And now that the movie is out people going "You were wrong! It was good!" will start flooding in. Keep in mind: this video doesn't exist as a prediction, it exists out of confusion. One of my favorite things is for something that I can't see working actually working. I had that experience with the 14th Doctor specials on Doctor Who, with The Batman, and if that ends up being the case with Wicked that's honestly fantastic. I rarely root for things to fail or be bad, and I wasn't doing that here. So don't think success is some kind of "gotcha" against me, because it's just not.
I saw it last night, and the pacing is really good 👍 it doesn’t feel like it’s dragging. There’s more back story, more show of emotions and motivations, and added comedy elements. Highly recommend seeing it :)
i had your same fear, but yeah you predicted well. i saw this and i liked it. it doesnt mean that the second part will be good though. Our fears might still be true after all.
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.
@@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 TH-cam. 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)
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.
This is my only real gripe with the movie, and it's more a gripe with the stage play. Act 1 is LOADED with great tunes. More than that, Act 1 is a clear and streamlined story progression. Act 2 is slower, messier, and doesn't even have the bangers to anchor it. Granted, "For Good," "As Long As You're Mine," and "No Good Deed" (especially "No Good Deed") are fantastic and I love them. But "Popular" and "Defying Gravity" they are not. So I am crazy-curious what the movie will do with all of that runtime for Part 2.
I wrote a paper about Wicked on postmodern literary criticism back in college and pulled a lot from the second act songs for it. Had an entire section on "Wonderful."
I'm getting flashbacks to The Hobbit where it was a tiny book, yet they made it into 3 films. Because for some reason it needed a tonne of additional stuff added only to link it to Lord of the Rings. Meanwhile they missed important parts of the story that leave the audience confused, and then there's all the stuff they changed with the core characters...
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.
I guess Wicked has this: they didn't turn something that would already need extra content to make two full movies (though I think it was at least theoretically *doable*) into three. It could be worse, Wicked fandom! I've never even seen Hobbit 2&3 because I decided I didn't need to do that to myself, and every clip of Alfrid I've stumbled across has convinced me it was a good decision. Pity: in a slightly different universe, I would have been a huge Tauriel fangirl. In this, I just kinda wanna buy Evangeline Lily a sympathy drink.
Can confirm: as someone with a casual interest in musicals, who was potentially planning on seeing this. I had literally No Idea it was part 1 of 2. That would have come as a massive shock if not for this video.
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.
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!
Nah, it’s established that Melena regularly slept with travelers who stopped by her home, she fully consented to the Wizard’s advances. Not to say the Wizard might’ve been untoward with others, but let’s not ignore that Melena propositioned the Wizard first.
@@auberginebearthat’s not how consent works. She might have been into casual sex, but once she’s unconscious she can’t consent anymore. Agreeing ahead of time doesn’t matter once you’re roofied.
While the book tackles these important subjects, I have to admit I found it to be extremely clunky and not well written at all. I doubt they'll have done a better job if they try to include those here. The current Hollywood track record on unnecessarily expanding storylines just isn't good.
Honestly, you’ve hit the nail on the head here. The decision to split it into two parts that are both the length of the musical is baffling. So many things surprise me about this movie, but most especially: 1. That they don’t seem to have written a new song for the film, which normally happens if only to earn a nom for ‘Best Original Song’ at the Oscars; and 2. That a musical movie being produced by Marc Platt doesn’t appear to have his son Ben Platt’s name in the cast list. Before the cast was announced, I was certain that Ben would play Boq.
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.
@@larissabrglum3856Cats would have worked much better but it's such a spectacle based show (look at the costumes and the singing and dancing) with a razor thin story I'm not sure it would ever work well. The Aristocats -a story about a greedy butler trying to off some wealthy kittens- seems like the Godfather compared to a bunch of auditions for the Heavy Side Layer.
Once you mentioned Chicago, I started to pity Wicked. Chicago was such a fun way to bridge stage and screen. It was just so well done. Good luck to Wicked, tho. 😅
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
@@shippendales8543 I get where you're coming from but I'm with Vera on this one. 2 hours and 40 minutes is way too long for any movie let alone one that is only half a story.
I read the book at a probably too young age before seeing the musical. It’s been over a decade since I read it, but the book is a very different beast than the musical. It is much darker and more mature. I would be shocked if they added more stuff from it into the movie
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
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.
A reason the musical feels that way is because a huge amount of time passes over the course of the story. I feel like a movie is actually the better medium to portray the passing of time, whereas I don't think the musical executed it well... _if_ they trim down some plot points for time.
Yikes - I’m one of those normies who’s only peripherally been aware of the upcoming Wicked movie and had NO idea until this video that it was a “part 1” and not a full adaptation in a single film. I think they’re setting themselves up for a lot of disappointed people.
I had the same reaction when I went to see "Dune" (really tiny print: Part 1) in the theater. While I have no regret in having seen it and the subsequent film, I was nevertheless extremely disappointed to find out it was only the first of two movies.
I'm the same and legit, learning it was two movies made me decide to not go watch it. I'd rather watch the two movies once the second one is out instead of seeing only a part one now. So I would have gone to see it and been greatly disappointed
Lindsay Ellis talked about what I think might be happening here... Cats likely has Hollywood a bit on edge about adapting musicals, much in a similar way to how Hello Dolly killed the Hollywood movie musical for several decades. So this feels a bit two fold. It's padding out the story to release it in two parts to make more sales (think similar to the Final Fantasy 7 remake project being padded to hell so that it can be three full release games) AND they're using that padding to make the musical feel less like a musical so it both makes producers feel more safe and to make audiences feel less like it's a musical But then I have to wonder... if you're taking one of the most successful and well known musicals of all time and making it less musical, who then is the movie for? It doesn't seem to be being made for fans of the show or sound track, and may even hurt sales with that audience, and I can't think many people who aren't into musicals are going to suddenly come see it because it's a musical with just half the music... I don't see this decision working out for them, and has the potential both to kill part two and put another nail in the coffin of the modern Hollywood movie musical
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
@@WillTheGreatest I'm convinced they did this already, but it developed into Tim Burton's awful Alice. There's so many similarities to Looking Glass Wars
"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.
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
I did the extended Lord of the Rings in cinema and oh boy I really missed my mid movie, DVD change toilet breaks. I had to carefully time trips so I didn't miss out on my favourite scenes.
@@wizardofozstan I remember when I had the VHS version and it had the intermission in it, it has been a while since I watched the DVD version but I don't think that it does
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 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.
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?
pg doesn't mean its for kids it just means theres no violence or language. the thing here is people think padding means more from the books when the musical actually suffers from a lack of ANYTHING to begin with. we get zero context for anything they do at school. we only get to see 2 separate days at school. their first day and their last. that just doesn't work for a movie. its not padding its proper storytelling. MONTHS pass in the stage version. and elphaba actually has a moment where she IS popular. but we never get to see that. this is what wicked was always supposed to be. hence why all the try outs before Broadway were pushing on 4.5 hours before they shaved all character development off to fit it into 2.5 and BARELY
They used to have intermissions in movies, and more and more people have been saying that movies should have intermissions again. They could have "Defying Gravity" followed by an intermission in the movie. They could do what was done for The Sound of Music, and have a big projection on the screen that says "Intermission."
One thing I want to add: the director has stated that they will be adding new songs, especially in the second movie. As far as specificity goes I could only really find rumors of two, a Glinda and elphaba song. But I think it’s worth mentioning.
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).
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!
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 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.
as someone who really loves musicals but lives in the other side of the world and it's not able to travel to see musicals live (i don't have the money) i appreciate being able to watch my fav musicals (in good quality) but i would STRONGLY prefer if they prefessionaly filmed the staged musicals. something like what they did with hamilton. movie adaptations jut aren't the same, doesn't matter how much effort is put. the staged musicals just have something that can't be achieved in movies
i mean it's sad that i have to watch recordings from the public and that's all people from far away have. i think it's not even allowed for people in the public to record so i feel guilty but it's the only way to see musicals for people like me. they could make so much money if they professionally filmed musicals. i would pay to watch them and there's millions of streaming platforms nowadays too. the possibilities are endless and everyone would be happier
I read the book, years ago, in my late 30s. All I remember is that it’s full of misery and weird unpleasant stuff that is not leavened at all by hope or a fighting spirit, or structured for tragedy and catharsis. I don’t think I managed to finish it and I have had no desire to revisit it.
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.
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.
You mentioned In the Heights as a box office failure I just wanna shout it out real quick it is super fun and underrated! For anyone who didn’t have it on their radar you should totally give it a shot
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.
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 loved the stage show, I've been to see it twice in London and would happily see it again. I didn't know that this was being done in 2 parts until this video - and knowing that, I'm less likely to see it in the cinema I'd rather wait for both parts to be on streaming so I can just make my own intermission between the parts. It's also disappointing that the songs are being so diluted.
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.
Definitely the fan who created this fan art doesn't deserve d*ath threats and doxxing and awfulness. I get as a black person losing your cool but I can't believe that she didn't apologize for this citizen getting threatened because of what she said. It seems very out of touch and weird. You should be allowed to vent but if expressing leads to violence I think You should look into it if you have experienced violence online yourself!! This fan was excited and They didn't do anything disrespectful. The joker movie was awfullllll.
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! 😬
You are so right that they are hiding that it is part 1 and that it is a musical. I didn't know until very recently 🤣 When I saw the trailer I didn't know about the book and the Broadway musical, so to me it looked like a trailer for a regular fantasy movie. I only learned more about it because of the edited poster drama.
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.
It’s wild how different every version is from the source. How different the movie the Wizard of Oz is from the book. And how different the play Wicked is from the book. I found Wicked the book to be a very difficult read. And I felt like I was searching for something in it that I didn’t find. It’s pretty amazing they pulled the musical that they did out of that book.
I did not know wicked was broken into two part.... I mean I haven't been paying too much attention to that, but I feel like that isn't something they should be hiding
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.
As someone who read the book years ago and only remembers parts of it, and who has not seen the stage musical, I have to disagree that just listening to the Wicked songs will be fine. I recently decided to listen to the Broadway soundtrack and was completely lost as to what was happening in the story. I had to guess about what was going on and rely on summaries of the stage show to fill in gaps. It is wildly different from the book in some places. I'm also guessing that some portion of the added runtime is going to be dedicated to extended visual setpieces that the stage production would have tried to keep quick in order to keep the actors on stage as the focus.
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.
I honestly think the fact that they're showing so much of the musical (spoiling most plot points, showing so much of defying gravity) makes me think (and hopeful) that they're hiding something... More story elements, new songs. I think the studio is too sure on its success to fumble it on its most intrinsic element.
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
Ok… in Dune’s defense, I used to say that Dune could have easily been a multi-seasonal once-in-a-lifetime series just like Game of Thrones. There is a LOT going on. There are as many houses and planets instead of kingdoms all fighting over Spice instead of a throne. With more politics and prophecies and lore and battles than all the Star Wars movies combined.
Maybe it's the autism, but I like going into a film knowing if it has an ending. If a film is part one of a series, I'd like to know that going in to set my expectations
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.
I have seen an interview with the director where he said that he didn’t want to have it feel like “end of act one” so they have set it up to be a full movie in it’s own right. I am interested to see it ( this Saturday!) and I will have better thoughts on this after that
16:24 yeah, if I hadn't watched your video, I would have gone to the theater and been incredibly frustrated 😅 Edit: Also the runtime is making me very hesitant to go see it.
Although in the case of Into the Woods, I was VERY pleased with how they dealt with the gear shift you described: They made the trees slowly crack and fall, and it took long enough for our emotions to shift toward worry.
Vera, I watched this video when it uploaded and I completely agreed with everything you said. I am incredibly frustrated to say, that after seeing Wicked this weekend with my kids, the run time worked. All the extra stuff felt less like stuffing and filler, but instead translation for the medium. Thoroughly enjoyed it and the chatter leaving the cinema was positive and enthusiastic for the sequel next year. Sometimes, I'm happy to be wrong. Would love a follow up/review
Exactly! I mean I was hopeful going in regardless just as we'd gotten more and more clips of Ariana and Cynthia's performances, but yeah, I'd definitely been so confused as to where such a long run time was coming from and how it might impact the story, and yet... somehow it just completely worked! Now watching videos of the stage show back, it actually feels rushed because I love all of those little moments they gave the movie to breath. I really can't think of any place where it felt lagging, and it *really* makes me excited about Part 2, because I think that's the act that can benefit even more from some extra time and moments to help all of the characters' arcs play out a bit more smoothly.
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 will say when you look at the plot of the stage show, act one is a complete full narrative with the character arcs and act two is basically a sequel that continues the arcs that were set up in part one. The biggest complaint or critique about the stage show is how fast it rushes through the second half because act one is so strong and so complete people thought it could end there. I think in a way, wicked had to be adapted, not traditionally because if you wanted to take the time to address this complaints and flesh out the story, it would be a 4+ hour movie at that point, or at least 3:40. So I’m heading into it with optimism because it’s not like the story is completely undoable as two parts unlike the hunger games, for example
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.
That's true, but a diva is a diva... Ask Cher, Madonna or Beyoncé... If you're going to say things like that, you gotta have a thick skin I'm not talking about their private lives... She pulled a diva card. Streisand effect.
I take your point about the spectacle of musicals being lost in film. Phantom of the Opera was AMAZING! The phantom threw fireballs! He had this magic garotte rope that levitated! At the end, he vanished, seemingly by magic! In the film, not so much. Fireballs? Nah: sword fight. Magic rope? Nah: just a fight in water. Vanishing? Nah: smash a mirror to reveal a secret passage. So utterly devoid of spectacle
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.
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
Yeah so, what you said sounded reasonable, but I just got back from watching the movie with some friends and I enjoyed it, we all enjoyed it, and it didn't feel half baked. I'm an opera person, not a musical person, didn't really like the music, but the story and characters were compelling, and the sets and visual effects were lit. It never dragged or got boring.
2 part movies only work if you can tell a good story for each movie along with a good overarching story. Dune worked because of how much information was in there, and they were able to break it off into appropriate chunks and end points. Ending the first movie when they did felt right. Heck, even Breaking Dawn it worked well. They told one story in the first movie (the wedding and birth of their daughter), then another story in the second (gathering friends to protect their family), while having the overarching story throughout. If you need to pad a story to have enough material to fill two movies, then you need to cut it down to make one tight and good one.
I was also super confused that they added that much time and no new songs because NORMALLY a lot of adaptations have a goal to add at least one new song so that they qualify for "Best Original Song" come awards season. DOUBLING your run time would have been a perfect excuse for them to throw that in there but they didn't which is weird.
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 movie was great, performances were stellar. I’m glad most pre-watch critics are were not necessarily right. Most of the audience loved this film. People were clapping in theaters!
@@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.
Adding from the books makes no sense when it's either way too mature (the sex clubs) or not happening (Fiyero's entire plot). Maybe expanding on Elphaba's time with the Wizard, Nessarose's storyline, and the political landscape for talking animals makes sense, but as said in the video not without the songs. It would have made more sense to have a single film and just include an intermission like Bollywood films. Or instead of intermission a time skip montage of Glinda and co graduating and Elphaba setting up her new base with little to no music as a palette cleanser (that's what Into the Woods sort of attempted, but it had bigger issues than it's transition).
IMO every musical-to-movie adaptation struggles with translating a 2-act structure to a 3-act structure. “Into the Woods” is one of the worst offenders here, as you pointed out. It breaks my heart bc part of the answer seems so obvious - just bring back the old Hollywood movie musical tradition of an actual fucking intermission. My Fair Lady has one, and it needs it! Let us leave the movie theater seats and have a pee and buy more snacks, just like audiences do on Broadway. Into the Woods in particular could be an amazing movie musical if you structured it as 3 acts - intermission - 3 acts. (And btw, this musical is satirizing traditional stories and traditional story structure, so fun surprise, it comes pre-structured this way!) Plus, there is room to go deeper thematically: there’s a lot of meat to chew in that musical that’s worth an expanded 2nd act. (Unlike what we got, which squished the 2nd act into the 3rd part of a movie’s structure, abruptly changing tones for no reason as Vera said, and cutting all the stuff that Makes The Story Have A Point.) (Honestly, I was done when I heard they’d cut the Narrator character.) Thanks you for coming to my TED talk 😂
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 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.
the thing is that les mis only suffers from trying to move between those 2 points. wicked suffers timeline wise throughout the ENTIRE show. we dont get to see them at school, we dont get to see elphaba gain notoriety and we also don't get to see any of the events of the wizard of oz. like wicked suffers with pacing the ENTIRE way through. the movie length is to fix that problem. dancing through life is supposed to be a months long time skip, running through the entire school year and yet we still don't have time to see them learn a single thing in school much less watch elphaba learn a single ounce of magic.
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! :)
Maybe I haven't watched enough live theater or maybe it's just not my favorite type of media, but I've always thought that even the best live musicals are kind of...lacking in the plot and character development. Considering the cost-benefits of having actors give their best performance for two+ hours live vs months of finely-tuned and well-controlled shoots, I just considered it endemic to the medium. So devil's advocate here - Wicked The Movie might benefit from the longer runtime and less song-to-time ratio IF they use the time to shore up the plot and characters. Big hecking IF, but it's the only thing that I can imagine would justify the change (besides the obvious Studio Mandate explanation, of course). I think of it like the exact inverse of the book-to-movie adaptation dilemma.
As a fan of the book this seems like a weird take. The musical necessarily cut most of the book out of the story. Making a two parter that follows the pacing of the musical makes all the sense.
Possibly trying to get 2 awards seasons out of it. I don't follow that any more but I remember the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter award performance and promo back in the day.
There's def a little room to add stuff... especially in Act 2. I always felt like it rushed a bit in the end, like with the character twists / spoilers. But I'm not sure 2 movies worth, that are nearly 3 hours. I still would rather a professional recording of the Broadway show
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.
And now that the movie is out people going "You were wrong! It was good!" will start flooding in. Keep in mind: this video doesn't exist as a prediction, it exists out of confusion. One of my favorite things is for something that I can't see working actually working. I had that experience with the 14th Doctor specials on Doctor Who, with The Batman, and if that ends up being the case with Wicked that's honestly fantastic. I rarely root for things to fail or be bad, and I wasn't doing that here. So don't think success is some kind of "gotcha" against me, because it's just not.
I saw it last night, and the pacing is really good 👍 it doesn’t feel like it’s dragging. There’s more back story, more show of emotions and motivations, and added comedy elements. Highly recommend seeing it :)
This disclaimer 😅
i had your same fear, but yeah you predicted well. i saw this and i liked it. it doesnt mean that the second part will be good though. Our fears might still be true after all.
I am once again begging them to just record and release pro-shots of shows.
Fr!!
You got to go the main New York Library for them.
The only Lion King movie we want is the pro shot of the musical
Yeah, like. The *real* international market is there.
After hamilton i honestly thought other shows would get that same treatment ngl.
Especially wicked.
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 remember the intermission when my Dad took me to Jarassic park. (Fond memory)
Bonus points if it's the intermission like the Beatle's movie "Help."
I couldn’t agree more; from a screenwriting perspective it seems obvious.
Hey movie people, we’re smart enough to come back to our seats, we promise 🙄
@@gradgurl2007that’s what I was thinking about, too!
@@alexandraphelps4020 Right? It's fabulous. I freaking love that film.
"Musicals being afraid to market themselves as musicals, I could probably do a whole other video on that if you wanted me to".
I want you to 😊
what? when has this movie not marketed itself as a musical??
I second this
Hell yeah.
@@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 TH-cam. 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)
Ah yes. Wicked and Wicked: The Battle of Five Armies.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH. Good one. 🤣
Wicked: The last crusade
Wicked 2: Wickeder.
Clever af ❤
Wicked: the Snyder Cut.
Ironically, releasing Into the Woods as two movies with a year-long gap between them would have been much better than what we got
That one you could actually make an argument because the first act does legitimately feel like a finished story.
@@CouncilofGeeks Sondheim’s “In 2 the Woods”
@@brandelynnefreleng759710/10 perfect part 2 title
Omg I love your videos!!!
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.
I agree with you but act 2 has some great tunes -“thank goodness” , “ as long as you’re mine” and “for good”
“As Long As You’re Mine” and “For Good” are in Act Two.
This is my only real gripe with the movie, and it's more a gripe with the stage play. Act 1 is LOADED with great tunes. More than that, Act 1 is a clear and streamlined story progression. Act 2 is slower, messier, and doesn't even have the bangers to anchor it. Granted, "For Good," "As Long As You're Mine," and "No Good Deed" (especially "No Good Deed") are fantastic and I love them. But "Popular" and "Defying Gravity" they are not. So I am crazy-curious what the movie will do with all of that runtime for Part 2.
Your thoughts are always appreciated.
I wrote a paper about Wicked on postmodern literary criticism back in college and pulled a lot from the second act songs for it. Had an entire section on "Wonderful."
I'm getting flashbacks to The Hobbit where it was a tiny book, yet they made it into 3 films.
Because for some reason it needed a tonne of additional stuff added only to link it to Lord of the Rings. Meanwhile they missed important parts of the story that leave the audience confused, and then there's all the stuff they changed with the core characters...
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.
Shoutout to the “how dare you Disney Barrel Ride my beloved and meaningful childhood story” club.
I guess Wicked has this: they didn't turn something that would already need extra content to make two full movies (though I think it was at least theoretically *doable*) into three. It could be worse, Wicked fandom!
I've never even seen Hobbit 2&3 because I decided I didn't need to do that to myself, and every clip of Alfrid I've stumbled across has convinced me it was a good decision. Pity: in a slightly different universe, I would have been a huge Tauriel fangirl. In this, I just kinda wanna buy Evangeline Lily a sympathy drink.
There are 2 more books that continue to reimagine the Oz series as well as develop the world Maguire created.
Look at least we got fan edits of the Hobbit that made it better, maybe that will happen with Wicked
There are two more books in the series now too.
Can confirm: as someone with a casual interest in musicals, who was potentially planning on seeing this. I had literally No Idea it was part 1 of 2. That would have come as a massive shock if not for this video.
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.
Yeah that’s become a rarity, though the treatment given to Hamilton shows it can absolutely still work.
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.
and the Into the Woods stage recording on TH-cam is so much better than the movie anyway
@@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.
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!
In MY family friendly holiday cash grab?!?!?! I don’t think so! 😂😂
Nah, it’s established that Melena regularly slept with travelers who stopped by her home, she fully consented to the Wizard’s advances. Not to say the Wizard might’ve been untoward with others, but let’s not ignore that Melena propositioned the Wizard first.
@@auberginebearthat’s not how consent works. She might have been into casual sex, but once she’s unconscious she can’t consent anymore. Agreeing ahead of time doesn’t matter once you’re roofied.
@@tigercomet23 you know, I forgot she passed out, it has been over a decade since I read the books.
While the book tackles these important subjects, I have to admit I found it to be extremely clunky and not well written at all. I doubt they'll have done a better job if they try to include those here. The current Hollywood track record on unnecessarily expanding storylines just isn't good.
Honestly, you’ve hit the nail on the head here. The decision to split it into two parts that are both the length of the musical is baffling. So many things surprise me about this movie, but most especially:
1. That they don’t seem to have written a new song for the film, which normally happens if only to earn a nom for ‘Best Original Song’ at the Oscars; and
2. That a musical movie being produced by Marc Platt doesn’t appear to have his son Ben Platt’s name in the cast list. Before the cast was announced, I was certain that Ben would play Boq.
"Sweeney Todd has 18-20 songs depending how you count them since some of them BLEED into each other."
I see what you did there 😆
Imo wicked would've worked better as a single animated feature than two live-action movies.
I also think Cats could have worked as an animated film
I think this could be said of most musicals that get adapted to film, if not all of them
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.
Ugh it would have been GORGEOUS as an animated film
@@larissabrglum3856Cats would have worked much better but it's such a spectacle based show (look at the costumes and the singing and dancing) with a razor thin story I'm not sure it would ever work well. The Aristocats -a story about a greedy butler trying to off some wealthy kittens- seems like the Godfather compared to a bunch of auditions for the Heavy Side Layer.
As a random person......this is the first I heard about it being a part 1.
same!
Same! 😂
Also I always thought it was a romance between the two witches, I'm sad to find out otherwise
as a person whose bee LOOSELY following this film this is also the first I've heard about it
As a fan of the musical and book, I had no idea and I am annoyed.
Once you mentioned Chicago, I started to pity Wicked. Chicago was such a fun way to bridge stage and screen. It was just so well done. Good luck to Wicked, tho. 😅
Chicago has to be one of my favourites. Sweeny Todd was good too.... But most musical adaptations are not great.
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
@@shippendales8543 I get where you're coming from but I'm with Vera on this one. 2 hours and 40 minutes is way too long for any movie let alone one that is only half a story.
You don't have 3 hours of ideas, so you don't get 3 hours of money!
Anyone else waiting for the "fan supercut" to make this into a single movie?
My very first thought when I heard it would be two films.
Me still waiting for someone to make an Edit of the new Dune Films with the internal monologues.
@SailorDisco it's 2 movies????
@@williamtimonen6814 Quotes from the writings of Princess Irulan would be nice as well.
that would be the most offensive thing anyone had ever seen, don't you know 😒
I read the book at a probably too young age before seeing the musical. It’s been over a decade since I read it, but the book is a very different beast than the musical. It is much darker and more mature. I would be shocked if they added more stuff from it into the movie
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
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.
A reason the musical feels that way is because a huge amount of time passes over the course of the story. I feel like a movie is actually the better medium to portray the passing of time, whereas I don't think the musical executed it well... _if_ they trim down some plot points for time.
Yikes - I’m one of those normies who’s only peripherally been aware of the upcoming Wicked movie and had NO idea until this video that it was a “part 1” and not a full adaptation in a single film. I think they’re setting themselves up for a lot of disappointed people.
I had the same reaction when I went to see "Dune" (really tiny print: Part 1) in the theater. While I have no regret in having seen it and the subsequent film, I was nevertheless extremely disappointed to find out it was only the first of two movies.
I'm the same and legit, learning it was two movies made me decide to not go watch it. I'd rather watch the two movies once the second one is out instead of seeing only a part one now. So I would have gone to see it and been greatly disappointed
Lindsay Ellis talked about what I think might be happening here...
Cats likely has Hollywood a bit on edge about adapting musicals, much in a similar way to how Hello Dolly killed the Hollywood movie musical for several decades. So this feels a bit two fold. It's padding out the story to release it in two parts to make more sales (think similar to the Final Fantasy 7 remake project being padded to hell so that it can be three full release games) AND they're using that padding to make the musical feel less like a musical so it both makes producers feel more safe and to make audiences feel less like it's a musical
But then I have to wonder... if you're taking one of the most successful and well known musicals of all time and making it less musical, who then is the movie for? It doesn't seem to be being made for fans of the show or sound track, and may even hurt sales with that audience, and I can't think many people who aren't into musicals are going to suddenly come see it because it's a musical with just half the music... I don't see this decision working out for them, and has the potential both to kill part two and put another nail in the coffin of the modern Hollywood movie musical
Right?! If they are worried about people that don't like musicals why not just go for a book adaptation then?
Which means they prob got the wront message. Cats wasnt hated cause its a musical. Its cause it suuuuucked
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
Ugh
All of the Oz books written by L. Frank Baum *are* public domain. The MGM film is still copyrighted.
@@WillTheGreatest I'm convinced they did this already, but it developed into Tim Burton's awful Alice. There's so many similarities to Looking Glass Wars
Maybe instead of a Director's Cut, they'll make a Stage Musical Cut. If they don't, someone online will.
The play didn't include a lot from the book. And the tone was very different. The play was whimsical. The book was darker.
"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.
The thing is that I actually wanted this movie. And I was also hoping that it was good. I don't have faith anymore :(
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
Right! Gone with the Wind is a well-known example of a movie with an intermission. Why not just do that?
I did the extended Lord of the Rings in cinema and oh boy I really missed my mid movie, DVD change toilet breaks. I had to carefully time trips so I didn't miss out on my favourite scenes.
@@larissabrglum3856 The Sound of Music originally had an intermission too.
@amandamandamands it does ! sometimes I watch on disney+ and i love that intermission right after maria decides to return to the abbey
@@wizardofozstan I remember when I had the VHS version and it had the intermission in it, it has been a while since I watched the DVD version but I don't think that it does
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 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.
Hamilton does have an OBC professional recording
Hamilton has a recording on Disney+
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?
They kept it a pg rating and padded it to 2 hrs and 40 minutes? Why? That is way too long for kids.
pg doesn't mean its for kids it just means theres no violence or language. the thing here is people think padding means more from the books when the musical actually suffers from a lack of ANYTHING to begin with. we get zero context for anything they do at school. we only get to see 2 separate days at school. their first day and their last. that just doesn't work for a movie. its not padding its proper storytelling. MONTHS pass in the stage version. and elphaba actually has a moment where she IS popular. but we never get to see that. this is what wicked was always supposed to be. hence why all the try outs before Broadway were pushing on 4.5 hours before they shaved all character development off to fit it into 2.5 and BARELY
Coming November 2024: Wicked
Coming in 2025: Wicked(er)
They used to have intermissions in movies, and more and more people have been saying that movies should have intermissions again. They could have "Defying Gravity" followed by an intermission in the movie. They could do what was done for The Sound of Music, and have a big projection on the screen that says "Intermission."
One thing I want to add: the director has stated that they will be adding new songs, especially in the second movie. As far as specificity goes I could only really find rumors of two, a Glinda and elphaba song. But I think it’s worth mentioning.
In Switzerland all movies have intermissions anyway. They should just release it and insist on intermissions globally.
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).
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!
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.
Call me crazy but I don't have much faith in the director of GI Joe: Retaliation and Jem and the Holograms.
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
@@august1837do you trust the writer of Cruella and the creator of My So-Called Life? 😋😋
@@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 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.
I mean to be fair, for me No Good Deed is the close second, it's the highlight of the second act.
For Good is absolutely the highlight of part 2, there will be tears
I do agree that defying gravity is the highlight of the show, but not my favorite song either.
This was a great part 1 of your thoughts on Wicked. I can't wait to see part two after the intermission!
as someone who really loves musicals but lives in the other side of the world and it's not able to travel to see musicals live (i don't have the money) i appreciate being able to watch my fav musicals (in good quality) but i would STRONGLY prefer if they prefessionaly filmed the staged musicals. something like what they did with hamilton. movie adaptations jut aren't the same, doesn't matter how much effort is put. the staged musicals just have something that can't be achieved in movies
i mean it's sad that i have to watch recordings from the public and that's all people from far away have. i think it's not even allowed for people in the public to record so i feel guilty but it's the only way to see musicals for people like me. they could make so much money if they professionally filmed musicals. i would pay to watch them and there's millions of streaming platforms nowadays too. the possibilities are endless and everyone would be happier
I read the book, years ago, in my late 30s. All I remember is that it’s full of misery and weird unpleasant stuff that is not leavened at all by hope or a fighting spirit, or structured for tragedy and catharsis. I don’t think I managed to finish it and I have had no desire to revisit it.
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.
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?
There’s a lot of stuff I doubt they’d add back in. Maguire’s book is amazing, but I don’t know if they’d be brave enough to adapt it.
@@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.
lot of studio do have a habit of not promoting musicals has musicals, but that's not even the case with this specific movie.
You mentioned In the Heights as a box office failure I just wanna shout it out real quick it is super fun and underrated! For anyone who didn’t have it on their radar you should totally give it a shot
LOVE THE GREEN LIPSTICK
SAME
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.
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.
“Like. That’s not gonna be in the movie. I fucking hope.” Had me dying 😂😂
I loved the stage show, I've been to see it twice in London and would happily see it again.
I didn't know that this was being done in 2 parts until this video - and knowing that, I'm less likely to see it in the cinema I'd rather wait for both parts to be on streaming so I can just make my own intermission between the parts.
It's also disappointing that the songs are being so diluted.
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.
Definitely the fan who created this fan art doesn't deserve d*ath threats and doxxing and awfulness. I get as a black person losing your cool but I can't believe that she didn't apologize for this citizen getting threatened because of what she said. It seems very out of touch and weird. You should be allowed to vent but if expressing leads to violence I think You should look into it if you have experienced violence online yourself!! This fan was excited and They didn't do anything disrespectful. The joker movie was awfullllll.
Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money.
Wicked part one the Snyder cut
Release the Wizard Cut!
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! 😬
You are so right that they are hiding that it is part 1 and that it is a musical. I didn't know until very recently 🤣 When I saw the trailer I didn't know about the book and the Broadway musical, so to me it looked like a trailer for a regular fantasy movie. I only learned more about it because of the edited poster drama.
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.
It’s wild how different every version is from the source. How different the movie the Wizard of Oz is from the book. And how different the play Wicked is from the book.
I found Wicked the book to be a very difficult read. And I felt like I was searching for something in it that I didn’t find.
It’s pretty amazing they pulled the musical that they did out of that book.
I did not know wicked was broken into two part.... I mean I haven't been paying too much attention to that, but I feel like that isn't something they should be hiding
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.
Given how different the two are that strikes me as a very fraught creative decision.
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.
We can see on the trailer a flashback of an specific moment on Elphaba’s childhood that is on the book. So you are probably right.
As someone who read the book years ago and only remembers parts of it, and who has not seen the stage musical, I have to disagree that just listening to the Wicked songs will be fine. I recently decided to listen to the Broadway soundtrack and was completely lost as to what was happening in the story. I had to guess about what was going on and rely on summaries of the stage show to fill in gaps. It is wildly different from the book in some places.
I'm also guessing that some portion of the added runtime is going to be dedicated to extended visual setpieces that the stage production would have tried to keep quick in order to keep the actors on stage as the focus.
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.
The Lego sets looked cute tho 🤷🏻♂️
I honestly think the fact that they're showing so much of the musical (spoiling most plot points, showing so much of defying gravity) makes me think (and hopeful) that they're hiding something... More story elements, new songs. I think the studio is too sure on its success to fumble it on its most intrinsic element.
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
Ok… in Dune’s defense, I used to say that Dune could have easily been a multi-seasonal once-in-a-lifetime series just like Game of Thrones. There is a LOT going on. There are as many houses and planets instead of kingdoms all fighting over Spice instead of a throne. With more politics and prophecies and lore and battles than all the Star Wars movies combined.
Maybe it's the autism, but I like going into a film knowing if it has an ending. If a film is part one of a series, I'd like to know that going in to set my expectations
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.
I have seen an interview with the director where he said that he didn’t want to have it feel like “end of act one” so they have set it up to be a full movie in it’s own right. I am interested to see it ( this Saturday!) and I will have better thoughts on this after that
16:24 yeah, if I hadn't watched your video, I would have gone to the theater and been incredibly frustrated 😅 Edit: Also the runtime is making me very hesitant to go see it.
Tbf, in terms of Songtime: Runtime ratio, I’m pretty sure The Sound of Music is around the same number. So I wouldn’t say it’s inherently a problem.
The fact we have to that far back to find something comparable that was successful feels more damning than reassuring to me, personally.
@CouncilofGeeks that's a stretch; we have to go that far back to find many movie musicals that were halfway decent
@@CouncilofGeeks Honestly, I wasn’t looking for very long, it was the second musical I thought of.
Although in the case of Into the Woods, I was VERY pleased with how they dealt with the gear shift you described: They made the trees slowly crack and fall, and it took long enough for our emotions to shift toward worry.
Vera, I watched this video when it uploaded and I completely agreed with everything you said.
I am incredibly frustrated to say, that after seeing Wicked this weekend with my kids, the run time worked.
All the extra stuff felt less like stuffing and filler, but instead translation for the medium. Thoroughly enjoyed it and the chatter leaving the cinema was positive and enthusiastic for the sequel next year.
Sometimes, I'm happy to be wrong. Would love a follow up/review
Exactly! I mean I was hopeful going in regardless just as we'd gotten more and more clips of Ariana and Cynthia's performances, but yeah, I'd definitely been so confused as to where such a long run time was coming from and how it might impact the story, and yet... somehow it just completely worked! Now watching videos of the stage show back, it actually feels rushed because I love all of those little moments they gave the movie to breath. I really can't think of any place where it felt lagging, and it *really* makes me excited about Part 2, because I think that's the act that can benefit even more from some extra time and moments to help all of the characters' arcs play out a bit more smoothly.
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 will say when you look at the plot of the stage show, act one is a complete full narrative with the character arcs and act two is basically a sequel that continues the arcs that were set up in part one.
The biggest complaint or critique about the stage show is how fast it rushes through the second half because act one is so strong and so complete people thought it could end there. I think in a way, wicked had to be adapted, not traditionally because if you wanted to take the time to address this complaints and flesh out the story, it would be a 4+ hour movie at that point, or at least 3:40.
So I’m heading into it with optimism because it’s not like the story is completely undoable as two parts unlike the hunger games, for example
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.
Exactly. Who among us has never said something cringey or regrettable or overreacted a bit?
Okay but I’ve heard that Cynthia Erivo had a a history of being kind of rude and self absorbed
That's true, but a diva is a diva... Ask Cher, Madonna or Beyoncé... If you're going to say things like that, you gotta have a thick skin
I'm not talking about their private lives... She pulled a diva card. Streisand effect.
I take your point about the spectacle of musicals being lost in film. Phantom of the Opera was AMAZING! The phantom threw fireballs! He had this magic garotte rope that levitated! At the end, he vanished, seemingly by magic!
In the film, not so much. Fireballs? Nah: sword fight. Magic rope? Nah: just a fight in water. Vanishing? Nah: smash a mirror to reveal a secret passage. So utterly devoid of spectacle
When I learnt that the movie was going to be Part One, I went from wanting to buy one cinema ticket, to wanting to buy zero
I just saw it as more wicked which is cool. But I haven’t finished the video yet
Same.
It was announced the movie would be in 2 parts when they first announced the movie was in production. It was never a gotcha last minute decision.
Funny because when I saw that I was shocked, but also I was like finally act 2 might be able to make a lick of sense haha
ill see you at the wicked part 1 and 2 double features next November. dont act like ur gonna miss out
I just want a filmed version of the play..
Should have said defying Mavity.
I saw what you did there, 14.!
Did I miss it last season, or are we still waiting for a pay-off for that gag?
They are going for a definitive adaptation.
Does it make sense in an emotional way? yes.
Is it practical or logical? No.
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.
The marketing is relentless! I hate it already!
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
Yeah so, what you said sounded reasonable, but I just got back from watching the movie with some friends and I enjoyed it, we all enjoyed it, and it didn't feel half baked.
I'm an opera person, not a musical person, didn't really like the music, but the story and characters were compelling, and the sets and visual effects were lit. It never dragged or got boring.
2 part movies only work if you can tell a good story for each movie along with a good overarching story. Dune worked because of how much information was in there, and they were able to break it off into appropriate chunks and end points. Ending the first movie when they did felt right. Heck, even Breaking Dawn it worked well. They told one story in the first movie (the wedding and birth of their daughter), then another story in the second (gathering friends to protect their family), while having the overarching story throughout.
If you need to pad a story to have enough material to fill two movies, then you need to cut it down to make one tight and good one.
I was also super confused that they added that much time and no new songs because NORMALLY a lot of adaptations have a goal to add at least one new song so that they qualify for "Best Original Song" come awards season. DOUBLING your run time would have been a perfect excuse for them to throw that in there but they didn't which is weird.
Engagement for the engagement god!
Milk for the Khorne flakes!
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 movie was great, performances were stellar. I’m glad most pre-watch critics are were not necessarily right. Most of the audience loved this film. People were clapping in theaters!
That’s great to hear. I didn’t actually want it to not work. I just had a hard time parsing these decisions.
I miss when a part 2 would be released only six months after part 1
The last time I remembering that happening was The Matrix.
@@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.
"Bleed into each other" I see what you did there :)
Adding from the books makes no sense when it's either way too mature (the sex clubs) or not happening (Fiyero's entire plot). Maybe expanding on Elphaba's time with the Wizard, Nessarose's storyline, and the political landscape for talking animals makes sense, but as said in the video not without the songs.
It would have made more sense to have a single film and just include an intermission like Bollywood films. Or instead of intermission a time skip montage of Glinda and co graduating and Elphaba setting up her new base with little to no music as a palette cleanser (that's what Into the Woods sort of attempted, but it had bigger issues than it's transition).
As someone who knew of wicked only through lego, I both didn’t know it was a musical or part 1
IMO every musical-to-movie adaptation struggles with translating a 2-act structure to a 3-act structure. “Into the Woods” is one of the worst offenders here, as you pointed out.
It breaks my heart bc part of the answer seems so obvious - just bring back the old Hollywood movie musical tradition of an actual fucking intermission. My Fair Lady has one, and it needs it! Let us leave the movie theater seats and have a pee and buy more snacks, just like audiences do on Broadway.
Into the Woods in particular could be an amazing movie musical if you structured it as 3 acts - intermission - 3 acts. (And btw, this musical is satirizing traditional stories and traditional story structure, so fun surprise, it comes pre-structured this way!) Plus, there is room to go deeper thematically: there’s a lot of meat to chew in that musical that’s worth an expanded 2nd act. (Unlike what we got, which squished the 2nd act into the 3rd part of a movie’s structure, abruptly changing tones for no reason as Vera said, and cutting all the stuff that Makes The Story Have A Point.) (Honestly, I was done when I heard they’d cut the Narrator character.)
Thanks you for coming to my TED talk 😂
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
At least this makes it so you can exclusively see the bangers of wicked 😂
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.
YES SOMEONE ELSE SEES THE LIGHT.
the thing is that les mis only suffers from trying to move between those 2 points. wicked suffers timeline wise throughout the ENTIRE show. we dont get to see them at school, we dont get to see elphaba gain notoriety and we also don't get to see any of the events of the wizard of oz. like wicked suffers with pacing the ENTIRE way through. the movie length is to fix that problem. dancing through life is supposed to be a months long time skip, running through the entire school year and yet we still don't have time to see them learn a single thing in school much less watch elphaba learn a single ounce of magic.
Hollywood keeps making musicals, but is also convinced that the public hates musicals.
What is the 2nd movie going to be called
Wicked 2 : The rewickeding?
Wickeder
Wicked 2: Electric Boogaloo
2 Wicked 2 Furious
@@CouncilofGeeks
Wicked 2 Fiyerosa
The Witch Strikes Back
The Wrath of Elphaba
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! :)
Maybe I haven't watched enough live theater or maybe it's just not my favorite type of media, but I've always thought that even the best live musicals are kind of...lacking in the plot and character development. Considering the cost-benefits of having actors give their best performance for two+ hours live vs months of finely-tuned and well-controlled shoots, I just considered it endemic to the medium. So devil's advocate here - Wicked The Movie might benefit from the longer runtime and less song-to-time ratio IF they use the time to shore up the plot and characters. Big hecking IF, but it's the only thing that I can imagine would justify the change (besides the obvious Studio Mandate explanation, of course). I think of it like the exact inverse of the book-to-movie adaptation dilemma.
As a fan of the book this seems like a weird take. The musical necessarily cut most of the book out of the story. Making a two parter that follows the pacing of the musical makes all the sense.
Possibly trying to get 2 awards seasons out of it. I don't follow that any more but I remember the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter award performance and promo back in the day.
There's def a little room to add stuff... especially in Act 2. I always felt like it rushed a bit in the end, like with the character twists / spoilers. But I'm not sure 2 movies worth, that are nearly 3 hours. I still would rather a professional recording of the Broadway show
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.
this