Wicked - What Do People Have Against It?- Page 2

[zoraksferal]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 6:51pm

I personally adore the show. Yeah, a lot of the set is overdone, but to me, that adds to its appeal. The lyrics to some of the songs (All of "Something Bad" and the "Bridges you've crossed you didn't know you've crossed until you've crossed" line in Thank Goodness) are just... "Horrendable". The hatred people seem to have for it is unfounded. Since when do we treat a musical we dislike as if it were Hitler? This show appeals to a major amount of people, even to those who normally dislike musicals, and pulls them into Broadway to see it (or a tour city). I can understand people disliking the show, especially to those more die-hard theatre people who look for more in-depth shows, but the raw hatred of it seems more overdone and unnecessary than the gears and dragon in the Gershwin.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 6:52pm

The book was brilliant.

The show is nothing like it.

The book was not about 'girl power' and the show is.

It's over-produced and they think that by having everything BIG and LOUD, no one will notice all of the flaws.

[defyingravity07]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 6:57pm

Divaaaaa, did you go see Star Trek in character?

[log13124]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 7:01pm

I find this really interesting and I appreciate the people that have let this thread be intelligent discussion, unlike some previous ones.

Honestly, when I first heard the soundtrack, I really liked Wicked. When I saw the show, a little less. When I read the book, even less again. I was imagining a little more tying the show together in between songs, and there really isn't a lot of that. The book is a superior work, although I do have problems envisioning that telling on stage, selling to the masses. With all of this being said, Wicked is not a bad show. I'd even say that it is above-average (although not by a lot). It has definite flaws and could be a vastly different show.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 7:13pm

I actually never liked the score that much, even at first. The lyrics are terrible, the characters are flat, and I don't think it matches up well against the Wizard of Oz.

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 7:19pm

Honestly, when I first heard the soundtrack, I really liked Wicked.

There is no Wicked soundtrack.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 7:31pm

My issue is mostly with potential. Having read the book the musical had such amazing potential to be something more. Something much darker and politically motivated, but they chose instead to cater to the lowest common denominator. That was obviously the best choice in terms of profit, but artistically the show lacks integrity and the fault lies mostly with the creative writing both book and lyrics. They stand in shame compared to the novel.

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 7:52pm

I was a wee bit obsessed with the show and the music when it first opened. I saw it with the original cast and was thrilled. I saw it a second time on tour and was less impressed and will most likely see it again this fall. For some reason, I am not that excited about seeing it again. I still like the music but for some reason, the show itself has lost its "luster" for me. Not that I will suffer through the show, but I am just not dying to see it again!

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 8:23pm

Yeah, same here, uncageg. Especially since I've discovered so many other musicals that are even more amazing, you know?

[LadyDramaturg2]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 8:54pm

"My issue is mostly with potential...they chose instead to cater to the lowest common denominator."
I didn't work on this show, but don't you guys remember about the out-of-town Bad Buzz on this show -- and even when it came in to New York, the pre-opening whispers were about how L O N G it was, and needed to be cut, etc.
I think that those aspects of the set that remind us of the book, but are not well explained in the libretto of the show are remnants of a time when the show WAS more complex, but too long, and too convoluted.

I didn't think it was dumbed-down, I agree with the poster who said they are two different, though related, works.

I think it's funny when critics complain that it is a "pop" score, because the opening bars of the show could be from an atonal, 20th century Oratorio -- and for me, Defying Gravity is one of the best first act closers I've ever seen. I saw the show with the original cast, so maybe there's more screaming going on now versus then, but I saw a very powerful, traditional book musical that was very moving, and very entertaining.

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 9:02pm

and for me, Defying Gravity is one of the best first act closers I've ever seen.

You need to get out more.

[eatlasagna]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 9:44pm

i love the show... i will just say i agree with what everyone says... but sometimes i hate the show just for the fact that the hardcore fans bug the crap out of me and it makes me hate the show at times... sad but true...

[AndAllThatJazz22]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 9:46pm

I really loved the cast recording for Wicked. I saw in New York last year and went in so excited and left completely disappointed. I was just waiting to be blown away and was left completely cold. Even the songs I loved seemed dull on stage.

[LadyDramaturg2]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 9:58pm

[blaxx]: "You need to get out more."

How'd you know?

[zamedy]

Posted: 5/15/09 at 10:08pm

So many people here have made so many good points about the holes in the book... some that I didn't even realize.

When I finally saw WICKED on tour, I liked it, but I certainly wasn't as blown away by it as many casual theatregoers were. Friends who rarely go to theatre couldn't believe it when I said it was 'good.' However... like it or hate it, give this show props for pulling in people to the theatre/Broadway that may otherwise spend their money elsewhere. It has some very addicting songs ("Popular," "For Good") and will likely become one of the top 10, perhaps five, longest shows in Broadway history when it's all said and done.

With that said, I think the show has almost a sense of overall arrogance to it... a feeling of "we can get away with underdeveloped characters and a swiss cheese book by just covering it all up with flying monkeys and witches and screaming dragons. Oh and since all these teeny boppers and their parents are eating it all up, we will continue to charge outrageous ticket prices just because WE CAN." You've made millions WICKED and will continue to make millions for years to come. Now give us a bit of a break. We're in a recession for goodness sakes! Do your tickets really have to be so DAMN EXPENSIVE! Sorry. Arrogance. Is Mario Lopez running your ticket office?
Updated On: 5/15/09 at 10:08 PM

[Marianne2]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 12:19am

I just saw it for the first time back in April. I thought it was good and enjoyable, but it was a lot of fluff. Granted, I do like fluff too, but I didn't find the jokes to be extremely funny. And I do agree that some of the dialogue and lyrics are cheesy. I did try reading the novel, but I couldn't get past chapter 3. But from what I did read, the show seems a little more family friendly than the novel was supposed to be.

I think what ruined it for me is knowing that a lot of the characters were in the Wizard of Oz, and how that was not reality. Well, at least if you go by the 1939 movie, everyone seems to be people that Dorothy knew from Kansas.

[jejr]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 12:26am

I got the CD just before I was going to see the show as I wanted to be familiar with the "music". I really did not like a single song. Terrible lyrics and BORING music. I have not played the CD since seeing the show.
I HATED the original novel. While set in OZ it basterdized the original stories. There was one large section that debated the ideas of good and evil and had nothing to do with the actual story. Elphaba was a really bad and unfeeling character who does not even recognize of accept her own son. So many things wrong with the book. It would have been impossible to translate that book to the stage - maybe as a tragic opera, not as a musical.
I found the musical to be a mess. I had heard that there was more about the dragon and clock in the show during the tryout and the set was not changed when those elements were changed as completely new sets would have been too expensive. If this is true, it explains some obscure things.
It was a complete cop out the way they showed Dorothy and the house falling on the witch. Not even a clever idea. The whole witch coming out of the floor to reunite with her "love" was enough to gag a maggot. It was only done to satisfy "happy ending" for a musical. "Defying Gravity" was painful to the ears - not sung but shouted and put in to end act one with a bang. If she had flown on her broom it would have been much more effective.
One reason the show is so successful is that teen age girls flock to the show. When I saw it the theater was packed with them and they shreiked at everything. What I've heard from my adult friends is that it was "cute" but not great.
It is no wonder that the 1000% better "Ave." won the Tony over "Wicked" that year.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 12:27am

Well I'm in the camp that despises Wicked. My feelings went far beyond not enjoying it and into truly hating it. Now certainly part of it is a case of my overblown expectations, but fact of the matter is, I really did hate it.

It's essentially like getting a big shiny box on Christmas, with beautiful wrapping paper, flourishing ribbons, and a flamboyant bow. And then you open it up to find absolutely nothing inside.

It's all so contrived and kitschy. It's not dramatic and it's not funny. It's so overblown and it really turned me off. Some of the music is of course catchy, but most of it is just so gloopy and generic.

I mean, I enjoy fluff too (I fully admit to loving 9 to 5), but this is fluff with pretension, which is like the worst thing possible.

And it also totally ****s on the movie. I honestly don't even like The Wizard of Oz (odd since I love old movies, musicals, and Judy Garland), but this has such an utter disregard for it's inspiration material (obviously this my issue with the book as well). I mean (SPOILERS!) the witch actually went through a trap door and ran away with the scarecrow? PLEASE!
Updated On: 5/16/09 at 12:27 AM

[Sally]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 12:45am

I saw the show not long after it opened in Chicago. For me, it was an enjoyable evening in the theater, but I didn't feel drawn to go see it again.

I enjoyed some of the songs---the usual ones that are either loved or hated: "Defying Gravity," "Popular," and "For Good."

I read the book before I saw the show, but I wasn't enough in love with it to care much that they changed it. I haven't read the author's follow-up novels. The book was deeper and more serious than the show. Yes.

It was OK with me that they made the show lighter and happier than the book. If a lighter, happier musical is made of War and Peace or Hamlet, I will no doubt jump on the "Isn't it awful" bandwagon, but Wicked? Eh.

[zamedy]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 1:20am

I agree TalkinLoud. We're supposed to believe that the 'Wicked Witch of the East'.. an iconic American villian... actually fell in love and ran off into the sunset with THE SCARECROW? And.. what.. the Scarecrow was actually some singing big shot named 'Fiyero,' not really a scarecrow? So he lied to Dorothy in the movie? And don't even get me started on Boq and the Tinman. PLEASE! The movie is iconic. It came WAY before your silly little musical. I ain't buying it.

BTW... funniest line from the entire show... "Blonde."

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 1:23am

The West, love, not the East.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 1:36am

And.. what.. the Scarecrow was actually some singing big shot named 'Fiyero,' not really a scarecrow? So he lied to Dorothy in the movie?

Did you actually see the show?

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 2:16am

I find it odd that she sets the Scarecrow/Fiyero on fire in the movie when she's supposedly, you know, in love with him.

[blaxx]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 2:21am

Just for this moment, as long as you're miiiiiiineeee...

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 2:26am

One thing I will say is that I feel as though the show works better on tour. If you REALLY breakdown the Wicked SCENIC design, it isnt all that complicated.. a few set pieces.. mostly a large, bare stage and good lighting. On Broadway, the set looks MUCH bigger, but it is essentially decoration to cover the large, plain walls of the Gershwin. The tour, obviously, does not have that need, so evenrything is "zoomed in" in a way, so you actually see the SHOW and the SCENIC design.. not over produced and overly complex efforts to hide bare walls.

I like the design in some ways, but it is fundamentally flawed, as has been stated here and elsewhere, because the entire motif is the Time Dragon Clock.. which IS the book, yet doesn't recieve any note in the musical.

The writing in the show is, at best, forced. However, with a great trio of Elphaba, Glinda and Fiyero, it is much easier to sit back and enjoy... but they have to be GREAT. Sadly, few Glindas even qualify as GOOD because they spend the entire show mugging and giving so much ham that they CDC should name them a one woman Swine Flu epidemic.

Unless I have a major reason too, I loathe seeing Wicked more than once, maybe twice, each year because the fan base for the show is so.. disturbing. I mean, really? A candle lit vigil because Menzel fell through a trap door?? And look up a few things on certain forbidden sights and read the comments from Wicked fans.. it's utter nonsense. They way they worship Menzel and Chenoweth.. with no real reason given.. it's kind of freightening.