So I finally saw "Wicked"

[LAmber]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 9:35am

And I guess I just don't get it. Am I the only one?

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 9:46am

Nope.

I loved it, and have seen it many times .... but there are also lots of people out there who have NOT liked it.

Sorry you didn't enjoy it ...... bottom line, I guess, is that I had a good time and you didn't.

That's ok .... there are shows that have had lots of love from people that I couldn't stand, so it all evens out.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 9:48am

No, you are not the only one. It is highly overhyped and not all that "good" (technically). BUT I personally enjoy it for what it is. It's a big, colorful, flashy monster of a show, but it's fun and the songs are catchy. It is what it is. You'll find for the most part on this board that it's not that well-liked. Partially due to the fact that the show is now almost 6 years old so any "hype" on here is pretty much dead.

Ironically, my boyfriend and I are in search of tickets for this Saturday's night show. I just got a really huge craving to see it. Haha.

Sorry you didn't enjoy yourself.

[blondebaby589]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 9:50am

You must be new here.

[LAmber]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 10:08am

I really want to give it another chance. I think the allegory is beautiful, and for that reason alone, I'm glad it's so "pop-u-lar" but the music didn't seem, well, very much like musical theater music at all. To me, it didn't sound like Stephen Schwartz either. I would like to see it again, but I don't want to pay $70 again. Anyone know the best day to do the lottery? And where are the lottery seats anyway?

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 10:13am

The best days to do the lottery are during the week. Tuesday-Thursday. Even then, you're still looking at upwards of 200-300 people. But your chances are best then. The lottery tickets are located in the front row of the orchestra. You have to crane your neck a bit, but it's a great view. And for only $26.50.

As for the music, it's completely bubblegum. It's a relatively hollow score. If/when you go back, just go to have fun. Because that's literally all it is: fun. It's pure fluff.

[LAmber]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 10:17am

Fluff it may be, but I've done a little reading about the music since I saw it, and there are some interesting things that I missed, like the "unlimited" theme (which I can't remember) containing the first seven notes of "over the rainbow" and some other musical points of reference. I would like to listen to the entire score again with leitmotifs in mind. I'm determined to get more out of this show.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 10:18am

Hey, whatever it takes. It's extremely enjoyable in my opinion.

Best of luck!

[Elphie3]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 10:32am

I know others on the board will disagree with me, but I think part of it now is that the show isn't what it was...I believe it was something quite special with the original cast.

[LAmber]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 10:36am

But how different could it be? The material hasn't changed, has it?

[bwayguy22089]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 10:41am

No, the material hasn't changed (except for some lines here and there). However, I must agree. The original cast made the show a "Broadway show", not a "Theme Park Musical", which is what it is now. I must say though that I think Nicole Parker is a wonderful Elphaba. Everyone else though simply goes through the motions.

[LAmber]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 10:45am

I did get the feeling I was watching a Six Flags action-adventure spectacle.

[snowskittle]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 10:58am

What production did you see?

[JenNYferTheatrical]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 11:37am

I would agree with Elphie3 somewhat - I'm not sure how the production is now, but the original cast was absolutely magical.

[LAmber]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 12:17pm

I saw the current Broadway production this past Friday evening.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 12:20pm

I still haven't seen this show.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/10/09 at 12:31pm

I've never heard of Wicked before but this thread's making me curious.

[brettystar]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 12:34am

This musical is a phenomenon that many appreciate and others don't. I have seen many musicals and this is one of my favourites.
First saw it in NY two years ago, then saw it in LA last year. Since it has opened in Melbourne, Australia I have seen it many times.
Every time I see this I discover something different - such is the detail in this production. Details such as the Emerald City folk actually wearing parts of animals on their costumes (bearing in mind that animals are considered equal to humans for part of the show -eeek). Also that the Wizard is the only one whose costume is completely black and white (an ode to the old MGM film and an in joke by the costume designer).
People think there are holes in the story and there are one or two but I can pretty much give a decent answer to anyone if they have any questions that don't make sense.
I think the musical is pop but musical theatre sounding enough.
I think this show is more multilayered than the knockers think.
There have also been several changes to the script and direction over time and it is currently in great form (well in Melbourne at least). I have seen a bottleg of the original production and there have been a LOT of changes since then.
Shoot me down, I do not care, I think Wicked is fabulous!

[BillFinn]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 12:50am

I can understand that.

I was a fan of Wicked ever since the tryouts in San Francisco and then a few years later (actually last year) I caught the London production with Diane Pilkington and the famous Kerry Ellis. Completely underwhelmed. It wasn't that they were bad performers or weren't trying; the magic just wasn't there.

The original Broadway cast created these roles and made them their own. The replacing casts keep falling into THEIR molds and THEIR character choices and none of that ever comes off naturally. It comes off as parody, schticky. Half of the reason Glinda is what she is on stage is because of Kristin Chenoweth's talented improvisation and ideas (which she contributed during workshops). Same goes for Idina and Norbert. When Jennifer Laura Thompson joined, I felt like Glinda was a completely different person with a different form of comedy. And it wasn't even comedy ALL of the time, it had some really poignant and true moments.

Maybe the problem is the current casts of Wicked are playing for the "character" and playing for the jokes as opposed to finding their journey and using that as a guide to pinpoint their character's objective. Etc. Trying to find the honest moments in their characters and connecting through that?

[wizard2joe]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 12:52am

The only thing I like about this show is the sets and the original cast.
Thats my opinion and I respect other opinions as well so I wouldn't hold it against you.

[Pianolin717]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 12:55am

I've seen it twice. My first time, it went by very quickly and the whole cast (the 2nd National Tour) was GREAT! Except, the Understudy for Boq was not good at all. Then, I went back 2 weeks later. The regular Boq was back in, but the s/b for Marcie was on. Carrie Manolakos was AMAZING! I loved her more than I did Marcie, however, the first act seemed to drag and drag but it was still good. Also, it was fun to see it with someone who hadn't seen it before because she got really into it. And as far as casts go, I think some of the replacements are much better than the original. Take Helene Yorke. She was phenomenal. Her voice is gorgeous.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 12:59am

Ha! Namo is Wicked Curious! I was once Wicked Curious too, even scared at first but it was wonderful!

[BwayTday]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 1:21am

I disagree with the replacement's just filling molds and not finding there journey's. Many of the replacements make it there own and act the journey quite well

It isn't all fluff, there is some social commentary, but it's on the surface, but its there

The score is pop, but has musical theatre themes, but its not Sondheim

It's a big, fun musical, and I personally love it

[WishingOnlyWounds2]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 1:54am

The unlimited(s) having the first notes of Over The Rainbow, hmm...

6 times and I never picked that up.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/16/09 at 5:50am

I think it's a case of time revealing the flaws. For the most part when it hit the scene 5 yearsa ago....it was exhilarating; a jolt of adreniline (sp?).

Now I think we see it's flaws and simply want it to be "seen" for the bubblegum show it is...instead of the second coming.

I saw the original cast. I loved it. So much that I didn't want to see it again...because I doubted that I would enjoy it as much again. And I was right. I took my kids 8 & 12 to see it just 2 months ago. They loved it. (They liked it the most of the three shows we saw...barely putting it above STOMP and WAY above Shrek.) I was bored.

My sister saw the show about a two years into the run with her then 16 year old daughter. They loved it so much, they stopped at the b.o. and got tickets to return so that she could bring her son. I think they went back 6 months later. Same thing: just "meh".