MTI has rights to "Wicked"

[maybethistime]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:10pm

I've been watching Wicked scripts on eBay to laugh at suckers who don't know its online for free, and I saw that a couple have been canceled by the VeRO program, part of eBay that allows small companies who don't want their items sold to cancel auctions. When I looked at the details it said it was cancelled by Music Theatre International, which leads me to believe they will be releasing the rights sometime in the (near?) future. I've seen them cancel Annie and Fiddler scripts and other such shows as well, so I'm guessing they have the rights. They also have most of the other Schwartz shows.

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:16pm

MTI would be smart to have the rights to Wicked. As soon as it gets released for smaller productions (Which, thank goodness, shouldn't be for a few years) they're going to make a fortune off that show alone!

[Dextrous Existence]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:17pm

Oh gosh, won't that be a nightmare to get rights to. Hehe, it would be a lot of fun to do that show, but truly, a school or community theatre should not attempt a show like that if they truly know that they do not have the talent to pull that off. And not only talent, but proper effects, scenery, or lighting. That is not a show to just play around with or do half-assed with some 13 year old girls as the leads. It's like doing Avenue Q without puppets!

(However, it will be a while [as in years] when those rights will be released by MTI or whoever.)

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:20pm

Dextrous, I think I love you. THANK YOU for agreeing with my long-held stance that some shows should NOT be released for high school and community theatre groups. My personal favorite examples are Rent and Les Mis (and I shudder to think of Avenue Q!) but I agree that a high school production of Wicked would be horrible!:)

[broadwaybelter]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:21pm

i'd love to do a community theater production of "wicked", b/c there are so many talented people in marin county and the bay area...belters with the most unbelievable voices, i was just in "les miserables" i played marius, and the casts were phenomenal, i just was like "WHAT ARE YOU DOING COMMUNITY THEATER FOR!! YOU SHOULD BE ON BROADWAY!!"
YEA...
RIC

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:26pm

I don't see how a high school production of WICKED would be any worse than what's on Broadway at the moment. I mean sure a high school won't have the budget for the sets and special effects (if you call rising on a platform a special effect) but the material is just fine for amateur performers. Nothing too serious to handle in the book, I mean WICKED is not SWEENEY TODD, c'mon now... the book seems like it was written by a high school student anyway... well, excue me, that's an insult to some high school students... and every teenage girl thinks she can sing like Christina Aguilera, some of them sing better than Christina so it would be fine. I just pity the poor souls that have to sit through it... Updated On: 1/7/05 at 07:26 PM

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:26pm

Hehe. Great to hear that there are good examples of these shows going to smaller groups, but I fear the bad far outweigh the good. I saw a high school Les Mis, and it was godawful.

If the right group had the rights, Wicked could be good.

Rent does not belong in community or high school shows, but hopefully thanks to some of the subject matter I doubt it will get the OK from most school boards anyway.

It would be like TABOO done by a high school....

I shudder at the possibilities.

[Joshua488]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:27pm

I think that all shows should be available for community theaters to do. Who is ANYONE to say that someone shouldn't do a certain show? If there are people that love theater and want to do a show, go ahead! I laud people that do community theater because they are doing it for little/no pay. They are doing it because they LOVE IT. So if they want to do WICKED or AVENUE Q or RENT or TABOO or SWEENEY TODD or LES MISÉRABLES or freakin' THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, so be it! And if you think that they ended up making a fool of themselves, don't go see that show again. They had a good time. That's all that should matter. Updated On: 1/7/05 at 07:27 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:31pm

there's a difference between having a good time and charging us 100 bucks to watch them mess around...

[apdarcey]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:32pm

cats, i think i'm in love with your icon!

[harris007]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:33pm

I agree with ya man,

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:34pm

Cats, I may be dumb, but who is that in your icon? 'cause I agree...I love it:)

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:34pm

anyway... moving on... Updated On: 1/7/05 at 07:34 PM

[Dextrous Existence]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:41pm

MagicToDo...oh gosh, you amazing person, you only got me started. Haha.

Here's my take: As with many people on this site, I thoroughly enjoyed 'Wicked' on Broadway, but I'm not an over-obsessed geek fan like others. It was wonderful; probably the best show I saw the last time I was in NY. That goes with "Defying Gravity", one of my favorite Broadway/Schwartz songs. Here's what I ALWAYS say- Don't EVER perform "Defying Gravity" for a talent show, cabaret, or anything that the general public would see UNLESS you do it full out. By this, I mean IF you do this song...please paint yourself green, please rig a way to make yourself fly, please find a powerful ensemble to back you up. That song is TOO powerful to do half-assed. And also, find a singer that can actually BELT that song, instead of a preteen that thinks she's the most amazing belter because her voice hasn't changed yet. This is my stance for any song from any show actually.

You mentioned 'Rent', here's my take (and I'm sure yours is the same): There is a reason why they haven't released the rights yet. Jonathan Larson had a vision for that show and as you can see on Broadway, it has remained intact. Hence why the costumes are always the same, why the choreography is always the same (despite who comes and cannot do it), why the characters always look the same. Why give the rights to some lame college (I doubt community theatre would ever put this on) and have them destroy Larson's vision. They would then have the right to cast an American as Mimi, or a Hispanic as Maureen, or an Asian as Roger. They would mess up everything that Larson's story/Broadway show stands for by making up weird choreography and something that is just...DIFFERENT than what it should be.

Okay, back to Wicked. I can just picture it now...some middle school performing "For Good" without any emotion or subtext. WEEE!!!

[apdarcey]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:44pm

are you playing hard to get, cats?

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:44pm

Okay, back to Wicked. I can just picture it now...some middle school performing "For Good" without any emotion or subtext. WEEE!!!"

But that's how it is on Broadway!!! WEEE!!!

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 7:53pm

Dextrous, you're amazing:)

All I can think of when imagining Rent in community theatre are my numerous experiences doing community theatre back in the day, when the same people always got certain roles for more political reasons than talent.

At my local community theatre, there was this junior high music teacher who (yes) had a lovely voice, but she was pushing 40 and really didn't look like a believable 20-something (she barely pulled off late-30-something) and she always got the beautiful ingenue roles....like Fiona in Brigadoon, and Lily in The Secret Garden (I remember that one being especially hard to believe) So my nightmare when it comes to seeing shows like Rent (which THANK YOU were created with a specific vision) is seeing them being butchered by smaller groups.

Community theatre is not usually about rock and roll and street sensibility, so I really hate the idea of the junior high music teacher pushing 40 playing Mimi, the 15 year old - high school choir superstar - overtrained operatic soprano playing Maureen, and then things like Angel being cast as a woman when they can't find a guy willing/able to play the part.

For example, a theatre near me did Dreamgirls this year, and there was a huge backlash because the show wasn't open casted. There was one woman, who was amazingly (!) ALWAYS cast in the musicals, who was convinced that she should have played Effie. She's about 45, very skinny, and incredibly white. And a classically trained singer. The director basically laughed when he heard she was complaining - because NO ONE would ever buy her as this incredible lead singer of a Motown-style girl group. There was also a rather elderly woman who was also one of the "always cast" who was complaining that she wasn't allowed to audition as well. What part is a 70 year old woman going to play in Dreamgirls?

This kind of thing is what makes me shudder. If groups have the resources to pull shows off, then do them, but don't do shows just because they're a name and will pull people in. I have too much respect for musicals to watch them get butchered and done horribly due to other than artistic reasons.

Terribly sorry if this makes me sound horrible. However, anyone who has done community theatre knows this kind of stuff happens, and hardly ever for the benefit of the shows.

But big hugs to everyone - because we're all entitled to our opinions, right?

Cats, I'm sad about your icon!

[Dextrous Existence]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 8:12pm

Magic-- No, that didn't make you sound horrible at all, it made you sound realistic. I agree with everything you said. But to give myself some slack, usually when it comes to shows like 'Wicked' or the "big-name shows", community theatres will use their common knowledge on whether or not they should put it on. My statement in my last post was in the sense of the most horrible college/community theatre on earth putting on those shows. And I do admit, most of the time, it's nothing like that.

Joshua-- You are absolutely correct. Community Theatre is all about the time that is spent making the production. Enjoying the experiences, making new friends, gaining knowledge, etc. Very true. "Who is ANYONE to say that someone shouldn't do a certain show?" - Was I 'TELLING' people or 'COMMANDING' them to not do a show because of MY opinion? I don't think so. But I do agree that, that is what community theatre is all about.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 8:18pm

Dextrous, for whatever it's worth (ETA: Guess not that much, since I just killed this thread.) I think you're the most valuable person to have joined the board in the new year.

(And I enjoy the fellow in your icon as well.)

(And speaking of icons, CatsNY, was I right? Did the mods delete it?)

Updated On: 1/7/05 at 08:18 PM

[bjivie2]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 9:17pm

This is such an odd topic. Great for MTI getting the rights to Wicked. They've been doing a great job with snatching up rights to tick tick BOOM, Urinetown, Producers and Millie.

But what's all this talk about limiting what community and high school theatres can do? I agree that these people need to determine for their schools of companies what shows are appropriate, but I don't think that anyone should be dictating what they can or can't do. I understand issues of nearby national tours, other theatres having the rights, etc, but to just say "no" because it's community theatre or high school is bewildering to me. If the writer has some reason for this than so be it, but if a licensing company makes that decision, I think it's a bad decision.

As Joshua said, community theatre is there for the experiences. High school theatre is there for experiences and education. What are people going to learn by doing Oklahoma and Brigadoon every other year? If people can't do new shows they're going to be stuck doing the same ones over ang over again. No fun.

Magic, I don't think that Dextrous was saying that certain shows should never be allowed to be licensed to amateur companies. He was saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that these companies need to decide what they have the resources to do, instead of just doing Wicked because it's the hot new show. If they don't have an Elphaba and Glinda, there's no point in doing the show.

And just because some people don't have huge budgets doesn't mean that they can't or shouldn't do the show. A lot of creative genius comes from small budgets and being forced to be creative. I was in an amazing production of Tommy where our entire set was risers and a white square painted on the floor. We didn't have an exploding pinball machine or anything like that. Does that mean we shouldn't have done the production in the first place?

And Dextrous, although I've agreed with everything else you've said, I completely disagree with your idea of not changing anything from a Broadway production. A director should have free will as long as the heart and soul of the piece is still there. If they change things just to be different and the meaning and depth of the piece that the writer is trying to get across is lost, then they're a bad director. But how do we get great revivals like Cabaret or Chicago if we stick to exactly what the originals do? With RENT specifically, Michael Grief's staging is quite brilliant, but it's not the only way to do it. And the only character that is race-dependent (correct me if I'm wrong) is Mimi, and they have already cast African-American girls with frizzy hair as that part, so casting an Asian as Roger isn't going to screw up the meaning of the piece.

In conclusion (haha), there's a fine balance between the responsibilities of the producing company and the licensing company. The producing company, whether it be community or high school theatre, needs to make sure that they can pull of a certain show, and not have opera singers playing Elphaba. Licensing companies need to grant rights to theatres that will produce a version of the show that, although not Broadway calibur, will stay true to the spirit and form of the show while giving their own artistic touch to it.

There, I'm done now.

[Joshua488]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 9:40pm

bjivie2- Thanks for agreeing! But I HAVE to ask... who is that supposed to be in your icon?? It's making me think "Audrey from LITTLE SHOP turned porn star" because of those RIDICULOUS heels. Am I warm??

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 9:44pm

OK, Let me step back a moment and try this again.

I'm not literally saying that the rights to certain shows should never be released to high school and community groups. I'm positive that at some point, the production rights to Rent, Wicked, and every other show in the world WILL be released, and I'm really okay with that - I swear.

What I'm trying to say, and apparently failing miserably at it, is that there are certain groups who just shouldn't do certain shows. To all the high schools and community groups in the world who could do a decent or great staging of Wicked, rock and roll! To all the groups who actually have rock-style singers of believable ages and don't let backstage politics get in the way, go ahead and do Rent!

Just know your limits.

bijivie2 : I completely believe that the best thing about releasing rights is that new groups get to restage shows to suit their spaces and casts. In relation to your post about the production of Tommy, I know exactly what you mean. A group near where I live managed to do Starmites with a small, practially unit set and some flashing lights, and it was great. I was in a fantastic production of Evita that used an essentially simple set.

I also don't think that changing the race or gender of characters is necessarily a problem, unless its a part that would screw up the concept of the show. Casting Dreamgirls with an all-white cast would be stupid and ineffective, and would negate a lot of the plot points, but I don't think I would have a problem with an Asian playing Roger in Rent. I WOULD have a problem with Angel being played by a woman, which again negates some essential plot points.

I don't want to ne a theatrenazi and limit the rights of groups to do shows -
I would just really appreciate it if groups would analyze what they can actually pull off before they announce what shows they're doing.

Sorry to offend. Hugs to all.

[bjivie2]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 9:50pm

Mwah! Those actually are stripper heels. It's Kara Jones, a BYU musical theatre student, who I directed in, you were right, Little Shop this last summer. And yeah, she is Audrey (if there was any doubt). She's 5'-even without the heels. She's 5'9" with. She's also quite the belter. Mmm. That show was so good. Here's a link to an online video: Click here! Ahh, I'm such a skank.

[bjivie2]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 9:56pm

No offense taken, Magic. I'm glad we're on the same page now. And yes, casting an all-white Dreamgirls is completely wrong, since the show is hinged on the black/white music industry. Although I've always wanted to see a concert or something of Dreamgirls with an all-white cast. Idina as Effie, anyone? Shoshana could be Lorrell and Eden could be Deena. Sweeeet, but so wrong. And yes, casting Angel as a woman would just go against the character description.

[MagicToDo82]

Posted: 1/7/05 at 9:59pm

If the Dreams were cast with the singers you listed, it would be an amazing charity concert:) Perhaps Raul Esparza as Jimmy, Adam Pascal as Curtis, and Christian Borle as CC? Just off the top of my head...

and keep in mind, it IS for charity:)

That would be hilarious!