WICKED Storyline Questions

[zamedy]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 1:16am

Okay.. As I mentioned in another thread, I saw WICKED for the second time ever tonight (the touring company is here in Buffalo). I picked up on a few things that I missed last time but I still have a few questions that I thought WICKED fans (or non-fans for that matter) could answer (and pardon me if the questions sound a bit elementary).

-So we are supposed to believe that when Dorothy met the Scarecrow, she was actually meeting Fiyero who was 'reincarnated' as the Scarecrow? Then he was 'hiding' his true love for the Wicked Witch/Elphaba all along his journey to see the Wizard of Oz?

-Why would the Scarecrow actually be so fearful of meeting the Wizard (as he is in the movie) if he.. as Fiyero.. not only knew who he was but was the captain of the 'army?'

-Boq is actually the Tinman. So how did he end up getting all rusty so quickly? In the movie when Dorothy and Scarecrow oil him, he says the last thing he remembers is cutting a tree.

-In the movie, the Wizard floats away in his balloon right after giving the Scarecrow, the Tinman and the Cowardly Lion what they were hoping for. But in the musical, we see the Wizard discussing with Madame Morrible how exhausted he is after giving the characters mentioned above a 'brain,' a 'heart' and 'courage.'

-Why were Nessarose's slippers silver and not ruby?

Please don't attack me if some of the answers to these questions went over my head. I'm just looking to clear up some of the lingering questions I have. I know some of the critics criticized WICKED for its plot holes. Were these some of them?

Updated On: 7/13/08 at 01:16 AM

[TheatreFreak05]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 1:19am

When Elphaba "enchants" the shoes, they turn ruby red.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 1:19am

There is only one question I can answer:
-Why were Nessarose's slippers silver and not ruby?
In Baum's original book and in Wicked, the slippers were silver. That lighting change that make them look like they're turning red, I suppose, is to appease the fans of the film who would be confused.

As to the rest of the questions...there are no answers. It's all the result of an incredibly shoddy, lazy adaptation. They are real plot holes that are never adressed. And it's amazing how many people never notice.

[sgv123]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 1:22am

the musical actually did not have the rights to use red shoes so they had to shine light on the silver ones in the show.

[zamedy]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 1:25am

Thanks Scarywarhol. I'm glad it's not just me who has all these questions about what seems like huge holes in the plot. I'm sorry WICKED fans but bookwise, this is one very overhyped musical.

[andie84]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 1:28am

Well...
My response to the question of why the Scarecrow was hiding his love for the Wicked Witch... is that yes, that's exactly what he was doing... hiding his love. Elphaba makes Glinda promise that she won't try to clear her name (that's why Glinda doesn't protest in the beginning, and the end, when the townspeople yell "good news, she's dead!)... and my best guess is that all of them bought into that, not just Glinda.
The slippers, in the original Wizard of Oz, are silver, not ruby. I suppose they were going for the book's storyline, not the movie's.
...I think those are all the questions I can answer?
Remember - I'm pretty sure the show took a couple of liberties in order to make the story just so good... if they didn't, I'm fairly certain the storyline would suffer!
P.S. - I went to see the show in Buffalo too, on the 9th... FABULOUS.

[ragg_ballad]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 1:30am

Honestly, that may be the only question with a "Real" answer. I think the things you pointed out are some examples of the plot-holes/weak storyline that Wicked has(like you said, the book is pretty poorly written, especially with them trying to incorporate as much of the Wizard of Oz as they think they can). Maybe they're hoping the general audience won't think about it that much? lol

[legally_popular]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 1:33am

I don't really think of Wicked as a prequel to The Wizard of Oz. I mean, yes technically it is, but I don't watch The Wizard of Oz and be like, "Oh it's Fiyero!" when looking at the scarecrow, ya know? I think of each of them as two separate things. So in response to your questions, I would say just to not think too seriously about these kind of things, lol.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 3:49am

-Why would the Scarecrow actually be so fearful of meeting the Wizard (as he is in the movie) if he.. as Fiyero.. not only knew who he was but was the captain of the 'army?'

Well, basically he went AWOL, helped a 'fugitive' escape, and threatened Glinda's life even if only to save Elphaba. I'd be pretty fearful of meeting my boss under those circumstances.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 3:56am

Huge plotholes, nothing more, nothing less (though the ruby slippers are a property of MGM, the original book--as it has been said--mentions silver slippers).
Winnie Holzman's book is one of the worst parts about the show (along with Schwartz' laughable Drama Desk Award-winning lyrics).

[walkedthroughmany]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 4:12am

I see it this way:

If you study the US Civil War in the north,
then study the same war in the south...
you would think you were studying two different wars.
No two accounts of the same thing are ever going to be equal.
Even hard facts seem to turn into mere "suggestions."

The story of the Wicked Witch/Dorothy/Glinda is no exception!

[lmw8880]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 6:48am

The shoes were red in the movie because I believe it was either the first or one of the first movies shot in technicolor. They were orginally silver in the book.

Everything else I have no idea.

[turquoisefish]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 6:51am

I think of it more as "Inspired by The Wizard of Oz" as some movie adaptations of real-life stories are.

The lion being cowardly makes sense but the tin man doesn't, nor the scarecrow really.

If the two stories were written at the same time by the same author the could link better.

Also a musical has to happen in a night, in no more than 3 hours really - a lot of cuts have to happen. It is simpler to know that boq = tin man rather than have huge explanations about the passing of time etc...

[ggersten]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 7:32am

Baum had the slippers as "silver" supposedly as a reference to "free silver" policies advocated by farmers in the early part of the 20th century. Baum's book was, again supposedly, social criticism.
Maguire's "Wicked" book is vastly different from the musical - the musical is more "inspired". The additions of more references to the MGM musical are not from the book, but are for less read members of the audience. That said, the Scarecrow and TinMan of the MGM musical are not the Scarecrow and Tin Man of "Wicked" so there is no plot hole. But, if you want to script doctor, Fiyero as the Scarecrow and part of Dorothy's team is a "mole" who is there to protect Elphaba - that is why he meets her first and guides her and shapes how the team progresses. He has to do that to set up the denounemnet with Elphaba.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 8:54am

I always thought of what you see and hear in The Wizard of Oz to be the Madame Morrible "press release" version of events, with what happens in Wicked being the "truth."

[jordangirl]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 8:57am

That's a good way to think of it adamgreer. When I did Behind the Emerald Curtain, on the DVD you watch, they were talking about it being as if you shifted the camera ever so slightly one way or the other to see what was "just off-screen". But I think I like your version better.

[zepka102]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 9:16am

I don't see them as holes in the plot at all, but as events happening between scenes in the movie. Like the scene where the Wizard is talking to Morrible, it happens between the Wizard granting the characters their requests and leaving with the balloon... just making it look like he's doing it just for Dorothy.

And as far as Fiyero, I doubt if he wanted the plan to work, he would stand up to the Wizard. He was on Elphaba's side, so he would do his best to show he's against her and he wants to "kill her" also, allowing them to escape. That means he would have to look fearful of the Wizard like all of the others.

And I think it's also cool how many times Fiyero refers to being brainless throughout the show... there are atleast 3 references to it.

[Marcus2]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 12:24pm

Musical's are flawed. Wicked is no exception, especially considering its links to the Wizard of oz. The questions are unanswerable really, if they actually sat and tried to link it all exactly to the film the show would become heavily bogged down with facts etc.

I think you have to sit through wicked just mearly enjoying the mentions of the Wizard of oz and just go with what they are presenting.

But yeah the plot holes are very obvious but in a way it makes you think more about the story and wonder what else has happened, like we have 2 sides of a story is there a third?

[puppet]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 1:28pm

In McGuire's book, Fiero dies. He had an affair with Elfaba that produced a son. If, in the film, he is protecting Elfaba, why does the witch threaten him a few times with fire to burn him. Saying he is protecting her is not rational.

The whole ending of WICKED with Elfaba still being alive and going off with Fiero is simply unbelievable. It is just to give a "happy ending" to the musical. If not why are there continual monents of protecting Elfaba from water, rain etc. If she is hit with the water thrown by Dorothy was she warpped in Saran wrap so she didn't get wet?

This book for the show is a mess with holes as large as the country of OZ.

[Boq101]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 1:32pm

What funny is that the plotholes are only evident in the book of the Musical.

The novel on which the musical is based on Wicked doesnt have these plot holes. In that book Fiyero and Boq never turn into anything. They are just other characters.

[ByTheSea920]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 5:48pm

I agree with adamgreer. I always thought of "The Wizard of Oz" as being the "propaganda" version of what happened in Oz. I don't think of the so-called "plot holes" as real plot holes, because I think that the movie and musical have two almost entirely DIFFERENT plots, that just happen to have the same characters and whatnot, if that makes any sense.... when you watch Wicked, its not supposed to be like watching a remake of the Wizard of Oz. It's a reinterpretation of that story. Its a different perspective of what could have happened. I don't think its intended to be a PARALLEL plot, exactly. Just like the book Wicked wasn't supposed to be an exact re-telling of the story. The way I see it, Wicked and The Wizard of Oz should be viewed as two different interpretations of the same events. That's why the plot doesn't match up perfectly. It's kind of like if you were to ask Morrible for HER version of the story, and then ask Glinda for her own version of it. They'd of course be very different versions of the same story.

[puppet]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 5:53pm

They are NOT different versions of the same story. WICKED is advertised as "what happens BEFORE Dorothy came to OZ" and the two stories simply do not mesh,

[blaxx]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 5:55pm

Maguire's "Wicked" book is vastly different from the musical - the musical is more "inspired".

Hilarious!

[ByTheSea920]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 6:00pm

Yes, and technically it IS "what happened before Dorothy came to Oz." But it doesn't necessarily mean that it's meant to be an exact replica of The Wizard of Oz. It's based on the Wizard of Oz, yes, but its not an exact retelling.
Like I said, I view it as Morrible/Dorothy's version of the story vs. Glinda/Elphaba's version of the story.
That's just the way I interpreted it. :)

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 7/13/08 at 6:39pm

"If not why are there continual monents of protecting Elfaba from water, rain etc. If she is hit with the water thrown by Dorothy was she warpped in Saran wrap so she didn't get wet? "

Those moments are there for the audience because we think that the water/rain will melt her since we already know the outcome of the movie. Elphaba, in the musical, isn't melted by water at all. Fiyero even has a line "water will melt her? these people are so ridiculous they'll believe anything!" The melting is a trick she plans (you see her set up the bucket for dorothy to find and throw) to escape based on the rumors circulating around her. However in the book "Wicked" she IS afraid of water and never gets wet.

"Wicked" does have giant plot holes, but that's because it bases jokes/story on both the original Oz books and the MGM movie which are different.