MovieChat Forums > Into the Woods (2014) Discussion > Wow, they really butchered Act 2.

Wow, they really butchered Act 2.

posted 10 years ago by falsedichotomies
20 replies | jump to latest

Just got around to seeing this.

Great art direction and liked all the singing (except Depp), but, wow, they did a much better job with the first act than the second.

It's been awhile since I've seen the play and I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but I'm positive they made a lot of deep cuts to that second act. No Agony reprise, no Rapunzel storyline at all, etc. What were they thinking? You don't really need to cut a musical down to 120 minutes and Act II is kind of key in terms of the major themes of the play.

It can't have possibly been to make it more PC considering they left the wolf and the cheating in, so what gives?

[–] TxMike 10 years ago

Depp is actually one of the better singers in this ensemble.

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

[–] jenna-side 10 years ago

WHAT?! He basicly spoke and whispered all his singing lines! What about Anna Kendrick, Meryl Streep, Christine Baranski... Whatever! I can name any actor from the movie and we can all agree it was better than Johnny. Even young, cockney Daniel Huttlestone was better.

[–] TxMike 10 years ago

If you really believe that Depp " basically spoke and whispered all his singing lines" then you weren't paying attention. He was singing somewhat softly but he was singing, and very well too.

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

[–] Confection_Pictures 10 years ago

I know it's your opinion and you have the right to it, but to the majority, Depp was the weak link, even with his screentime. He has no pitch in his singing, he can't phrase his melodies, he's not in tune, his voice doesn't match his character, and it's just so monotone. This is coming from someone who loved Russell Crowe in Les Mis. His pitch was far better.

It is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BestOfAllPossible 10 years ago

He did the same thing he did in Sweeney Todd, which was fine there and was fine here. No one sang poorly, but from a purely technical standpoint, Depp was the weakest singer of the bunch.

And he did speak/whisper a number of his lyrics.

[–] Mhjm6 10 years ago

Wow, you're really no fun.

[–] KristenStewartForever 10 years ago

Depp was perfect. Shut up. And no, they didn't butcher Act II.

[–] rwatkinson-1 9 years ago

They totally butchered act 2, they cut out so many songs and by not killing repunzel they minimized the witch's final song! This is not a children's tale, but Disney had to dull it down!

[–] sfwmson 10 years ago

Depp was terrible.

[–] KristenStewartForever 10 years ago

He was superb

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

[–] BestOfAllPossible 10 years ago

For crying out loud, do the rest of us really need to read the two of you going back and forth giving baseless arguments backed by nothing but personal bias?

One of you loves Johnny Depp so much that no amount of factual argument will allow you to admit he was anything less than perfection in this film. The other hatred him so much you'd never admit if he did anything right. But neither of you are actually using anything to back up your opinions, you're just baiting each other.

Pardon me, but it's boring to read "Is not, is so, is not, is so" over and over.

[–] sfwmson 10 years ago

Yup. In movies like Cry Baby, Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Fear and Loathing, Blow, Chocolat he showed his acting chops...he was so in the moment Depp disappeared and only that character was there...then came Pirates, and he cashed that check and became Jack Nicholson who can only be three guys--crazy Jack, angry Jack and Jack playing himself.

He has not had a decent role since, or one that he didn't play some form of Jack Sparrow.

There, now I have given you details of why I say what I say and you know what? It's still just an opinion...

[–] BestOfAllPossible 10 years ago

I don't mind opinions. Now that you've explained yourself, I understand, though I don't completely agree. But when people post "Depp is awful in everything" or "Depp is awesome in everything" without saying anything else, especially when the two go back and forth, it becomes monotonous.

Not to mention I read everything you write as if an angry clown were saying it.

[–] sfwmson 10 years ago

and my dear BestofAllPossible, no, the rest of you DON'T have to read anything. If I was holding a knife to your head, I certainly wouldn't be having you read a message board on IMDB...you have free will, why don't you go use it and allow us some freedom of opinion? Eh? Run along!

[–] katiefanatic-791-306918 9 years ago

johnny depp loves to play creeps so this was perfect for him.

[–] sfwmson 9 years ago

And now I may have to eat crow because Depp is evidently chilling and very good in his role as Whitey Bulger, the Boston mob guy.

Finally, something that requires his talent.

[–] ccmail 9 years ago

On the contrary, it would have been a MUCH better movie if they'd cut the entire second act (same for the play too). It went on WAY too long.

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

I really have to agree, fd.

I've just watched it again, wondering if it would please me better without the disappointed expectations I had first time around, but if anything I think it struck me as even more disappointing. Urph.

The point of the first act was to set up all the stories with our accustomed "happy-ever-after" assumptions, and then the second act shoots them all down and shows how foolish they are. By sanitising them, by even dropping the "Ever After"/"So Happy" songs that bracketed the interval, it made a lot of what had gone before pointless. It was like they tried to turn it into just another happy-clappy Disney musical, when the original show was the exact antithesis of that.

What they left of the second act was rushed and offhand, like they figured the story was already over and were just trying to wrap it up as quickly as possible. So when the giantess arrived, for instance, instead of being the culmination of many of the story threads, it felt like, "Wait, where did *this* come from?!"

And yes, I know Sondheim was reported as saying he was really pleased with what they did, and had no complaints. But he said the same thing about Sweeney Todd, and that was a similarly-nobbled version of the show it was adapted from. I think Sondheim was just happy Hollywood was paying his work any attention at all.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] RazzberryBeret 8 years ago

I was not familiar with the show when I watched it and the post-happy part still felt rushed. Doesn't mean it had to go on and on. It's just that threads were left untied or untidily tied. Rapunzel just leaving her mother like that was too simple, the 4 characters banding into a family was too simple, and I agree, the giantess did not feel like a culmination of stories but more like a natural calamity, where the giantess remains an unknown quantity.

And the burning question - do the baker and Rapunzel meet as brother and sister in the original? Because it was a glaring loose end in the movie.