Chicago Tribune Huge Wicked Article- Page 2

[clarkstallings]

Posted: 4/25/05 at 5:18pm

I remember that part of the documentary. The thing I find funny is the fact that Wicked ended up recouping its investment like a mere month later, right before Christmas 2004. Somebody's lying.

Posted: 4/25/05 at 5:37pm

Clark, the video ends at Wicked's opening night (Ocotber 30, 2003): They review the enormous cost of the show, the mediocre reviews and comment that, if everything goes well, the show will recoup it's investment in 13 months. All indeed did go well and the show did recoup in December of 2004...just about 13 months later.

No one is lying. I was just pointing out that on Wicked's opening night, profitability was seen as a very very long hard fight.

[Hanna from Hamburg]

Posted: 4/25/05 at 5:45pm

"the fact that a theology student would devote a 25 page thesis to the Judeo-Christian themes in "Wicked" is kind of depressing to me . . ."

I'm sure the thesis was based on the book, not the musical. The musical doesn't follow the book very closely. When I heard that Gregory Maguire's book was being adapted into a "family" musical, I was shocked. The source material is very dark and really does delve into good and evil . . . what is truly "wicked." The musical sort of touches on these themes but just brushes over the surface.

[clarkstallings]

Posted: 4/25/05 at 6:23pm

Now that makes sense, I couldn't remember the context. But my point remains, smash hit status had to be banked on by the producers, nothing less, otherwise it wouldn't make its money back. I just can't wait to see how the show does in Chicago, I feel they've missed their mark. I hope they prove me wrong, I just don't see it in this case. I hope they can have it sit down till the tour returns to Toronto, there it can become a sit down show and the Chicago show can tour.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 4/25/05 at 8:11pm

"Also, I love how Wicked's triumph makes perfect sense-- in hindsight! Turn back the clock to opening night- NO ONE would have predicted that Wicked would become the biggest hit in years. The reviews sure didn't hail the spectacular performance of Diva in ascension Idina Menzel."

Thank you! This is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading this. The writer makes it seem like the Stephan Schwartz- Winnie Holzman- Idina Menzel combo. guaranteed its success from the beginning. Wicked's completely unexpected success has already been dissected for the past year and a half since it opened on Broadway, so where the hell has this guy been?!?!

And I understand that this article was in the Chicago Tribune, about Wicked opening in Chicago, but could the writer have been anymore Windy-City-Centric? He refers to The Wizard of Oz as a "penned-in-Chicago work". And he mentions Idina Menzel, but- oh wait, she's not appearing in the Chicago production. God, can he mention anything about the show without somehow relating it to Chicago? I'm surprised he didn't mention that Stephan Schwartz had to change planes in Chicago once, and that Idina's (who's not appearing in Chicago) husband was in the movie Chicago, which is named after and set in the city of Chicago. God, not even NYC is that self-centered!

Then he makes it seem like Wicked and Rent are the only shows that have this wacky notion of having lotto tickets because of its "youthful" fans. Although Rent was the first to do this, lotteries have almost become a standard in Broadway shows, regardless of whether the producers think the show has a potential young audience.

Oh, and this Wicked fan isn't "clustered around New York or Toronto." I'm from Maryland and heard soon after it opened. Unlike what this person expects from the people of Chicago, I didn't sit on my ass and wait for the show to come to me before I bothered to look into it.

Posted: 4/25/05 at 8:24pm

I totally agree orangeskittles, plus everyone is a fan of the Wizard of Oz and I mean when you hear "Backstory to Wizard of Oz" you think... Hmmm... sounds interesting... so you check it out and you're hooked... yes... the music is great... and the actors are superb... but its truly the essence of everyone's rememberance of the Wizard of Oz that helped Wicked do so well.

Also I got hooked because of such an amazing music.. Yes, Defying Gravity is the heart and soul of the show but the other songs are just as good... I love the cd and I may sound like a total freak to some of you... but when Im bummed.. it makes me happy... Updated On: 4/25/05 at 08:24 PM

[bwaybaby891]

Posted: 4/25/05 at 8:52pm

Loved the documentary. I borrowed it from a firend and watched all of the Wicked segments over and over again. I love the show becuase I am in a sense both of the girls. I am very out there when it comes to being around people but I am insecure. Since I love Wicked so much and all of Broadway, I am like Elphaba where I live because no one understands it so they back away. Therefore I am left alone. The Holzman/ Schwartz/ Menzel combo was amazing. I am a total Idina fan and I love Stephen Schwartz's music. I had never really looked ar Winnie Holzman's material until this and I love it. She is really amazing.

LOVE WICKED! I think it will do well in Chicago. LOVE WICKED!

[Fosse76]

Posted: 4/26/05 at 4:47pm

You missed my point. And I already contended that most of the "sit-downs" in Chicago were tours. But you obviously know nothing about the Chicago Theatre market, of which I worked in for over ten years (until moving to New York last month). "The Lion King" was sold-out. There may have been a scattered seat here and there, but it isn't as if two people could go to the box office and get tickets. Beauty and The Beast didn't play in Chicago until after "The Lion King" opened on Broadway (which was my main point, the time in between was merely a guess on my part). But it doesn't change the fact that Beauty and the Beast opened well after it had toured smaller markets (after New York, Chicago is the largest theatre market in North America) and people in Chicago weren't interested. "Show Boat", a revival, played a year at the 4000 seat Auditorium Theatre. "Joseph" played 3 years. Had Livent survived, there would have been many more sit-downs in Chicago, because Garth Drabinski loved Chicago. Disney was going to buy the Chicago Theatre, but couldn't negotiate with the building next door so that it could expand the stage. Ultimately, it's a profit-driven world. Disney knows that it doesn't matter where "The Lion King" plays because they know it will make money. I would say that "Wicked" will do fine in Chicago. Chicagoans are very finicky with theatre, and considering the National Tour practically sold out before even going on sale says a lot about the demand for the show. Now that Chicagoans know the show isn't going anywhere, they don't rush out and buy tickets as quickly. But as I said before, once the tour opens, I thinkn it will do well. Plus it doesn't matter. The rental agreement most likely has a one year committment with an extension clause, so it will be there through next summer at least. But I do agree with you on one point, Chicago isn't the tourist heavy city that New York is, but Chicagoans go to the theatre more than New Yorkers do.

Posted: 4/26/05 at 5:00pm

Well Skittles, the nickname "The Windy City" grew out of Chicagoan's love of bragging about their city! Now, you understand why!

But in the writers defense, I think he had to mention that Idina WAS NOT in this production after he raved so about her-- other wise there would be some angry ticket buyers. The "Wizard of Oz was written in Chicago" is just bragging.


Updated On: 4/26/05 at 05:00 PM