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.
It's crazy that a movie like this can cost more than the price of the entire Lord of the rings trilogy
It really grinds my gears that they took a movie-length two act play and padded it out to chop it up into two movies. And they'll be rewarded for it. Together, they'll gross over $1.5 billion, maybe over 2.
What's worse is that it was in no way made public that this was a part 1.
You really think this is going to do gang busters? I’m not even convinced it will make the money back
I really do. I think it will be more Lion King remake than Cats adaptation. But I'm ready to admit that I was wrong if people don't line up in droves for it. I think the first will do much better than the second, because a ton of people will say "the ending sucked. It just stopped without any resolution. And there wasn't even half the songs from Wizard of Oz."
Making films isn’t free, they have to have expenses. What do you want them to do, reduce the spending on the money laundering?
Hopefully they take a nice fat loss on this!
And me, I’m still pissed at how much the play isn’t like the book. I would have loved to seen them adapt that.
The musical is a based on a book? TIL.
I wasn't interest in the stage performance or the movie but I liked the Baum books as a kid, I'll have to give it a look.