#1
Posted: 3/1/11 at 10:24am
PHOTO FLASH: Andrew Lloyd Webbers The Wizard of Oz
#2
Posted: 3/1/11 at 10:57am
Well, it's definitely a different look than the film. Not crazy about how Glinda and the Wicked Witch look (especially that pant suit number they have on the Witch in her tower). But the sets, especially Emerald City, look pretty great.
Interested to hear thoughts on how the actual production is.
Interested to hear thoughts on how the actual production is.
#3
Posted: 3/1/11 at 11:03am
WHEN are they going to change that logo? It looks like it should be the cover to an educational Wizard of Oz CD-Rom game from, like, 1995 for Windows.
#4
Posted: 3/1/11 at 11:09am
I for one am liking what I see. Yes I am sure comparisions will be made to Wicked, particularly the wizard scene with that big gear in the background. But all in all it seems to have a rather professional and cohesive look. I wish they had the same effect with the LND design team.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27199361@N08/ Phantom at the Royal Empire Theatre
Updated On: 3/1/11 at 11:09 AM
#5
Posted: 3/1/11 at 12:22pm
Glinda's wand is very underwhelming and I really dislike the Wicked Witch's Tower costume.
Other than those two things, I'm quite impressed.
Other than those two things, I'm quite impressed.
Formerly: WishingOnlyWounds2 - Broadway Legend - Joined: 9/25/08
#6
Posted: 3/1/11 at 1:23pm
I'm loving the design for the most part. I've also been liking the little Youtube features from the various backstage areas. I'm really glad that they have moved so well into their own world and are not trying to replicate the feel of the movie onstage.
Like the rest have already said, a little iffy on that open front skirt/leggings combo for the Witch in the tower shot. I do like the design and silhouette of Glinda, they kept her silhouette simple and used the fabric choice to up the fantasy factor, but I wish that she had not been put in blue, it links her a little too closely with the Munchkins and Glinda is not from Munchkinland.
Like the rest have already said, a little iffy on that open front skirt/leggings combo for the Witch in the tower shot. I do like the design and silhouette of Glinda, they kept her silhouette simple and used the fabric choice to up the fantasy factor, but I wish that she had not been put in blue, it links her a little too closely with the Munchkins and Glinda is not from Munchkinland.
#7
Posted: 3/1/11 at 2:16pm
I actually don't mind the Witch's costume that everyone is hating. Kinda like it, actually.
This looks fantastic! I can't wait to see some clips and hopefully get a cast album. I'm very interested in this now.
This looks fantastic! I can't wait to see some clips and hopefully get a cast album. I'm very interested in this now.
#8
Posted: 3/1/11 at 2:31pm
The Lion's costume is pretty awful.
#9
Posted: 3/1/11 at 2:44pm
Dorothy looks waaay to old.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#10
Posted: 3/1/11 at 2:46pm
I absolutely love it. I don't mind te tower suit costume at all. Sets looks absolutely stunning.
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
#11
Posted: 3/1/11 at 2:53pm
I don't know that the world really needed an ALW take on The Wizard of Oz, but I'm delighted to see a set where it's clear money, thought, and attention went into it! I'm so tired of projection screens, colored panels, and minimalist design. I'm a sucker for a gigantic set. Sue me!
#12
Posted: 3/1/11 at 2:55pm
I can't quite put my finger on what I don't like. But the whole thing just looks charmless to me.
#13
Posted: 3/1/11 at 3:17pm
Also, in regards of the Witch, I think they want to make sure people know that this is not Elphaba. This is another show entirely.
#14
Posted: 3/1/11 at 3:53pm
^ I agree. I like how they are making the witch more of a psycho and feminine character like Bellatrix in Harry Potter. I love how they are giving the character more material to work with.
"There’s nothing quite like the power and the passion of Broadway music. "
#15
Posted: 3/1/11 at 3:57pm
I agree overkill...Elphaba in WICKED is NOT The Wicked Witch from "The Wizard of Oz"
If I hear someone make that argument I'll explode. Two different stories, one a different take on the other.
I LOVE the sets. I actually really like the Lion. The Tinman I'm a little bit on the fence. I like it, yet it looks like it is a little lacking compared to the other costumes. Dorothy's green dress looks cool. And again, I wish they did something different with the Ruby Slippers. I know there's only so many looks you can do with a shoe that is supposed to be made of rubies but this is Oz for pete's sake, I'm sure a magical shoe in Oz would be a little bit more then just a pump with glitter and a bow.
And I like the Wicked Witch's outfit for Munchkinland, although I'll admit when I quickly scrolled through the pictures I thought it did look a TAD bit like Elphaba's act 2 dress but when I looked at it more it was a complete different look haha. On the fence about her other costume.
If I hear someone make that argument I'll explode. Two different stories, one a different take on the other.
I LOVE the sets. I actually really like the Lion. The Tinman I'm a little bit on the fence. I like it, yet it looks like it is a little lacking compared to the other costumes. Dorothy's green dress looks cool. And again, I wish they did something different with the Ruby Slippers. I know there's only so many looks you can do with a shoe that is supposed to be made of rubies but this is Oz for pete's sake, I'm sure a magical shoe in Oz would be a little bit more then just a pump with glitter and a bow.
And I like the Wicked Witch's outfit for Munchkinland, although I'll admit when I quickly scrolled through the pictures I thought it did look a TAD bit like Elphaba's act 2 dress but when I looked at it more it was a complete different look haha. On the fence about her other costume.
"Life in theater is give and take...but you need to be ready to give more then you take..."
#16
Posted: 3/1/11 at 4:18pm
Hannah's costume reminded me of something that Lisa Brescia wore at an the Broadway Easter Bonnet:
Updated On: 3/1/11 at 04:18 PM
#17
Posted: 3/1/11 at 4:35pm
"Dorothy looks waaay to old."
Well, Judy Garland was a sixteen year old playing a twelve year old in the film adaptation. She looked kind of tall to be playing a twelve year old to me.
Well, Judy Garland was a sixteen year old playing a twelve year old in the film adaptation. She looked kind of tall to be playing a twelve year old to me.
Updated On: 3/7/11 at 04:35 PM
#18
Posted: 3/1/11 at 4:43pm
To be honest, I do not think that age should be an issue for Dorothy. I mean, obviously she is NOT meant to be over the age of 15/16 at most. I always thought of her as being a young girl who is leaving childhood and is now entering her "teen" years, therefore growing out of a child's mindset but still trying to hold on to her imagination. I think in a way that leaves a bigger impact.
"Life in theater is give and take...but you need to be ready to give more then you take..."
#19
Posted: 3/1/11 at 5:03pm
Well, that girl still looks awfully large - I mean mature.
#20
Posted: 3/1/11 at 5:28pm
Baum never specified her age in the novels. In the original book I would guess she is somewhere between 10-12, based on the way she is written and Denslow's illustrations. However, when she shows back up in the third book, Ozma of Oz, she seems to have regressed in maturity, partially due to Baum choosing to incorporate the "baby talk" slang that was coming into popularity at the time (Dorothy begins using words like "splain" for "explain" and "zac'ly" for "exactly"). The new illustrator, John R. Neil, also used a more realistic style of illustrating, but also gave Dorothy a much more modern, such as it was, and young look than she had had in Denslow's slightly more cartoonish illustrations.
As for the movie, yes, there may have been a description in the script that said "Dorothy is twelve," but, like the novel, her actual age is never mentioned by any character onscreen. If you don't know that bit of trivia (that 16 year old Judy was playing a 12 year old girl) I would venture to guess that nobody would think anything about how old either Judy or Dorothy was supposed to be in the film.
As for the movie, yes, there may have been a description in the script that said "Dorothy is twelve," but, like the novel, her actual age is never mentioned by any character onscreen. If you don't know that bit of trivia (that 16 year old Judy was playing a 12 year old girl) I would venture to guess that nobody would think anything about how old either Judy or Dorothy was supposed to be in the film.
#21
Posted: 3/1/11 at 5:38pm
AEA-
Having recently re-read the book, I'd place Dorothy closer to 6 or 7. It would fit with the aging process, and explains some of her highly selfish thoughts.
I like the sets and costumes, and I like Danielle Hope...I think she's rather pretty and she has a lot of charm.
Having recently re-read the book, I'd place Dorothy closer to 6 or 7. It would fit with the aging process, and explains some of her highly selfish thoughts.
I like the sets and costumes, and I like Danielle Hope...I think she's rather pretty and she has a lot of charm.
http://www.youtube.com/huskcharmer
#22
Posted: 3/1/11 at 5:57pm
In the TV film, "Me and my Shadows" the narrator said that at sixteen they were still casting Judy in twelve year old roles. When she was offered the part, "her figure was beginning to develop rapidly while her face still had that wide-eyed innocence of a little girl." They also wanted her to take diet pills and wear tighter costumes. A lady also said in the clip, "If you're going to play a child, you have to look like a child."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDyBv5uK8cM
Later on Judy initially refused the role of Esther Smith in "Meet me in St. Louis" because she felt she had played too many childish roles and wanted to play an adult. However, I thought she easily pulled of playing a junior in high-school at age twenty-two. Lucille Bremer, who played Rose, was twenty-seven and she played a senior in high-school and I thought she also pulled that off easily.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDyBv5uK8cM
Later on Judy initially refused the role of Esther Smith in "Meet me in St. Louis" because she felt she had played too many childish roles and wanted to play an adult. However, I thought she easily pulled of playing a junior in high-school at age twenty-two. Lucille Bremer, who played Rose, was twenty-seven and she played a senior in high-school and I thought she also pulled that off easily.
Updated On: 12/16/11 at 05:57 PM
#23
Posted: 3/1/11 at 6:25pm
husk, while I would definitely agree on the 6-8 age range for the Dorothy who appears in Ozma of Oz (like I said, that baby talk slang drives me crazy) and subsequently matures through the rest of the series (though I don't think he ever dropped it from her speech patterns completely, but it certainly lessened), I still feel that there is a touch more maturity to the Dorothy Baum presents in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.
Consider the following exchange from the original book.
The Scarecrow listened carefully, and said, "I cannot understand why you should wish to leave this beautiful country and go back to the dry, gray place you call Kansas."
"That is because you have no brains," answered the girl. "No matter how dreary and gray our homes are, we people of flesh and blood would rather live there than in any other country, be it ever so beautiful. There is no place like home."
Those are not the words I would expect to hear from a six year old, especially considering this occurs in Chapter 4. These are the thoughts and motivations she already has, not anything she has learned through her journey.
Also, as she tells Glinda at the end of the book.
"My greatest wish now is to get back to Kansas, for Aunt Em will surely think something dreadful has happened to me, and that will make her put on mourning; and unless the crops are better this year than they were last, I am sure Uncle Henry cannot afford it."
Again, a much more mature view of the situation than I would expect from a six year old.
I have also heard it argued that he had Dorothy regress in a way when he brought her back because he wanted to offset the maturity and wisdom of Ozma and allow Dorothy to be the dreamer and retain the sense of child-like wonder.
Consider the following exchange from the original book.
The Scarecrow listened carefully, and said, "I cannot understand why you should wish to leave this beautiful country and go back to the dry, gray place you call Kansas."
"That is because you have no brains," answered the girl. "No matter how dreary and gray our homes are, we people of flesh and blood would rather live there than in any other country, be it ever so beautiful. There is no place like home."
Those are not the words I would expect to hear from a six year old, especially considering this occurs in Chapter 4. These are the thoughts and motivations she already has, not anything she has learned through her journey.
Also, as she tells Glinda at the end of the book.
"My greatest wish now is to get back to Kansas, for Aunt Em will surely think something dreadful has happened to me, and that will make her put on mourning; and unless the crops are better this year than they were last, I am sure Uncle Henry cannot afford it."
Again, a much more mature view of the situation than I would expect from a six year old.
I have also heard it argued that he had Dorothy regress in a way when he brought her back because he wanted to offset the maturity and wisdom of Ozma and allow Dorothy to be the dreamer and retain the sense of child-like wonder.
#24
Posted: 3/1/11 at 7:14pm
You're applying psychological "realism" to The Wizard of Oz?!?!?
#25
Posted: 3/1/11 at 7:25pm
Updated On: 3/1/11 at 07:25 PM
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95