• NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        I have no problem with musicals.

        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.

    • Chip_Rat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 hours 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.

    • TheImpressiveX@lemmy.mlOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours 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.

  • TheVelvetGentleman [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 hours 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.

  • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    18 hours 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      17 hours 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.

  • cobysev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    17 hours 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      15 hours 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.