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.
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.
I was a bit excited but this constant two part money grab bullshit is just too much. In no way was two movies necessary.
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.
I want it to flop so that studios stop pulling this multi-part bullshit.
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.
Ahem. Cats.
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.
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.
Much of that was spent on genetics research to clone an actual witch from stem cells.