things, but if he truly believes the things he's saying here, then I feel like he doesn't understand the inner workings of his own work.

And you can't still call this Into the Woods; The second you censor something, it becomes something else. Its not the same work anymore. And these are MASSIVE changes to the story here... Ones that carry the very core themes of the entire show. Rapunzel's death is the result of the Arc words "Children will listen" and... I already explained this so I'm talking in circles... Ugh...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/06/20/disneys-into-the-woods-changes-wont-hurt-box-office/

Ugh...

Its articles like this that disgust me and its mostly because they're sort of right. I just really hate their attitude of 'Well, shut up an accept it because no one cares' because... obviously people DO care, just not the people in charge or the audience they want to enrapture.

At which point two very big questions appear; The first of which is then 'Why are you adapting this?' If you're going to adapt something that is well known for being a bit more 'clawed' then VERY SPECIFICALLY Disney and basically expecting you to be familiar with Fairy Tales and Disney Tropes before viewing, why then adapt it and remove those things?

Its like adapting... I'm trying to think of some fairy tale Disney HASN'T adapted to use in a metaphor here. It's like adapting 'A Thousand Furs' and, No, Her father isn't attempting incest with his daughter, he was just very close to her and a good parental role model! No. That's not what Thousand Furs is... Though, perhaps not the best example.

Its like Sweeny Todd without the Anti-Hero/Villain Protagonist trait to the character. Or Rent without the topic of AIDS and Homosexuality. Or Avenue Q without... basically everything; its too long to list what Disney would nix.

Ok, Game of Thrones; everyone knows that series to some extent. Lord Petyr Bailish doesn't run a brothel! Don't be absurd, he clearly runs a restaurant with many beautiful waitresses. Oh, and trust me, Joffery will get better as soon as he has a long 'serious' discussion with his mother and decides to be a better King which suddenly makes him one. And that King Renley guy? If he isn't already the villain, he only has a 'very close' relationship with his Brother-In-Law and Bodyguard Loras. And... I'd say something about Deneryis helping the 'poor illiterate and uncultured vaguely-middle-eastern-people, but the show sort of went with that route so...

Back to my point, you're missing the identity of the work by removing these aspects or changing them. At which point it becomes question why adapt it in the first place then? What Disney wants is the easy way; They want the popularity of Into the Woods and aim it for children and families without facing the very music of the show and what its about. I mean, hell, this show's final message is 'Children will listen' and its constantly shown in the story itself that you need to be honest with your children, but don't sugar coat it or demonize the obstacles; treat them as adults.

And that's the best part about this musical; It takes its audience seriously. I grew up with this show; its the first musical I ever saw. Like I said above, I didn't understand the more adult natured things; and it didn't bother me that I didn't. I understood the tone of scenes and it got the point to me fine about how I should feel; Red got eaten by the wolf, the Wife regretted seeing the Prince in person and talking with him, Lol, the Princes have new Princesses now!

And look at me now. It can't possibly be that this musical is too 'edgy' for youth; I saw it when I was six and watched it a ton since then and one of my near by high schools put on the full version of the show with almost no edits to the material (and what edits were there were carried over from the revival where the Narrator is a kid).

So why is it that Disney thinks this suddenly needs to be changed?

The way I see it; that audience who will see Into the Woods will watch it regardless of what is censored and what is not and the only ones who'll throw a fit are the ones that are acting like infants and will probably throw a fit regardless. If they didn't edit it, they'd get the best of both worlds and have the audience and fan approval. If the idea is that these changes are so Moral Guardians won't throw a fit, Why adapt it in the first place???

They want the easy way of adapting something and getting rid of everything that is uncomfortable about it. And its disgusting. Its a horrible trend I've noticed that, while not on the levels of Disneyfication, but still following the pattern that we tend to censor and remove topics that make us uncomfortable in works and it becomes jarring when that 'uncomfortable topic' is what made the work so good in the first place. Its particularly disgusting, in my opinion, when it comes to children. 'How dare your work cause my child to be inquisitive and ask me questions that I don't want to answer to poor-innocent Jimmy.' Yes, how dare your child be curious about new ideas and perspectives. How dare my work that; we need to make sure our children remain innocent until they're 18 and then we shatter their innocents and throw them to the real world.

I'm not saying throw titties and boobs at children, but there have been studies done where children view topics that adults find terrible for children to be exposed to; like homosexuality and... the children take it in stride and really see no issue either. The adults are the ones throwing the fits. Children will listen and understand a lot of things, though on much simpler terms, and if they don't understand, they tend to follow the tone pretty well. If they're disinterested at all, its not because of the more 'adult' topics.

Going ALL THE WAY BACK to the beginning of my post, the second question is then, what is there to be done about it? Everyone always says 'then just don't watch it' but even a rational adult can realize that that solution doesn't work anymore in this day and age and particularly with a corporation like Disney. As long as it doesn't harm their money, what do they care?

-End Rant-

Hmm. Lemme try to get inside the head of a Disney boss and lay some of what they would say about this if they had the guts. It's not going to be easy but truth seldom is.

You are not the market Disney are after. Nor are any of the others in this thread who are complaining about the changes that Disney are making. You do not matter. It's as brutally honest as that. You will not stop the film being a financial success or a car crash on the scale of what happened to John Carter thanks to the bosses of Disney being complete idiots in their marketing strategy. There are not enough of you to make that difference. You already failed to stop Maleficent making its dollars. (far more domestically than the far superior Tom Cruise/Emily Blunt film, "Edge of Tomorrow" made to my, Tam's, chagrin)

Disney do not want your money - it would be nice to get, obviously, but they are not focused on it. You care enough about the material enough to complain about it before it comes out, even, on this kind of forum - the folks who Disney are after do not. They have kids, or siblings or nieces and nephews who will want to go and see a fairy-tale movie and give the square root of sod all that the death and violence of the original material has been gutted from it. They may want to complain later if they didn't enjoy it but by that time it's too late.

The cash is either gonna be in the bank or in the pocket of the consumer who chose not to spend it on yet another fairy-tale film.

http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Breaking-News-Following-Outcry-About-INTO-THE-WOODS-Changes-Stephen-Sondheim-Releases-Statement-20140623#.U6iu_MZOWfA

Well... I feel a bit better now. But the fact that Rapunzel doesn't die and, supposedly, the Mysterious Man was also cut, I'm still a bit... cautious.

First trailer.

shivers.

That link kept redirecting me to their main site, for some reason.

Changes are shit. Trailer is shit. Johnny depp continues to wear a stupid hat.

Hope Sondheim didn't have any regrets cashing that check Disney gave him to say the movie isn't complete horse trash.

Ugh... The music and production value is so good though! Argh.

OK I tried to leave this at just my initial post, but, fucking damnit I am irrationally angry over all of this shit having to do with this movie!

As both a huge fan of Disney and the play, the second I heard Disney had the rights for a movie adaptation, I cringed. Because I KNEW the original material would be sanitized for public consumption, because that's what Disney does. And in most cases, I'm fine with that because the tales Disney adapts usually have been retold and reimagined a million times before Disney got a hold of them (with a few key exceptions. Not only was this a play specifically written to be one story, but it was a dark deconstruction of what Disney was presenting, and I can't help but feel that's the only reason Disney decided to adapt it: The play is the anti-Disney fairy tale, and Disney didn't want anyone else to do it.

And yes, I fully believe Disney payed off Sondheim to approve the changes. If they could give enough cash to force Native American organizations and communities to endorse an openly racist film [[Pocahontas TWICE]], they can certainly buy off one play writer to say "I approve this." Hell, he basically said it in his first statement, only to pull back after I'm sure Disney signed him another check.

I love that line ate the end,"gotothewood.".It sounds so rushed and crappy.

On the topic of the trailer itself,meh.(then again,most live action disney movies haven't looked that interesting to me,excluding John Carter[still wish we could've gotten those sequals]).While I haven't seen the musical(yet,may think about it some other time),this doesn't look that impressive at all.The fact that they're making changes to the source just makes me curious if that will make or break the film,not like they haven't done it before.

Also,am I the only one who finds it a little weird that they didn't play any of the songs in the trailers?

edited 1st Aug '14 10:19:05 AM by ScottPilgrim2013

OUAT isn't THAT sanitized. I'd put at about the same level of family friendliness as Doctor Who, but I guess that's the whole point of the comment.

It didn't surprise me. They pulled the same thing for Sweeney Todd back in 2008.

edited 1st Aug '14 3:54:05 PM by Sisi

You guys still have things like the filmed performances. One potentially bad adaptation doesn't negate the other good ones. Besides, it could always be worse. They could have decided to adapt the Junior version.

edited 1st Aug '14 5:55:12 PM by Mort08

The Jr. Version is usually JUST the first Act of the show with no other changes. Typically because the more adult jokes go over kids heads (as they should instead of being outright removed) and the sexualization of the Wolf and Red's relationship, while very clear in the lyrics, is mostly played up by the actor on the stage. So, in other words, the First Act is relatively clean. And I wouldn't be bothered as much if they did just the Jr. Version.

It'd be cheap and incomplete, but at least they didn't muck about with things.

It has to do with the structure of the show; The First Act plays like you're typical Fairy Tale and everyone following the basic logic of those stories ('We need to get x to do y for z') and ends at a Happily Ever After. The Second Act picks up after the First Act and reexamines all the tropes in the previous act and takes them from the Ideological end of the scale to the Cynical side.

• The Princes who go off into the Woods to search for their Brides are unhappy and really seeking a goal rather than the prize of the goal, which leads to them being unfaithful.

• The Baker and his Wife are frustrated by the stress that the baby has brought on them, their house, and their relationship.

• The Witch has been brought down a notch (literally) and has to face the trauma she has wrought on the one she acted as a mother to.

• Cinderella, being used to days of chores and a hard day's work, finds herself doing nothing but lounging around as the Prince's prize and unhappy with doing nothing.

Basically, the First Act is the Disney Movie and then the Second Act is PAINT's After Ever After but as cynical as possible. And less funny.

I REALLY like the music the trailer had so I hope there'll at least be good renditions of the songs involved. However, I swear, if they touch my Last Midnight, there'll be hell to pay.

edited 2nd Aug '14 12:10:55 AM by lancesolous13

I'm familiar with the show. I haven't seen it, but my friends are all fans of it.

I figured I'd explain for others who are reading reading.

There are no words. Only pain.◊

And lots of confusion.