|
 Gregory Maguire Discussion Board
 Wicked - the Musical
 'Wicked' the movie musical? (Page 23)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 44 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: 'Wicked' the movie musical? |
|
Nessarose Throppe Member |
posted 09-06-2006 09:49 PM
  
Yay for internet!! I couldn't access internet with my laptop for a while, but since it stores my password on here I never use my password and I couldn't remember it for the life of me. It's good to see this forum still has some life, it was dead for a long time..... IP: Logged |
|
poetic pearly Junior Member |
posted 09-10-2006 09:19 AM
you people seriously need to think about wat ur talking about. nicole kidman is a fantastic actor but no, she cannot play a uni student. celine dion? yuk! r u on drugs? have you even considered if her voice suits the character? she's a has been, and she's also too old. i say either idina menzel or fresh new talent should play the part. who says a movie has to have big names in it, ur only going by Chicago. and that movie is seriously a corruption. its names were nowhere near as good as real musical performers, and the movie makers only want you to think it has to have names in it. the audience only go to see them then- money making! any real appreciator of theatrical music and drama would see that Chicago was not that good-it was hyped up. and moulin rouge would have been equally good with or without nicole. if a movie was made, it would have to have all the songs, even the wicked witch of the east, or else the audience wouldnt get it. the wizard of OZ and the wiz both had every song in it and they were a success. and although i like the movies of Chicago and Rent-they are no way as good as the stage production. if a movie of wicked was made, it would have to be just as good, for all those who dont live in LA or London or Sydney. i would say a good visual effects manager would be the one who did the current Peter Pan- i thought that had a magical feel that could be given to Wicked if it was a movie IP: Logged |
|
Ivan Member |
posted 09-10-2006 10:10 AM
Chicago was a fantastic movies, some songs were left out, but over all they went WAY more in depth than the musical ever did, and the beginning was more interesting. I would say get the OBC to do the movie, they would probably be the best. IP: Logged |
|
booklady Member |
posted 09-10-2006 05:39 PM
IF and that is a big IF, a movie is made of "Wicked", the studio WILL use big name actors. While it would be wonderful to have the OBC, to put it bluntly, they are not big enough names to bring in the kind of audience a movie studio is going for. Matthew Broderick & Nathan Lane couldn't make "The Producers" a success & the OBC did not make "Rent" a success. Movie studios are in business to make a profit & a lot of tickets have to be sold to bring in the kind of profits a studio is looking for. A die hard theatrical fan is NOT who a movie studio is looking for in an audience, that is simple fact. Moulin Rouge was a mishmash of plot, songs & special effects & the ONLY reason it made money was due to the casting of Nicole Kidman & Ewan MacGregor. Chicago would not have had the box office it did & won the awards it won, had the OBC been used. Bebe Nieworth is amazing, but again, she is not a big enough name to bring a wide audience into a movie theatre. The Wizard of Oz had all the songs in it because those songs were written specifically for MGM & the MGM movie was based on the books, more than the stage productions that were done in the early 1900's. The Wiz had all the songs in it because they were written for that musical/movie. As long as they make a musical version of "Wicked", I will be content with whomever they cast. The original novel has been "Hollywoodized" enough & I hope it is left alone. [This message has been edited by booklady (edited 09-10-2006).] IP: Logged |
|
missnikkaphon Member |
posted 09-10-2006 07:08 PM
quote: *agrees* But I think I've said that already, or sort of. IP: Logged |
|
Ivan Member |
posted 09-10-2006 07:31 PM
Well, the trailer for RENT didn't even tell what the movie was about, so that could be part of the reason it is not successful, plus Kristin Chenoweth has a partial name for herself with the Music Man and Frasier and other appearances, also Idina Menzel was in Rent, so people who saw that would know who she is and plus, people wait a lot for the movie because the theater is too expensive, and Wicked has gotten a lot of publicity, more than Rent or Producers did, I mean, everyone talks about Wicked but there were mixed reviews about Rent and Chicago the stage version, and I haven't heard anybody going to Wicked who didn't like it. And plus, somebody already said that the OBC people have something in their contract about being in the movie unless the studio pays them enough, but who knows. One basic fact is, there will be a movie, why wouldn't there be? One, Universal Pictures already has it under there movie list, check it out: and if you click on it, it brings you to the Wicked Musical website, telling that it will be a musical movie, so I don't understand why people keep asking if there will be one and if it will be on the musical, because if there wasn't one the studio is passing up WAY to much money and if they don't make it a musical then the theater people will be pissed, because even though the book is good, a lot of people didn't really know there was a book until they saw the program. So, yeah, I would bet a lot of money that there WILL be a movie musical and if not with the OBC, there will still be very good actors in it. IP: Logged |
|
booklady Member |
posted 09-10-2006 08:07 PM
Going to that link does NOT prove there is going to be a movie. Universal has had that link for the MUSICAL up for several years & there is STILL nothing about a movie being in the works (unless I am totally missing something & if I am, would appreciate a direct link to that information because I am not finding it). The movie talk from Universal's end has been virtually non-existant since the stage production began. I think it is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of most people & don't see a movie anytime in the next 5 years. Rent was a huge success on Broadway, that success didn't translate to film & just as many people knew what Rent was about as know what Wicked is about. One of the most frequent comments by critics AND fans was that the OBC cast of Rent was too old to still be playing those characters. The OBC of Wicked will be in the same position. The OBC of Wicked are very, very talented, but none of them has become a huge star. Kristin Chenowith actually has the most name recognition of anyone, mainly due to television & feature film work, Idina & the rest don't have those kinds of credits. IP: Logged |
|
Yero the Hero Moderator |
posted 09-10-2006 08:13 PM
I agree with booklady; just because the link is up means only that they own the rights to Wicked....if a movie was in the works I would've heard about it. As for casting, while Chenoweth and Menzel are more or less names in the industry, but they are hardly BIG names. It would be wonderful for them to be in it, but as booklady said, production companies want money, plain and simple. It also lessens MY chances at directing it, because they will probably want a big name director. Sigh..... IP: Logged |
|
MusicalTheatreObsessed Member |
posted 09-10-2006 08:33 PM
quote: I seriously threw up in my mouth when I read this... Okay hun, read the rules and cut the chatspeak before I barf more. Last but not least, disagree with ideas not people. Telling our more prominent members they are on drugs is a good way to get your butt kicked. IP: Logged |
|
Ivan Member |
posted 09-10-2006 09:10 PM
Well, I mean, even if it is just there, how can they not do a movie, it is too much money to pass up on and even if they don't use the OBC I doubt that they won't make it, even if it is in eight years or something. IP: Logged |
|
booklady Member |
posted 09-10-2006 09:34 PM
If the studio thinks that a movie won't make money, they won't make it & musicals are more of a risk than any other type of movie. Tom Cruise is a HUGE star, has made billions for Paramount Studios & his production company was cut loose a few weeks ago. MI3 made millions at the box office, made its production costs back & showed a profit. However, the profit was MUCH, MUCH less than the previous MI movies made. His public behavior didn't help a lot, but the bottom line is dollars. Based on the box office of the past few movie musicals, studios are not rushing to put new ones into production. If Hairspray is a flop (& I think it will be), no studio is going to be making a musical anytime soon. IP: Logged |
|
kimjurkiw Junior Member |
posted 09-11-2006 12:15 AM
Ewan McGregor would absolutely have to be Fiyero. Reese Witherspoon would be a great Glinda as well. I totally disagree with Renee Zellwegger though. I really like her, but she was totally miscast in Chicago. She was so NOT Roxy Hart! I can see Hillary Swank as Elphie, or perhaps Catherine Zeta Jones, but definitely not Celine Dion or Minnie Driver. I seriously doubt that Catherine Zeta has the range though. I agree with most of you who said it should be Idina and Kristin. That would be the only way to really go. I would love to see Ewan McGregor as Fiyero though. I think he would be perfect for the character! IP: Logged |
|
I Couldn't Be Happier Member |
posted 09-11-2006 06:57 AM
Where did you come up with that cast? The movie has a few years to go before it's made. Thus who knows who will be "Big Names" by then? The OBC will sadly be too old for the movie version if they wait longer then 2-3 years to film it. And once again, Marc Platt told The Chicago Tribune that a movie will be made based on the musical, but there is no rush right now. IP: Logged |
|
Ivan Member |
posted 09-11-2006 06:18 PM
Well, if they have a good enough cast and they already have a huge fanbase, they will make a movie, based on the musical like the post above me, but I am positive, I would give you any amount of money if they don't make a movie of it. IP: Logged |
|
wickedgirl09 Junior Member |
posted 09-11-2006 08:11 PM
If i were to have Wicked made into a musical id have Elphie-Nicole Kidman (yes she is more alto, but she can sing soprano as well) Galinda- Reese totally Fiyero- Ewan McGregor Wizard- Joel Grey Boq- John Leguizamo or however u spell it(Sid in Ice Age) Nessa- Emmy Rossum(possibly for elphie too) IP: Logged |
|
Yero the Hero Moderator |
posted 09-11-2006 09:18 PM
quote: Elphie is more of a Mezzo-soprano, so an alto might be able to pull her off. I think Ewan McGregor is to old for Fiyero; you mayu as well have Norbert do it. And John Leguizamo as Boq???? I don't think so, it's Oz, not Brooklyn. IP: Logged |
|
Will Junior Member |
posted 09-11-2006 10:49 PM
I'm not too concerned with whether or not the original broadway cast is part of it, but I really hope they don't end up picking well-known people for the sake of them being well-known. It would come out a lot better if they chose someone who can sing well and act well and nothing else. I guess that's not very likely, though. IP: Logged |
|
Elphie_the_Awesome Junior Member |
posted 09-12-2006 09:54 PM
Oh c'mon you know their going to butcher it! why are we getting excited over a movie version. i mean god knows i love RENT but see how they changed it like a lot by not putting in some of the most important songs? Such as Goodbye Love or the introduction of Joanne and Maureen in the opening song of RENT? Whats next for hollywood? why dont we just leave out Defying Gravity or Dancing Through Life!? RENT was passed as good, but why take the chance to ruin it? i say thumbs down for Wicked the movie.  IP: Logged |
|
MusicalTheatreObsessed Member |
posted 09-12-2006 10:02 PM
quote: *Barfs* IP: Logged |
|
Ivan Member |
posted 09-12-2006 10:50 PM
Well, the reason they took out all of those songs were because operas or operettas or whatever don't translate well onto film, with Wicked there aren't songs that will need to be excluded because there are only 18 songs, so I don't know. The thing with Rent is a lot of it was left up to the imagination on where they were and things, but with Wicked we know where they are and what it looks like from WOZ, so I think we can pretty much assume they will make the movie off of the musical because almost nothing has to be changed except for some minor stage tricks (Elphaba flying, more set, lighting, etc.) So, it can very easily make a movie. IP: Logged |
|
Yero the Hero Moderator |
posted 09-13-2006 09:36 AM
quote: Oh, god........alright, I'll start. RENT was a brilliant interpretaion of the show, no matter what anyone says. Joanne was cut out of "Rent" because it's an intense song, and a lot of cutting would've made it too haphazard. There's no real reason to have Joanne talking on the phone in the movie, because we know who she is through dialogue. In the play, it's very fast-paced, so there needs to be a lot of detail in a limited space. We had to be reminded that Maureen was performing that night (because it's only spoken about in quick lines, and one could easily not hear it once or twice), and that the digital delay wasn't working. In the movie, that's just unnecessary. As for Goodbye Love, yes, it was a tragic loss, and I, myself, might have put it in, but I can understand why Columbus left it out. First off, stage and film are very different. On stage, events happen wuickly, and you are very detached from the actors, so it's easy not to feel invested in the characters' emotions. You can't see their expressions well, etc. But, on film, you are right in the characters faces, which brings me to my point: To go from W/O you, to Angel's funeral, to the first part of Goodbye Love to the second part of Goodbye love is too much. It's like they're taking all of the sadness in the movie and crunching into a small portion of the film. It's like they had to much comedy, partying, etc. in the first part, and they wanted to get the drama out of the way by forcing it all at the end. It wouldn't have worked because it would have felt sappy and forced. And, we know what happens, so the necessity of the song isn't lost. If you have any problem with them not including Contact, or worse, Christmas Bells, just tell me and I'll get on that as well.... IP: Logged |
|
Ivan Member |
posted 09-13-2006 04:00 PM
I agree with all of that. Are you saying you wanted Contact and Christmas Bells in the show or that you don't want them? I think most of Christmas Bells was brilliant, but there were a few parts where it sagged and just dragged on for a while. As for Contact, I really didn't understand it and I don't think it would have captured the essence of Angel's death the way it should, it being painful but she finds a way to smile through it all with the help of her friends. Contact was an interesting part, especially when Angel was singing, and they could have kept that section somewhere, but I'm not sure. I did like the movie more than the musical surprisingly, and my least favorite part of the musical is Goodbye Love when Mark sings to the audience and he says "Mimi still loves Roger" and all, I mean, he is right there, why not talk to him if he is responding? I don't know, I did like that part of the deleted scenes that they changed it to what it is now  IP: Logged |
|
Yero the Hero Moderator |
posted 09-13-2006 04:21 PM
quote: Oh, god, no! I would hate it if those two songs were in the movie, it would've ruined both the numbers and the movie....I was just saying if anyone wanted to hear why I think those shouldn't in any way be in the movie. IP: Logged |
|
Ivan Member |
posted 09-13-2006 05:08 PM
Why don't you like Christmas Bells? It wouldn't fit into the movie more than once, because it would get too repitive and it annoys me with the Honest Living over and over again, but once I would be okay with, but they already used the honest living thing in the beginning with Mark filming the window cleaner guy. IP: Logged |
|
Elphie_the_Awesome Junior Member |
posted 09-13-2006 05:48 PM
yeah i liked Contact and Christmas Bells a lot.Yet, Christmas Bells was on ensemble song it wasnt like Life Support ensemble. I'm just saying goodbye love was a self explaintory to have, I mean you can have every single in a song of a rock opera but they also left out Holloween and when Angel describes that her cat jumoed out the window and Benny was wondering how she know Evita jumped. Joanne describing herself as not a theatre person and in the song We're Ok was a song that established the life and problems of Joanne. Now Dancing Through Life would be dificult so they might drop it and have most of them said then sang or not even sang at all. it will be in there, to my imagination, but all said throughout such as a regular scene. im just saying if it can pass like RENT ill be delighted, but most likely i feel it wont be no where near as good as the musical or good as RENT. I see where you are coming from though with the Wizard of Oz scenery, yet theres so many they will have to create such as the ballroom and Shiz and ect. Then again I could be wrong Producers were good, Hello Dolly, Fiddler on the Roof. I'm just saying somthing so complex as Wicked is going to be tough to do. I'll admit i could be wrong, but i have a hunch that it isnt going to be good. :/ IP: Logged |
|
Yero the Hero Moderator |
posted 09-13-2006 08:13 PM
quote: NO! I love the song, but it would torn apart on screen. Same goes for Contact. IP: Logged |
|
poetic pearly Junior Member |
posted 09-14-2006 06:04 AM
excuse me musicaltheatreobsessed, i apolise if i offended you or attacked anyone. but if i didnt attack you then i will certainly attack you now, or at least the way you quote people. any response i've ever seen you make is only a quote of someone with a statement attached that you are going to expel your stomach contents. and i would hate to think that you would be turning bulimic over someone's responses when you seem to be incapable of responding reasonably yourself. IP: Logged |
|
poetic pearly Junior Member |
posted 09-14-2006 06:12 AM
by the way i agree with you guys. the songs probably would have been torn apart and they might be a little mature for society's acceptance of such themes IP: Logged |
|
Ivan Member |
posted 09-14-2006 04:43 PM
They can do Dancing Through Life pretty well the way that I think of it, so yeah. I mean, I have like, cameras views that go up and stuff, I mean, like the camera doesn't change to one view really, the camera kind of "goes" there, like zooming to the place so we know what's happening when. IP: Logged |
|
pricet Junior Member |
posted 09-16-2006 09:09 AM
The rights to any film version are owned by Universal...the film has been in development since 2003 no word on whether it would be an adaptation of the novel or the stage show....the only person signed on is Linda Wolverton to write the screenplay...
quote: IP: Logged |
|
Yero the Hero Moderator |
posted 09-16-2006 12:30 PM
quote: The film is not in development. It was, partially, years ago. The only thing even remotely related to the movie now is the fact the Universal owns the rights that's it. It's impossible for a movie to be in production for three years without something leaking out. IP: Logged |
|
Prince Fiyero Member |
posted 09-16-2006 01:49 PM
quote: A good movie production and a good script takes a long time. I wouldn`t be surpised if they are working on it since 2003. And yes, i dont know if they would keep the OBC, but if they dont I would understand. A movie is much more expencive than theatre. If Wicked whas 14 million Dolars, the move wouldn't be less thant 100 million dolars. They have to be sure they'll make a profit out of it, or ells why do it?. And getting profit is hard: if the movie is 100millions to make, they'll need almost the same amoutn for publicity world wide, and to make a profit they need a really really huge and succesfull move because the producers dont get but 20% of the price of a movie ticket. Hollywood can do it, but if they have to choose big names for it to happen they'll do it. IP: Logged |
|
Prince Fiyero Member |
posted 09-16-2006 01:50 PM
quote: A good movie production and a good script takes a long time. I wouldn`t be surpised if they are working on it since 2003. And yes, i dont know if they would keep the OBC, but if they dont I would understand. A movie is much more expensive than theatre. If Wicked whas 14 million Dolars, the movie wouldn't be less thant 100 million dolars. They have to be sure they'll make a profit out of it, or ells why do it?. And getting profit is hard: if the movie is 100million to make, they'll need almost the same amoutn for publicity world wide, and to make a profit they need a really really huge and succesfull move because the producers dont get but 20% of the price of a movie ticket. Hollywood can do it, but if they have to choose big names for it to happen they'll do it. [This message has been edited by Prince Fiyero (edited 09-16-2006).] IP: Logged |
|
Yero the Hero Moderator |
posted 09-16-2006 01:57 PM
quote: I know a movie takes long to produce, but it's idiotic to think they are already working on a Wicked movie when there hasn't been any talk. They have only written scripts, they aren't making it yet. Believe me, someone would've heard about it from a legitimate source. IP: Logged |
|
Ivan Member |
posted 09-16-2006 05:15 PM
Well, it had most likely been dabbled on for the past three years. I mean, the thought has come and they know they will make one, etc, but they aren't doing it all right now. I know they won't keep the OBC, well, I am fairly sure, but I think a lot of people will be pissed without them. I mean, the people who don't know them and haven't heard/seen them won't be, because I haven't seen the musical Chicago and I loved the cast, yes, including Renee Zellwegger, on the movie. But people who haven't seen the musical will be fine with whoever is in it, the movie will just use bigger names. PS: I can understand why they would use Renee in Chicago, why is everyone so hard on her? I mean, by listening to the album of the stage version, she's not supposed to be a good singer, but with the way the script for the movie was written she did a very good job at portaying the character obviously the director and scriptwriter had in mind. Chicago wouldn't have been as big as it was today if they picked a bad singer to play Roxie in the movie because they really need to try to get people into the movie, and with a not-so-good singer they couldn't do that on film. IP: Logged |
|
Prince Fiyero Member |
posted 09-17-2006 07:36 PM
Rene portraied a very very different Roxy than that of Broadway. BWay's Roxy was a very strong woman. Hollywood's Roxy was a very childish and inosent one. I didn't really like that aproach. IP: Logged |
|
MusicalTheatreObsessed Member |
posted 09-17-2006 08:02 PM
quote: I was joking all those times, but this time I actually barfed... (That was a joke in case you were wondering, because clearly you can't tell.) Maybe if you had read more of this thread you would have noticed I have commented what I think about the movie many times. In fact I have put intellegent discussion posts all over the boards. However, people come on (like you actually), don't read what has been written and then either repost what has been said a million times or say something really stupid. There is a difference between sarcasm/joking, and plain outright bitchery. Please learn this difference before commenting on people's posts. I have every right to my opinion that the post earned nothing more than throw up. IP: Logged |
|
Ivan Member |
posted 09-17-2006 09:29 PM
Well, she has playesd strong women before so I don't understand why everyone hates Renee Zellwegger for it. It was what the director wanted or he wouldn't have had her do that. And Renee started out as an innocent person but she develops into a strong woman at the end of the movie, by Roxie she is a strong woman. She gives up everything just to have her world crash down around her. So we can't keep blaming Renee, blame the director. IP: Logged |
|
booklady Member |
posted 09-18-2006 10:53 AM
There are no references to Wicked being made into a movie, any time soon, at any reputable source, including the Universal Studios site. All of this debate is wishful thinking on the part of fans. As long as the play continues to be a huge success, Universal is not going to take a chance on a movie. It is common sense, plain & simple & while I know a lot of people don't want to admit it, Universal is in business to make money. Why risk spending millions of dollars on a movie that is, in all probability, NOT going to be nearly as successful as the current plays are. How many plays are running in New York, Chicago, London & have a touring company? As a musical comedy in the theatre, Wicked is a gold mine. As a movie, not so much. I would love to see a link to ONE reputable source that confirms a movie is any stage of development. IP: Logged |
|
Ivan Member |
posted 09-18-2006 05:49 PM
I have come to agree with you. I do believe that one day, maybe far in the future, there will be a movie. I see no reason why anyone would not make it into a movie even if in the future, when the success of the musical begins to descend. And whether it is made near or far it will be greeted with open arms and hopefully open minds. I also think that it would turn into a wonderful musical, as does Stephen Schwartz in an interview with Broadway World (Is that the right name?) There is nothing that needs to be left out, it already has a huge fanbase, and it will help many people who can't afford to see it to think another way. If you think about it, what couldn't translate well into a movie in the musical? I would like to hear opinions IP: Logged |
This topic is 44 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 All times are ET (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | gregorymaguire.com
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46