does anyone realise how bad wicked's book is?

[sweeneytodd2]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:34pm

Wicked's score is pretty decent, but the book sucks. It does not clearly explain what animals and Animals are (I only understood because a friend who had read the book told me about it.) It seems like the book tries to have a political message, but I haven't found one in it yet. But the main thing is the wizard. I've heard people saying George Hearn and Joel Grey weren't good in the role, but how can you play a character who keeps changing. From one second to another he is good or bad. They change his role when it is conveniant for the plot

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:37pm

let's just keep beating the already pulverized dead horse.

[sweeneytodd2]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:39pm

let's

[J-Pill]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:47pm

Well, for the record, you are absolutely correct.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:49pm

Even though Cats is right and this issue has already been hacked to death, I couldn't agree with you more. The only character in the show I found to be well written and developed was Glinda's - and that's why anyone who plays Glinda shines above anyone else, atleast in my mind. I couldn't enjoy Idina, Joel, or Norbert in the show because their characters are so poorly, poorly written. It's the biggest fault of the show. I'm not on here to bash WICKED just for the sake of bashing it - which is the reason that many WICKED fans use - and there's no doubt that it's an enjoyable family show. It's very annoying to watch, because there is such potential in the show for it to be amazing and brilliant, but it just never reaches that level. The music is the strongest aspect of the show, and that's not saying a whole hell of a lot to begin with. The direction of the show is also questionable, but then again Mantello probably did the best he could with a show that on paper seemed doomed - he's even said himself that when the show goes on the road he hopes that he is allowed to make the changes he wanted to make for Broadway, but wasn't allowed. Holtzman definitely deserves never to work on Broadway again, atleast as a writer. And if she does, maybe her and Jerry Zaks can go off and start their own terrible talent-free theatre company.

[ljay889]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:52pm

I'd like to see you attemp something better.

I'm not saying Wicked's book is AMAZING. Just people love to knock it, but I'd love to see them write the book for Wicked.

[sweeneytodd2]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:54pm

I'm not saying it's bad compared to a book I would write. I'm saying it's bad compared to other ones.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:54pm

That's a tired pointless argument. You can still critique something that you yourself might not ever do. Otherwise, that would mean that every movie critic shouldn't be allowed to review a movie unless they could write something better. Same in every aspect - it doesn't make sense.

[sweeneytodd2]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:55pm

agreed

[ljay889]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:55pm

I understand what you are saying, Munk. I see your point.

[bjivie2]

Posted: 2/2/05 at 6:56pm

Perfect example of why we should use the search function! But it's true, Sweeney.

[QHDramaQueen]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 5:41am

I very much disagree with you however you are entitled to your opinon. However my still favorite book of a musical is Sweeny Todd or Into the Woods.

[gherbert]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 7:16am

There are two sides to the coin.

First of all I have to agree, the one character that is really written well is Galinda. Elphaba was enhanced by Idina's portrayal, but on paper is actually a really bland character. The lines are also steeped in cliches.

But on the other hand, Winnie Holzman succeed in making a pretty stark and LONG book into a 2 1/2 hour musical that is actually entertaining.

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 7:49am

Realize*

[yarn769fink034]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 8:10am

I love WICKED but the book was lacking

[Sargar]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 8:31am

I do agree that if there is a weakness in the show, it's probably the book (and the lack of development of fiyero's character), but as someone else briefly mentioned, it was probably an enormous task to adapt a musical from a novel that is so political, layered, and has a VERY different tone from the musical. I did see the musical before reading the novel, and the only thing that I felt I didn't really 'understand' was the Animal and animal thing...it did seem like something that was just thrown in there, it made a lot more sense after reading the novel. However, I think the objective of the musical is much different than the novel, and holzman (sp?) had to figure out what would translate well to a musical that was obviously going to be family oriented, and cater to people's memory of the wizard of oz. I think someone's comment about how she should never work in broadway again is a little harsh, she's obviously a very talented person (look at my so called life!) just my two cents...

[luvWICKED416]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 9:08am

Ahh... you guys are getting riduculous. There's nothing left.. let it go!! What's next? Debating the service of the bathroom staff? How the Wicked playbill sucks? How their escalators don't go fast enough?
Give it up, honestly, no one wants to hear it anymore.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 9:16am

luvWICKED416 - Discussing the merits of the book is hardly a triviality. It can in no way be compared to the bathroom staff, playbill or the escalators and the comparison is petty. If you don't like it, don't read it. There are far fewer threads started about not liking something in Wicked than there are those started about liking it or its cast. If no one wanted to hear it, then there would be no response.

[Justice]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 9:26am

Sweeney...

The differences between animal and Animal are quite hard to describe within a two hour and forty-five minute show without confucifying the audience. There's so much going on, that that is the least of all problems. Hell, if they went there, why not discuss Ozma, and how she has been locked away somewhere.
When comparing both books, you have to realise that they are both very different from one another. They changed the plotline to make it simple so that the "Oh My God! Wicked is SOOO Awesome!" fans can understand them without them having to "think" about the show. Keep in mind that there are a lot of hidden undertones within the show that one would have to pick up by seeing the show more than once.
I, personally, enjoy Wicked. I think the simplifications make it an easier musical to watch than if they had stayed with the original idea. My mother hated the actual book, and I had to beg her to see the show. She loved it.
It's entertaining.
Imagine if Les Miserables had stayed true to the book, explaining every single detail - then it would have been a three week musical instead of a three hour one.
That one even changed the book around a bit.

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 9:27am

Personally, I believe that the scores sucks just as much as the book.

[Katecab99]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 11:14am

people are kidding

[InfiniteTheaterFrenzy]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 11:57am

I really don't think the book is completely without merit...
It succeeds in a lot of ways.

[luvWICKED416]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 12:08pm

MisterMatt- I'm not saying there is anyhting wrong with disscussing the book... i'm glad people are. But there were two previous threads about it in the past couple of weeks, so discussions have already been held... and it's blatently obvious that people just attach as much nagative hype around anything Wicked related to seem cool... when in reality, no one cares, and it gets rather annoying.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 12:36pm

luvWICKED416 - Any Wicked thread pro or con can be found in abundance on this site. Obviously, people care because they still discuss it. New people arrive and are not aware of previous discussions or participated in them. I will discuss things more than once because it is not always the same people discussing them or it is a subject I am fond of discussing. If you don't like it, then you simply do not have to participate. Why spend so much effort to read and post about something you don't want to discuss at all? There are always phonies who put down anything popular and their ignorance or snobbery is usually thinly veiled and they will get called out for it.

For every complaint about repeat threads there is a potential topic wasted by someone who would rather complain than simply start a new topic. The complaints are as abunandant as the threads, yet far more ridiculous. If you don't want to take part in the discussion, then don't post anything. If you don't want to read more Wicked negativity, then don't purposely read a thread with a subject title such as this. If the topic has already been discussed and you don't want to discuss it or read about it again, then ignore the thread because obviously, there are those who do not feel the same as you and they wish to discuss it. And unless you feel that you somehow control everyone's feelings on the matter or are an omnipotent being, then you cannot possibly say "no one cares" with any authority whatsoever.

PS - I'm sure you have good intentions and are a lovely person, but fair is fair. People can post what they like.

Updated On: 2/3/05 at 12:36 PM

[Feodor Sverdlov]

Posted: 2/3/05 at 3:30pm

Thank God. I thought we may get through a whole day without a new WICKED thread. That was a close one!

Updated On: 2/3/05 at 03:30 PM