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

[delucad15]

Posted: 3/1/11 at 7:25pm

Updated On: 3/1/11 at 07:25 PM

[tourboi]

Posted: 3/1/11 at 10:20pm

newintown wins best post award.

[GatorNY]

Posted: 3/1/11 at 10:32pm

I thought Toto was a cairn terrier, not a westie. I guess that's color blind casting.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 3/1/11 at 11:03pm

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.

[DylanMark33]

Posted: 3/1/11 at 11:27pm

The first photo looks like she is standing in front of a giant jawbreaker.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 12:00am

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..

[diebob21]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 12:37am

This is given "The Wizard of OZ" a very different approach, and I kind of like it. It seems like it will be a hit in London.

Will it be coming to Broadway? Will there be a similar show like the one in the UK for the search for a new comer for Dorthy here in the US?

What are your thoughts? Updated On: 3/2/11 at 12:37 AM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 12:43am

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.

[diebob21]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 12:50am

that's interesting, I think it would be great for the children.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 1:00am

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

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 1:00am

Oz was created by Baum to please children. MGM's Oz is a TRUE family entertainment.. it isn't for children.. and it can not be "for children." It must be for everyone. Besides, the children won't buy the tickets... the parents and grandparents will.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 1:32am

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.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 1:39am

Husk, I know of what you mean. I find it mostly competent, but there are moments that I find farring and somewhat upset and i can't tell whther he is trying to parody or wants to be taken seriously. I can go line by line and rip it to bits and reassemble with all sorts of commentary and you know that I am not an MGM purist. I don't think American audiences would like this though... not a bit. And I dislike almost all of the new songs.. bits of the new songs I like, but I just find them.. not good.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 2:57am

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

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 3:04am

I will add that the original Baum story IS a children's book. That was his target audience. But the source material for this stage production is the MGM film, which was not a children's movie. The songs were written with an "adult" feel to them, with clever lyrics. Whimsical and lighthearted, yes. "Kiddie show?" No way.

These costumes are out of step with their source material. They don't share the same approach, unless Webber & Co. have dumbed down the Langley-Ryerson-Wolf screenplay and Arlen-Harburg-Sothart music.

I just don't like what I see at all. It looks like something that should tour grade schools.

Updated On: 3/2/11 at 03:04 AM

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 3:32am

SO MUCH FAILURE.

This is the only thing that I actually like.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 3:45am

I'm not sure how American audiences would respond to this. I do think that American audiences have a particular fondness for the MGM film and I'm not sure how they would react to the interpolation of new songs and such a drastically different design. But, at the same time I'm not sure that there would be enough people who even cared for it to make much of a difference either way. The title would still sell.

Having heard the new songs, I can say that I personally do not like them and I don't feel like they really fit with the rest of the score at all. Webber felt that there needed to be a strong opening number, but he didn't write one and the rest of the songs seem to just stop the action and have no real purpose other than to give songs to characters that didn't previously have a voice musically. It seems as though they had difficulty finding additional moments to musicalize which probably should have been a clear indication right there that new songs were simply not needed.

I do like a few of the additional reprises that Tim Rice wrote. "If We Only Had a Plan" is cute and there was a slight poignancy to the Wizard's "You Went to See the Wizard" reprise. I still wouldn't consider either of them an integral part of the plot, and none of the new songs were good enough to merit the cutting of "King of the Forest" and "The Jitterbug." Obviously, "The Jitterbug" isn't much of a plot song either, but it can be delightful in the right hands and it's far more appealing than anything Webber has contributed to the score.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 3:48am

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.

[Justin D]

Posted: 3/2/11 at 7:52am

I've watched the press video and love what I see. But I am not an Oz purist, I find the movie incredibly dull and boreing and have only been able to sit through it once. I know Americans go gaga over oz but i think it will do well when it comes to NY (if it does) because ALW said in a recent inverview that they are looking to to the TV casting but premier the show not in NYC, posibly tour it before stopping in NYC because as he rightfully said, why would someone in the middle if the US be bothered to vote for someone that will perform only in NY. Anyways, I expect backlash if only because ALW is involved.