WICKED reviews- Page 3

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 7/11/12 at 2:43pm

I blame Idina. Rentheads are just as overly-passionate. Some of them followed that chick over the moon and over the rainbow.

Hahahaha true... I personally do not get the hype surrounding her. There are many more talented performers. I think her acting is pretty one dimensional.

Updated On: 7/11/12 at 02:43 PM

[BwayEqs]

Posted: 7/11/12 at 2:46pm

Wynbish, Idina is not what made me love WICKED. I do enjoy her work, but it is just the story and the music that I love. I could honestly care less who is in it.

[Wynbish]

Posted: 7/11/12 at 2:47pm

"Some".

[BwayEqs]

Posted: 7/11/12 at 2:48pm

Understandable - When I really love a show, I REALLY LOVE it. Wicked fans just seem to be the Twilight fans of Broadway

Yep. Pretty accurate.

Posted: 7/11/12 at 2:52pm

You know, I think the whole "THEY HAD TO CHANGE STUFF CAUSE OF COPY-WRITE" is just BS. I think they changed stuff cause they wanted to change stuff. There are Wizard of Oz ripoffs all over- Carol Burnett sketches, Futurama episodes, Tom & Jerry cartoons. If MGM was as litigious as people say they would have a full-time staff of 16 issuing injunctions.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 7/11/12 at 2:53pm

I know Wicked is extremely popular because of the story. A lot of people can relate to the characters and love the concept. Personally connecting the characters on a personal level is not what makes me love a show. I LOVED the novel by Gregory Maguire. It is one of my favorite books. If the musical's book and score stayed more true to the darkness and intensity of the novel, I would probably be head over heels in love with the show, but it would probably not have the same fan base and following... I do not like what was done with Maguire's story for the stage version.

[BwayEqs]

Posted: 7/11/12 at 3:26pm

You know, I think the whole "THEY HAD TO CHANGE STUFF CAUSE OF COPY-WRITE" is just BS. I think they changed stuff cause they wanted to change stuff. There are Wizard of Oz ripoffs all over- Carol Burnett sketches, Futurama episodes, Tom & Jerry cartoons. If MGM was as litigious as people say they would have a full-time staff of 16 issuing injunctions.

Acutally, with Tom & Jerry it's fine because Tom & Jerry are also owned by MGM.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/11/12 at 3:47pm

There's also a difference between doing a parody of MGM's Wizard of Oz and ripping off the protected property for another work.

Parodies are protected just as a "journalistic commentary" would be. That's why MadTV can do a spoof. Or The Carol Burnett Show or Saturday Night Live.

Tom & Jerry were also MGM property and are owned by Warner Bros. now, so there's no infringement there either.

Wicked isn't a parody and isn't owned by MGM, so Gregory Maguire and the musical's creators and producers all had to be very careful that they weren't depicting anything that was "exclusively MGM" in their Oz works. They come close, but it's still not a flat-out infringement.

[Buscee]

Posted: 7/11/12 at 3:54pm

What I do believe MGM had claim on was the RUBY SLIPPERS, and Wicked got permission for that. TOTO is from the original book, as is Glinda. I am sure they didn't need permission from MGM to use either one of those names. I think they use DODO for a laugh, and to show how "concerned" Glinda is with everyone else.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/11/12 at 4:01pm

Wicked didn't not get permission for the ruby slippers, nor will they ever. Warners has a trademark out on them (which can be renewed unlike a copyright), so they will never go into public domain. They are an exclusive creation for the MGM film.

They are referred to as "jeweled shoes," and they are not red. But they are hit with a red spotlight when she shows them to the audience.

Close, but no cigar.

"Toto" is the dog's name in the original book by L. Frank Baum, which is public domain now. MGM and Warners have no claim there at all. Anyone can use the character of Toto in a new work. The "Dodo" line is for a laugh, but if Glinda (another character and name in the public domain) had called the dog "Toto," there would be no infringement.

Updated On: 7/11/12 at 04:01 PM

Posted: 7/11/12 at 4:05pm

Well that's one.

Posted: 7/11/12 at 4:07pm

I still want to know how Boq changes so fast.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/11/12 at 4:16pm

Joe, you just don't believe in real, honest to goodness magic! That seems clear.

[BwayEqs]

Posted: 7/11/12 at 4:42pm

Joe, just look at the first MANY posts. Several explanations there.

[BwayEqs]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 8:25am

Wicked didn't not get permission for the ruby slippers, nor will they ever. Warners has a trademark out on them (which can be renewed unlike a copyright), so they will never go into public domain. They are an exclusive creation for the MGM film.

They are referred to as "jeweled shoes," and they are not red. But they are hit with a red spotlight when she shows them to the audience.

Close, but no cigar.

"Toto" is the dog's name in the original book by L. Frank Baum, which is public domain now. MGM and Warners have no claim there at all. Anyone can use the character of Toto in a new work. The "Dodo" line is for a laugh, but if Glinda (another character and name in the public domain) had called the dog "Toto," there would be no infringement.

You are absolutely right. MGM has NEVER given the rights to the Ruby Slippers to ANYONE.

[MezzA101]

Posted: 12/18/25 at 12:16pm

How the ‘Wicked’ Movies Turbocharged a Broadway Juggernaut

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/12/17/theater/wicked-movies-broadway-earnings.html?unlocked_article_code=1.9k8.CPhe.9ZZ-6NMQIgyP&smid=nytcore-android-share