Both shows had talented casts and a few great songs.
Avenue Q has a fast, funny book that develops multiple principal characters.
Wicked has a terrible book. The show is more interested in Elphaba's relationship with Glinda than it is in her political activism or her turn to the dark side. These are vital to her character but the key moments happen off stage. That makes the show a bit incoherent by the time we get to "For Good."
I'm a bit curious why people keep mentioning that Wicked is still making money... as if Avenue Q is not also still running in New York. After a 6 year Broadway run! A lengthy off-Broadway commercial run (approaching 8 years this fall) is nothing to dismiss, particularly in this day and age.
Yeah, the book really is pretty awful. I can understand why people respond to the score (it's not my thing, but I get why others might love it), but I don't see what people are getting out of the story ... something or other about animals not being allowed to talk? The Wicked Witch isn't really wicked, the scarecrow and tin man have been inexplicably shoehorned into her back story, and she's in love with the scarecrow, who used to be human but was accidentally turned into a scarecrow by magic (??!). It's like fan fiction written by a five-year-old.
Updated On: 4/18/17 at 12:41 PMBroadway Legend Joined: 1/22/14
Soaring29 said: "
Still, the show isn't perfect- The music's orchestrations make the score sound like it was written in the 80's and some of the lyrics are mediocre, especially For Good. I'm Not That Girl is very relatable of course, but is kind of an awful song at the same time lol. The story could have been a little more complex and thought out, Act 2 mainly. Like why does Elphaba have like no other support helping her fight the wizard? No matter how powerful she is, she would need support to actually fight the Wizard and be taken seriously. The whole rebel underground movement from the novel could have been included in a different way. I also wish Nessarose's character could have been more fleshed out.
But the show is a major part of my childhood and you end up enjoying it none the less despite it's obvious flaws and the fact that it does feel a little dated now.
"
"Relatable but terrible at the same time." That's exactly how I would describe Wicked.
At the time I was riding the wave of my Chenoweth fandom as Wicked was my first real exposure to her talent. But the show itself isn't very good and a lot of my out of town friends who wanted to see it in the same way people wanted to see Cats or Phantom or Les Miz due to being successful name brands always came away disappointed.
The sets are big but don't add anything to the show or really utilized well, costumes are perfunctory, choreography is not well thought out or adds anything to the storytelling, for a show that has a lot of magic at the center there's very little stage magic or clever/innovative stage craft, the movement of the show is very static and with central actors simply doing lots of "park and bark" except for the Wizard who was molded for Joel Grey and Glinda in Popular who was molded for Chenoweth, and the whole thing was overproduced.
I haven't even gotten into the mediocre to simply bad score, half-baked narrative, lack of interesting characters, and a "moral" that was super simple without any of the nuances of real life. I'm not the biggest fan of the novel, but this musical really bastardized it and turned it into what is can only be described as an attempt to create a huge money-maker where passable but marketable was its philosophy.
ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "Soaring29 said: "
Still, the show isn't perfect- The music's orchestrations make the score sound like it was written in the 80's and some of the lyrics are mediocre, especially For Good. I'm Not That Girl is very relatable of course, but is kind of an awful song at the same time lol. The story could have been a little more complex and thought out, Act 2 mainly. Like why does Elphaba have like no other support helping her fight the wizard? No matter how powerful she is, she would need support to actually fight the Wizard and be taken seriously. The whole rebel underground movement from the novel could have been included in a different way. I also wish Nessarose's character could have been more fleshed out.
But the show is a major part of my childhood and you end up enjoying it none the less despite it's obvious flaws and the fact that it does feel a little dated now.
"
"Relatable but terrible at the same time." That's exactly how I would describe Wicked.
At the time I was riding the wave of my Chenoweth fandom as Wicked was my first real exposure to her talent. But the show itself isn't very good and a lot of my out of town friends who wanted to see it in the same way people wanted to see Cats or Phantom or Les Miz due to being successful name brands always came away disappointed.
The sets are big but don't add anything to the show or really utilized well, costumes are perfunctory, choreography is not well thought out or adds anything to the storytelling, for a show that has a lot of magic at the center there's very little stage magic or clever/innovative stage craft, the movement of the show is very static and with central actors simply doing lots of "park and bark" except for the Wizard who was molded for Joel Grey and Glinda in Popular who was molded for Chenoweth, and the whole thing was overproduced.
I haven't even gotten into the mediocre to simply bad score, half-baked narrative, lack of interesting characters, and a "moral" that was super simple without any of the nuances of real life. I'm not the biggest fan of the novel, but this musical really bastardized it and turned it into what is can only be described as an attempt to create a huge money-maker where passable but marketable was its philosophy.
"
And that's why so many teenagers love it.
Stick me in the Wicked camp. Saw AQ shortly after it won the Tony. Loved it. When the entire audience can't wipe the smile off their faces that's something. Saw Wicked on tour and it is why I am here today. Maybe it was all SJB, I dunno any more.
Leading Actor Joined: 4/29/06
Thinking back to that time, the simplest way I can describe it is:
Everyone wanted Wicked to be the best musical in decades. People were reading the novel in anticipation of the show's premiere out of town. It was expected that it was going to get raves, be the perfect lavish musical, etc. When it opened it wasn't bad, but people's expectations weren't met.
Avenue Q kind of came out of nowhere and was far more sophisticated than anyone expected a puppet show with a unit set and a small cast to be.
So I think it's just a matter of where expectations were set for both shows. Wicked was disappointing and Avenue Q was unexpectedly good. And I do think that created a bit of backlash against large musicals just coming in and winning everything because they're large.
Broadway Legend Joined: 3/21/05
Dover said: "Thinking back to that time, the simplest way I can describe it is:
Everyone wanted Wicked to be the best musical in decades. People were reading the novel in anticipation of the show's premiere out of town. It was expected that it was going to get raves, be the perfect lavish musical, etc. When it opened it wasn't bad, but people's expectations weren't met.
Avenue Q kind of came out of nowhere and was far more sophisticated than anyone expected a puppet show with a unit set and a small cast to be."
Which people are you referring to? Because Wicked was a tough ticket to get. When it finally went on tour, the demand was so great they mounted a sit-down production in Chicago, meanwhile the tour consistently sold out every engagement for years, in addition to an additional sit-down in LA. Avenue Q barely squeaked out a national tour.
That's not to say Wicked is the better show (I remember back then having had a more enjoyable time at Avenue Q, though I also enjoyed Wicked). I think the truth is that Avenue Q was the little show that could, against the behemoth machine that is Wicked. Plus Avenue Q ran a very effective Tony campaign.
Videos