Did Wicked go through alot of Problems before it opened?- Page 3

[finebydesign]

Posted: 4/16/13 at 5:40pm

"The only reason it is still running is because of teenage fangirls and word of mouth."

Sure teenage girls love the show, but it's "good." When I saw it, I thought it was ok, but I never expected it to have the legs it does.

Wicked's success is not just because it appeals to teenage girls. It is a great production that appeals to wide audience. I wouldn't call it Shakespeare, but come on, this show isn't a some kind of folly. Audience love that show and they tell everyone they know AND they come back.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/16/13 at 5:50pm

The only reason it is still running is because of teenage fangirls and word of mouth.

I highly doubt it. The show has been running almost ten years now with very little change in attendance or income. The original fangirls are in their twenties. It was pretty evident early in previews on Broadway that the show would be a runaway smash hit. Yes, it has lots of teenage fangirls, but they don't make up the nearly $1.5+ million in ticket sale each week. But word of mouth is not just "only" a reason. Word of mouth is essential for EVERY show that wants to recoup on Broadway whether it is Wicked or Once or Next to Normal. Good reviews will only get you so far without word of mouth and a savvy marketing team. Just ask the producers of Hands on a Hardbody or Lysistrata Jones.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 4/16/13 at 5:57pm

Also if I recall, Wicked was just in time thematically with the likes of Harry Potter, Twighlights and now the fairytale/Oz trends. It really came at the right time and hits the right right notes.

Marketing has been great as well. The title "Wicked" is also great.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/16/13 at 6:01pm

Harry Potter was well in its stride in book 5 by the time Wicked opened, but Twilight would not be published for another 2 years. The title of the novel was already strong, so there was simply no need to change it.

[chinto1984]

Posted: 4/16/13 at 7:01pm

In Schwartz's book, I think he mentioned he envisioned Audra as Elphaba.

[Kevinoes]

Posted: 4/16/13 at 10:37pm

Idina replaced Stephanie as Elphaba during workshops because Idina had Broadway credits. Stephanie had done regional theatre. Simple and as political as that. This is widely known. Even if Idina wasn't as much the name she is now, she had Rent and Aida (I'd even say Off-Broadway's Wild Party) to her credit. The irony is that Stephanie did the try-out and did not follow the show to Broadway because she had booked a principal in another Broadway show. And the rest is history.

Kristin's injury occurred in SF. She wore a bedazzled neck brace through the last week at the very least of run. Joe Mantello came out at the top of the show to assure the audience that she wasn't in any pain. She threw in a cute bit about not hurting your neck during the hair toss bit in "Popular". During the Broadway run she had to put it back on periodically and she did the bit again.

Another interesting edge to the show's premiere... It was spring 2003. America had just invaded Iraq... the Wizard "giving people a really good enemy" and Glinda's line about a "regime change" used stop the show. A bit preachy, but hell, they used it in the marketing to show a cultural parallel.

In regards to pre-recorded "It's me" for Idina... No. They did not. They maybe boosted the volume and reverb to give her wavering vocal some push, but it was never pre-recorded.

Idina (at least at the time) was the highest paid West End performer when she did the show in London. Something like 30 000 pounds per week. I think it's been topped now.

If Idina and Kristin miraculously did do some reunion tribute (and I have heard an interview saying Kristin would), a simple performance of the two doing "For Good" would be pretty potent and poignant. I don't think I've even seem them photographed together since Kristin left the show in July 2004. Updated On: 4/16/13 at 10:37 PM

[BroadwayFan12]

Posted: 4/17/13 at 6:24pm

Can't find it at the moment, but there's a photo of them together at the 2010 Tonys. I saw Wicked a couple weeks after it opened, and whatever tension was going on behind the scenes didn't show onstage at all.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 4/17/13 at 7:34pm

I saw Wicked twice and I am a fan. ( a male in his late 40's)

The first time I saw it, I thought Glinda stole the evening. Glinda was played by Meghan Hilty and I became a big fan after seeing her in the role. I think the Glinds was Eden Espinosa but it was Meghans show.

Then I saw it again on tour. It was Stephanie Block as Elphaba and someone else as Glinda. It was Stephanie Block's Show. She stole the evening.

It was the most uncanny thing how the actor changed the focus of the evening. The same thing happenned with the Producers

With Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick it was Nathan Lane as Bialystock who was definitely the protagonist.

Then i saw it again in Los Angeles with Jason Alexander and martin Short. It was Martin Short's evening and for the first time I felt the Bloom was the protagnoist.

Uncanny how an actor changes one's perspective.

[Soaring29]

Posted: 1/5/18 at 7:46pm

bdn223 said: "As most have mentioned the show was originally built as a vehicle for Chenoweth, but as they realized in the SF tryout, the show's plot revolves around Elphaba and not Galinda.
When adapting an epic/novel to the stage a problem many shows have in their creation is finding who to base the show around. Initially Schwartz and Holzman chose Galinda, by having her tell Elphaba's story through her eyes, as is still seen in the opening number, with Galinda initially narrating the story, which is completely dropped after that scene. They realized that you can't tell Elphaba's story through Galinda, because it either gets in the way of the story telling or is just forgotten about midshow. Very few shows that have narrators are effective in that style. The only one that I can think of that it somewhat worked, was Bert in Mary Poppins.

So when they realized this they began to refocus the show on Elphaba, and in doing show it greatly lessened the significance of Elphaba. In my honest opinion if Chenoweth was not the first person to play Galinda, and it was some no name, the role would not have been considered for leading actress, and instead would of just been a heavily featured role alla Louise in Gypsy, or Josie de Guzman as Maria in the 1980 revival of West Side Story.

Think about it Elphaba has, The Wizard and I, Defying Gravity, As Long As You're Mine, No Good Deed, I'm not that Girl, Something Bad, and For Good, where she is either singing solo or duet, and Galinda has Popular, I'm not The Girl (Reprise), and For Good. Yes she is heavily featured in No One Mourns the Wicked and Thank Goodness but they are truly ensemble numbers that are just focused by having Galinda being center stage. The One Short Day and What is this feeling? are a similar situation to the No One Mourns the Wicked and Thank Goodness, except she is singing along side Elphaba. Galinda is all but forgotten in the second act outside of her 30 second reprise of I'm Not that Girl, and her accidentally setting Morrible in the Wizard's plan in motion to destroy Elphaba through Nessarose. And then she reappears for For Good and the Finale. To quote Spamalot, when Wicked transfered to Broadway, Chenoweth most certainly thought "Whatever Happened to My Part?"" 

 

Chenoweth has stated  in her book that Glinda was originally meant to be a supporting role, but when she and Stephanie J. Block were doing table reads of the show, it became clear that the show was really about these two characters. Still, it's easy to see why she  could have  still been somewhat upset- she was the one in it from the beginning and even though Glinda's role was expanded, it really was not the story of these two women's relationship on an equal basis.  Sure, their friendship is the heart of the show, but as you  mentioned, Elphaba gets all the meaty material in the show and the MAIN focus of it is her arc with Glinda's arc  arguably taking somewhat of a backseat. So, she may have been slightly put off by the fact that the roles were supposed to be more or less equal  from her perspective, but in the end,  she ended up not getting enough to do compared with Menzel. But she has stated in her book that the role really was incredible due to the growth of the character, the different vocal styles she had to sing throughout the show, ect, so I don't know if the above perspective is likely to be accurate. 

As for the Tony stuff, I personally feel that she knew she had no chance and was gracious about it: Again, when you read her book, you'll know that she  recognized Idina's achievement and that it was her time to shine, not hers. She also states that the role being pushed to supporting in order to have them both win would be an insult to Glinda's character who is definitely too big of a character to be put in Supporting.