which is better: the book? or the musical?

[broadwaybaby86]

Posted: 8/3/05 at 7:29pm

i am one of the biggest wicked fans in connecticut. i know that the musical was based on the book- i have not seen the book, i just know it exsists, though i have been trying to get my paws on it for months!!! but, just out of curiosity, for those who HAVE read the book and have seen the musical, what do you like better and why?

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/3/05 at 7:30pm

You read books.

And can buy it easy from amazon.com

[Aigoo]

Posted: 8/3/05 at 7:34pm

A book is a book.

A musical is a book, a score, performers, set, and costumes.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 8/3/05 at 7:34pm

Every bookstore I've been in in the last couple of years has had stacks and stacks of the novel in stock. It's one of the biggest selling books of the last decade and is still in the top 50 on some best seller lists.

Where have you been looking?

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/3/05 at 7:35pm

I think she is referring to the novel goo...

[Patronus]

Posted: 8/3/05 at 7:37pm

Here is another thread from earlier this week about the book and whether you should read the book or see the musical first.

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?boardname=bway&thread=861393

[broadwaybaby86]

Posted: 8/3/05 at 7:38pm

maybe i havent been looking hard enough, but i no the two books stores I go two (walden books and some small shop w/used books) do NOT have it in stock!

[Aigoo]

Posted: 8/3/05 at 7:39pm

Yeah, I know, Nard. So I assume we're comparing the plotline of the novel and the musical?

Or the novel and the musical themselves? Like I said...the musical has SEVERAL elements, whereas, the book has...text.

[Thenardier]

Posted: 8/3/05 at 7:40pm

My book has music.

[marvin2]

Posted: 8/3/05 at 7:41pm

The book. I felt it was a stronger piece of storytelling than the musical, mainly because I thought the comedic relief used in the musical took away from the impact of the story while the book had little comedic relief, thus making the story have a greater impact.

[Yankeeboy]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 2:44pm

In my opinion, the book is a million and one times better than the show. The characters are far more developed, and there is much more time spent on the complicated backstories, relationships, and geography of Oz. Also, the book explores much broader and more profound themes than the musical could ever hope to touch upon. Read the book, and you'll realize how silly this show actually is.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 2:46pm

I see this book everywhere, including most used bookstores.

[TonyInATL]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 2:48pm

Amen, Yankeeboy!

And, this may be a little off-topic, but does anyone else think that the novel Wicked would make a great miniseries, a la Gulliver's Travels, except for cable?
Updated On: 8/4/05 at 02:48 PM

[Hanna from Hamburg]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 2:49pm

The book is HANDS DOWN better. But it really isn't fair to compare the two. Other than the characters and a few plot situations, the musical is a completely different entity. The book is a dark, political, adult story. The show is a musical, family production. Enjoy each for what they are.

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 2:54pm

I read the book before I saw the show. Liked (not loved) the book - dark and mysterious, interesting. The musical, by comparison, is fluff. I don't know what Schwartz was going for, but to me, it missed the mark by a longshot. I'd have liked it better had it been written by someone with the sensibilities of a Sondheim.

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 2:54pm

Oh, Thenardier...you never cease to make me giggle like a school girl

[Yankeeboy]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 2:59pm

I think Wicked, if done correctly, would make a phenomenal mini-series!

And yes, the book and the musical are two entirely different entities, but I feel as though the musical is a lot of green gels, a flying bubble, and little else. It lacks heart in my opinion, and it has since it premiered. That is not to say the cast is untalented or doesn't put forth phenomenal effort on a nightly basis, but rather that it seems as though this was a production always intended to be a long-running blockbuster like Les Miz, Cats, or Phantom. Because of this, a lot of artistic elements seem to have been sacrificed.

[keggss23]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 3:13pm

"I'd have liked it better had it been written by someone with the sensibilities of a Sondheim."

Can you imagine of Sondheim had done Wicked? I am getting chills just imagining how genius it would have been.

[TonyInATL]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 3:14pm

We're in agreement again, Yankeeboy.

Going back to Red's comments regarding Schwartz's score... although it's not one of my favorites, it's never really been the score that I've had issues with. I've always thought the book was the biggest problem with Wicked, the musical. Granted, it's a tough novel to adapt to a 2 hour musical, but I think that Ms. Holzmann's attempt fell tragically short. I felt that I was bombarded with glitz and special effects to mask the fact that the story was terribly weak, and I couldn't help but find the show annoying, and stupid. The guys in dresses and Cilento's vogue-ing choreography didn't really help matters, either. I wonder if they were targeting 12 year-old girls to begin with, maybe that's why I found it forgettably silly.


Updated On: 8/4/05 at 03:14 PM

[Hanna from Hamburg]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 3:46pm

I'm sure that targetting the tweens was the thought all along. Since Winnie's writing style is especially geared to that audience (teen girl coming of age material), hiring her to write the book certainly points in that direction.

[bella cantato]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 3:52pm

Yeah, it def was targeted at a tween audience. I mean, just look at the lyrics-- very cliche. "Something has changed within me/Something is not the same/I'm through with playing by the rules of someone else's game"

That aside, I still love it =) Not bc I think it's a magnificent work of art, but because I love stuff that makes me happy and feel all warm inside and Wicked does that.

[Yankeeboy]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 3:53pm

And yet, look how much money it's going to make. This is why we're hurting for a new Broadway renaissance, because the shows that seem to make bank are geared towards markets where artistry isn't a top priority. There have been legitimate shows in the past several years, but on the whole, even the legit shows are splashy spectacles (Millie, for example). Pearls like Parade and Urinetown seem almost like anomolies.

History shows us that after a national tragedy, Broadway trends are geared more towards escapist musicals. I think we're long overdue for an innovation of the genre, the likes of which we haven't seen since the 1970's.

Yes, I know I went off topic. Sue me.

[WickedGeek28]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 4:04pm

I like the show's storyline better. It's clear and simple and makes a great show. I also really enjoy the novel, but there are many different themes and political ideas, it's deep, but makes for a good read. I suggest it.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 6:01pm

I think Wicked visually is a very stunning show. When people say it isn't very "artsy" and its just a big splashy musical, I mean i guess it is, in terms of budget. But I think the sets and costumes are amazing. I also really liked the choreography.The choregoraphy really captured the idea that these kids (in the begining of the show) are still in college and still inmature. As for the score, I think its great. I know everyone has their opinions, so don't think i'm trying to "bash" anyone, but I really love the show and can't wait to see the tour cast when it comes to Atlanta.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/4/05 at 6:52pm

Libraries are nice, too...