Wicked - What Do People Have Against It?- Page 3

[bwayguy22089]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 2:30am

I too am glad that this has remained an informative discussion.

I really, really enjoyed Wicked when it first came out. I am a huge Wizard of Oz fan, which I think really added to the excitement. I hadn't read the book, so I had nothing to compare it to. I thought the music was very different from what I had usually heard. I can't really describe it. It's a huge sounding score. I thought Idina and Kristin were both wonderful in their roles. Unfortunately, the show seems to have gotten a little stale as time as gone on. The ensemble members are picking random chords to sing, the dancing is all over the place... many of the cast members seem bored. I must say though that Nicole Parker is a fantastic Elphaba. She is actually rather refreshing.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 2:36am

To add, I find it funny that this show is not a 'name' driven show, so they can put any person in any company, and while there are certainly exceptions, I feel that the tour and other US productions to be better cast as a whole..

[Jenna Maroney]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 11:57am

I haven't seen Wicked and don't have much interest in it. I heard an excerpt of "Popular" on a radio ad five years ago and it made my ears bleed (though I suppose the song is supposed to be annoying?). But now that Wicked has become a prominent part of the Broadway landscape, I would give it a go if it ever ended up on TKTS. But it baffles me that after all these years it still never shows up there.

The craze does remind me of the Phantom phenomenon - it's the timeless story of an outsider looking for love. It's a visual feast. It's critic-proof (although POTO did manage to scoop up quite a few Tonys). And just as POTO survived after Crawford left, Wicked is still going strong without Eyedeeeena and Cheno.

But still - if I'm not mistaken, people were easily able to get tickets for POTO five years after it opened. This doesn't seem to be the case with Wicked! Perhaps this is a product of the Internet age: It's easier now for rabid fans to spread the word, debate their favorite witches, make stupid images for broadwaysecrets and compete with each other over how many times they've seen the show. POTO just had Xeroxed fanzines.

[uncageg]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 9:56pm

Regarding the sets/scenic design. That may be part of the reason I didn't enjoy it as much when I saw the 1st tour. I saw it on Broadway the first time I saw it with the original cast. Something just seems to be missing for my with the tour. Plus, Stephanie J. Block just seemed to be walking through the show the evening I saw it. I will say that I was very excited going in to see the touring production. I took a group of 25 people to see it and they all loved it.

[broadway122]

Posted: 5/16/09 at 10:16pm

One thing I still don't get is what the hell does Fiyero do once Elphaba leaves after "As Long as You're Mine" He like gets pulled up stage then he slams his lantern down. What is this supposed to mean?

[homeimp]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 1:47pm

There are always people against every show, good, bad or indifferent. I equate them with the older kids at any public school in a northern state. Every time the little kids build a great snow fort after a storm, the older kids come around to tear it down. It's just in their personality to be against things. But about Wicked, I'm with you. I have read the original book , and as written it is absolutely not musical material. I am in awe of Winnie. How she could look at that novel and see something completely different from the author's vision, something that could work onstage while still keeping the basic set-up of the story. It is a fantastic job of musical theater book writing.

[logan0215]

Posted: 5/17/09 at 2:52pm

The novel of Wicked is an amazing work, and I feel one's expectations vary depending on many factors:

- If you saw the show before the sensationalist following it garnered, you may have a more tried and true love (or hate) for it.

- If you read the novel beforehand, you may feel it was a great homage and musicalization OR a bastardization of an amazing political thriller dressed up in familiar clothes (namely, the Wizard of Oz franchise).

Now, the musical basically does what the novel did: take a familiar franchise and characters and weave them into a plot and story all their own. This was achieved in the musical by taking elements of the Wizard of Oz and intertwining them with lighter plot points of the novel and plucking new characters out to create new "villains" and love interests.

This all all fine and dandy, but it all comes down to execution. Fiyero's character is so terribly one-dimensional, Glinda is given a faux-journey that only seems complete because she gets a shmalzy "friendship" ballad at the end & Elphaba's almost pales in comparison to Glinda's. Musically speaking, what is good is pretty damn good and the show is crafted so that the "throwaway" numbers are well masked by said "hits." The crown jewel of the show, "Defying Gravity," serves its purpose as being the orgasm of the first act and allows us to see the ambitious belty diva Elphaba. It's also the "money shot" vocally that causes the audience to swoon.

For all intents and purposes, each character has reached their pique at this point having been able to display their cuteness (Popular), their bravado (Fiyero in the 14 minute epically too long "Dancing Through Life" which squeezes about 15 plot points into one song) and their struggle (Elphaba's Wizard & I and I'm Not That Girl). From there on out it's basically all love-triangle and cover-ups. Hold on to your seat.

The bottom line is Wicked is a gateway drug. It has slowly replaced (and now filled the void left by) RENT as a catchy show with classic Broadway potential but packaged in shiny, bubbly, power-ballad to the point of American Idol-esque entertainment that allows new theater fans to ease into an affinity for showtunes rather than going to Sondheim cold turkey.

I had posted an analogy on a thread that is now in BWW archives somewhere about the "gateway drugs" of Broadway. Most people who are in the 20-25 y.o age group were introduced to RENT, saw it 20 times and used to listen to it on a shared walkmen during High School drama rehearsals. They then had their Sondheim awakening and became snobs who deny ever having the screename RENThead1986. The 14-19 set had the sore displeasure of seeing RENT on film first, then possibly latched on to Wicked. Many of them used Spring Awakening as their segue from Wicked into more classical musical theater. Sidenote: these 2 age groups somehow also made a habit of latching on to destined to/already failing shows for some unexplained reason (Lennon, The Wedding Singer, All Shook Up) seeing them multiple times to perhaps keep them alive.

For as much bile people have toward the success of Wicked, it serves its purpose, is entertaining when you're planted in the theater, opens the door for many new theater fans and is at the same time very, very flawed.

[sealionspeed]

Posted: 5/18/09 at 12:50am

Oh logan you're such a wonder. Marry me?