@@MadailinBurnhope everywhere. Compare with the marketing of Chicago, Moulin Rouge and The Greatest Showman. Those were proud to be musicals. They even released the albums. FROZEN EVEN RELEASED THE WHOLE let It Go sequence on RU-vid. But new musicals hide it. Wicked has never been marketed as a musical. If you don't know that Cynthia Arivo sings Defying Gravity, the trailer doesn't tell you.
@@MadailinBurnhope Personally I wasnt even sure if it was gonna be a musical or just a nonmusical movie. The songs they play all sound like they could've just been background music for the trailer, it's very in the background (although tbf there may have been other trailers I haven't seen)
Yeah, I totally agree but also, I feel like it makes perfect sense. It’s hard to criticize making a live action because people like the stage so because of the theatricality and the fact that it’s real people.
They could've literally just put the itermisson into the film. they used to do this in films, and I think if they really felt the intermission was nessacary. throw "intermission" on the screen, play the score for ten minutes, let everyone get up and get snacks or whatever.
I say this as a fan of the musical: what is the motivation to go see act 2 of Wicked as a separate movie? Seriously? I asked my partner to name their favorite songs in act 2. They said "No Good Deed," then said they'd have to look at the tracklist to name another. Then I asked them about act 1, and they named "Defying Gravity" "Dancing through Life" "No One Mourns the Wicked" "Loathing" "Popular," and so on. Point being, act 2, as much as I love it, is nothing compared to act 1, and it makes no financial sense to turn the less popular half of the musical into a stand-alone film.
So, Disney wanted to make the Wicked movie, but it ended up being Oz the Great and powerful, a movie that did not do very well. I think that the studios wanted Wicked as a backdoor to get another franchise that is beloved, but also isn't really entirely public domain (the wizard of oz). The rumors I heard were that the padding of both movies would be jumping off points for spinoff tv shows or more movies. So that may be why it doesn't seem to be "for" anyone, because the ultimate goal is to turn this musical into a marvel type money making machine.
I mean if they wanted a franchise looking glass wars is a trilogy of books right there based off Alice. And even oz has its own series of books. Just adapt that lol feels like they want a franchise without the hard work
That's the goal of any media franchise right now The biggest source of income comes from the obsessive fan market, that's how Disney and pokemon made it so big Now series and movies are just big, huge commercials to sell cheap merchandise to as many people as possible
Sticking a few cameras in front of a stage and recording plays used to be a thing - It's how I watched Into The Woods when I was... About 5 or 6? Too young for Into The Woods, at any rate - Channel 4 in the UK acquired broadcast rights to it. If you want to make stage musicals accessible to audiences who are unable to see them, that's how to do that rather than translating them into a different medium entirely. Would be interested to see your take on why trailers are currently hiding that they're musicals.
I wish far more would do that. While I wouldn't call theatre a venue for the elite anymore, it's still only accessible to a very limited number of folks. As you point out, it cuts out everyone where it's too far to travel, or not even playing in your area and that's not counting people in other countries. To me, it seems like a no brainer to film them and while it's an extra cost, surely it can't be that much compared to potential financial return. There's loads of streaming platforms out there for them to land which is access to all those people. It really seems like they're missing a huge potential audience and revenue stream.
I don’t know, personally as someone who does watch more movies than I do stage productions, I do kind of prefer watching a film in its own medium as opposed to filmed productions. I will admit, there are plenty of bad films and live filmings such as Hamilton or the 25th Anniversary of Phantom of the Opera can be really good, I just like to see other takes on it.
@@samuelbarber6177 That sounds like you get to see stage productions, even though you prefer movies. For people like me, there is no realistic way to see many stage shows like these because they don't come close to where I live. The cost of travel, staying over and so on simply doesn't make it feasible, that's if they are even on in my country and I'm in the UK. Filming them would allow stage fans to see them, as close to intended as they can and without the risk of a bad adapation.
"Who is this for?" is a question I ask every time there's a sequel, prequel, midquel, remake, or reboot that no one wanted. The fact that I'm asking it increasingly more often makes me a little sad, and a little frustrated, especially since the answer is almost always 'people with money'.
@@OliveNLuv I'm so sorry. I made a sweeping generalization, and that was incredibly unkind of me. I can't take back my words, so all I can say is, I hope it's as wonderful as you're hoping for, and then some.
Honestly it's very refreshing to hear someone discuss this movie, but not focus on the big controversy that everyone's talking about. I can understand alot of your points here, in fact I'd say I do agree with you on alot of this. Great video!
1. I read both the novel Wicked and its sequel, Son of a Witch, years ago. There's a lot more material there, but it would clash WILDLY with the tone of the musical. 2. As someone who loved The Hobbit (the novel) as a child and saw the movies as an adult, all I can say is Oh No.
Maguire's book is over 500 pages long. A lot of stuff was left out of the musical to make it a three -hour stage production. I believe the idea was to add more of the book back into the movie, thus creating the need to split it in half. Think of it as a director's cut of the musical paying greater homage to the original IP. I believe the hope is to please both lovers of the book AND the musical. I do hate how studios aren't marketing musicals AS musicals. Why put money into producing them if you think you need to "hide" what they are?
@@lydiagrafton8481 I certainly hope that there is more of the Animal liberation subplot, and Elphaba's being directly responsible for each of Dorothy's companions plight through her attempts to rescue each of them.
The novel is heavily about racism and Elbhaba was originally intersex - these were ignored in the show. Perhaps they expand on those? The Wizard basically being we we would call a date rapist is also something to expand on - some people try to ignore or deny it!
The production of Wicked has gone on for so long that I’m bored by any news about it and it seems like it’s going to be yet another film that’s 90% CGI, which, personally, I’m not interested in seeing (and given that, as you said, the reason to go see a play is the spectacle, I can’t imagine others are super interested in it either.) I think most people who aren’t Ariana stans will probably treat this like a Marvel movie- popular enough to make its money back, has a fanbase, but ultimately a little forgettable.
Even worse than any filmmaking choice is the Target tie-in ads, which are being played multiple times per ad break during sports (literally the only time I watch programming with ads). Not only does it strike me as the wrong audience to advertise to, but this is a recipe to make a lot of people hate that movie in a big bad way.
If I had to guess why the run time is so long, I think they're actually adapting the books and the play. In the beginning of the play, the backstory of the characters gets glossed over and I think they may flush that out more.
I doubt they’d adapt the throuple that Elphaba’s parents end up in with a man who may be her sister’s actual father. Or Elphaba’s mom almost drowning her when she was a kid. There’s a lot of eyebrow raising stuff that happens at the beginning before they ever get to school.
I've read the Maguire books, and have a rough idea of the musical but have never seen it. This movie is like the only opportunity I'd ever get to see it if I was so inclined. Wicked the musical is just so very much its own thing. Adapting any more of the book than is already in there would seem strange to me. Because the book is a whole lot of WTF, and I would definitely not recommend the books to fans of the musical. The Musical seems to have picked the best parts of it to create its own thing. If they're expanding on characters I'd more expect them to do that using their own world as inspiration, or even the Oz books as opposed to Maguire's.
They are very different, but I also think the beginning is the best opportunity to bring in part of the book. A few lines in a song could be extended to a whole open scene. There is a lot from that part of the book that probably wouldn't fit well in the musical, but I think there's enough they could use to extend the scene and give some more background on the characters.
With the amount of 2,5+ hour movies that far outstayed their welcome I've sat through lately, the idea of two 80-minute movies honestly sounds wonderful to me.
I'm not sure I think this change is to make sure more time is spent during the school bits and possibly also better develop the supporting cast Defying gravity is to me a climactic song It's a great moment to end the movie on Which is why it's at the end of a act In a movie it might have felt rushed like we jumped through the school arc of Elphaba and Glinda going from enemies to friends Theearly critics reactions are positive which is great
As a fan of the Baum books, I found Wicked the book as completely missing the point. Baum was a massive feminist and was writing books to give little girls agency and heroism instead of telling them to go play house. Because of my distaste for the book, I was late getting into the musical. I love the songs, even if the entire story goes completely against Baum's mythos. From what I've seen of the production notes, I was already not enthusiastic about the movie (though the dolls are well sculpted - toy line good, movie....meh?) Listening to what you have to say, I can see that dialing back my already low expectations is in order.
I don't think Maguire was trying to make the same points as Baum. It's still rather feminist, but it addresses how propaganda shapes the narrative of a community.
Maguire also builds his books around moral and ethical questions which are asked to challenge the readers very idea of those themes. Wicked is meant to question how we actually define wickedness, loveliness, doing the right thing, and questioning what the government does and tells you. It’s similar to Bain’s books in name only.
I liked the book, and I still like it, but I can't deny that it's depressingly cynical and... well, just depressing. The musical is the polar opposite, I don't think they can incorporate content from the novel without a huge mood whiplash.
I think you completely missed the point of Wicked. Gregory McGuire writes stories of classic villains, framing them as protagonists. He’s not saying the Baum books were wrong, but to get you to question popular public narratives, hence why Wicked is based off the Wizard of Oz movie, not the Baum books.
Wait what?!?! A YEAR? Why not just wait to release, until you can put them out at near the same time? Create a 3 week box office banaza? A year is just going to create a chasm where I can't find myself caring come the second half.
Also it's so tiring when people adapt musicals but don't seem to understand that musicals are their own medium with its own idiosyncrasies. Like yes there IS actually a rhythm and intent behind the pacing of songs, it's why movies that cut too liberally end up with weird dead spots! We could avoid this if people interested in musicals as a medium were adapting things instead of trying to adapt stories that are unfortunately for them, also musicals
We just need to bring back intermissions for movies lol. Movie musicals--and longer epic films in general--used to just do that, when it was "too long" or whatever. Then you wouldn't have to artificially lengthen things EVEN MORE in order to justify 2 entirely separate films with 2 entirely separate release dates. If Defying Gravity needs a break after it, then just give it one. But no, you'd rather try and get people to pay double for one product 🙄 Or just make pro-shots of all your musicals and release them in cinemas lol
In the grand tradition of movies like Dune and It, the marketing disguises the fact that the movie is Part 1 of TWO movies for no reason, acting like a single movie is all we’re getting
The pre sale tickets reports are on par with Lion King So the bauming will only be if the film isn't good If female audiences show up for this like hey did for Barbie it will be a hit
In regards to the running time and being split into two movies: 1) because it's more believable in selling the amount of time that passes during the story, and 2) because Schwartz wants to dominate the Best Original Song Oscar categories.
Only songs written specifically for a movie can qualify for Best Original Song and there are no new songs on the soundtrack, so Schwartz isn't going for back-to-back Oscars.
People are acting like splitting the movie is a way to milk the money, but it’s a huge risk of universal to do that. It would probably have been safer to do a direct adaptation of the stage plate and way more economical at the very least, so part of me has to believe there was a creative reason for that decision.
As someone who was a Day 1 fan of the stage musical Wicked, every announcement ever made with regards to a film adaptation has only eroded my faith in it. Chu seemed like a good choice of director, but prior to his involvement, it had been in development hell for nearly 20 years, which is rarely a good sign. Casting two leads so much older than their characters are meant to be just after the Dear Evan Hansen debacle gave me pause. And the decision to split it in two was a giant red flag moment. I am struggling to see how that could be narratively or artistically satisfying for pretty much all the reasons you elaborated on, and when I saw that the run time is the ACTUAL show length... I don't want this to bomb. But it just doesn't look good based on what I know and can see. I'd be thrilled to be wrong, but I'm still not excited about how this will compare to the show I loved so much.
Regarding the ages of the actresses, while I see your concern, I would point out a few things. One they are meant to be in collage not high school which in terms of looks can be aa huge difference. Its assumed to all take place that first year at school, but we don't know how much time, "what is this feeling" covers. Two at least Elphaba and Fieryro are drawn in the musical as being older than a lot of the characters in school. Elphaba's father only sends her to Shiz to look afer her younger sister and while they never give a direct number, Fieryro does sing, "I've been kicked out to enough of them to know", thus implying he's a little older. And then you also have to take into account act two as there is no clear time given between Defying Gravity and Thank Goodness so it could potentially be "years". Again I'm not saying your concerns aren't valid, THEY ARE, I'm playing a little devil advocate here. I hope you have a good day.
I'm aware of all that. I've seen the show, and read the book. Canonically, Elphaba is 3-4 years older than Nessa, placing her in her very early 20s at the start of the show, and while we don't know exactly how much time elapses, she's probably not much more than 30 by the end. Cynthia Erivo is gorgeous, and looks amazing, and on stage there would be no issue at all with her as Elphaba. But on screen, she's a 37 year old woman who reads as a 30 something, and the same goes for Ariana Grande. And as we saw with Evan Hansen, the context in which we read character actions is affected when we are watching an older person do things originally ascribed to a character intended to be younger. Even if we try to suspend disbelief in good faith, there's a subconscious reaction to the mismatch that changes the way we experience and react to a character. That's true even of the best acting performances. And I worry it will become just one more thing that degrades the show when it's translated to screen.
I can imagine a Hamilton film would probably be split in two as well. The break between ‘Non-Stop’ and ‘What’d I Miss’ is a bit too much. #MakeFilmsHaveIntermissionsAgain
I love the book as well as the musical but I think it would be very ill advised to try and adapt further elements from the book, especially with the added length and no added songs. If they REALLY wanted to blend the two, an expanded prologue with a song explaining Elphaba's family history and birth would go a long way, as the musical is basically just like 'her mom slept with (or was raped by) the Wizard and she's green.' I think it would be really jarring to, for example, have baby Elphaba being all creepy, her father hauling her around on religious witnessesing trips, her family's toxic dynamics, and Turtle Heart moving in and seducing both her parents... But we still just get the one brief intro in the opening song. Which, come to think of it, the intro song is a framing one that takes place, chronologically, at the END of the story, and just has Glinda giving bits of exposition before going into the first chronological scene. Which works fantastically for a musical, especially one based on the villain of a well known story who we already know is dead. (Or. 'Dead') But in a movie? With the music this spaced out? I think it's gonna be weird, similarly to how inconsistent the music was used in the Mean Girls musical movie. And in addition to that, the musical's actual chronological start is when Elphaba's already at Shiz, so that necessitates either skipping her early life, or making it jarring. Also as far as the book goes - there's so many reasons that the things from the book that didn't get adapted didn't get adapted, and most of those apply to a movie almost as much as a musical. There's tons of quiet, character and dynamic establishing or developing scenes that would drag or feel out of place here. There's composite characters and cut characters that wouldn't benefit the movie to bring back. There's odd and grim scenes that would put people off. And so much of Elphaba's journey after act one just would not fit in the movie or musical the way that those adaptations are structured. Like the book has so much stuff... Elphaba becomes an assassin and terrorist. She has a long running affair with Fiyero until he disappears. Then she goes to a convent, is in a coma for a while, and then wakes up having giving birth to her and Fiyero's son, who she isn't even sure is her son, and then drags him along with her to go to Fiyero's family's castle to live with his wife and kids. Like. That's not gonna be in the movie. I fucking hope. I love the book dearly but what makes it work is so different to what makes the musical work that I find it hard to see how it could possibly be adapted back in. The musical is great precisely because it isn't afraid to take such a different approach and make changes. So in theory, I wouldn't mind the movie being longer - but if they're supplementing it with the book or not adding further songs then I fail to see what the point is or how it'd work. Or why they even use the songs that already exist, other than the obvious that that's what the audience is expecting and what will get them into the theater. Idk, I think it goes without saying that the songs are the backbone of the musical, they are the structure that makes it work and contain so much of the character, pathos, humor, everything. Like you said, you can get the story from just listening to the music, and not only the story but the distilled essence of the entire show, but it doesn't work the other way around - the story of the musical doesn't work without the music. And I don't think expanding the story without supporting those expansions with the music could work well. Ultimately we'll just have to see, but this looks shaky.
I would have loved for a good professional recording like Hamilton or Come From Away. You can do a good movie adaptation of a stage musical (Fiddler on the Roof, Sound of Music, etc) but sometimes just doing a pro recording is best.
I'm a huge fan of Baum's Oz book, the Judy Garland movie and of course have a special place in my heart for Return to Oz. Return to Oz actually opened my eyes to the reality that there was more Oz out there. I did not finish the book Wicked. Not at all the Oz I love. For years I have corrected people who assume as a fan of WoO I must also like Wicked. Regardless, I have retained a certain level of curiosity about this film adaptation. I have to say I am not encouraged at this point I think splitting it was certainly a choice that they will see how it lands. One thing that for me is really ominous is the deluge of absolute garbage merchandise with Wicked thrown on it. I think they're trying too hard in all the wrong ways.
It seems to me Hollywood is going retro in their thinking. I wanna say back in the 60s or 70s (past the prime of the big budget grand musicals) studios were releasing some really good musical content. Stuff that went cult. Like Rocky Horror. But they'd deny it on the Bible that it was a musical they were doing.
@@CouncilofGeeks For me, it was the last two Harry Potter films. I think Twilight: Breaking Dawn might've been what started the trend of full year gaps for 2-parters.
A quote from the musical that sums up my feelings on this ever since the movie was announced: "It is my personnal opinion that you do not have what it takes. I hope you prove me wrong. I doubt you will!" I understand the temptation to split the thing into two movies - Act One of the musical has very economical pacing, every scene, basically every line is load bearing. And Act Two has always been viewed as weaker and imo one of the biggest things that weakens it is how much it relies on the audience to be familiar with the Wizard of Oz. Two movies lets each act breath a little more (and add some of Dorothy's story in) and there are ways of framing the narrative to make the story feel like a movie and it's sequel. But that is a difficult thing to thread the needle considering all the influences and expectations put on this. Most adaptations fail to understand the thematic elements and narrative structure of the source material enough to pull off what Wicked would need for 2 parts to work.
act 2 in wicked as it stands now in the stage musical is very narratively slopy and cannot possibly stand on it's own without a restructuring of the whole story' and I trust very few writers to be able to pull that off
@@august1837 Full agree to this. Like, if it was a good writer that I trusted, I would be so excited to see a restructuring. I had to dig up a previous comment on a different video, but when the trailer released, I was thinking about how the musical could be adapted into 2 movies if you restructure the plot to have Part 1 be "How did she get the name Wicked Witch of the West" and Part 2 be "How was she driven to do evil things to Dorothy" with the relationship between Elphaba and Glinda be the through-line that ties them together. A good writer, given the space and time without external manipulations, would be able to do a good job with that. But that is not what we are going to get.
I’m looking forward to both Wicked movies no matter what!!! I’ve seen fans that know all the information that are very excited. More Wicked only makes me happier too
So the idea that they are pulling from the books to pad out the run time is a good theory, except this film has a PG rating and the book is very much NOT PG and/or kid friendly. So if they do pull from the book those themes have been massively watered down from the source material. Also the lack of new songs is also a head tilt, when they do these adaptations they usually add in at least ONE new original song in order to qualify for Oscar consideration. The padded run time would allow for several new songs to be added, but there are no new songs...so...are they not even trying to Oscar Bait this with the easiest lay up imaginable?
I was super supportive of the two film release because of my experience with Les Mis trying to go from One Day More into the second half of the story. So many musicals are truly built around the intermission. After they released the run time, my good will left. I really kinda wish that the old movie musical trend of building in an actual intermission into the film was still a thing, but I know modern film-only audiences might not know how an intermission works.
Regarding the internet’s response to Cynthia Erivo, I feel like this is an unfortunate example of the public taking celebrity life for granted. The public assumes that celebrities are gods, that they can take anything thrown their way, and when they retaliate, the public thinks they’re being thin-skinned and too sensitive. The thing is that even if one makes it to the top, harassment doesn’t stop and often intensifies, and it affects their mental health. Celebrities are people too, they have feelings too.
I really was looking forward to a fun musical romp to go see on Thanksgiving. But hearing that it will be two movies has completely killed any desire I had to see it. It’s a bummer.
Seriously the worst part of this decision IS the marketing! This is a ridiculously famous musical, a lot of people are aware of it in some form or another. People know in general how the musical is supposed to go. When they go in to watch they're going to be expecting the whole musical. And when they realize during the movie that that is not what they are going to get, they will be confused and upset. It's like they're priming this movie for negative reception. also to point out, because you brought up Hunger Games, splitting that movie up did not work out as well for them. Like part two of Mockingjay still made a lot of money, but it made a lot less than part one. And I suspect that the same will happen to Wicked except even worse because at least in Hunger Games audiences knew from the marketing that they were splitting it up. It is the surprise of it all that is going to get people.
And can we talk about how comparatively weak Act 2 of Wicked is?? It has fewer songs that aren't reprises, and tbh I'd rank most of them lower than the bangers in Act 1. Having seen the show more than once, if I had to pay my ticket price again just to see Act 2, I'd probably skip it
I'm tired of these long ass movies for no reason. Either we need to bring back intermissions to the theaters which would stand to benefit everyone really, those of us with weak bladders lol, or those of us who want to get a refill on snacks. Or these directors need to cut these movies down and be more practical in the sense that yes you can get a lot back on your investment if you just make 2 films but there will be something more worthwhile if they just paced out the films from 3 to 4 or be really reasonable and just do one. The fact that it's going to take another year for the second part to come out is really just disrespecting the audience and our time. The movie hasn't come out yet so this is all in the context of how every other movie wants two parts to their films and breaking dawn pt 1 and 2 was my first experience with this and the one that made the most sense to me with the drastic change in tone from each film. I'm just really scared for this film and if they are deciding to add stuff from the books and as I have only read the first book the tone of it added to the musical is going to be interesting to say the least.
I do have to argue with the claim that Defying Gravity is the best song of Wicked. It is certainly the most well known song. To me, the best song is For Good. Then my favourite song is No Good Deed. I am a contrarian.
To be fair, Wicked's plot is paced relentlessly and almost feels like a montage most of the time. With very flat / archetypical characters. I dont think it would work on screen. Giving the same exact plot points more of a chance to breathe, with more fleshed out interactions and nuanced portrayals of characters would be nice. But that still won't fix how incomplete Act 1 will feel alone. Yet everyone somehow forgave Dune for the same issue of it having no thematic / narrative resolution after the 1st film.
I was planning to watch Wicked either in theatres or afterwards and I had no idea it was split into 2 movies until right now - that would have been so jarring! 😬
The musical is not exactly the most even one act-wise. The first part is really rather solid. The second moves so fast and has an ending that I don’t really think did a fantastic job of wrapping up the story. I think it would’ve been smarter to make it a long movie not two. The controversy is silly but Cynthia should sort of tell the fan who edited the picture “sorry” cause they weren’t trying to bully her by editing the poster.
No, we know EXACTLY how much "crap" she has been going through. She said that the fan edited poster was "the most offensive thing she had ever witnessed". The poster was, according to her own words, the pinnacle of the "crap" she had been dealing with throughout her life. The poster was the worst of it, the rest is less severe.
Why do I feel like the only people who easily understand adaptation issues in film and the problem in longer runtimes, are animation and theatre industry workers? Like I can count 2h+ movies I've seen that worked on one hand (including Across the Spiderverse). Quantity does not equal quality, if you want a longer product, turn it into a show, or make a 1h30ish movie in a trilogy/two-parter! Or add an entracte for theatre release! I've seen it done! But yeah, a lot of adaptations are trying to embelish or overstuff the plate of the original plot, and rarely well or reasonably. Disney's liveaction adaptations of animation musical films were guilty of that by reducing or removing musical moments that added to the love for the original work, and lengthening it with bland or Oscar begging extra songs that barely match the original atmosphere (which was already lost by the medium change, be it animation or theatre).
This is where I will add an outsider's perspective (the majority mainstream) as I am someone who has never seen a play (we don't get these musicals in my country) so in my head this film is catered towards people like me and I feel it is doing a perfect job at that. Not to mention that we don't even know how the songs will be performed in the actual film and might even be extended sequences, longer than they were in the play. And the most important point is this: theatre and cinema are two completely different mediums of storytelling and should not be compared side by side.
Did you miss that I also compared this to other film musicals? Particularly in terms of length and number of songs (and we know the song lengths because the album is up for pre-sale, they're not significantly longer).
@@CouncilofGeeks no i do get that but i personally never cared for any of the films you used as examples And the song lenghts don't account for scenes that are added in between songs
@@CouncilofGeeks the one thing i do agree with is that they should've added more songs which is something even disney's liveaction remakes did with BATD, Aladdin and The Little Mermaid
I wonder if they're aware that movies can have and have had intermissions? The Sound of Music has one, Doctor Zhivago has one--and that's not even a musical, just hella long--and I'm sure many others. Also, thank you for explaining the massive tonal shift in Into the Woods, I've been so confused since I saw that movie a decade ago! I suppose the actual movie itself didn't make interested enough to look up the original stage show, of which I knew nothing. Haha
I wish they'd bring back the movie intermissions from the 60s. Anytime a movie has a runtime of close to 3 hours, I think of Spartacus, and how it has an intermission around the 1:50 minute mark, and despair of the theater I'm sitting in.
I wish the movie intermission would make a comeback. That would solve some of the problems you mentioned and I’m guessing audiences wouldn’t mind a built in break.
i like musicals but i've never cared about wicked. not gonna lie, i'm more interested in the drama surrounding it. i ain't gonna watch it in theaters. and to be honest, if i wasn't aware of musicals in general, i wouldn't know this was one by the teasers alone. my family for example? they would have no clue, they would think this is just a spin off like cruella until the release came and everyone started telling them. . I find it weird, because it almost feels like they want to "cheat" your audience into watching it. But to be frank, i think it will do fine. i don't think it will be a good movie! but it will perform well in terms of money. i'm pretty sure the type of people who would watch the disney live action remakes would watch this. even if they were never interested in the musical itself, just based off of wizard of oz nostalgia and such.
this is basically the first content about the Wicked Movie I've watched. I love Wicked it means so much to me that I know it's not going to live up to my standards lol.
I'm so excited for this movie. I'm planning on cosplaying to the theater. I do think it would be really interesting if they included elements from the book. There's so much in the original source material that could fill out a feature musical. Fiaro's widow could get a song. There's a whole storyline of Elphaba herself realising her own Wickedness surrounding Madame Morrable's death. There is so much room to play. I am excited.
I’m not sure how it will work being in two parts. Cause when I saw Wicked on stage and act one ended with the powerhouse of a song that is “Defying Gravity” I was amped up for act two and then promptly disappointed by how it couldn’t top the act one finale. So, if act one is the split then I will leave the movie theater with very little motivation to come back for act two. And if the split denies us “Defying Gravity” then I am definitely not coming back later to watch the rest either.
I love the musical and I'm worried about the two parter thing. For one, all the character development and iconic songs are in the first act. That is fine when you are watching the show as you get the whole show in 2 and a half hours, but it doesn't bode well to only have the second act as it's own movie. I have read the book and there is a LOT that the musical left out. The musical is very streamlined (for good reason). The thing is, most of the stuff they left out didn't really harm the story in the musical. In fact, the musical is more in line with the original Wizard of Oz movie than the book. They did that because most people know that movie better than the book so designed it to skip most of the explaining.
About the ratio of music vs. runtime I feel that the choice of comparision is either a very poor one or very deceptive one. The first one that came to my mind when thinking about a musical with plenty of dialogue has a runtime of 2,52 and it's soundtrack clocks in at 45 minutes. Considering that the soundtrack includes things like the prelude, overture and a few choir numbers it should be in the same, or worse, ratio. But I think few would say that The Sound of Music isn't a real musical. Or a flop.
The second movie I came to mind was Cabaret. It has a runtime of 2,04 and the songs clocks in on about 30 minutes. So this is also the same ratio as Wicked and Joker 2.
I knew the movie was in 2 parts because they said it would be when they first announced production. But then, when the movie started marketing with no mention of, Wicked:Act 1, or part one, and on top of that I saw the run time, I figured they must have back tracked and decided to make it one movie. So I am surprised it's still 2 parts, without telling the audience upfront, you're gonna have to come back next year if you wanna see the rest.
I think they are counting on the internet 'lore mongers' to promote the second movie, driving sales but I think they are over anticipating that effect, since it works on weekly shows but a year is to long for the internet to stay interested, now dropping 1 for Halloween, and 2 for Black Friday or the 'Holiday' weekend, that could have been some great marketing and less expensive since the initial marketing budget would have covered most of it, even offer 'the experience' ticketing for holiday double features. But they way they did it seems doomed to failure, There's a section of people will leave disappointed and look for reasons to assume that disappointment will be fixed with part 2, but the majority of people will just move on and never come back. I think they are not advertising it as a 2 parter because there are people who will just wait to watch both together, and since studios are impatient they will consider that 'lost revenue' because its a year later.
I remember them saying it was a Part 1 but to realize it was ALMOST 3 HOURS AND STILL ONLY PART 1!? That I did not know. How tf are they going to drag that out???
I’m glad that you mentioned Matilda, as that’s my go-to example of a badly adapted musical . From the recordings that I’ve seen, the songs fit into the play quite well, but in the movie, it often felt like they were being crowbarred into scenes where they weren’t required. What the filmmakers really needed to do was either cut out all the less iconic songs and tell more of the story with normal dialogue, or cut out the dialogue entirely and add in new songs to replace the lines that needed to be there. I hope that Wicked takes one of those approaches, rather than becoming another bloated musical.
On the topic of Musicals not advertising themselves as Musicals, I remember Lindsey Ellis doing a video on the disaster that was the Cats adaption and how we got there. I believe she touched upon the reaction being studios afraid to promote musicals anymore due to how bad that did. Which makes sense, between the Greatest Showman and Les Mes being successful, they thought Cats would do wonderfully. And then it didn't. Of course Musicals are still a thing, audiences still want them and filmmakers want to make them, but after Cats studios don't want to showcase them as such anymore. There might be other factors but that's one thing I've heard.
Cats downfall was Taylor swift being apart of it cause they ultimately delivered and unfinished movie to the theaters trying to meet the deadline for her original song for the movie to be considered for that year’s Oscars it being a musical was the least of cat’s problems
Wicked holds a special place in my heart. My wife and I discovered it on our honeymoon in New York. "For Good" became a personal theme song when I reconnected with a dear friend after not having seen or heard from her in over a decade. We lost our son at 3 days old, and played For Good at his funeral. Defying Gravity was a driving part of my writing playlist for my Lady Raven book series. I am dreading how badly this movie is likely to go.
I feel sorry for their marketing department having to put out fires with an oily cloth and spreading fire in the meantime. It's like cats all over again rather than the glory that is the first movie adaptation of the wizard of oz. So what you're saying is, is that it has the length of older hollywood musicals and have somehow quarter assed it.
When I'm clicking around my streaming services and I see an interesting looking movie with a 90 minute run time, I get very excited nowadays. It used to be that a movie was long because it had more story, the director was making a story choice. Now, most mainstream movies in excess of 2 hrs, I assume studio meddling and watch something else.
The book series Wicked is from is quite dark. One of the reasons act two of the musical feels so weirdly-plotted is that all the happy endings and extra tie-ins to The Wizard of Oz were added for the show, rather than being in the original story. Obviously this doesn’t mean a darker version of the musical would necessarily be good, but there’s a solid precedent.
Two things I’ll say in defense of the films: movies are inherently slower in terms of how they present information and the types of performances they tend to inspire, and pacing and plot hole issues are very common criticisms of the stage show. Not saying there won’t be bloating, but there are legit arguments for the longer length.
This is kind of long so I will say upfront that despite the fact that I’ve commented a bunch already this is the one that I would most like a response to, if anyone wanted to respond, as I believe best portrays my feelings on the subject! Thanks :)😊 I do apologize if I sound aggressive I’m just been really tired of all the film takes about this movie that I’m really excited for years. And for me the fact that they said they’re fleshing out the characters a lot more is literally the best thing they could possibly do for a show like wicked because the story characters are the weakest part of that show and they definitely do need scenes to make the story cohesive. On Broadway it works because you’re there for the spectacle and the raw emotion but in a film, you have to add stuff to make it work. Also, I don’t really buy “The studio mandated it to be two parts” when you also say it’s a huge financial risk to do it in two parts. I truly believe this was a creative choice in the studio went with it. Again, I could be wrong, but I’m pretty knowledgeable on how Hollywood works, I would like to think, and this screams risk which is why I am more forgiving for the concept. Also, I have a question: what parts of act one, especially compared to across the spider verse and dune part one which you mentioned in a positive light, I’ve wicked do not institute a full narrative arc? If I look at the plot and think of it logistically, act one has a full story: ridiculed girl, all her life desperately wants to fit in and please someone, has an opportunity to go to school and uses that to try and reach her goal, along the way she meets a another student and they have rivalry but eventually find friendship and for the first time ever that ridiculed girl has a group that she can call a family. She then uses this with all her confidence to go and finally reach her goal, but she finds out that her goal wasn’t what it seemed and so she chooses to make her path for herself, and for the first time fight back for once against the system that ridiculed her. That is a complete story to me. It has a set up buildup and pay off. I don’t know how you can read that and say you’re not getting a full narrative, especially compared to Dune which I believe didn’t really have a full narrative arc in part one that was way more risky. I do apologize for my many comments and I will admit I made all those first ones before I saw the video and it was just me venting a bit but this one I would genuinely like to see your response because I’m just not understanding the concept, and I like to try to understand people and different perspectives to flesh out my views I’m interested to hear what you would say but also if you don’t want to that’s also totally valid! I do support your channel and I hope you do good even if I slightly disagree with what you said in this video, it’s all fine and all for a silly musical at the end of the day! :)
Forgive me if I sound dumb for saying this, but maybe the movie will sprinkle the songs throughout its runtime in large gaps. Like, first you get a song, and then 10-15min will pass and then another song will play, etc until the movie ends with Defying Gravity.
I wonder if there is the equivalent of an "uncanny valley" between plays and movies. In the few plays I've watched, the audience was supposed to fill in some of the visual gaps with imagination. When these musicals are brought to film, like Annie (either version), it just feels off. The city scenes feel like they're swallowing the characters. It makes the singing and dancing feel out of place in the real world. I dunno, just a thought.
Musicals are EXTREMELY tough to craft on film. When they work it's electric but there are so many moving parts, it's a once-per-decade treat (jukebox biopics and animated films notwithstanding).
I really do want to be excited for this because Wicked was the first musical I got super into but everything I see just reminds of other musical movie adaptations I don't like. Tis the life of a fan I suppose, I do hope people who are excited enjoy it
I agree. First of all, I absolutely love Wicked the play. However; a two and a half hour play, does not need to be split into two movies. Even with slight embellishing, they could easily have made it one 3 hour film.
As someone who absolutely LOVES the book, I have no idea what they could add from the book that’s not already in the stage play. Main reason why I’m having issues with that theory is because the book is very adult, very mature, and graphic. If they went that route the film would be pushing an R rating. Plus the second act of the stage show and the second half of the book is not very strong and pretty convoluted/confusing. The only thing I can possibly think of is that the second film is going to have some of the second book Son of a witch into it. But that book is not an easy read, even more so than Wicked.
I saw the trailer at our local Cinema center and I thought the visuals looked very cool. I had no idea that it was a part 1 and that might be a deal-breaker for me, idk. I don't have a lot of money to be throwing around. I would have gone in without ever knowing it was a part 1.
Thank you for the video, Vera! And the green lipstick makes you gorgeous! As someone who has been warmed to pure musicals, unfortunately, musical movies are still looked down by many people. After only watching the trailers for the "Wicked" (2024) movie, in the aspect of visuals and "wardrobe", it seems amazing! However, it almost strikes me like they are trying to make a live action adaptation of a classic animated Disney movie. Some of them are not necessarily bad, but they are usually pointless. About "Wicked" being divided into two movies: considering how the first part will probably adapt the entire story of the original book/musical, I am really curious if the second part will tell a completely original story, or they will just straight adapt "The (Wonderful) Wizard of Oz"... again.
UGH... don't even get me started on movie trailers they give everything away, you are so right in 17:26. I don't even bother with trailers anymore exactly because of this. It just makes me think these production companies are like "well if they don't know exactly what's going on in the movie, why would they watch it? :(" like fire your producer now!! There's nothing wrong with a teaser and for me the mystery and speculating the film or any other type of media is half the fun. I love getting to play detective with stuff like this but giving away elphaba's flying scene.. that's not what i want to see as a fan but like you said it's not just about the fans it's about the wider audience but they don't have to show all of that. A reaction to the people seeing her fly in the air maybe reaction of horror and awe could be enough and then that could draw someone in to see it.
I feel like a better place to cut this story, song-wise for a movie, would've been after 'Thank Goodness'. While it's about a celebration, the emotions leave us wanting for a better resolution than what the characters and this world have gotten thus far.
I've been low-key wondering if as a book Oz fan I should be interested in this adaptation, but it's incredible how rapidly "It's two movies and part one is 2h40 alone" made me go, "Oh, I'll just write that one off in advance." Maybe the reviews will pleasantly surprise me.
Also, wicked has totally marketed itself as a musical has not hid that! The film is heavily pushing the soundtrack as a thing to buy, and it cast Ariana Grande in a lead role obviously, they’re expecting people to come for music.
This movie looks amazing and I honestly think it makes complete sense that it’s split up and every single choice that they’ve made is amazing! It’s perfect!
I didn’t follow the news around Wicked and Cynthia Eviro until the fan edit controversy started making the rounds. And personally, I didn’t know who to side with on this. Because while I understand that Cynthia may have been letting her frustration out on the wrong person, I’ve also seen a growing trend of people “fixing” other people’s artwork, which comes across as unnecessarily making the original artist look incompetent. I’m not saying that’s what the fan was doing, but it can be misconstrued that way. I didn’t have the context of what Cynthia was dealing with, but I understand how it is a bad look on her part when you don’t know that context. The internet’s response to Cynthia is like when Patrick said “Take it easy, it’s just a drawing” after SpongeBob erased DoodleBob and screamed in rage, as if he didn’t see DoodleBob wreaking havoc. It’s not a perfect analogy, especially since the fan artist meant no harm, but that’s what the internet’s response has felt like. I wish all parties involved the best, hope the film succeeds despite this controversy, and wish the discourse to die down.
Yea I was originally exited for this movie but seeing it’s going to be this much of an investment plus a year of waiting makes it sound like a CHORE to watch so I don’t plan on watching it now
