Disney artist makes a "Wicked" proposal

[monorail91]

Ohh that's right. My apologies, I'm not super familiar with the musical. I've seen it twice, the first time a few years ago, and the second time last August, though I zoned out because I didn't enjoy it as much.

[SpringHeelJack]

Ohh that's right. My apologies, I'm not super familiar with the musical. I've seen it twice, the first time a few years ago, and the second time last August, though I zoned out because I didn't enjoy it as much.

No, it's cool, I actually didn't recall the silver / ruby thing until I saw it twice. See, for me, the first time I saw it, I didn't have too strongly an opinion one way or another. I thought it was thoroughly mediocre with some good performances, some neat set pieces and a couple of solid melodies. Then I read the book and got really annoyed by how much better it worked there. True, the book is overly long and weighed down by a whole load of excesses, but it's a neat take nonetheless. When I saw the show again this past summer, I kept having these nagging things hit me as I watched and ended up trying to make heads or tales of it the entire subway ride back to Queens to little success.

[SWillie!]

That's a fine argument, and I didn't mean that basic opinions are the only things that hold any weight in a discussion. Your points are exactly the kind of thing I was expecting though. I won't try and argue with you about the actual points, as they are all true and if I was into that sort of thing, we could have a field day talking about all the things that "don't work" or are inconsistent.

It's simply the fact that it annoys me personally when people read so far into something. It's a show, and it's made strictly for entertainment's sake (and money, obviously, but that's not what we're talking about here). I don't see the point in pointing out all the flaws in something. Just sit back and enjoy it for what it is. I mean if that's your thing that's all well and fine... it's just not mine. That's what I meant when I said I wasn't interested in that kind of argument. I just like enjoying things with people as opposed to picking things apart with people. Life's more fun that way. At least for me.

But your points are solid. Thanks for a real response instead of the crap that some people on this board would have come at me with.

[The_Iceflash]

Both but more the musical. I don't like what the book did to the characters of Elphaba (IMO, the best thing to come out of the book was her name.) and Glinda. To me, the two as they are in Wicked are completely out of character and I don't like how they are portrayed. The musical IMO was more disastrous because of the music. IMO, it contains some of the worst music I've ever heard in a musical. Defying Gravity makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

I can't help but feel like if you had never heard Defying Gravity until it was released in a Disney film, you would absolutely love it. How can you possibly not like that song? I don't get it.

Easy, I don't like the music or the lyrics. I absolutely can't stand how it's sung (oversinging-overkill). I think the lyrics were poorly written and tune is mediocre at best. The part with the words "Defying gravity" itself is atrocious. Defying Gravity to me is a medicre song. I first heard and hated the song before I knew of Wicked so it doesn't matter where I would have heard the film.

And no I don't hate it because it was in Wicked (since that seemed to be implied). I hate the song, period.

[Disney Duster]

What did you think was disasterous fan-fiction, the book or the musical or both?

And how do you think any of it was...a disaster?

Both but more the musical. I don't like what the book did to the characters of Elphaba (IMO, the best thing to come out of the book was her name.) and Glinda. To me, the two as they are in Wicked are completely out of character and I don't like how they are portrayed. The musical IMO was more disastrous because of the music. IMO, it contains some of the worst music I've ever heard in a musical. Defying Gravity makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up...
-cut-
...I don't like the music or the lyrics. I absolutely can't stand how it's sung (oversinging-overkill). I think the lyrics were poorly written and tune is mediocre at best. The part with the words "Defying gravity" itself is atrocious. Defying Gravity to me is a medicre song. I first heard and hated the song before I knew of Wicked so it doesn't matter where I would have heard the film.

And no I don't hate it because it was in Wicked (since that seemed to be implied). I hate the song, period.

I'm glad you explained yourself this way. Now, as a very big Wizard of Oz fan myself, and someone who likes both Witches and Dorothy a lot, which MaGuire changed a lot, I do have some problems with is changes just like you do. Glinda was, in actuality, in the original book and the movie, a wise woman who was better than the Witch of the West, and I didn't like how he kind of cast both her and Dorothy in negative lights. And I admit, the name Elphaba is one of the best things from the book. But so is the emotion, depth, and overall story. I cared so much for Elphaba’s character, who seemed real to me. What I'm saying is even though I don't like the portrayal he and the musical did, I still know it's just a portrayal, and I was so moved by the book and musical, I still love it. I can even see his portrayal as being something possible for those characters, it works enough. But it doesn't mean it's the real deal. I just enjoy it and the music. I understand how "Defying Gravity" and other songs aren't everyone's taste, but there's no accounting for taste either. I can see how the songs can be aggravating but so can lots of musical theater songs and I like the songs so much I wouldn't want them any other way, at least not majorly different. “Defying Gravity” has a magical, strange sound too it, which fits Oz and a magical flying witch to me. And you know, the witch herself had an irritating voice in the movie, so…hehe. I think you might at least like “Thank Goodness” and “I’m Not That Girl”.

Now to SpringHeelJack.

Plotholes and inconsistencies can indeed be good reasons to say something is bad sometimes, but let's see if any of the ones you pointed out really are flaws this time.

SPOILERS for those who haven't seen the whole musical, of course.

First, the "child of two worlds" thing didn't come from nowhere. In the book, it is indeed more than just suggested that the Wizard had sex with Elphaba's mother and made her green with the bottle. In fact I believe the idea is the Grimmerie she reads from was a book from Earth and that's the only reason she could read it, because she had the Wizard's Earth genetics. In the musical, this is all kept, and while it makes sense the Wizard has the Grimmerie, I understand the words either were always some Earth magic language or the musical used it's own "possibly Earth, possibly Oz" language because really, both views work, and it doesn't matter. It's a magical, "invisible occult world" langauge anyway.

I believe that the book said that at least Boq was only half-Munchkin. In the original Wizard of Oz book, it is unclear as to whether the Tin Woodsmand used to be a Munchkin or not. Either way, he could have been made into a taller man when he was made tin, as the same could be done with the spell for Boq. The original book's illustrations even made the Tin Man look a little small and closer to Dorothy's height, but there was a weird mini-look to a lot of characters in those illustrations.

I could see the Tin Man as starting a mob as, after all, in the movie he does go to save Dorothy from the Wicked Witch, and in the books and movie he helps Dorothy on her way to kill the Wicked Witch.

As for setting the Scarecrow on fire, if her melting was all a trick, couldn't the fire have been one, too? Same with him pretending to be afraid of the Wizard's head, too. He wouldn't want to blow his cover.

I do admit that the libretto is full of probably a few too many Wizard of Oz jokes and generally bad jokes, but I certainly am amused by a few of the jokes, and by joe, if there weren't at least some humorous references to the Wizard of Oz, it would feel lacking in the obvious.

I can't believe you don't think the costumes are good! Some of the costumes really bring a lot to the show, or are just so dang fun! I have a few problems, like certain details of Elphaba's final dress, and Glinda's final dress not being pink when it was supposed to be pink according to both the movie and MaGuire’s book, but what the costumer did was very good and clever. She realized that Oz, as originally written by Baum, does have details that would be from the Edwardian period the book was written in. Oz is like our world, but twisted in a way, so she twisted Edwardian costumes. She also asked little girls what “good” looked like to get an idea how Glinda should appear to everyone, and decided Elphaba was connected to the Earth while Glinda to the sky. I suppose Elphaba could have been both the Earth and the sky, but it just makes sense and I don’t know what else the costumer should have done.


It is true that the silver slippers turn red in the musical, and we never see the shoes again since the part where they turn red, but I’m pretty sure the idea is they turn ruby permanently. I think this idea was very clever. In MaGuire's book, the slippers are so shiny and peculiarly colored it's hard to tell what color they are, like they change color in the light, kind of a weird way of making up for the fact they were originally written silver and the movie made them ruby. So I guess that way MaGuire could have some people say they looked silver and others say they looked ruby. But I still like the musical’s idea better since I am not too sure how his color-changing shoes idea would really work.

In the musical, I believe that Elphaba appears in Munchkinland after Glinda is laying sunflowers at Nessarose's grave, and she comments rather cynically on the flower-laying, startling Glinda, as though appearing for the first time. It's left up in the air if Elphaba was there before, or just witnessed what happened magically or hidden before appearing to Glinda.

MaGuire's book does not fit completely or only in L. Frank Baum's book, which I read many a time in my childhood! For one, the fact that Elphaba is, you know, green, which is from the MGM movie, though L. Frank Baum's book doesn't describe the Witch's skin color if you must be picky. Glinda's dress is also pink during the time she meets Dorothy (she tells Elphaba in passing) which follows the book, but he strangely says she has blonde hair which is different from the original book and movie, where it was red. I guess in the movie it's strawberry blonde.

If MaGuire's book was following Baum's completely, she would have one eye, though I think their may have been a part where she was slightly blinded in his book, but there is still one thing missing, and that's that if it followed Baum's book, the Witch would have made Dorothy and her friends her slaves for quite a few days before her melting.

Also, in the book, Elphaba, when I'm pretty sure she is going rather mad, thinks the Scarecrow could have been Fiyero in disguise coming back for her. She proves to be wrong, but, well, you know how that was used in the musical.

I thought making certain characters into the famed TinMan and Scarecrow was clever and just good for the musical. It's good to tie things together. Boq wouldn't have been of much use if he didn't end up with the arc he got. Admittedly, the Scarecrow could have been left alone if the musical ended as a tragedy like MaGuire wanted, but eh, the whole thing is a revisionist take.

And that's the main point of what I want to say. That this whole thing is a very revisionist take and alternate view on not only The Wizard of Oz but also MaGuire's book. You know that it is almost impossible to perfectly translate one medium into another well while keeping everything the same. They had to change some things to make it work, and I knew that. I can even see the show as something like the “real” version of what happened, like the movie sugar-coated things, like the story was changed as it was recounted by people. I think the book even mentions the story changing as the Ozians talked about it, not dissimilar to how Elphaba was called Wicked in the first place. But I am not entirely sure on that.

I mean, if it really kept to the movie, Glinda’s dress would have been pink instead of blue, and other details that didn’t need to be changed to make an interesting story.

But speaking of an interesting story, that’s the real point. That they had take a few (okay, a lot) of liberties to make a gripping, moving story, and even if you weren’t that gripped or moved by it, come on, can’t you at least admit it’s very interesting? But I, and many others, were gripped and moved by the musical. Even though I do not agree that Glinda or the Wicked Witch of the West would be like they are in either the musical or the book, I still love both takes. I was very touched by Elphaba, and cared immensely about her (even to the point of feeling she was very much like one of my best girl friends who was also smart, outspoken, and yet unpopular, and who read the book and liked it, and Elphaba, too). And I was touched by her and Glinda’s relationship, which is a more complicated and less clear-cut friendship in the book, but still. And the musical touches me in other, different, powerful ways.

It may not have the best lyrics, so the lyrics and book lines don’t match the hype, but the love for the musical is not about the lyrics or lines, it’s about the great story and characters. Okay they’re not written the best, oh well, I see it like I see Rent: not written the best, but the ideas, heart, and passion are what’s really important and what really move you, and truly do make them great musicals.

If you can’t see past technicalities to love a show, in particular this show, all I can say is that means you'll be missing out on something. It’s almost like there’s very few shows that can live up to how great you think musicals should be, and 80% of them are all Sondheim. That’s just so limited.

Do I think the show should have tried to be better with both book and lyrics (and some designs of costumes?). Yes. But do I think they are so bad, that I would want the show to be changed drastically from what it is, or do I think it would be much better if it was drastically changed from what it is? No. As it is now, most of all that is in the show is how I think it should be.

Maybe the show could have been more like MaGuire's deeper, well-written book and still worked as a musical, but even when I think about how to make it more like the book, I don't know if that would actually work as well as the current musical works.