I want it to flop so that studios stop pulling this multi-part bullshit.
According to the Wall Street Journal, "Wicked" Parts One and Two cost $320 million ($160 million per film). Both parts were shot back-to-back.
Submitted 5 months ago by TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml to movies@lemm.ee
https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/fa8f42d4-c06f-4045-81d1-b4f4d5cedfa0.jpeg
Comments
Waldowal@lemmy.world 5 months ago
TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
It’s probably not going to flop.
Wicked is one of the most popular Broadway musicals of all time. There’s been a lot of marketing for this film, and on other non-Fediverse social media platforms there’s been a lot of buzz and genuine excitement for this.
It’ll probably break even on the first film’s gross alone; Part Two’s gross will be pure profit.
harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
Ahem. Cats.
cobysev@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Aww damn, I didn’t know it was going to be two films. Guess I’m not watching it until both are released now. I can’t stand watching one film and not getting a resolution to the plot for like a year or two.
bramkaandorp@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I can, but only when it makes sense.
It made sense for Dune, where the story is too vast to tell in one movie of reasonable length. Lawrence of Arabia proved that it is possible, but also that it’s not easy.
This was a stage production, which you watch in one sitting, with intermission, more than likely.
In this adaptation, that intermission will be longer than half an hour. Way longer.
I have no hope that it will turn out to be a good adaptation.
Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Another movie(s) nobody asked for.
Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I did ask for it. Not holding my breath thou.
Also I wanted a series, could have been a 1 or 2 season arch and then Netflix or whoever could flail off into other characters and deeper cannon and non-cannon lore, and I would have had my fill and moved on.
EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Right, because people are only allowed to do anything if they have been explicitly asked beforehand to do it
That reminds me, please provide evidence that someone asked you to write this comment
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 5 months ago
Musicals are massively popular. People go to them to get drunk and sing along too loud, and maybe have a fight.
Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Wicked was published in 1995. Making this movie might have made sense up to 2009, but now? It’s a sentimental cash-grab. Same reason they’re making Gladiator 2.
TheVelvetGentleman@hexbear.net 5 months ago
I saw Wicked on Broadway because my wife wanted to go even though both of us hate musicals. It did nothing to change our minds about musicals. It was also one of the loudest experiences of my life, and I’ve gone to DJ sets where it felt like my heart wasn’t beating.
Agent641@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Much of that was spent on genetics research to clone an actual witch from stem cells.
Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
I was a bit excited but this constant two part money grab bullshit is just too much. In no way was two movies necessary.
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
I’m not a fan in the slightest but someone else said that the stage production omits a lot of stuff from what is written in the books. If that is true then there’s a possibility that the film(s) could be an expanded version… but it’s probably just a cash grab.