In a recent post shared to Reddit’s r/moviecritic, site user u/Eikichi_Onizuka09 asked people to name movie franchises that made them think of the Simpsons quote, “stop, stop, it’s dead already!”.
Here are some of the most-upvoted responses:
1. Anything in the Spider-Man villain multiverse
“Madame Web, Kragen the Hunter, Morbius. I don’t understand how they can consistently bomb so hard and keep getting made.”
But fans of the Broadway show and its 1939 Wizard of Oz origins have also been enjoying the movie’s Taylor Swift-level Easter eggs and references.
The movie’s director Jon M Chu told Radio Times: “We have a lot, a lot of breadcrumbs in the tradition of Wicked the show.”
Advertisement
“Of course, Wizard of Oz has such a place in our hearts of how we see story, how we see the world,” he added.
You’ll also (obviously) see lots of parallels to the Wicked musical, which was itself inspired by a book that drew on The Wizard Of Oz.
So, we thought we’d find as many Easter eggs and references as we could (oh, and obviously, huge spoiler alert for the movie).
Advertisement
1) Chickens playing the piano
“Before [L Frank Baum] wrote Wizard of Oz, he bred show chickens, these sort of fancy chickens. So we used fancy chickens playing the piano, this kind of weird Ozian piano in the Ozdesk Ballroom,” Chu said.
“So we wanted to reference as much as that, and even the [WW] Denslow drawings in the original book. We wanted to use animals from those books, and the design sort of look from those drawings. And so we infuse some of that throughout.”
2) The Universal logo throwback
Universal Pictures
The movie’s Universal logo has been replaced by an older version in the film. This echoes what The Wizard Of Oz’s Universal credits would have looked like.
2) The tulips are planted in a rainbow
A scene showing Munchkinland from above reveals multicoloured tulips planted in a rainbow pattern; a reference to The Wizard Of Oz’s Somewhere Over The Rainbow.
Advertisement
3) Elphaba’s name
The author of the The Wizard Of Oz book is called L. Frank Baum, or L. F. Baum, which sounds like “Elphaba” when said out loud.
4) The film’s title card font is a throwback
At the end of the film, a title card appeared which uses the same curly font as The Wizard Of Oz’s original movie.
5) Children ring out “ding, dong, the witch is dead”
The iconic Wizard Of Oz tune reappears in this adaptation when children run through Munchkinland ringing bells and clanging pans over the Wicked Witch’s death.
6) Hot air balloons
The Wizard escaped from a hot air balloon in The Wicked musical, and Dorothy tried to use one to get home in the 1939 film too. Apt, then, that Glinda and Elphaba try to escape using one.
Advertisement
7) The tornado shoes
“I love the sort of red slippers that [Glinda] clicks three times in Popular. I love the crystal slippers that we have in the movie. The design of it is like a tornado, as, if you know the story, that comes into play later,” director Chu says. It refers to the tornado that The Wizard Of Oz begins with.
8) More rainbows
During The Wizard And I, both rainbows and bluebirds appear, referencing the iconic Somewhere Over The Rainbow (again).
9) No detail sparred
Both Elphaba and Glinda spar with sticks in the movie, a possible reference to The Wizard Of Oz’s broom and wand battle.
10) Cameo…
Michael Rose, who played Fiyero in the Broadway show, is the lead male vocals on One Short Day.
11) After cameo…
Idina Menzel, who starred in the original Broadway version of the Wicked musical, makes an appearance.
Advertisement
12) After cameo…
So does Kristen Chenoweth, also from the original Broadway version of Wicked.
13) After very-on-the-nose cameo.
Before No One Mourns the Wicked, the audience sees the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, Dorothy, the Scarecrow, and Toto on The Yellow Brick Road.
14) Nessarose’s stripy socks
Elphaba’s sister wears striped socks, reminiscent of the well-known Wizard of Oz still showing The Wicked Witch Of The East’s stripy sock-wearing legs peeking out from under the house that crushed her.
15) Madam Morrible’s hair and costume
Her hair is shaped like storm cloud, a reference to her ability to control the weather.
16) We see a baby Cowardly Lion
The show includes a lion cub trembling in a cage ― reminiscent of the Cowardly Lion.
17) What the gulch?
Miss Cottle calls out “Not to worry, just a slight gulch” in the movie. The Wizard Of Oz’s original Wicked Witch was played by Almira Gulch.
18) You’ve got to hand it to them
Universal / Everett Collection
Advertisement
Fans of The Wizard Of Oz will likely have noticed how the shadow of Elphaba’s hand mirrors that of The Wicked Witch Of The West’s in The Wizard Of Oz.
19) Did we mention there were cameos?
Stephen Schwartz, the person who wrote the lyrics to the Wicked musical, is briefly visible as a guard through a peephole.
20) There’s a Bridgerton crossover
Jonathan Bailey, who plays Fiyero in the film, rides on a horse that’s the same as the one he used in Bridgerton.
21) Do you want them to spell it out for you?
The library’s spinning circular shelves and ladders both spell out the letters “O” and “Z” (OZ) at different points in the movie.
Advertisement
22) There’s (sort of) a flying house
The Wizard picks up a wooden house and throws it in the air in the movie, reminiscent of Dorothy’s home’s flight in the 1939 film.
23) There are literal ruby slippers
If you wanted a clear-cut reference to The Wizard Of Oz, these Dorothy-worthy shoes should do it. And if they didn’t, maybe the fact that they’re clicked three times will satisfy you.
24) Everything’s re-cycled
There’s a cycling scene in Wicked with the lion cub in tow. It’s hard not to think of the moment in The Wizard Of Oz, where we see Toto in Dorothy’s bike’s basket.
25) “We mustn’t let you get wet”
Madam Morrible advises Elphaba “we musn’t let you get wet.” This is how The Wicked Witch Of The West dies in the 1939 film.
Advertisement
26) The subtlest Wizard doxxing
The Wizard in The Wizard Of Oz’s real name is Oscar Diggs. We see this name plastered on surfaces throughout the film.
27) Oma-ha!
Oscar Diggs is from Omaha originally, which is referenced multiple times in the film. The wizard’s invite is from Omaha: an “O-ma-ha” chant rises in the movie.
28) Wouldn’t it be wild if there was another cameo?
Well, there is. Winnie Holzman, who wrote the book of the Wicked musical, also appears in the film.
that he’d wanted to sneak a piece of string that he uses for magic tricks. It mostly got cut out, but he claims Elphaba holds it at some point in the movie.
32) Pay attention to the man behind the curtain
The line “don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain,” from the 1939 movie, is cleverly referenced when the Wizard hides behind a hanging sheet.
Advertisement
33) There’s a brick road, and… guess what colour they choose to make it
The Wizard has to pick what colour to make his new brick road in the film, and well… there was no real option aside from yellow.
34) To be continued…
The 1939 Wizard Of Oz bursts into Technicolour in the second act, a huge technological feat the time.
The musical also breaks after Defying Gravity, which is when the 2024 movie ends.
At that point, a “to be continued…” title comes up in the same font as the 1939 movie and in bright colours.
35) Oh, did someone say cameos?
Actor Alice Fearn, who played Elphaba in the Broadway Wicked musical throughout the 2010s, plays Glinda’s mother.
36) Poppies
The flowers which featured heavily in the 1939 Wizard Of Oz film also appear in the Wicked movie.
Advertisement
Did you spot any more references and Easter eggs? Let us know!
I take issue with how some Boomers talk about housing; “Just give up brunch and Netflix and you’ll have a home in five years,” they (wrongly) advise younger people.
Well, I stand by my objection, but it seems I’ve become a little out-of-touch on another topic myself.
Advertisement
Maybe it’s because I grew up near one of Ireland’s absolute cheapest cinemas, but I hadn’t quite realised how pricey the five-pound-plus snack has become until I took a rare trip to the big screen recently.
While I followed the scent of freshly popped corn to the counter like a cartoon elephant drawn to a bun, my friend stood aghast ― “There’s no way we’re buying popcorn,” she said.
Looking at its price, I realised why. But how come it’s so dear to begin with?
There is a method to the madness
Researchers at Stanford Graduate School of Business (GSB) and the University of California (UC) wrote a paper stating that, though it’s painful, the prices do make sense.
Advertisement
That’s because, while only 20% of cinemas’ revenue comes from concessions (food, drink, and other non-ticket products), it accounts for a whopping 40% of their revenue.
Confused? I was too ― but it turns out that not all of the ticket revenue goes to the cinema. Instead, they share it with movie distributors.
The Stanford GSB and UC study also found that “die-hard” movie fans, who simply love going to the cinema, proportionally pay more for concessions ― low-traffic weeks, where bums were not hitting theatres’ seats, saw a higher proportion of snack profits than higher-traffic weeks.
That means ticket prices can stay lower, as people other than cinema-or-nothing movie-watchers will be put off by a high upfront fee.
“The argument that pricing secondary goods higher than primary goods can benefit consumers has been circulating for decades, but until now, no one has looked at hard data to see whether it’s true or not,” Wesley Hartmann, associate professor of marketing at Stanford GSB and co-author of the paper, said.
Advertisement
Essentially, your gut instinct is right; food profits bulk up what can be quite meagre ticket profits, especially during low-traffic weeks.
Any other insights?
Yep ― unsurprisingly, people who went to the theatre in groups tended to buy more concessions, as did those who bought their tickets online.
“The fact that the people who show up only for good or popular movies consume a lot less popcorn means that the total they pay is substantially less than that of people who will come to see anything,” Wesley Hartmann said.
“If you want to bring more consumers into the market, you need to keep ticket prices lower to attract them.”
Given that “The average price for a standard UK cinema ticket in 2023 was £7.92” compared to £6.53 in 2013 (per UK Cinema Association and Statista), that seems to have held true.
But there’s another movie mystery at the other end of your favourite films, too.
If you look closely after the credits have rolled, you’ll see that the copyright credit is often written in Roman numerals, rather than the regular Arabic numerals we’re all used to.
Advertisement
That’s not a copyright thing ― books, for instance, usually use regular numbers.
So, why does that change once a story gets on screen?
Amy Glover/ Asako Yuzuki / 4th Estate / 20th Century Fox
Well, part of it has to do with mystery
The “deception theory” of Roman numeral credits suggests that TV and movie studios simply don’t want you to know when their piece of media was first released.
The BBC, for instance, uses the technique. “The convention is not to spell out what year something was made,” the broadcaster wrote on their online news site.
Using Roman numerals means you have to spend a lot of time working out what the date is (or, in the adorable case of this grandmother, Google searching the letters as politely as possible).
Advertisement
That way, you couldn’t tell the age of repeats or older content.
ABC’s 33 WYTV says there’s also the “why change?” theory ― in other words, TV shows and movies have used Roman numerals for their copyright credits for so long that it just feels pointless to change it.
They also suggest that it could have something to do with physical film ― back in the day, numbers could fade into unreadable forms on physical tape, but Roman numerals held their shape better over time.
Either way, people don’t love it
Researching the reason for the numerals resulted in my seeing many, many disgruntled forum users who hate the quirk.
One Mumsnet member wrote, “it can be frustrating to wait for the credits to roll, only to find that the date appears as a row of Roman numerals which often flash by too quickly to convert them into Arabic (‘ordinary’) numerals.”
A Guardian reader reckoned the technique is used because “most of the audience (unlike Guardian readers of course) will be unable to read them and so will not realise that the film is so old”.
Advertisement
“I’d bet my non-existent house that most people in the UK can definitely NOT read Roman numerals,” a Digital Spy forum member opined.
Whatever the reason, though, I sort of agree with another Digital Spy forum user ― “it looks cool,” they commented.
“The original logo had 24 stars (for each of the two dozen actors under contract in 1916),” TIME writes.
Advertisement
Though Paramount says “the meaning behind [the stars] has always been a subject of lore in the industry,” they link out to the same TIME article on their site.
Huh. Why has it changed?
Even if we can’t say for sure the actor theory is true, the company themselves has written that their Paramount+ logo’s constellation hides a sneaky Easter egg.
“The number of stars was reduced to 13 — a star for each letter used when spelling ‘Paramount Plus’,” their site reads.
They also had to be made bigger to be visible on a phone screen (handy that there are fewer of them, then).
It’s not clear why the company shifted from 24 to 22 stars, though.
As the company’s content travels online as well as being shown in cinemas, its site says there need to be different considerations for its logo ― especially as it’s increasingly seen on smaller screens.
Advertisement
That includes not only the stars, but “the detailing on the mountain, or even the spacing between the classic Paramount script” too.
But what about when they have to fake throwing up ― especially if it’s a closeup?
Sure, there’s the tried and tested ”‘puking’ into a bag” method. But for those full-throated, chum-bucket scenes that make us feel queasy ourselves ― yeah, for that you’re going to need some disgusting goop and a way to, err, expel it.
Advertisement
How’s fake vomit made?
Speaking to Movie Insider, special effects artists at NYSPFX revealed their recipe for vomit changes according to the scene ― thicker, gloopier vomit “used a combination of potato leek and split pea soup.”
But you can also add things like noodles for “squiggly” bits as well as frozen berries and tomato paste.
These are then “thrown up” via a pump ― and because the pumps are “made for liquid, not vomit, thick, pasty, substances,″ the Movie Insider interview revealed.
So, they place the thicker substances at the top of the tube ― so that the thinner liquid acts as a “propellant” to push it out.
Advertisement
What’s that about a tube?
You might have noticed that the goriest on-screen vomit scenes are usually shot in profile.
That’s because the end of the tube is sometimes taped to one side of an actor’s face for added realism ― other scenes sneak the tube up an actor’s sleeve and tape it to their wrist, so they can fake vomit while pretending to cover their mouths.
For true puke purists, though, it can get gorier.
Speaking on Hot Ones, Sydney Sweeney revealed that during her Euphoria hot tub throw-up scene, “They had to get a pump, and they had this pipe that they just taped and hid on my body. And then they CGI’d it out up my neck and then there was a horse bit that I had to put in my mouth. So during that scene, they’re filling my mouth with throw up.”
She added, “And then I opened my mouth, and it just started shooting out my mouth. It was the most disgusting thing I ever experienced.”
It doesn’t matter whether you’re into soaps, gore, rom-coms, or dramas; rare is the telly lover who’s managed to avoid seeing the on-screen death of their favourite character.
And if you’ve watched a show with a particularly high character kill-off rate, like Game of Thrones, you’ve likely witnessed post-battle scenes that’d make Napoleon feel queasy.
Advertisement
But once you’ve got past why your beloved character has gone to Hollywood Heaven, the question of just how actors manage to lay so convincingly still for so long during the corpse shots comes up.
Luckily, Marina Hyde, co-host of behind-the-scenes podcast The Rest Is Entertainment, has answers for us.
Which are?
Marina spoke to a producer about forensic pathology prior to the podcast and learned that yep, people do cast corpses.
She explained that “some people do freak out” when playing corpses, and not everyone can lay still enough for long enough to get a good shot, “so you have to audition [for corpse roles] by lying still.”
Advertisement
Ever with perfect corpse casting, though, shots used to not linger on the chest because it’s very hard not to show the rise and fall of breath.
“But now ― this is like one of the big routine instances of VFX ― they can capture it at rest (the chest) at one moment, then they layer that still in the rest of the footage.
“For those ones where there’s an open-eye corpse, the VFX is particularly useful,” Marina added.
Her co-host Richard Osman said, “Essentially there are some actors who are very very good at being still, and now they cheat the ‘not breathing’ elements.”
Woah.
I know! A Reddit thread asking people who had played dead on-screen to share their experiences also provides some gory insight.
“I was on an episode of Chicago Fire as a featured extra. I was in a rubble scene after a marathon bombing,” site user Citrous_Oyster wrote.
Advertisement
“The camera was on a crane facing down on the file and I was laying on my back across the rubble. I was instructed to try and hold my breath as long as I could or take short breaths. I was in a yellow jacket so it also hid some of my breathing which helped,” they shared.
“I work in post-production and can confirm I have removed breaths from actors playing dead. Not particularly complicated generally,” Redditor Jewel-jones added.
The elevator doors opened to reveal a woman who also appeared to be in her mid-20s. Pausing for her to step out, I noticed that she was wearing a button pinned on her shirt. It read, “Be kind to me. I’m grieving.”
As she moved past me, I wanted to stop her. I wanted to reach out with a gesture or words that would capture her attention. I wanted to let her know that I understood, to explain that my mom had died earlier that year, to tell her that I knew what it was to grieve. But before I had the chance, she was walking across the lobby and through the building’s automatic doors, so I stepped into the elevator, thinking about the loss I always carried with me and wondering what it felt like for her to carry a loss too.
Advertisement
At that time, my grief was still so fresh and so heavy. It was still hard to put it into words, to make others understand, and, as the elevator rose, I remember envying that stranger’s button, the way she so easily communicated to the rest of the world that her world had been forever changed. I needed to be able to do that, to help others to see my grief. I didn’t know if it would lessen the weight of it, but I thought that it might make it feel less consuming. Maybe it would help me process what the rest of my life would look like without my mom in it. Maybe doing so would be able to make me feel less alone.
Dan Levy’s new Netflix film, Good Grief, which he wrote, produced, directed and stars in, does all of the things that I wished I could have done for myself back then; it makes grief tangible.
The movie opens as if it’s a holiday film instead of a drama. Ella Fitzgerald’s Sleigh Ride plays as the first shot, a beautiful London townhouse decorated for Christmas and filled with people, appears on the screen. Inside, Marc (Dan Levy) is talking to his friend Thomas (Himesh Patel). It quickly becomes evident through Thomas’ simultaneously entertaining and self-deprecating story that he is dating someone awful, and he asks Marc, “Are there any decent men in this city?” Before Marc can respond, Thomas tells him that he can’t have an opinion because Marc’s “hot, wealthy husband is about to lead a singalong by a roaring fire.”
Himesh Patel as Thomas and Daniel Levy as Marc in “Good Grief.”
Advertisement
What follows is The Before, a glimpse of the joyful and colourful life Marc shares with his hot, wealthy husband, Oliver (Luke Evans). There’s laughing and friendship and very nice clothes and a beautiful home and the freedom that exists when you’re married and childless and have exorbitant wealth. But as the singalong begins, as everyone sings “Every day will be like a holiday / When my baby, when my baby comes home,” it foreshadows what the rest of the movie will explore, what happens to Marc and his two closest friends when his baby can’t come home.
Without knowing the fate of Oliver, this seemingly perfect scene could function as the beginning of a cozy Christmas movie, but there are clues that this life, this party, is not only a “shimmering success,” as Oliver calls it, but also a flickering façade. Without giving away the plot, it’s enough to say that the dialogue and actions of the characters are brilliantly written to reveal the discord underlying the charmed life they appear to lead. Dan Levy’s writing and directing set the stage for a complicated grief.
In a movie with grief in the title, it spoils nothing to reveal that The Before becomes The After when Oliver leaves the party in a cab to go to Paris for work. The cab makes it only a block before he’s killed in a car crash. All of this takes place in the first nine minutes of the film in a scene that ends with Marc running toward the sirens he heard from inside his apartment and the flashing blue lights he saw out the window. As he runs down the street toward the accident, the viewer is left looking out the window. The music stops, the image fades and the title “Good Grief” appears on the screen.
This is when The After begins. The next scene opens without music as Marc lies in bed with his eyes closed. His world is deprived of colour. His face is in shadow. As the somber score slowly begins to play, he opens his eyes. What follows in the next 80 minutes is a realistic and intimate portrayal of the messiness of grief that takes place in a highly stylised world (the cinematography, sets, and costumes are beautiful).
From attending the funeral to dealing with the legal and financial logistics of someone being gone to entering a new season (in this case spring) that the person you love will never see and bemoaning the exhaustion and physical toll of grieving while questioning when it’s necessary to stop mourning and start living (in this case dating again), Good Grief portrays absence and the void it creates. This part of the movie, while short, feels weighty and reminds me of Joan Didion’s The Year of Magical Thinking, which chronicles the year after the sudden death of her husband, writer John Gregory Dunne. In the final pages of the memoir, at the end of that first year, she writes, “I also know that if we are to live ourselves there comes a point at which we must relinquish the dead, let them go, keep them dead.”
Advertisement
“What follows in the next 80 minutes is a realistic and intimate portrayal of the messiness of grief that takes place in a highly stylized world (the cinematography, sets, and costumes are beautiful).”
For many, that anniversary is that point. Marc’s friend Sophie (Ruth Negga) says as much at the end of the 14-minute sequence. It’s December again, and she encourages Marc to go out to a party instead of staying at home with a bag of takeout.
“We have been here for you whenever you’ve needed us for almost a year now. We built you the nest, and we sat on you for a year. It’s time to hatch.”
The bulk of the movie takes place after this scene. Marc invites his two best friends, Thomas and Sophie, to Paris, and the pace of the movie slows down to capture the days immediately surrounding the anniversary of Oliver’s death.
Advertisement
This is where the movie gets messy. This is where the complications foreshadowed in the opening scene come to light and where Marc’s grief transforms from a private experience imbued with Didion-like magical thinking to a lived experience with long-term ramifications.
After my mom died, I learned that the transformative power of grief is not only personal but also relational. My mom’s death changed me as much as it did my relationships with the people around me. The closer I was to those people, like my husband, brother and best friends, the more those relationships shifted. This often-unexplored aspect of grief is what I found to be the most cathartic feature of Levy’s movie, and it was especially realistic because it highlighted the characters’ flaws, their imperfections becoming even more noticeable and relatable as they struggled through their grief.
While the film is about Marc’s individual grief, the section of the movie in Paris shows the way that loss ripples outward, complicating his relationship with his best friends, who are facing their own “messy secrets and hard truths.”
I don’t want to spoil what those complications are or where it leads them, but, as someone who also lost a loved one at Christmastime (my mom died 10 days before Christmas), I was grateful for the experience of bearing witness to Marc’s and his friends’ journey out of magical thinking and into the world, especially at a time of year when the rest of the world is bright and festive and joyful.
In a recent interview with NPR, Levy said the movie ”came from my own confusion around feelings of grief and what it all meant and whether I was honouring the people that I was mourning appropriately. In my case, it was my grandmother. And then five days before I wrote the screenplay, my dog of 10 years passed away, and so it was a very raw and confusing time. I couldn’t speak the feelings. I could only write them, and the feelings in it were the only way I could kind of make sense of my own.”
Advertisement
In the immediate aftermath of my mom’s death, I don’t think I would have been ready to watch a movie like Good Grief, but now, five years later, I’m thankful for the honest, raw messiness of it. The film captures both the confusion and isolation of what it feels like to grieve and how that grief can become hope, how there can be a goodness that occurs when we let the dead be dead, even when the relief of doing so becomes its own type of pain and loss.
In the movie, Levy compares that loss to an ulcer in one’s heart that never goes away, and it doesn’t. We always carry our grief with us, but, as his movie shows, it can be transformed into something better, something good.
If you’re expecting a funny, Schitt’s Creek-esque take on grief, this is not the movie for you. But if you are grieving and want to feel like someone out there understands what you’re going through, you can stream Good Grief now on Netflix.
You may have heard of the 2024 movie Argylle, starring the likes of Henry Cavill, Dua Lipa, Samuel L. Jackson and Bryce Dallas Howard, but have you also heard about the wild fan theory linking the film to global superstar Taylor Swift?
Swifties have flooded social media to perpetuate a theory that the singer-songwriter is in fact the author behind the novel of the same name, which supposedly inspired the film.
Advertisement
As you might imagine, it’s a convoluted theory with many clues and links, so let’s break it down a little bit, shall we?
Who is Elly Conway, the author of Argylle and the protagonist in the film?
Elly Conway is a never-before-heard-of author whose debut novel was turned into a movie before it was even published – not exactly a common trajectory for a first time writer.
This has led to many commentators speculating that either: Conway isn’t real, and the book that has been released today is the book from the film, likely written by a ghost writer. Or, Conway is a pseudonym for a very famous person who would’ve been able to secure a movie deal on whatever they wrote.
Advertisement
Swift is currently the favourite for a whole host of reasons, which range from sort of credible to quite a reach, but other contenders including Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, who has published under a pen name in the past.
Why do people think Elly Conway is Taylor Swift?
Seemingly, the first person to talk about this theory is TikTok user @JessiSwiftTok, who shared her theory on 21st October 2023. In the video – which has received nearly 1 million views – she points to the cat backpack Conway wears, which appears in the trailer and on promotional artwork for the film, as something Swift herself often uses to carry around her own cats.
Another parallel between Conway, played by Bryce Dallas Howard, and Swift is their looks. As @JessiSwiftTok explains, at the end of Swift’s famous All Too Well short film, the star portrays herself as a redheaded author with a very similar appearance to that of Dallas Howard in the film.
Other clues include several pictures of Swift in the same bejewelled pattern used in the Argylle film posters, a picture of Swift on her tour in a Conway Studios jumper and lots of date synchronicities that are honestly beyond my comprehension as a casual Swiftie.
The similarities between Swift and Dallas Howard in Argylle have not gone unnoticed by Swifties
It’s uncertain whether we will ever know the true identity behind Conway, but since she is supposedly going to write three more books in the Argylle series, this saga could extend far into the future.
While some contend that this Conway-Swift theory is actually a clever marketing ploy by the studio behind the movie, others believe the parallels between Conway and Swift are too glaring ignore.
Indeed, Swift has been known to use a pseudonym before – hello Nils Sjöberg – but so far the Cruel Summer singer hasn’t confirmed anything. One thing I’ll say is if it turns out to be J.K. again, we’re gonna be pissed!
Argylle is scheduled to release in cinemas worldwide on 2nd February.
Speaking to Graham Norton on his self-titled chat show recently, Hollywood star Julia Roberts shared that the original screenplay for Pretty Woman was very different than the movie we all know and love.
Graham said that the movie was “much darker” in its original form ― and having heard Julia’s description of it, I have to agree.
Advertisement
“I auditioned for this movie that was called 3000,” the Erin Brockovich actor told Graham. The name referred to the amount of money the movie’s main character paid a sex worker ― “and she was a drug addict,” Julia explained.
“The movie ended by him pulling down a side street in Los Angeles, and they have a fight, and he just says, ‘Get out’ and he kind of throws her out the car, throws the money on her, and drives away. The end,” she added.
In fact, former studio executive Jeffrey Katzenberg has previously said that Julia’s character died of an overdose at the end of the initial script. Oof.
So, how did we end up with the film we know and love today?
“The company that was making it folded, and the movie disappeared and I was crushed,” Julia told Graham. “And the next thing I knew, they said, ‘Disney picked up this film… and Garry Marshall is going to direct it.’”
Advertisement
Disney, which is known for feelgood and child-friendly movies, was hardly likely to produce the script as-was ― and at that point in his career, Garry had worked on shows like The Fonz And The Happy Days Gang and Mork & Mindy.
So naturally, Julia was a little surprised by the pairing. “I was like, ‘oh, of course, this makes perfect sense to me,’” she sarcastically said of the change in director and producers.
“I went in to meet Garry, and he told me all the ways he was gonna change this and make it funny,” she shared with Graham.
In fact, she revealed some changes were so last-minute that they were, as Graham puts it, “kind of writing [the movie] as they were filming.”
“We would break at lunch at maybe 10:15 in the morning because we were out of pages,” Julia said. “We would just kind of, make it up ― Garry would do things like this… ‘Uhhh ― be funny! Action!’,” she added.
Advertisement
People were pretty surprised
“Imagine signing on to play a drug-addicted [sex worker] in a dark drama, then the producers tell you the film’s retooled into a rom-com with Disney money,” one commenter said in response to a YouTube short of the interview.
“That original ending sounds a lot more realistic,” another (rather depressingly) added.
“OMG! I loooove hearing about how movies and songs get made. The creative journey is filled with surprises!” yet another person shared.