Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of: <a href="http://www.laughingplace.com/w/news/2014/06/18/steven-sondheim-addresses-changes-being-made-for-disneys-film-version-of-into-the-woods/" target="_blank"><b>6/18/14: Steven Sondheim Addresses Changes Being Made For Disney's Film Version Of Into The Woods</b></a>
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I'm surprised he's so laid back about making changes to 'Into the Woods' Then again, Tim Burton & Co crucified 'Sweeney Todd' so much that maybe Sondheim just takes his money and shrugs.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I never mind changes when an old work is adapted into new work of art. Most especially if the author is involved. I like to see the differences - I like to know what differences the author may have considered. A movie based on a book usually NEEDS to be different to be good. They are two totally different ways of telling stories.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I wasn't a huge fan of this show when I saw it, but I liked what they were going for and could have imagined my opinion changing with a different production of it. However it seems like they're completely changing the most fundamental parts of it (Red/Wolf), so I'm not even sure if this would qualify as the same thing. Even though I wasn't particularly fond of what I saw, I'm disappointed that they're changing this much of it >>He added, “You know, if I were a Disney executive I probably would say the same thing.”<< The more I hear about this project, the less it seems like Disney is the right group to do it. By its very nature, Into the Woods is fractured fairy tales and pulling apart the classics; Disney is all about preserving the classics and its brand. I really don't see how the two can coexist Disney used to be willing to go out on a limb and take some risks. It seems that even new projects like this need to be tied into existing Disney brands these days. It's a real shame that they got rid of Touchstone, Miramax, and Hollywood Pictures, since that seems like it would have been a perfect way for Disney to produce this and profit from it, without it being a "Disney" movie
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "By its very nature, Into the Woods is fractured fairy tales and pulling apart the classics; Disney is all about preserving the classics and its brand" Arguably, Maleficent is at least a little of both.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: My sisters and I have never seen the original version of 'Into the Woods' so can't say much about it. ORWEN: But we do Know we wouldn't want Rapunzel to die, either! So that's a change for the better! Also, I don't think there should be any hanky panky going on between Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf. That's just not Disney!!! So I'm in favor of these two changes.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>That's just not Disney!!<< I agree, which is why I really wish that another studio (or even a non-Disney branded branch of TWDC, if there were any still in existence) were doing the project. By doing it as Disney, it loses a lot of the appeal and the ability to really push the boundary
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: That's a fair enough statement, Ferret. But at least you already have the original version of Into the Woods to fall back on. Now it will be interesting to see what Disney does with it. I prefer the more family friendly version, myself--one that you don't have to be embarrassed to watch with little ducklings.
