Talk:Into the Woods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Musical Theatre Portal

Into the Woods is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class

This article is a candidate to be the WikiProject Musical Theatre Collaboration of the Month. Please comment on the nomination.

WikiProject Musical Theatre tasks:

The story has a sound message: unless people are gathering for one mission, the mission cannot be accomplished, as long as each is egocentric.

I just saw this play last night, and I think there are some better messages, including the danger of making 'wishes' in life and a few deterministic, relativistic messages as well. CaveatLector 16:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wee otch

In what way is the Witch not a large part? She has one rap and one large song, and she's integral to the plot. Maybe the (hilarious) stepsisters were not a large part, but I think the Witch is.Polyhymnia 07:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Link

There's a dead link in this article leading to a spot within the article called "Lyric Examples". Was there originally a area within the article known as this or is there a plan to expand the article to include lyric examples?

I think the whole business involving the "anatomically correct" wolf and the following lyrics were a *bit* much.

[edit] Other productions

"King College, located in Bristol, Tennessee, presented Into the Woods during their annual Dogwood Festival, April 20-22, 2006." My comment is: So what??? I'm deleting this section. This production is no more relevant than the one that was presented last month at the private high school down the street from me.--Cassmus 02:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It happened again, the "Additonal Productions" catagory was again removed. No productions should be added unless it was professional production that was put on in a well known theatre area (i.e. broadway, west end, ...) PLEASE, Do not add any other productions Thanks! --omtay38 20:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

More advertising of local productions, more removal. Again: PLEASE, Do not add any other productions Thanks! --omtay38 05:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason why a listing of local or regional productions is inappropriate. They are labeled as such in the article and might be of interest to some readers. It might also be useful to chart how popular the musical is as a choice for local and regional theater. So... STOP DELETING THEM AND LEAVE THEM ALONE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.80.32.10 (talk • contribs) .

Please see several discussions in WikiProject Musical Theatre. Local productions are left out of all articles pertaining to musicals for several reasons. Mainly, if one local production can be posted in an article, that means all local productions could be posted. That means hundreds, if not thousands of listed productions in an article. The listing of local productions does not add any significant information to an article. The first time this information was added to the article, it was removed with this same reason. The first addition was not considered vandalism. However, multiple additions of the same information when good reason has been included to not add said information is considered vandalism. Any further addition of this information will be treated as such per WP:VAND. Also on a much minor scale, please refrain from YELLING (using all caps) as it is considered bad etiquette and also remember to sign your comments using four tildes (omtay38 22:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)). Cheers! --omtay38 22:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you seem to want to insist (and impose upon this community your viewpoint) that a comprehensive listing of local productions does not add significant information to the article. I disagree with that viewpoint and have added local production information. Other users did as well. I also provided justification for that addition. Was then your repeated removal not also vandalism? A listing of local productions allows readers to see how frequently a musical has been produced, what types of theater organizations are producing it, etc. I think this information is significant. You disagree. That's your right, but I fail to see why you can impose your view and threaten me for mine. And, isn't there the possibility of some compromise... couldn't a link be created to another page that listed local productions so that those who wanted to view the list could access it?71.80.32.10 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. -- From WP:VAND: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. 71.80.32.10 21:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible compromise?

List only those productions that are currently running, confirmed to be running in the next year or have run in the past year. --Usgnus 21:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Thoughts

"From WP:VAND: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Thus my edits were not vandalism either. I just think that local productions are not-notable and not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia has no official policy on notability and so that is simply my own personal viewpoint. Also, I realize that this is an unimportant content dispute, and do not want it to turn into an edit war (thus I will not be removing the local productions section). Rather, I will now voice my opinion on the issue:

First off, I do agree with 71.80.32.10 that a listing of local productions would allow readers to see how often a musical is performed and what sort of theaters perform it. However, I feel there are better ways of adding this information. Wikipedia is not a list. If the information we are talking about was expanded upon (the production at so-and-so was hailed but famous-person to be better than the original broadway production for the following reasons) then it would no longer be a listing of local productions. However, if it is just a list that allows the users to glean "how frequently a musical has been produced, what types of theater organizations are producing it, etc" then why not just write, "the musical is often performed by such-and-such because...". Would that not provide the same information to the reader?

Secondly, I believe this is largely an argument of notability. I do not think local productions are notable, 71.80.31.10 thinks they are. This is simply a dispute of beliefs. But then who does the final decision of notability come down to? One person? I'm sure you could find a person for every production of Into the Woods who thinks its notable. Could this article really benefit from a list of one hundred productions?

Last, and most important, to me, this discussion is not about Into the Woods, this discussion is about Musical Theatre articles on Wikipedia. It is my belief that there should be no "local productions" listed on any musical theatre page. This was just the page I stumbled upon with some persistent editors (btw, I admire your persistence :-D). This discussion, to me, is much more important than a listing of two local productions on Wikipedia. To me, this discussion could (and should) be a reference point when other local productions appear on other Wikipedia pages. I use Wikipedia as a main source of reference when it comes to Musical Theatre (one of my reasons for joining WikiProject Musical Theatre) because I cannot seem to find another good source out there. If the listing of local productions is "OKed" for Into the Woods, who's to say it isn't OKed for every other article about a Musical on Wikipedia. Personally, I do not want so see a list of local productions on every musical page I go to. That may be just me, and if it is, tell me so. However, I must adhere to my beliefs (as I have been) and am expressing them now.

I apologize if I am coming of as uncivil (I did not intend to) and please feel free to yell at me if I have seemed that way. I simply wanted to expand upon my opinion about the subject and to ask for the opinion of the community. Again I apologize if I have come off as harsh and please take this cookie as condolences if I have. --omtay38 23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a list of local productions is inappropriate, for the reasons omtay mentions. Tuf-Kat 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. (And want to put my "please don't take my disagreement as incivility, I like all y'all" disclaimer at the front). If a significant regional theater were to put on a significant production, then it should be included. For example: Arena Stage in Washington D.C. (considered a major regional theater) puts on a production starring the cast of Sesame Street - that probably should be included. "Sesame Street does Into the Woods" would be a significant re-interpretation by a significant theater and would add to the understanding of the play and the place of the play in the pantheon of musical theater. College shows and local shows are not notable and significant additions to the history of this play.

Think of it this way: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a place where someone goes to learn about or understand a topic. When adding a piece of information, the editor has to ask whether that information would help a person who wants to learn about or understand a topic. If a production does not add anything significant to the history or understanding of the play, then it does not help the reader. I was in a college production of Into the Woods. We were even a little creative with our interpretation - but there are no theatre professors teaching about our "version." We're not going to be in the next copy of a "Theatre: A History." What we did was notable and important to us, but it wasn't notable enough to list here. If the reader were to hear about our version, he or she would take nothing away from it of any significance - it would be beyond trivial to them. Therefore our performance, like almost all local shows, was not notable enough to include in any article about Into the Woods. The show may have affected us, but we affected it not a whit.

The best counter-argument that has been offered is that the reader might want to know how many times the play has been performed - but, like OmTay said, this could be better accomplished by saying "this play is frequently performed." An endless list would, if anything, communicate that information less well because it would have no context.

It has also been argued that a list would allow the reader to see the types of theaters that perform the show. But that would not be very effective - the reader would have to go down the list and search for a regional theater, a college theater, a high school theater in order to get the same information we could convey by saying "this show is popular with these types of theaters: x,y,z."

Additionally, listing local shows runs the risk of turning the page into an advertising space for community theaters, or a vanity page for people in productions. That's unfortunate, but we should probably keep it in mind.

So unless someone has a reason why local shows are notable, I would agree that they should not be listed.--38.112.184.20 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My decision

The predominant feeling here seems to be that these productions do not belong on this page. There has been only one voice that has supported them and that has been the original poster. I have also gone back through the edit history and found at least three instances where this information has been removed before by other editors than myself. Thus I believe the community consensus to be that these productions should not be listed here. I will remove them now. Any further addition of them will be considered participation in an edit war and will be taken to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for further mediation by an admin. If you would like to post this information, please (instead of posting it) make your argument here on the talk page. Thanks! Happy Editing! --omtay38 01:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

::facepalm:: Of course i did not check to see if it had already been removed. Oh well. The above still applies, just not the part about me removing it. Cheers! --omtay38 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly ok with yielding to community consensus - although I don't know that the one or two opinions that have been voiced here truly represents enough input to accurately call it community consensus. Nonetheless, this is too stupid to continue to argue about. You seem intent upon having it your way and so you win! However, I do think that it is rather arrogant to title this heading My decision as though YOU are the authoritative editor of this page and have the ultimate authority to make a decision that is in any way binding on the rest of us. What gives you that authority? As a (full of yourself) high school student and Wikipedia editor for a whole year, you certainly have an extensive and impressive set of credentials on which to stand. HA!! Whatever, kid... if it makes you feel good and/or powerful to be the almighty czar of the "Into the Woods" page on Wikipedia, then you just enjoy all the rights and privileges thereto pertaining. 71.80.32.10 23:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Because I do not tolerate personal attacks, this sentence will be my only response. --omtay38 02:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What does make it your decision omtay38? I would like to hear the answer to that question.69.27.65.171 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

While I had at least a little of the same reaction, it's just a poor choice of title with what I think is a good intention. His (her?) point is clearly valid - we should not have an edit war over the inclusion or exclusion of this information, and it seems that there's consensus against including it. So if someone thinks that there is no consensus, we should knock it around out here rather than in the article. (I haven't heard what I'd consider a particularly convincing argument for inclusion of the information - but if someone has one, toss it out there.) Look, I certainly mean no offense, and maybe my good buddy Omtay38 rubbed some of you the wrong way, but from what I've seen he/she is trying to make wikipedia better. There has been a lot of reverting of this info, and some attacks that seem to me a little personal. Is it a little early for Omtay to start talking about going to mediation? I don't know. But it's a tough balancing act - how many reverts is too many? And how do you get someone to knock off reverting that seems to be against the consensus? It can be tough - and it's easy come off like a bit of a jerk without meaning to. But given what I see as his/her good intentions, and what seems like consensus, I'd say we're all better off dropping the personal side of the argument and getting back to the article. If someone wants to make a point for the inclusion of the information, I'm sure everyone who watches this page would be glad to consider it, and everybody might find a new consensus. --TheOtherBob 02:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said. 128.113.146.196 09:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear some response from omtay38 as to why he seems to think he was entitled to make the above his decision. 69.27.65.171 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marquis of the Original Production

A friend and I are having a disagreement. I remember a large inflated boot attached to the Martin Beck during the original Broadway productin of Into the Woods. My friend says it was a dragon. Does anyone know? Thanks! Dennis

[edit] Other Productions

I've removed the following:

"Teh musical has been performed across the world, but is not well known.Here is a list of other productions and their most cherished performers.

Venice, Italy- Gregory Mc Siutaz (Baker) Austin, Texas- Alexis Brentin(Cinderella) Paris, France- Jouqes Relemier(Wolf) New York, New York- Bernadette Peters(Witch) Charleston, South Carolina- Thomas Nelson(Jack) Charleston, West Virginia- Jim Wolfe(Rapunzel's Prince) London, England- John Remuiers New York, New York(2002)-John McMartin(Narrator/ Mysterious Man) (Theese performances and performers were chosen by an internet poll in 2006. Based by program veiwers.)"

Jim Wolfe is apparently someone associated with a local community theatre group that did the show, and I can't find anyone named Thomas Nelson who was ever even in the show. So I don't quite buy that these were the most "cherished" performers as chosen by an internet poll in 2006. But in the spirit of assuming good faith, I'm putting this here in case there's something (link, etc.) to back that up. --TheOtherBob 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

== March 27, 2007: I hope that I have followed what I "think" is the consensus about local productions. That is, do not list amateur productions. I've deleted a sentence about a school production. I realize that sentence was trying to illustrate the point of the "Junior" edition of Into the Woods. Since, I assume, most schools do the Junior version, this section could easily blossom with lists of schools. If I'm wrong, sorry. I also used, as a reference :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre/Article_Structure#Productions

JeanColumbia 11:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I removed several bits of information from the introduction because they seemed redundant and unnecessary. If there is a plot summary and a list of musical numbers, there is no need to go into that much detail in the lead Thanks-Broadwaygal 15:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I reduced the number of headings. I think the song list and production information should go above the analysis section, but I'll wait for other editors to review what we did today before making that change. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few random comments on the version of April 12, about 8:00pm (EDT)

For your consideration:

I've been reading--and re-reading -- this article for a while. Reads better now, to me. I prefer the production info first, then the plot analysis, then the songs, but that's probably just the way my mind works.

I think it's time to call it in on the sentence : "Critics were kind to the show, but loyal fans put it down, stressing that the important adult messages of the original production were now undermined with a seeming sense of flippancy." under the 2002 revival--I tagged that with a citation request a while ago, I just don't know where to look for the "loyal fans" quote--since it reads awfully POV and Original Research, I'm in favor of deleting.

The London production has a long list of the creatives involved-the original and 2002 revivals do not--I don't have a strong need for "uber" consistency, but I don't really see the need for that level of detail.

The 1987 production received many nominations (Tony/Drama Desk) that are not shown--in fairness, and NOW to be consistent with other musical articles, would you think it's a good idea to show them? (Added April 13 @ 7:38am (EDT--the 2002 revival had 10 Tony nominations and 8 Drama Desk nominations, should the article perhaps include them as well? Didn't mean to slight the revival, was out of time last night.)

JeanColumbia 00:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One additional comment--in the "Plot summary" , Act II, Rapunzel is said to have "postpartum depression". I have not seen that written in the NY Times review, liner notes for the CD (which are extensive), or in either of the books, Zadan's "Sondheim & Co" or Gottfried's "Sondheim", or in the NY Times piece by Stephen Holden, 11/1/87. That doesn't mean that this isn't a valid analysis, and I certainly haven't read every single article, but I'd at least like to add a "citation request", if not outright delete it. (The liner notes simply say "An hysterical Rapunzel runs on, cannot be restrained by the Witch and runs off in the direction of the Giant, who, in her relentless pursuit of Jack,tramples the girl.")JeanColumbia 02:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that either, and I've read extensively on the show. Unless you can find a reference soon, just delete it.--Cassmus 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(1)Isn't there a newer info box for musicals? I think it's called "Infobox Musical 2". (2) I'd like to see the actual date that the 2002 revival opened, as well as the theater. (3) The short paragraphs on each production repeat the major cast members, then the complete cast list is shown--I don't know if that's too much, and I don't know if it's worth trying to fix. (4) I think it's really important to include the information that Lapine directed the 2002 revival. I also think it would be interesting to note at least a few of the differences between the original and revival (say, for example, having a "live" cow, or having the 2 actors who play the Princes also play TWO wolves.)JeanColumbia 12:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This comment is regarding Rapunzel's post partum depression. I was in a production of Into The Woods several years ago. I recall it being the general opinion that Rapunzel was indeed suffering from "PPD". I would say that the generally accepted character analysis is that all of the "storybook" characters are suffering from real, human flaws and problems. I will try to find some kind of source that supports these generally accepted ideas and put them in the appropriate section. -Thanks Broadwaygal 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, here's an interesting statement about the character of Rapunzel: "Rapunzel, even after she is rescued by a prince, proves so ill-equipped to cope with the world that she goes crazy."

(Stephen Holden, New York Times, November 1, 1987) Ah, well, in the scheme of things I'm not at all hung up on this analysis of Rapunzel, whatever we decide at least we are consciously thinking and (researching a bit) about it.JeanColumbia 19:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox, Awards list, etc.

JeanColumbia, I agree with your suggestions. Can you please fix the infobox as you suggest and do an Awards list as you describe for all the major awards (including revivals). That would be great!

Awards section started-I did the original production. Will do the 2002 Broadway revival soon.JeanColumbia 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking good. I did a little formatting and bluelinking. See if you like it. -- Ssilvers 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am making some of the other changes you suggested. I think it is OK to list the most famous actors from each production in the production paragraph and then have more complete info listed out below. If anyone is more technologically proficient than I am, perhaps you could create a Casting information table with a coulumn for each major production so that the casting information would take up less space. There is a table like this at Iolanthe, but I don't know how to do it. By all means: add information about what the differences are among the various productions, but of course, you will need to reference your sources. Obviously, a lot of different editors worked on this article over time, but no one has really gone through it to give it much consistency from section to section. Your suggestions are really helpful. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll do a short few sentences on the differences later tonight. I can do a Casting table, might not get to it until tomorrw.JeanColumbia 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cast list table is done, using the same format as that in "Iolanthe". Because it took so long to do it (not hard, just tedious), I saved it before proofing (I proofed as I went along)--I didn't want to lose anything. I should have some time to proof tomorrow, but I think it's correct. (Should this not be what we finally want to use for this article, it's no problem; very easy to get back the previous long lists.)JeanColumbia 21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for all your hard work! Have a nice weekend. -- Ssilvers 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sondheim template

Are the shows listed in the template chronological? It looks random. -- Ssilvers 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the dates of each of the listed shows. I used, as my references: the Wikipedia articles; Zadan's "Sondheim & Co., Second Edition); and the web site http://www.sondheimguide.com. I found that the sequence of presentation is correct in all but one case: "Saturday Night" was unproduced until December 17, 1997 in London --it was written in 1954. I edited the template to reflect that, so it now comes after "Passion". (By the way, although "Frogs" did not get a production on stage until 1990 -and was revised for the 2004 Lincoln Center production, it was first performed at Yale--in the pool--in 1974.)JeanColumbia 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to put in the Awards section.JeanColumbia 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Great work. This little article is coming together. The "analysis" section needs major revision, but that can wait for another day. Sounds like you have a lot of great research sources! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] They're Playing Our Song

Here's another article where the synopsis and headings have been deleted. Can someone restore a synopsis and headings to that article so we can all edit it and try to improve that article? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler tags

A little history: The musicals project at one point in 2006 agreed that spoiler tags were only really necessary for musicals that were still running in their original production, but no one felt that strongly about it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 00:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks! (I assume this applies only to stage plays/musicals? ..ie, not film..) (When a revival is produced, the question is: does the "spoiler" tag get put back? And by whom? Ah well, not important overall-I guess if it's a revival, everyone knows the plot...)JeanColumbia 12:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Re-reading -I wonder if this is for MUSICALS only, or does it apply for straight plays, as well.JeanColumbia 12:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSICALS was only for musicals, so it does not apply to the film or theatre projects, which have their own guidelines. However, I would say use your own judgment as to whether you think a particular synopsis needs a spoiler tag. Some editors prefer to include it, and I do not bother to delete them. -- Ssilvers 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis

I tried to trim down the plot summary. Into The Woods has a very complicated and difficult plot. It almost reads like a play by play of a sporting event. A lot of the events seem unrelated and hard to make into nature flowing paragraphs that make sense. I would like to change to format completely into more of an overview to conserve some space and make easier to read and follow. It is currently a thousand words, and I believe the current discussion regarding musical theatre articles is to keep them to 900 words and under. Thanks-Broadwaygal 15:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The pronouns are often unclear. I could not figure out sometimes who was being referred to. Please look at every instance of he, she, they, them, him, her and make sure that it is clear who is the actor(s). The editors at the Musicals project agreed that the synopsis should contain references to the songs, so I think you should replace the song titles you deleted. -- Ssilvers 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if that is what was agreed to, I will return the musical numbers. -Thanks Broadwaygal 15:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the synopsis-I like the way it reads now. I looked very carefully at Act I and made a few minor changes for accuracy. I used only one reference--the booklet that comes with the CD. I did not shorten. I'll look at Act II later. I'd like to include a brief wrap of the messages-or meaning-to replace the first paragraph of "Analysis of Book and Music". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeanColumbia (talk • contribs) 20:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Good idea. I'd rather combine some of those short paragraphs, because a few longer paragraphs look better, I think, than a lot of short ones, which look untidy in the WP format. But I'll leave it to you whether you agree with that. And if you can think of anything in the long Act I summary that is not essential and can be cut, that would be better, as this synopsis is really overly long (although I understand that its complexity requires a lot of explanation). -- Ssilvers 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest not explaining about he spell on the witch until later - the audience does not know it, and the synopsis reader does not need to know it until it is revealed; it's the same process of discovery, isn't it? Revert if you disagree. Also, I have now combined some paragraphs so that Act I has the introduction and quest; a paragraph covering each day; and a coda with what happens after the spell is reversed. -- Ssilvers 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Which witch: I linked the witch to the Witchcraft article, but perhaps she should be linked to Hansel and Gretel or to A Book of Witches? -- Ssilvers 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the "Witchcraft" link is good. She's not really from any particular fairy tale, so Hansel and Gretel or A Book of Witches might just be confusing.JeanColumbia 00:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent additions to the synopsis

I have just cut down the synopsis; I think we have all worked very hard on this to make it useful. However, I see no point in the level of detail that was recently added. With those additions, the synopsis reads more like a scene-by-scene analysis, which, in my opinion, is not needed or necessary. I really do not want to offend or even appear to be criticizing, but we simply must be bold here and draw the line somewhere.JeanColumbia 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Musical numbers

On May 18, 2007, a list of musical numbers was added under "Prologue" in Act I. These specific titles are not listed on the CD pamphlet for the original Brodaway cast recording. They are not listed on the CD listing for the original or 2002 revival on amazon.com. They are not listed on the sondheim.com site. The titles -- I suspect-- were obtained from the first line of the song the character sings, for the most part. (An exception would be, for example, when the Witch tells the Baker and Wife about the curse, her song starts with "In the past..." and then goes into "Greens, greens and nothing but greens"). The list certainly gives the flavor of the lenghty (11 minutes or so) prologue, but, in the world of trying to be absolutely correct (if that is even possible), I must conclude that these titles were not given by Stephen Sondheim but rather by someone else.

Should the titles stay?;
Should there be a footnote?;
Should one ask the poster for a reference? (I surely could have missed something, I will check my reference books tonight. New: just looked at the Martin Gottfried book "Sondheim", these titles are not there 11:33am);
Could there be some kind of notation about the Prologue, saying something like "there are many unnamed songs for each character within the Prologue..."

I have no strong feelings about this, just wanted to point it out.JeanColumbia 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note before I leave this for a while--I just noticed that the IPS of the poster of the subject song list belongs to the "Rockhurst High School", not sure if posting a request for a reference will be sucessful or useful.JeanColumbia 15:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the list needs to stay, while those are each sung, I don't think any of them would qualify as musical numbers. Go with what are listed on the CD for the numbers, not for accuracy but for relevance. I don't have a copy of the CD, so I can't make the exact change. However, having been involved in an amateur production into the woods I know that those numbers in the actual script are only referred to as Opening parts I-IX, (I think it was nine, if memory serves right.) A note would be useful, but I think the CD list takes preference over a high school production, they probably added the names for the purpose of their production.

So my advice would be that the titles should not stay, but that a note should be left, or possibly incorporated into the article, saying that the prologue contains many songs, but that is simply the nature of a musical.

JoeyETS 15:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. -- Ssilvers 16:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

Now that there are several different articles with the title Into the Woods, does anyone think it warrants its own disambiguation page? How would one do that? Thanks. JoeyETS 00:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's appropriate for a disam. page. Here is how to do it: [[1]]

I would do it myself but today through Wednesday I'll be pretty busy; but if there is no disagreement and no one else does it, I can take a stab, probably on or after June 7.JeanColumbia 12:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(Note to JoeyETS--I agree with your removing the amateur production of ITW-this article gets many of those entries (naturally!), so we must be vigilant. You might want to use, as your reference: [[2]] should there be a question; also, there is a very lengthy discussion on this very topic above, which, in my opinion, supports you. Regards-and thanks--JeanColumbia 12:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC) )

I also agree that such productions do not belong on musicals pages. They're just not notable. Musicals' articles are cluttered enough just trying to keep track of major professional productions! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 13:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The disambiguation is done, I hope it's to everybody's liking. JoeyETS 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleo Laine

Does anyone know if Cleo Laine, who played the witch, is notable? She was added in a recent edit and her wikipeda article verifies that she was in a production of into the woods, but I'm not sure at what level. Anybody know? JoeyETS 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that Cleo Laine is quite notable, although probably more so in England than in the US (??) and not really as an actress but as a singer. She did play the Witch on the National tour from when that tour started (November 22, 1988) until May 1989. That's good enough for me!JeanColumbia 16:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

She has a big old article at Cleo Laine. It needs cleanup! -- Ssilvers 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit re: Betty Buckley

An editor added that the role of the Witch was written for Betty Buckley. I deleted that statement. That statement should be very thoroughly and carefully referenced (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). I have just checked the Craig Zadan ("Sondheim and Co.") and Martin Gottfried ("Sondheim") books, and neither mention Buckley at all with respect to ITW.

According to Stephen Holden (New York Times, "A Fairy-Tale Musical Grows Up" November 1, 1987), Betty Buckley was the Witch in a 2-week work-shop on ITW in the Summer of 1987. This is after the 1) reading at Playwrights Horizon (1985); 2) 2 week workshop (Spring 1986); 3) Old Globe try-out (Dec. 1986). How then the role could be written for Buckley after she had not been in all of these previous incarnations? Could be, but this is not a claim to take on faith.

I suppose the difference could be in wording: "played" the Witch vs. "had the part written" for her.

There is no doubt that at least one song was written specifcally for Bernadette Peters: "Late last week, Mr. Sondheim was frantically writing a new second-act song, Last Midnight, for Bernadette Peters..." Holden, 11/1/87. One would imagine that in all of the words written about this show, there would be something about Buckley.

JeanColumbia 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to answer my own questioning about Betty Buckley. In this interview (http://www.sondheim.com/features/betty_buckley_2.html) on sondheim.com, she states : "The witch had these rap tunes and that one little perfect melody which Sondheim told me in rehearsals that he wrote for me, the "Stay with me" melody."

I believe that may explain (although I am reluctant to get into another person's mind) someone going a lot further and saying the PART was written for her, rather than THIS SONG was writen for her.

JeanColumbia 19:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cancelled film

I have referenced this paragraph as much as I can, and have changed it to reflect the information I found in the cited references. However, I find no references for the paragraph re: "discussions concerning a big-screen adaptation of this Sondheim favorite have once again begun.", nor for the just added sentence re: Hayden Panetierre. I have asked for references for this part and have looked for them myself. (I tried the usual google and Lexis-Nexis search). Current info re this film project would be interesting, but ---"Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CBALL#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball). I have therefore deleted that part of the section, but eagerly await appropriate sourcing/references (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS). Thank you, JeanColumbia (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether information about the cancelled film is notable at all. Is it ten years since the last serious discussion of this project? Or, perhaps this could be cut down to just a couple of sentences saying that it was contemplated, a reading was convened, Sondheim wrote a couple of songs, but nothing ever came of it.... Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we're good on notability. Considering the imminent release of Sweeney Todd, I think it can stay, perhaps to be re-evaluated in a couple of months. — Music Maker 5376 17:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Analysis" section and error in Holden's review

How do we handle issues when a cited source (a review) states something about the subject being reviewed that is, unfortunately, incorrect?

Stephen Holden's review (http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/07/19/specials/sondheim-tale.html) is cited in the article, specifically the following lines:

"As envisioned by Mr. Sondheim and Mr. Lapine, the witch isn't just a scowling old hag but a key symbol of moral ambivalence. She is also the only character in show who always tells the truth."

In contrast, if we look at the actual book and script of the musical, in Act 2, scene 2, the witch tells a blatant lie. She pushes the narrator towards the giant and shouts: "Here's the lad!"

Holden's take on the character is interesting, and what we've cited is even correct (it's an acurate quote, even if it what it is saying is factually incorrect.) Is it important enough to make some kind of mention that he is technically incorrect in his analysis, or is it better to leave well enough alone? I can't think of any way to add this kind of "correction" to the "analysis" section without making it awkward and too nitpicky. Any thoughts? Dexeron (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Holden was necessarily using the phrase literally. I think he was attempting to convey the fact that there's no artifice with the witch -- she does what she wants to do and makes no bones about her reasons for doing so. Does she always tell the truth? No. But that's like saying that George is always engrossed in his work. He's not, but it is a defining character trait. It's hyperbole. I'm not sure of the placement in the article, but perhaps the section can be reworded to reflect that. — Music Maker 5376 14:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)