And looks objectively terrible compared to basically ANY major motion picture released this year (perhaps just short of the great film but terribly-lit “Rob Peace”).
I was flabbergasted that such horrifically flat lighting and incredibly dismal/uninspired camera work didn’t trigger any reshoots (particularly with the $150 million budget they had and, as a consequence, the equipment they had at their disposal.)
people didnt seem to mind
They could have shot it on a potato and most people wouldn’t have noticed.
I’m probably not most people since I do this professionally.
fair enough, im not saying it doesnt look like shit, just that people who like wicked ate it right up. I didnt see it because I am straight
Maybe your theater didn’t illuminate it correctly? I saw it twice, both IMAX and non-IMAX and it looked incredible both times
I used to be a projectionist.
The projector was fine.
There are articles with the cinematographer about how they deliberately made everything grey.
Anytime I hear anything about this movie I remember the hissy fit the lead actress made over the fan edit of the poster. “How dare they erase my face! Racism!”
*erasism
The amount of marketing for this movie makes me not want to watch it. Tbh I was never going to watch it in a theatre anyway. Would you guys recommend it to a non Disney fan? I’ve been watching all major 2024 releases digitally, so I was wondering.
It was fine but not exceptional in my opinion.
Bigger than “Grease”?
Grease (1978): $328 million
Wicked (2024): $634.3 million
Unadjusted for inflation, of course.
Adjusting for inflation shows this Wicked claim to be marketing bullshit.
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1978?amount=1000000
When talking about box office grosses, Hollywood never adjusts for inflation unless specified otherwise.
I enjoyed the movie overall, but casting Jeff Goldblum as the wizard was not a good choice.
As others have mentioned, this movie looked like
dogshit.
This is what happens when you give an inexperienced, low-budget DoP a 100 million project because of little more than gender.
Listen to her squirm: https://youtu.be/ZRL8NSOgOj8
We have TONS of examples of “inexperienced, low-budget” male DPs shooting blockbusters. Sometimes they look great, sometimes they look terrible. Women deserve those opportunities too. That’s how they become experienced.
Go ahead. Name one.
99% of the time, they work their way up. There are hundreds of better female DoP’s out there.
Also, most DoP’s don’t usually go from $10 million to >$100 million pictures in the space of one project unless there’s some massive nepotism afoot. She already is in the ASC. Do you know how hard it is to get into the ASC?
