wicked Book vs show — Page 2

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#26

wicked Book vs show

Posted: 2/12/08 at 9:14pm

HoshiForever, I gotta' tell ya' that I've read this book more times than is probably healthy.

However, that first time through was a real slog. Granted, I was sixteen, but it seemed so dense.

But now it's just fun discovering the nuances.

"Y'know, I think Bertolt Brecht was rolling in his grave."
-Nellie McKay on the 2006 Broadway production of The Threepenny Opera, in which she played Polly Peachum

#27

wicked Book vs show

Posted: 2/12/08 at 9:17pm

AMEN to the film adaptation based on novel being a visual feast.

Gonna have to have my mom bring this over to Rome (where I'm studying for the semester) when she visits in March because I need to go for my second reading of it (its been 4 years!)

#28

wicked Book vs show

Posted: 2/12/08 at 9:37pm

Wow... And I thought the resurrected post from 2005 was going back in time... :)

Experience live theater. Experience paintings. Experience books. Live, look and listen like artists! ~ imaginethis
LIVE THAT LESSON!!!!!!

#29

wicked Book vs show

Posted: 2/12/08 at 9:43pm

I had a hard go of the book, but loved it once I got over the hurdles. The two are very different

Join me on journey that is the development of my first musical! Twitter/Insta @gimpymusical FB: Gimpy The Musical email @gimpymusical@gmail.com for more info!

#30

wicked Book vs show

Posted: 2/12/08 at 9:58pm

Wow... And I thought the resurrected post from 2005 was going back in time... :)

Yeah, I was just going to create this thread, but, instead, I was patient and I used the search engine and found it all the way back in '03.

The More You Know...

"Y'know, I think Bertolt Brecht was rolling in his grave."
-Nellie McKay on the 2006 Broadway production of The Threepenny Opera, in which she played Polly Peachum

#31

wicked Book vs show

Posted: 2/12/08 at 10:05pm

I absolutely LOVED the book. If you haven't read the book, but seen the musical, you should know that the novel is much darker and less happy-go-lucky than the musical. One of my major gripes with the musical is how the Animal/animal subplot from the novel was introduced in the 1st act, and then almost completely dropped in the 2nd act. If the book writer considered it too 'deep' or 'dark' for the musical than it should have been cut out completely. And as far as the ending goes, I agree with Roscoe that the ending for the stage show is up there with RENT as one of the most ridiculous cop-out endings ever in a musical.

As far as some other differences, the novel covers in-depth the story of Elphaba's childhood, and also develops the characters of Boq, Fiyero and Nessarose more fully than the musical does. And like someone else already said, it really is Elphaba's story. Glinda is really almost a secondary character in the novel, although I can understand that they needed to beef up Glinda for the musical.

That's not to say I don't like the musical, I just think that the creative team missed a few opportunities to do something really poignant, instead of "Disneyfying" the material so it's more suited to families.

"You drank a charm to kill John Proctor's wife! You drank a charm to kill Goody Proctor!" - Betty Parris to Abigail Williams in Arthur Miller's The Crucible

Updated On: 2/12/08 at 10:05 PM

#32

wicked Book vs show

Posted: 2/12/08 at 10:21pm

It's cool bustopher. :) I didn't realize the search feature went back that far!

I enjoy both of them for what they are. I knew going in that the musical wasn't totally true to the book, so I guess I just made them two separate creatures in my mind.

Experience live theater. Experience paintings. Experience books. Live, look and listen like artists! ~ imaginethis
LIVE THAT LESSON!!!!!!

#33

wicked Book vs show

Posted: 2/12/08 at 10:35pm

As long as this is bumped...

I think the book would work better as a straight play. The dialogue is written perfectly for it. (Example: The scene where Boq falls out of the pear tree..."Behold the male beast roaring in the jungle for his mate. See how the female beast giggles behind a shrub while she organizes her face to say, Pardon dear, did you say something?") Of course, in the bargaining you would lose the incredible details and Maguire's commanding tone. But you already lose that with a musical.

I don't understand how they could look at the novel and think it was perfect for a musical. Then again, they changed it so now it's only 20% like the book.

#34

wicked Book vs show

Posted: 2/12/08 at 10:39pm

Although now it'll probably never happen, I would kill to see a movie adaptation based soley on the novel. There's the potential there for a great film if the right director and screenwriter got hold of it.

"You drank a charm to kill John Proctor's wife! You drank a charm to kill Goody Proctor!" - Betty Parris to Abigail Williams in Arthur Miller's The Crucible

#35

wicked Book vs show

Posted: 2/12/08 at 10:45pm

Well, people always talk about a movie/miniseries.
I don't think it will ever happen, thanks to the musical.
It's all just talk. I would like to see it happen though.

I think the novel is better on merit, but I like them equally.
The book has problems of its own. (In the Vinkus, Part IV)

Anyone read the sequal? Now that should not have been made.

#36

wicked Book vs show

Posted: 2/12/08 at 11:12pm

I for one am fascinated with everything to do with Oz. I just love Oz, can't get enough of it.

Aside from my interest in Oz, I found the book extremely dry. Sure the ideas mentioned were great, but the story just did not carry, and I found my self bored throughout the text, although slightly interested to find out what else happens in Oz.

The musical was also sort of... happy go lucky, compared to most of the stories of Oz that I have heard (aside from the wiz. of oz). Especially the ending.

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95