When I think about it...Is Wicked THAT good?- Page 2

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 12:23pm

I don't understand why people don't understand the show's appeal to the masses. It's a big splashy musical based on a beloved American commodity.

It's just the way of the world. It's mainstream, popular entertainment, which is why it's one of the few shows non-theatre people know. Same with Phantom or The Producers. There will always be a bigger market for your Wickeds than there will your Grey Gardens, etc.

For the record, I enjoyed it. I thought it was nothing compared to the book, but I still thought it was a lot of fun. And if we're comparing stage fluff, I liked it a hell of a lot more than I liked Hairpsray.

[misschung]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 12:37pm

I still prefer the Wizard of Oz, even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the question posed by this thread.

Only because everyone who knows me said when Wicked came out: "you love the Wizard of Oz, you HAVE to see Wicked"

I mean, except for the storyline, I don't really see any distinct parallels between the two.

[VIETgrlTerifa]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 12:42pm

For me, Wicked is all about lost potential. I think it could have been something much more than it actually was. I wouldn't have minded it so much if I could have enjoyed the music better. With the exception a few songs, most of the score is an insipid, synthesized mess with bad, uninspired lyrics. Even the songs that are good lose their novelty after a while and end up really boring.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 12:43pm

Yes, it is that good. Seeing it in Chicago next Thursday. It will be my 12th time seeing the show (NYC: 9, DC: 1, Philly: 1, Chicago: 1) and I'm not sick of it yet. I'm not surprised that it has become the huge hit that it is.

[misschung]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 12:46pm

I agree about the synthesized sound of the recording. I really have to say I can't stand hearing that in musical theater. The overture could have been so much better if they didnt go that direction

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 12:55pm

I mean, except for the storyline, I don't really see any distinct parallels between the two. .

[Shakespearean]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:10pm

Why does it sell out? Say what you like about the Disney Machine, but Wicked undoubtedly has the best advertising and PR program on Broadway right now. Absolutely necessary with a house that large, but their marketing teams can't be ignored. FOr every other show I see on the side of a bus, there's one for Wicked, and if three shows are featured in a Broadway publicity flyer, one will be that green and white logo. I haven't heard it said here in almost a day, but Theatre is a Business and much as I dislike the show, I admire the team that keeps its house full.

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:23pm

WICKED is fortunate enough to have tons of money to do all that advertising. Their marketing team is amazing. Too bad SIDE SHOW didn't have as good a marketing team (and not as much money).

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:38pm

Honestly, I was braced to dislike it. I'm not a big fan of Stephen Schwartz. I only mildly liked the book (It was too political, and at 15 I didn't get it, and to be honest at 21, I still don't get all of it). But, being an Oz fan, I was hoping to enjoy it. And I did. I saw the OBC, and the 3rd cast (The OBC was the better cast). It was also my first show on Broadway, so that might also impact why I like it.

Is it the best show? No. Is it THAT good? Yes. I think it is def. worthy of all the praise it got.

[Weez]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 1:49pm

Of course it's not that good. But that doesn't mean it's not entertaining. Hell, I've seen it five times now, and I usually am much more about the Sondheims and the Guettels of the musical theatre world. :3

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 2:19pm

It's not the best thing out there, but it is a good afternoon or evening of entertainment.

[antonijan]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 2:28pm

Should I see Wicked or Spelling Bee when I go to L.A.? I could only pick one

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:06pm

Wicked.

[BDrischBDemented]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:17pm

Go see Spelling Bee.

Wicked is not THAT good. It is not even that good. It is mediocre in every sense of the word, except in lyrics, where it's god-awful. The book feels like it was a book report scribed by a middle school kid who had a vague sense of the novel and missed any subtleties in the book (and several major parts). Some of the songs are not bad, per se, but the lyrics are pedestrian at best. I still don't get the appeal of Defying Gravity. It's perhaps some of the most awkward staging I've ever seen.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:20pm

No. Wicked is fine, nothing special. It's an enjoyable night at the theatre, especially if it has two great actresses in the lead roles.

[BDavis0092]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:22pm

Wicked is a good show. It's just not GREAT.

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:33pm

If you're comparing Wicked and Spelling Bee, though, I still think it's no question. Spelling Bee's score is abysmal. It doesn't even sound like music.

[theactorsociety]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:35pm

Wicked is one of the greatest musicals ever. It went way beyond most basic ploted musicals like 42nd Street and such. The score and book is great, clever and witty. People just start not liking something because it was successful. If it wasn't a huge money maker, people would say "look at this piece of art that never made it big. It is so moving and perfect" Spring Awakening anyone? That musical is bad but everyone loves it. The music is great, but the book and plot is a disaster.

[Blonde]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:38pm

"People just start not liking something because it was successful."

Or maybe people just saw flaws in the show that you didn't.

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:38pm

Well, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's one of the greatest musicals ever, but it's better than Spelling Bee.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:39pm

Greatest musicals ever?

Look, I enjoyed Wicked both times I saw it, but the greatest musical ever?

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:50pm

Spelling Bee, Spelling Bee, Spelling Bee.
Anyway: I read the book first, enjoyed it and was eager to see the musical version. Saw the musical and felt it was a bastardization of the novel, and greatly disliked the stage treatment.

[misschung]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 3:58pm

well to be fair, they said "one of" the greatest musicals ever, not THE greatest.

Kringas - I knew someone would pick up on my "except for the storyline" comment, lol. I am so underslept right now, but what I meant is that musically, I didnt see too much of Oz in Wicked.

I dont hate Wicked, I listen to certain songs from it on a pretty regular basis, but I just havent joined in all the reindeer games surrounding it

Updated On: 5/11/07 at 03:58 PM

[Kringas]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 4:12pm

Heh. Well, that's fair enough. I don't think you are supposed to see too much of it, though. I think the point is that there's a different version of "history" being told.

The book does do a much better job of creating a world that exists within the one L. Frank Baum created, I'll give you that. There are things that the musical gets grievously wrong including ... SPOILER AHEAD (but really, who doesn't know how the show ends anymore)....










The ending. Of all the changes from book to stage, that's the one I do find unforgivable.

[misschung]

Posted: 5/11/07 at 4:24pm

I didnt think you were supposed to see too much of it either, that's why I was suprised that ppl kept saying that.

Yeah, the ending really suprised me, too