Why is Wicked that popular?- Page 4

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 12:24pm

"Wicked is probably the single greatest thing that has happened to Broadway and for the advancement of musical theater across the world."

So this is what white knuckling feels like.

Updated On: 5/1/14 at 12:24 PM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 12:45pm

WICKED proves it's not about aptitude; it's the way you're viewed.

[ggersten]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 12:45pm

"[A random question: were villain backstory properties really popular before WICKED, and might it have contributed to their current popularity? ]

Frank Wildhorn's Dracula (2001 opened regionally, opened on Broadway in 2004) gave a romantic angle to Dracula with a view to making him more sympathetic, but Wicked seems to be the first one to do a backstory and make the villain a heroic protagonist and opposed to a villain-protagonist. I'm not sure about Jekyll and Hyde who's both a villain-protagonist and a heroic protagonist, but that was kind of built into the story, not really a revamp of the original story. If there are earlier examples I'd love to know about them.

There was a French Canadian Dracula musical where Dracula was given a backstory and was a villain-protagonist but even more sympathetic, which was in 2006. It doesn't seem to have much influence from Wicked though.
Team Starkid in Chicago made a parody of Aladdin which was an homage to Wicked.
And we have the new Maleficent movie coming out which may have her be a protagonist, whether heroic or not or to what extent remains to be seen.

So Wicked seems to be the pioneer, and probably has contributed to popularizing villains being transformed into heroes or anti-heroes. "

Years before Maguire wrote "Wicked" John Gardner wrote "Grendel" which is Beowulf from the vantage point of ...well, Grendel. Then there was a short story written as a response to "16" by Maureen Daly. And then there's Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead which focuses not on the villain Claudius, but, well, those two other guys. Copyrights being what they are - it is tough to tell the copyrighted story from the vantage point of another character in that original work. While Maguire's book steered well clear of the MGM movie, the stage version had its issues with MGM.

[WickedGinger]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 12:52pm

Any show that makes people interested in the theatre is a good thing with me.

I personally love Wicked and I have to be honest it was because this show I started my obsession with the theatre. I am now part of an amateur dramatics club and go to watch some sort of show on a monthly basis!

[hundredsofhats]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 1:15pm

[Years before Maguire wrote "Wicked" John Gardner wrote "Grendel" which is Beowulf from the vantage point of ...well, Grendel. Then there was a short story written as a response to "16" by Maureen Daly. And then there's Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead which focuses not on the villain Claudius, but, well, those two other guys. Copyrights being what they are - it is tough to tell the copyrighted story from the vantage point of another character in that original work. While Maguire's book steered well clear of the MGM movie, the stage version had its issues with MGM.]

Thanks for pointing out the retelling of Beowulf from Grendel's view and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. I guess with Beowulf and Hamlet, they're public domain so the copyrights aren't as much of an issue? What did the stage Wicked do to run afoul of the Wizard of Oz?

[Any show that makes people interested in the theatre is a good thing with me.

I personally love Wicked and I have to be honest it was because this show I started my obsession with the theatre. I am now part of an amateur dramatics club and go to watch some sort of show on a monthly basis!]

Well said about any show that gets people to be interested in theater, and good for you about joining your drama club!

[SNAFU]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 1:23pm

Wicked could not use items that were only in the movie and not in Baum's book. The ruby slippers, the Witch's Hour glass, crystal ball etc. Not sure how they got away with Glinda's Bubble.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 1:26pm

"While Maguire's book steered well clear of the MGM movie, the stage version had its issues with MGM."

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, since the whole premise of Elphaba's differenc from the rest of society, her green skin, was pure MGM and had nothing to do with Baum. He also took the concept of G(a)linda being from the North instead of the South from MGM, since in Baum's world Glinda did indeed rule the land of the Quadlings. And it's been a while since I read the book, but I seem to recall Maguire implying that the slippers took on a much more ruby tone to them after Glinda enchanted them for Nessarose. I think he just lucked out in that it would be harder to go after words on a page as the MGM trademarks on Oz have to do with the physical look of the items. Disney, for instance, has said they had to be careful about what shade of green they used on Mila Kunis to avoid trouble with MGM's trademark, and I would assume the make up designer on Wicked had to do the same (unless that's one of the things MGM went after them for).

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 1:36pm

Thanks for the serious LOL today. I couldn't believe this thread not only started but has this much conversation.

To Wicked, Cats or any other "What gives a show longevity and repeat offenders?"
1. If the seats are being filled?
2. If the tickets are being purchased (not comped)?
3. If the cast and crew are employed?

Then

Who cares if it is a blank wall being painted white?

There are many shows that won Tony awards, had famous actors etc and I think they suck but again - if my questions above are answered - who cares.

I am happy people are attending live theater and they are employing people!

As for Wicked specifically...it has a plot that people like, it has songs people enjoy.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 1:58pm

SNAFU, I would guess while she's spewing bubbles all over the stage, the design of it is far enough away from an actual bubble with how mechanical looking it is to place them out of harm's way in terms of any infringement. But I do wonder of MGM had any issue with Disney over the bubble travel sequence in Oz, since it's a much more direct (almost exact) visual reference to the 1939 film.

And one of those little things I've always wondered, just how much did Disney have to pay MGM to use the ruby slippers in Return to Oz back in the 80s?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 2:13pm

If I am not mistaken, there is no rule that you can not reference or parody, bit there is rule for how similar it can be. They also can not exercise total control over color, though to a degree, they can.. As in the case of Kunis as the Witch.
The Ruby Slippers are a bit of a different animal as they are pretty THE most famous piece of film memorabilia. Therefore, they keep a TIGHT leash on those and always have. As far as other things, many of the "MGM" identified parts of the Oz film were actually stolen from previous adaptions of Oz and several other films and tales, so I imagine MGM is wary of going after others for some of those... They did start taking more of a stand a number of years ago in order to make a case for renewing the copyrights.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 3:08pm

"[A random question: were villain backstory properties really popular before WICKED, and might it have contributed to their current popularity? ]

Don't forget Springtime for Hitler.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 3:43pm

There was also a much lesser known origin story for the Witch of the West publish YEARS before Wicked.

[Hairspray0901]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 5:37pm

What bothers me most is that people often ask me for show recommendations because I see so many. I generally give them the less-popular ones that I adore that's only chance for survival is word of mouth (i.e.: First Date and Bridges) and I always get the response "Well, what about Wicked? I heard that's amazing. I'd like to see Wicked". My response is always "Wicked will be there for 10 more years, [this] won't", followed by an eye roll.

I don't get the hype. I've seen it 3 times (but I see many shows more than once). The production is beautiful, I love the music, it has funny moments and the story is very well written in my opinion but...it really isn't that much better than everything else I've seen. I love the show, I'm not bashing it, I too just don't understand why it's so popular.

I think as others have said, the marketing has got to be it, plus, it doesn't hurt that the show has been touring for years and now has several productions going on abroad

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 5/1/14 at 5:52pm

"Years before Maguire wrote "Wicked" John Gardner wrote "Grendel" which is Beowulf from the vantage point of ...well, Grendel. Then there was a short story written as a response to "16" by Maureen Daly. And then there's Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead which focuses not on the villain Claudius, but, well, those two other guys. Copyrights being what they are - it is tough to tell the copyrighted story from the vantage point of another character in that original work."

Another example would be Susan Kay's "Phantom," which tells the Phantom of the Opera's backstory, most influences coming straight from Leroux's original novel.

[broadwayfever]

Posted: 5/2/14 at 4:13am

For those of you who can't seem to understand why Wicked has been so popular for the past 10 years, you probably never will. Most people that fall in love with Wicked are people who relate to it or connect with it on an emotional level and some of us just find it very entertaining. My daughter loves Wicked...but guess what, so does my wife, mother, and even my grandmother.

But you're not alone...keep in mind that many critics said that Wicked would never last on Broadway...boy were they wrong. There was even a NY critic who complained that there wasn't s single memorable song from Wicked...yes, he actually said that. He and they must be eating their words every time the see a Wicked sign or hear someone mention Wicked...lol.

Just keep in mind that Wicked has brought Millions and Millions of people from all over the world to see Broadway shows for the very first time...and that's a good thing.

[indytallguy]

Posted: 5/2/14 at 6:31am

"Just keep in mind that Wicked has brought Millions and Millions of people from all over the world to see Broadway shows for the very first time."

I'm sorry, but that's way too much hyperbole even if you love the show. I doubt there are millions and millions of people who specifically got on a plane and came to NYC just to see Wicked ... which is what your post suggests.

See it while they are in NYC on a trip? Absolutely.
Come to NYC specifically to see Wicked? Not nearly as many as you'd like us to believe.

[broadwayfever]

Posted: 5/3/14 at 10:24am

@Indy - "which is what your post suggests."

Not at all...you have to keep in mind that Wicked has been seen all over the World...not just NYC. I think it's been seen by close to 40 Million people now.

[JayG 2]

Posted: 5/5/14 at 11:36pm

It's success defies never mind gravity, but all sense and reason.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 5/6/14 at 12:15pm

It doesn't matter why it's popular. That question can be asked about a myriad of other shows. And whether or not it is a good show is highly subjective. People who seem to loathe it treat Broadway as some typoe of temple, where only serious, thought-provoking shows should exist and to Hell with everything else. That thinking is practically contrary to the history of Broadway. It is purely about entertainment. And Wicked entertains a lot of people. What it has going for it is the familiarity not only with the main characters, but with the "type" portrayed. It's based on a book that satirizes one of the most familiar stories in publishing, and is accessible and relatable younger theatergoers. And thanks to marketing and popularity, it has become a "brand", with such a familiar title that tourists see it because they "know" it and view it as a safe bet for an evening's entertainment. That's why.

[someone.else's.story2]

Posted: 5/6/14 at 2:11pm

I am not a teenaged girl. I had a BFA in acting before I ever saw the show. I actuall didn't see Wicked for years because as a rule, I dislike fluff and usually dislike Disneyesque musicals. For reference, I like dark shows, adore Sondheim and Passion (which many hate) is one of my favorite shows ever.
I went to see Wicked expecting to find it frivolous and laughable. I was very surprised at how much I (in my mid-late twenties at the time) connected with the story. I think it's a beautiful story about friendship and most women I know who have seen it feel a kinship with either Elphaba or Glinda-depending on their experiences.
Even my non musical liking boyfriend was surprised at how much he liked it and has now seen it twice.
I know its popular and this a target for criticism, but there is something special about the show and I do believe it's appeal goes beyond teenage girls and tourists.

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 5/6/14 at 8:00pm

^Everything about this lol
The show, in my opinion, is a show that kind of has everything a Broadway show should offer. It has spectacle (which the Land of Oz should have), it has characters the audience fall in love with, songs that advance the story along and has people buying the cast recording in droves, and has a story that people from the ages of 8 to 80 can enjoy and find something to ponder about.
I've seen WICKED a lot. And every time, I see a wide array of reactions. After the show, I typically see little kids singing/humming the songs and talking about the "scary monkeys" and the "big dragon", I see the teenage kids (both boys and girls) talking about the friendship and how they want to sing "For Good" for their Graduation, and then I see the parents talking about how the political atmosphere in Oz is similar to our own and how the power we give to officials can give them enough influence to sway public opinion for good or bad.
The show reaches out beyond "fluff" I think. I don't think fluff shows can really garner such a wide reaction from the audiences, and keep them coming back for more.