Universal's WICKED Films - News & Discussion Thread — Page 98

Georgeanddot2 said: "Matt Rogers said: "Georgeanddot2 said: "Matt Rogers said: "Georgeanddot2 said: "Matt Rogers said: "Oh, hurray. The “Who can be the snarkiest troll?” contest has migrated to this thread.


Joy to the freaking world."

My fans have arrived!"

What are you even doing here? You didn’t like the film. Everyone gets it.You’vemade your point multiple times. Now you are just trolling, period. And not very well, by the way."

Do you ever share your own opinions or thoughts on shows or movies or do you only complain about the thoughts and opinions of others?I have never seen you contribute a single intelligent thought to a conversation on here beyond calling everyone a "troll." This board is for theatre criticism and discussion and you seem to follow me around on here policing everything I say. Do you have a job? The only "troll" here is you. Get a GRIP!"

You’re just being a completeass. Take a bow."

And now you're calling me names?"

Hi my name is Georgeanddot2, and I hated a movie so much that I saw it a second time, and I spend all my free time trolling a thread where most people liked a critically acclaimed film that has broken box office records. I come up with stupid nonsensical put downs of the film, like comparing it to a Cheesecake Factory, and I think I am so, very, very clever even though nothing I say makes any sense at all. 
 

Yup. Sounds like a complete ass to me. 

Georgeanddot2 said: "Sounds like you're just not very smart, Matt. I feel sorry for you. I hope you get the help you need. And to be clear, I didn't hate the movie. I thought it was a nice time, but also justnot very good.

A complete ass is someone who cannot fathom that other people have different opinions. A complete ass doesn't contribute anything substantial to a conversation. You can't even have a conversation. You're only interested in shutting down conversations by saying something dull like "that's not what Rotten Tomatoes thinks!" You are a TROLL and it's disappointing that apparently you've been doing this since 2004???"

Sweetie, it’s hysterical that you reported me and you are twice as insulting as I have ever been. In any case, here you are, a Wicked hater who saw it twice, hanging out on the Wicked thread. It’s all absolutely amazing. 

Do you legitimately think that they are Matt Rogers from Los Cultch and not someone with the same name? Lol...

Rentaholic2 said: "A few plot holes jumped out at me:

1) Why is Galinda the only student who is not required to wear the school uniform? It makes sense for Elphaba since she was not supposed to be a student, but not Galinda. Could have been addressed with one funny line.

2) Did Elphaba no longer need her glasses after Popular? They were noticeably absent from the time she got on the train.

3) Morrible tells Elphaba she will takes classes with Morrible only, but then Elphaba appears to be attending all classes like a normal student?

4) It took those guards a full five minutes to ramrod through a door that was NO LONGER LOCKED because the broom had been removed (yes, there was a cart in front of the door, but...that was a serious ramrod, and the cart would have easily been pushed out of the way)."

I've snarked a bit to friends about some of these points, particularly 1 and 4, but I guess it's mostly an optics decision (I didn't notice the lack of glasses actually because so many movies have that "transformation" of making someone hot by removing their glasses, see: Princess Diaries).  For the first one I assume it's just to make her stand out more (though notably Fiyero also doesn't wear the usual uniform and both Boq and Nessa have a bit more of a distinct look as well--I joked about how it's how you know whether you're the main character or not in a story).  In the stage show it makes sense for your leads to be visually distinct but in a movie, I expected slightly more adherence to the uniform (maybe Glinda wears a pink coat over it or something), though ultimately it's more amusing than something I think is a major issue.

I'm one of the people that thought Defying Gravity was too drawn out, so stuff like the ramming the door that was no longer locked by the broom did bother me.  It would've been so easy for them to add another locking mechanism with the broom simply as reinforcement, or show the doors struggling against the cart, or even just not show those scenes at all, but alas.

TheatreMonkey said: "Just to play devil's advocate, the guardson the other side of the doordidn't know the door was no longer blocked, after trying to open it initially...

It's also a movie; suspension of disbelief and all that. This game of could-of and should-of can be played all day with any solution they used for cinematic storytelling."

Oh yeah I don't think it's a dealbreaker for me at all, more just minor nits that didn't quite make sense for me (as I'm sure there are many small moments like this for people across a multitude of movies).  The guards may not have known that the door was no longer blocked but it should've only taken one good ram of the door to open it, or at least crack it partway once the broom was gone.  And I know we're in a fantasy setting, but there's that whole thing about how you have to have rules to be able to break them anyway.  Like I said, not a big deal, just something that took me out of the story a tiny bit.

TheatreFan4 said: "Get it together."

I like a lot of your posts, but this was a weirdly hostile response to someone with a few picky but interesting questions about the movie.

Hate to say it, but in retrospect, I agree with the naysayers.

I should have known I wasn't going to like it, since I'm pretty indifferent to Stephen Schwartz in general. It's why I never bothered to see Wicked onstage. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised, but I kept sitting there thinking "This mediocre score has kept the show on Broadway for 20 years?" I liked a few songs: "Popular," "What Is This Feeling?" "Defying Gravity" and--the real surprise for me--"I'm Not that Girl."

Grande is cute, if playing the kind of part that's been done over and over (Clueless and Legally Blonde being the obvious points of reference). Erivo is stuck having to be self-effacingly superior for most of the running time, and it's a drag. The rest of the cast would probably be a lot better if Chu could help them find a workable performance--no one in the cast is untalented, no one seems radically miscast, but they are mostly awful. Why hide Goldblum's face at the beginning when his voice is unmistakable?

What's the point of choreography that looks like everyone's having muscle spasms? Why is Elphaba's dance at the party getting such snickers when the whole ensemble has been doing similar movements in every song at a faster pace? Chu doesn't seem to know here to put his camera thoughout most of the numbers, and the fidgety editing isn't a great solution.

Sorry for being another person spoiling the mood. I know no one wants to read a put-down review. Just had to vent. 

One thing that didn't bother me: the running time. The whole thing moves along at a fast clip, and I didn't even realize until we get to the climax how long I'd been sitting there. If there had't been so much talk about Part 1 being longer than the entirety of the stage show, I'd probably have guesstimated that the whole thing was 100 minutes tops. 

Updated On: 12/2/24 at 11:42 AM

chrishuyen said: "Rentaholic2 said: "1) Why is Galinda the only student who is not required to wear the school uniform? It makes sense for Elphaba since she was not supposed to be a student, but not Galinda. Could have been addressed with one funny line.
[...]
4) It took those guards a full five minutes to ramrod through a door that was NO LONGER LOCKED because the broom had been removed (yes, there was a cart in front of the door, but...that was a serious ramrod, and the cart would have easily been pushed out of the way)."

I've snarked a bit to friends about some of these points, particularly 1 and 4, but I guess it's mostly an optics decision (I didn't notice the lack of glasses actually because so many movies have that "transformation" of making someone hot by removing their glasses, see: Princess Diaries). For the first one I assume it's just to make her stand out more (though notably Fiyero also doesn't wear the usual uniform and both Boq and Nessa have a bit more of a distinct look as well--I joked about how it's how you know whether you're the main character or not in a story). In the stage show it makes sense for your leads to be visually distinct but in a movie, I expected slightly more adherence to the uniform (maybe Glinda wears a pink coat over it or something), though ultimately it's more amusing than something I think is a major issue.

I'm one of the people that thought Defying Gravity was too drawn out, so stuff like the ramming the door that was no longer locked by the broom did bother me. It would've been so easy for them to add another locking mechanism with the broom simply as reinforcement, or show the doors struggling against the cart, or even just not show those scenes at all, but alas."

I completely agree with aaaalllll of this. Galinda could have worn some pink with the uniform. They could have done what any of what you said about the doors. All of that.

I was also wondering two other things: Doesn't wrecking the balloon mean the Wizard can't leave in it, and try to take Dorothy with him, in The Wizard of Oz?! And I liked the addition of Morrible trying to get the monkeys to go after who cast the spell on them. but...now we must wonder, did Elphaba explain what happened to get them on her side after the chased her? The last one, I guess it's safe to make the assumption, it just had me wondering.

Joevitus, don't you know why they couldn't show his face? If you don't, then hang for Part 2.

Is he regarded as “head of state” of Oz?

Maybe Madam Morrible erected it in an Uncle Sam kinda way.

I'm fine with some fridge logic in worldbuilding- very few fantasy or sci-fi properties lack those problems- and like I've said, I think the movie is able to paper over a lot of the issues with the material. Lyrics are still often... quite bad.

Act 2 of Wicked, however, doesn't have the fun vibes and production numbers to distract and covers a lot more time and ground in a very clunky way, as well as having some weird timeline issues and plot holes (basically everything with the goddamn Scarecrow). I hope they've done a lot of work on it.

Updated On: 12/2/24 at 01:41 PM

There isn't anything more to it than that. It's entirely unchanged from the stage show. I agree that it undercuts the reveal (as well as being a very clunky piece of exposition).

Updated On: 12/2/24 at 02:00 PM

For what it’s worth, in Baum's original novel the Wizard builds a new balloon after Dorothy returns from the Witch's castle, so the destruction of what is presumed to be the balloon her arrived in during the end of this film is not going to throw some major wrench into the story if the second film

Kad said: "There isn't anything more to it than that. It's entirely unchanged from the stage show. I agree that it undercuts the reveal (as well as being a very clunky piece of exposition)."

Jeff Goldblum is also listed as a vocalist in “No One Mourns The Wicked” on the soundtrack, so no real effort is being made to hide it.