Why all the WICKED hate?- Page 5

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 8:14pm

"all human contacts involve an attempt to sway the behavior of another."

What??? That is so ridiculous. wrong.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Jane, but why do you think human beings interact? I'm not saying that all interactions rise to the level of bullying; in fact, my point was the opposite and that's why defining bullying as "manipulation" is problematic.

But it's a rare interaction that doesn't at least include an attempt to win approval. That is manipulation, but hardly bullying, which is why we should be careful about defining bullying so broadly.

Updated On: 3/31/13 at 08:14 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 8:23pm

Burst my bubble? What you said makes no sense. Sorry you see life that way, dude.

[Jsturt]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 8:34pm

It was the WORST show I have ever seen it was boring stereotypical and has a boring score.
Why can't every show be good like Matilda

[all that jazz]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 8:35pm

I'm a firm believer in what Gaveston said about human interaction. No matter how much we try to romanticize human beings, there is evil in all of us. While some people embrace it, some people unsuccesfully prentend to live La vie en rose.

Updated On: 3/31/13 at 08:35 PM

[broadway guy]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 8:40pm

I don't know what I did to make you hate me but you really don't have to be so rude. I think you are really funny so it saddens me that we got off on the wrong foot. But it's your problem not mine. Keep on hating if that's what makes you feel good inside. Oh hey look at that, My Motivation is back

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 8:40pm

I'm not sure that Gav's post implied we were all evil. (But I could be wrong.)

[all that jazz]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 8:46pm

I'm not saying we're all evil, but we are selfish by nature, we always think of oursleves before others and act likewise. My views of humanity are a bit dark and unconventional.

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 8:54pm

wow All That jazz and Gaveston-oy vey.

Your view of human interaction is fortunately not part of my life.

I had to go back to read that all that jazz mentioned evil. Anyway, I don't think it's evil. I see it has having some kind of issues if all your human interactions involve manipulation or swaying someone's mind. That doesn't enter in my life.

Updated On: 3/31/13 at 08:54 PM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:11pm

Perhaps "sway" wasnt the right word. All human interaction *does* however result in both people making some kind of internal change as a result — it may not be a huge one, like Ann Coulter suddenly seeing the light about gay marriage — but all interaction does result in some sort of modification in perception. Just the simple fact of my saying "The sky looks unusually blue today" will alter the way you look at the sky, if only for the reassurance that you were right about seeing it that way too. This is how we learn and develop.

[all that jazz]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:11pm

Jane, I did say my views were unconventional.

From where I see it everyone manipulates, some people do it conciously and others do it without realizing it.

Nobody is forcing you to believe anything. Gav jus posted some information, and I posted my reaction based on what I iterpreted from it, which could be very different from what the post actually meant.





Updated On: 3/31/13 at 09:11 PM

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:17pm

frontrowcentre2 - The wonderful thing about boards is that you can ignore posts that you don't like or feel they are lame.

Yankeefan7... Thanks, and yes, of course, I am aware of that. But this particular fan's "polls' seemed to be asking legitimate questions (favorite cast album etc) that I thought would lead to interesting discussions, but as you can see by reading his introduction to each one it was their attempt to make it yet another WICKED thread. I don't recall if I had evens seen the show at the time, but my response led to a nasty reply (the writer accused me of being "creepy" for remembering all their posts. I didn't remember I just cut an pasted since they all came in series posted in one day.) As I explained in reply, I don't really care if someone loves a particular show...I just felt the thread headings were deliberately deceptive.

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:25pm

all that jazz- you now said your views are unconventional, it seems that a few posters agree wholeheartedly with those views, so perhaps they really aren't so unconventional.

"Nobody is forcing you to believe anything. Gav just posted some information, and I posted my reaction based on what I iterpreted from it, which could be very different from what the post actually meant."

No one CAN force me to believe anything, and the fact that Gav just posted some information, etc............... is what we do here. I and everyone else is always welcome to add input to anything posted here. And that's what I did. I like to do that, in case no one ever noticed, LOL.


Thanks for your input Sean. We just disagree.

Updated On: 3/31/13 at 09:25 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:28pm

Gaveston wasn't saying that human interaction is based on malice. It's not "evil" if you're trying to get someone to agree to, say, go get lunch at a certain restaurant. Or to do the dishes. Or compliment your outfit. We phrase things a certain way, color our inflections, alter our body language, etc. so the other person will feel compelled to concur or acquiesce. It is manipulation, but not with the negative connotation it implies. ...most of the time, for most people.


And your views on humanity aren't unconventional.

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:30pm

My problem with Wicked is many of Schwartzes lyrics and Winnie Holtzmans inconsistent rushed book.

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:35pm

" if you're trying to get someone to agree to, say, go get lunch at a certain restaurant. Or to do the dishes. Or compliment your outfit."

If those examples are what you all are talking about here, then we are on totally different pages. Or planets. I call those topics that you mentioned everyday types of conversations. LIGHT conversations. I don't look into them deeply enough to categorize them as swaying or manipulating, or whatever else you all are calling it. that's where we differ. viva la difference!

[all that jazz]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:36pm

I respect your opinion, I'm not saying you shouldn't express it, by all means please do!

My post was in regards to the the assumptions I thouhght you made about my own human interactions. Now reading again your post I see that you were speaking in general terms, not at me. So I apologize if my answer was disrespectful.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:36pm

It's light conversation but it's still one person trying to convince another. Maybe I'm just coming at it from an actor viewpoint.

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:41pm

all that jazz-thanks, no prob.

Now, Kad, lol. This is all semantics. When I hear the word "convince" it brings to mind more force than just "suggesting" like a restaurant, or what to wear.

If I'm trying to convince someone of something, yes, I call that swaying or manipulating.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:42pm

But we agree on the inherent point: there is benign "suggestion".

[Jane2]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:44pm

ha, yes, benign is what we want!

[all that jazz]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:56pm

Kad, I agree that we all manipulate people on a daily basis, not nessecarily based on malice, but rather lightly, I'm pretty sure as well that was what Gaveston was referring to. I don't believe that's evil but that it comes from our darker side.

To me, my views aren't unconventional, and maybe to many people on here they aren't, but to most of mainstream society they are.

I also tend to look at everyday situations from the writer's as well as the actor's viewpoint, which usually doesn't turn out well with other people.

Updated On: 3/31/13 at 09:56 PM

[tazber]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 9:56pm

Regarding the thread topic:

I don't really see that much hate. Wicked's backlash period has long since passed. Most people I know (me included) find it to be a thoroughly mediocre show.

But a lot of people come to theater (and this board) through experiencing this show so it's all good.

The only threads I see on Wicked these days are ones started by and with posts by fans of the show. Detractors have long since gotten over "hating" on the show.

[Emma White]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 11:17pm

"I remember when people fell in love with musical theater and became fans of musical theater, not obsessive fangirls who scream and squeal like pigs being brought to slaughter whenever they see even a mention of the 269th Elphaba replacement. "

I think things happen in phases. When I was younger, the only musicals I had seen were Mary Poppins, The Sound of Music and Godspell (which I adored but that's beside the point). I discovered Wicked when I was 11- and fell head over heels in love with it. It was all I listened to. I fangirled 24/7 and thought Idina Menzel was the best singer in the history of the universe.
And then time passed. I started to get interested in musical theatre as a whole. I discovered Sondheim, and Cole Porter, and Bernadette and Patti, and then I discovered the lesser-known musicals, and became a bona fide musical theatre geek. And look at me now - 15 years old and I'm still that weird kid in the back of the class who makes weird references nobody understands.

I do believe that eventually, 80% of Wicked fangirls will, like me, realize that it's not that great, and there are shows 100 times better. The other 20% will like Wicked forever, because it's their kind of musical. And that's okay too! To each his own.

[K8eeyore]

Posted: 3/31/13 at 11:46pm

I'm pretty much "meh" on both the musical and the novel. I read the novel first, and thought it had an interesting take on Elphaba, but the last quarter of the book gave me a case of narcolepsy. Interesting idea, but didn't make me want to read any of Maguire's other books.

The musical was decent, and I have several songs in rotation on my iPod. The ending threw me for a loop (had to go back to the novel to make sure I was remembering the ending correctly). And the animal rights plotline sucked in the show. But I don't hate it. Like I said -- meh.

[GilmoreGirlO2]

Posted: 4/1/13 at 10:13am

I, personally, love “Wicked”. I can understand and recognize its flaws and the other issues people have with the show, but, I am able to connect with and care about the characters so much that, for me, they are minor flaws that don’t affect my experience enjoying the show. I feel like the music expresses the emotions of the moments so well and I find it extremely easy to quickly love these characters and root for them.

I also appreciate that it has two strong, female leads (and, I agree with much of the feminism ties to the show that have been mentioned earlier in this thread). I think it’s great that so many non-theatre goers and children have connected to the show and it makes them excited about going to the theatre. And, in my mind, there is more substance in this show than many of the other “mainstream” musicals that non-theatre goers might see.

I never put this show into the category of big, flashy musicals in my mind. When I think about it objectively, yes, I understand that it IS one. The “Defying Gravity” lift, “One Short Day,” etc. However, when I think of big, flashy musicals I think of shows that are big and flashy just to be big and flashy and the over-the-top aspect doesn’t necessarily support the show. Which is why, in my mind, “Wicked” doesn’t fit into this category – I feel like the grandeur moments of the show are completely motivated to help fully express the story (okay, maybe not the “One Short Day” guys with the crazy necks, but everything else).

I read the book after seeing the show and have since read the whole series. I love the book(s), as well. I just think of the book and the musical as two different entities and I can appreciate both for what they are. I do, however, think they should skip the idea of making the musical into a movie and just make the book into a movie (or miniseries). I am not sure how the musical would translate to film, but I do think the book could be brilliant onscreen.