Rant about 'Wicked'
I went to see the musical 'Wicked' with my Dad tonight, and I just have to rant a little before I go to sleep. Let me first say that I thought it was well done all around; acting, singing, sets, costumes, and music were all great. I especially liked the big clockwork with the pseudo-roman numbering (e.g. IIII instead of IV) that went up to XIII. The problem I have is the story. If I weren't quite the geek I am I would have enjoyed it more, but it's like creating a musical based on the life of Saruman that shows different contradictory backgrounds for all middle-earth characters - it just makes my brain explode.
The story is based on a book I haven't yet read (something I will soon rectify), but which is based on another which I have and is very dear to me. If it weren't for The Wizard of Oz and it's 13 sequels I would possibly never become a fantasy/sci-fi fan, and this would likely cascade to result in an alternate future where today I'd be managing a Krystal somewhere on Florida.
It seemed like it couldn't decide whether it wanted to be based on the book or the movie. Mostly they stuck to the movie for the witch and Glinda, and the book for everything else. This made my head swim. For example, the witch is green like in the movie (and this in fact was an important plot point), but the slippers were silver like in the book. The munchkins were not midgets as in the book, but the flying monkeys were the witch's allies as in the movie (in the book, they came when called by a magic whistle 3 times per user, and Dorothy eventually got hold of them).
There were also unexplained things that mode no sense in the context of the play. In the Emerald City, they were given glasses to wear, but no explanation as to why. In the book, the glasses were required to make the quartz and glass decorations look like emeralds.
The origins of all the 3 companions (scarecrow, tin man, lion) were re-written to contradict the book. The scarecrow one also contradicted the movie as it was supposed to be her great love and not someone she'd shout "How about a little fire, scarecrow!" to.
Plus the whole "animals aren't talking much any more" basis for the plot seemed very contrived for a place that made even non-native animals like Toto into talking animals (in the later books, anyway).
OK, enough ranting for now.
The story is based on a book I haven't yet read (something I will soon rectify), but which is based on another which I have and is very dear to me. If it weren't for The Wizard of Oz and it's 13 sequels I would possibly never become a fantasy/sci-fi fan, and this would likely cascade to result in an alternate future where today I'd be managing a Krystal somewhere on Florida.
It seemed like it couldn't decide whether it wanted to be based on the book or the movie. Mostly they stuck to the movie for the witch and Glinda, and the book for everything else. This made my head swim. For example, the witch is green like in the movie (and this in fact was an important plot point), but the slippers were silver like in the book. The munchkins were not midgets as in the book, but the flying monkeys were the witch's allies as in the movie (in the book, they came when called by a magic whistle 3 times per user, and Dorothy eventually got hold of them).
There were also unexplained things that mode no sense in the context of the play. In the Emerald City, they were given glasses to wear, but no explanation as to why. In the book, the glasses were required to make the quartz and glass decorations look like emeralds.
The origins of all the 3 companions (scarecrow, tin man, lion) were re-written to contradict the book. The scarecrow one also contradicted the movie as it was supposed to be her great love and not someone she'd shout "How about a little fire, scarecrow!" to.
Plus the whole "animals aren't talking much any more" basis for the plot seemed very contrived for a place that made even non-native animals like Toto into talking animals (in the later books, anyway).
OK, enough ranting for now.