PHOTO FLASH: Andrew Lloyd Webbers The Wizard of Oz — Page 2

newintown wins best post award.

Toto was played by a Cairn Terrier in the movie, but his exact breed was not specified by Baum, other than being a small black dog. Denslow's illustrations for the original book most closely resembled a Scottish Terrier. In Toto's next appearance, which was not until the fifth book, John R. Neil, who had taken over the illustrator's duty with the second book, he more closely resembled a Boston Terrier. In subsequent books Neil drew him as just a small, shaggy black dog in the terrier family in terms of size and build.

AEA, I have greatly enjoyed your posts in this thread, thank you VERY much.

I love certain parts of this.. i DESPISE certain parts of this. I DO like the Witch's Munchkinland look, the Emerald City, and the center unit along the Yellow Brick Road. I detest the Witch's tower dress with the Dorothy doll and that Cowardly Lion. I don't care for the Wizard's Throne Room and I don't understand Dorothy's circa 1975 pigtails..

Dear GOD I hope not. I LONG to Oz on Broadway. Webber's ego is driving him to bring this here and he has been planning to for a while. The reviews in London are fair, where they don.t hold Oz as closey to their hearts. It would BE slaughtered here and while not destructive to the Oz franchise, it would harm the chances of another - no doubt better - version ever winding it's way to Broadway. On the plus side, it would DESTROY Webber in the states and he would be strung up and sacrificed in Times Sq by audiences and critics alike.

double post

Updated On: 3/2/11 at 01:00 AM

Actually, from the *ahem* that I've heard, the show is largely competent, and I think Americans would probably take to it pretty well.

And, AEA, while I agree that her conversations with the Scarecrow do come off as mature...given that she is speaking to someone she intelecutally superior to, it may just seem more elevated.

Consider this passage from the end of chapter 5:
Dorothy did not say anything, for she was puzzled to know which of her two friends was right, and she decided if she could only get back to Kansas and Aunt Em it did not matter so much whether the Woodman had no brains and the Scarecrow no heart, or each got what they wanted.

That's pretty darn childish. There was another spot where I had a similar response, but I can't remember where it was to save my life now.

---

I don't think there's any cohesiveness to these costumes at all. They're okay if you're doing a children's show, not a family show, but "kiddie" children's show.

The lion looks like a Steiff stuffed animal. Why is Dorothy's hemline so messed up? It's long in back and shorter in front and too long in general. It hangs on her terribly. And the only reason I say that is she's so closely resembling the MGM look when no other character is doing that. So why mess up her hemline and make it look sloppy? The Wizard has something resembling an Afro, and the witches look modern, Vegas glitzy awful. The Tinman and Scarecrow look like unfinished ideas. And why dress the Scarecrow the same color as the lion? They're both primarily the same tan color, giving the principal quartet a dull, monochromatic feel.

One of the things I love about the "Wicked" costumes is that they feel like they're "of a time period," even if you can't put your finger on which one. They exist in their own world, in their own time. They seem to follow their own rules cohesively. It's a realistic approach to fantasy design. (Also look at Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland for cohesive costume design in a fantasy setting.)

This Oz feels pieced together with no cohesive look or idea behind it. Almost as if different designers had tackled each of the characters separately without discussing it together first. And by designers who care more about their own cleverness than serving this classic story.

I'm not a fan of the "children't theatre" approach to The Wizard of Oz. It bores me and instantly alienates me. This doesn't look like a "story for all ages" any more than a Fisher Price toy that says "Ages 2 to 8."

---

Updated On: 3/2/11 at 02:57 AM

SO MUCH FAILURE.

This is the only thing that I actually like.

OMIGOD! The put the Witch in a long sleeved floor length black dress and gave it *gasp* texture. Clearly that means they have ripped off Wicked.

For those who can't decipher, that was sarcasm. How simple minded can the sheep be?

Peter Pan wears green and leaves. Dolly comes down a staircase in a red dress. The chorus line performs the finale in gold hued suits. Belle wears a gold ball gown. Do designers stray from those basic rules on occasion? Yes. But most fit those general rules. It's the Wizard of friggin Oz. The Witch wears a long black dress. She wore a long black dress in the MGM film.. So what? Greg McGuire took that idea and gave it an explanaition and Susan Hilferty took concept from MGM there as well. So does Jones for this.. it has NOTHING to do with copying Wicked.

As far as that tower get-up where she totes around a Dorothy Gale voodoo doll, I am just WAITING for her to lipsynch for her life and be told to sashay away.