Wicked vz. WOZ in London

[musicalperson17]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 6:20pm

Do you think that the wizard of oz will offset wicked's sales?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 7:07pm

They are in two different countries.

That's like asking if the London production of Phantom is taking aways ticket sales for the Las Vegas production.

[musicalperson17]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 7:09pm

i meant wicked in london :p sorry for not clarifying

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 7:41pm

Last year people wondered if Love Neve Dies would offset Phantom of the Opera, but it didn't.
Updated On: 1/29/11 at 07:41 PM

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 7:43pm

They're two different shows so no I don't think so.

[HummingAlong]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 7:53pm

Interesting question. I think if anything the shows will actually play off each other nicely. From a business perspective, the shows present some nice bundling and marketing possibilities. (Buy a Wicked T-shirt, and get a WOZ program signed....blah blah. The theatres could work together on that.)

In the same way that people watch parts 1 and 2 of movies again right before part 3 is released, I think interest in Wicked will be piqued again for those who haven't seen the show in a while. Also, this is the perfect time for people who have never gone to see Wicked to finally get out and see it. Just another reminder of its existence.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 7:57pm

Wicked doesn't need to do any cross-merchandising with anyone at this point. If the show was struggling, it'd be a great idea.

[HummingAlong]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 8:03pm

No, it doesn't NEED to do it. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be a great value-added benefit for customers. Businesses can do things for consumers to provide value, if they'll add to the bottom line somehow, as a show of goodwill and to endear people toward the product. Wicked doesn't need to do this, obviously, but in the same way that you can have your picture taken with the Wicked costume items in the lobby here in NY, it might just be a fun thing that would continue to bring in revenue. That's never bad, no matter how successful you already are...

But, adamgreer, you're also correct... :)

[jdtp12]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 10:38pm

I think it may be similar to when Love Never Dies opened: I remember a lot of people saying "I think I'll do a Phantom matinee and a LND evening show." Some people may see them together since they have a parallel story.

[musicalperson17]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 11:06pm

which would you see first? wicked to see the other side of things and then WOZ too see how it was covered up or vice versa?

[jdtp12]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 11:10pm

My guess would be Wizard of Oz first. You'd see the whole story, then it's kind of like -but here's what really went on. But you could justify both ways around I think.

[musicalperson17]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 11:21pm

that's what i find interesting too. i mean with LND and POP its a no brainer. too bad i don't live in london :P

[HummingAlong]

Posted: 1/29/11 at 11:47pm

If I hadn't ever seen Wicked, I'd see WOZ first and then Wicked, as that's how most people experienced the progression of the stories and it just feels "right."

It would be interesting, though, to see WIcked first and then go into WOZ with some fresh memories or "what really happened." I feel like I could call a few more things to light and have a new experience with WOZ.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 1/30/11 at 12:09am

Except that Wizard of Oz IS the real story, and Wicked is the story given to it by someone completely else...

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 1/30/11 at 12:40am

It's the real story only in the minds of those think of it as the real story.

There is no definite answer you can give on what the "real" part of them are.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/30/11 at 2:21am

I would say to see The Wizard of Oz first just because a lot of jokes in Wicked seem to assume that the audience is already familiar with the 1939 movie, which I guess most people are. But, that's the movie. I can't imagine what kind of bastardization Andrew Lloyd Webber has in store for ticket buyers.

[Sally]

Posted: 1/30/11 at 4:49am

They are very different stories and, I assume, will be very different shows. I'm already familiar with the Wizard of Oz story and was before I saw Wicked.

It's been a while, but aren't the characters in Wicked quite different from the ones in WoZ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Wizard in Baum's story and the movie and shows (so far) based on it is a shady character but not evil. The Wizard in Wicked is pretty much a bastard and the villain of the story. The two Witches are not the same at all, and so on.

I don't think seeing one show to help with the other (in whichever order) makes much sense.

[HummingAlong]

Posted: 1/30/11 at 7:31pm

Sally - i don't think it's that the stories are that different, really. I think the shows should be approached such that the characters are really the same people, but each show is just exposing a different side of the characters.

To address the people that say the the WOZ is the "Real" story, I always think of Wicked as being the "real" story - in the same way that people who know someone intimately can tell you who the "real" person is, not just the show they put on for the world to see. For me, it just always felt like Wicked was saying "yes, but this is what these people were REALLY like."

[CockeyedOptimist2]

Posted: 1/30/11 at 8:32pm

Really not liking the WOZ acronym.

[HummingAlong]

Posted: 1/30/11 at 9:40pm

yeah i know, i was thinking the same thing, it's just so much easier...but it is pretty nerdy and it isn't quite accurate...

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/31/11 at 8:40am

The Wizard of Oz, besides being the original, is "the fairy tale."

Wicked, being the gritty reboot, is intended to be "the expose."

It's like the contrast between the fairy tale "The Three Little Pigs" and the popular children's book "The True Story Of The Three Little Pigs."