What Is This Feeling?
|
The Ongoing question : which is better?Ok, I will admit I saw Wicked twice on Broadway before I read the book. I tried before seeing it when I was 13, I couldn't get into it and I didn't understand the writing. Now 3 years later, I couldn't put it down after giving it another chance, and the show is alright and everything, but I believe Gegory Maguire's masterpiece is much much better. It has more depth, more developed charachters, and the musical is an extreme loose interpretation of the novel. Again, I do not mean to bring up sour subjects or be a bully. However, I really honestly think the nove l is much better. After reading it after the musical.
|
Salome
|
The novel is 100 times better than the [Mod edit - don't swear please] they put on stage.
the musical castrated the novel..removed characters,changed others..dumbed it down into a piece of fluff.
|
Felix Felicis
|
What I don't think people get is that the musical is not and adaptation of the novel.
Basically, all Schwartz and Holzman wanted to take was the conceit that Elphaba and Glinda went to school together and had a relationship we didn't know about.
That's pretty much it. In know way was it supposed to be a faithful recreation on stage.
|
Salome
|
| Felix Felicis wrote: | What I don't think people get is that the musical is not and adaptation of the novel.
Basically, all Schwartz and Holzman wanted to take was the conceit that Elphaba and Glinda went to school together and had a relationship we didn't know about.
That's pretty much it. In know way was it supposed to be a faithful recreation on stage. |
that combined with an awful score and weak script is why the musical sucks.
|
Mistress
|
Careful Salome, you don't want to be mobbed by angry/defensive fangirls.
|
Salome
|
let them try..i'm tough. grrr.
|
jayrad
|
It all depends on what you're looking for. The novel is an interesting idea to the story. The musical is as well. It's never once said that they had to go hand in hand. If I'm not mistaken, the musical claims that it's based on Maguire's novel. There's nothing mentioned about how the musical is the novel put on stage. The musical is good at what it's meant to be: lighthearted and fun. There's nothing too terribly deep, and that's all some people are looking for.
|
sopranodespair
|
I really love the novel. It was thought-provoking; it made me think. I also love the musical. I like both of them, but I think the novel is better.
|
What Is This Feeling?
|
Salome feels very passionate about the Arts and what is being showcased on Broadway. I completely can understand how something so loose from the orinal concept and a piece that is cramped up with poopy showtunes can get on some people's nerves. The hype of Wicked is through the roof, and it is making so much black capital it is a wonder why other shows, better in artistic quality struggle. She probably finds it frustrating. As do many others. I'm not saying for you to stop encouraging her to see things through a different perspective, but she is firm in her beliefs. I hate how many people loved the musical, read the book, and say: "I can't believe something so good came from a nove lof disgusting perversion." I'll end my rant now. I thought wicked the musical was visually splendid. There are so me songs I love, and i think Idina , Kristen, and a few others were talented. But overrall, it didn't deserve to win that year.
|
mastachen
|
| jayrad wrote: | | It's never once said that they had to go hand in hand. If I'm not mistaken, the musical claims that it's based on Maguire's novel. There's nothing mentioned about how the musical is the novel put on stage. |
I remembered when the musical first came out, it did claim to be based on the novel (and it still does on radio ads and whatnot). It only makes sense that people would expect the musical and novel to go hand in hand and see an adaptation of the novel, because that's how the show is being advertised to this day.
I personally like the novel better because I thought the musical (to use a British word that Wicked_boy taught me) was pants. For some reason, I felt like the show was treating the audience as if they were all stupid, especially in the scene where Elphaba and Glinda first met the Wizard.
|
^Defying_Gravity^
|
I don't particularly think one is "better" than the other. I agree that most people prefer one over the other, but one is supposed to be an emotional and dark novel, whereas the other is a more bright, modern musical. If the musical had been more true to the book, then I don't think that they would have had as good a ticket sales, because it wouldn't appeal to as many people. The book appeals to less people, but those who it does appeal to prefer it over the musical. If the musical was more like the book, then they would lose out on a large amount of their audience, the children and fangirls, and it would seem more out of place in modern musicals. It would have blended in fine at the time of Caberet and Sweeney Todd, but now, I don't personally think it would fit in with the general trend today.
|
Salome
|
| ^Defying_Gravity^ wrote: | | I don't particularly think one is "better" than the other. I agree that most people prefer one over the other, but one is supposed to be an emotional and dark novel, whereas the other is a more bright, modern musical. If the musical had been more true to the book, then I don't think that they would have had as good a ticket sales, because it wouldn't appeal to as many people. The book appeals to less people, but those who it does appeal to prefer it over the musical. If the musical was more like the book, then they would lose out on a large amount of their audience, the children and fangirls, and it would seem more out of place in modern musicals. It would have blended in fine at the time of Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd, but now, I don't personally think it would fit in with the general trend today. |
the novel was a best seller. if the musical were based closer to the novel and written by some good people like JRB,John Kander or perhaps Sondheim it would be am uch betterp iece. losing the fan girl base would be a plus.
|
jayrad
|
| mastachen wrote: | | jayrad wrote: | | It's never once said that they had to go hand in hand. If I'm not mistaken, the musical claims that it's based on Maguire's novel. There's nothing mentioned about how the musical is the novel put on stage. |
I remembered when the musical first came out, it did claim to be based on the novel (and it still does on radio ads and whatnot). It only makes sense that people would expect the musical and novel to go hand in hand and see an adaptation of the novel, because that's how the show is being advertised to this day. |
It depends on your interpretation of the word based. The musical is (very) loosely based on the book, therefore it's not wrong for them to advertise as such. You can also claim that the musical is based off of Wizard of Oz. Does one go to the theatre expecting to see Wizard of Oz? No.
When "basing" off of something, you're able to give your own spin on it. Sure, you should stick somewhat closely to the original concept. I highly doubt though that Maguire would've allowed the musical to go ahead and state that it was based off the book if he thought it was too far off.
|
What Is This Feeling?
|
| ^Defying_Gravity^ wrote: | | I don't particularly think one is "better" than the other. I agree that most people prefer one over the other, but one is supposed to be an emotional and dark novel, whereas the other is a more bright, modern musical. If the musical had been more true to the book, then I don't think that they would have had as good a ticket sales, because it wouldn't appeal to as many people. The book appeals to less people, but those who it does appeal to prefer it over the musical. If the musical was more like the book, then they would lose out on a large amount of their audience, the children and fangirls, and it would seem more out of place in modern musicals. It would have blended in fine at the time of Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd, but now, I don't personally think it would fit in with the general trend today. |
Bright? Your signature doesn't seem to agree.
|
mastachen
|
| jayrad wrote: | | mastachen wrote: | | jayrad wrote: | | It's never once said that they had to go hand in hand. If I'm not mistaken, the musical claims that it's based on Maguire's novel. There's nothing mentioned about how the musical is the novel put on stage. |
I remembered when the musical first came out, it did claim to be based on the novel (and it still does on radio ads and whatnot). It only makes sense that people would expect the musical and novel to go hand in hand and see an adaptation of the novel, because that's how the show is being advertised to this day. |
It depends on your interpretation of the word based. The musical is (very) loosely based on the book, therefore it's not wrong for them to advertise as such. You can also claim that the musical is based off of Wizard of Oz. Does one go to the theatre expecting to see Wizard of Oz? No.
When "basing" off of something, you're able to give your own spin on it. Sure, you should stick somewhat closely to the original concept. I highly doubt though that Maguire would've allowed the musical to go ahead and state that it was based off the book if he thought it was too far off. |
A part of me think that Maguire wasn't really ok with it until it became a huge blockbuster. But that's the cynical part of me, of course.
And no, people don't go there expecting it to see the Wizard of Oz, because the show isn't claiming in its posters and window cards and radio ads to be based/inspired from the Wizard of Oz.
|
blue wind
|
i don't think it's possible for one to be "better" than the other, because they are so different.
i think that the musical will attract younger audiences whereas the novel will generally people who are a little older.
the show has the fun music and big spectacles, that's what makes the show so great, whereas the book has deep and interesting plot details, which is why the book is so great.
|
actor
|
| mastachen wrote: | | For some reason, I felt like the show was treating the audience as if they were all stupid, especially in the scene where Elphaba and Glinda first met the Wizard. |
Which part of that scene treated the audience like they were stupid?
|
mastachen
|
| actor wrote: | | mastachen wrote: | | For some reason, I felt like the show was treating the audience as if they were all stupid, especially in the scene where Elphaba and Glinda first met the Wizard. |
Which part of that scene treated the audience like they were stupid? |
I didn't say that it was treating the audience like they were stupid. I said I just got that feeling. A lot of things don't have to be said (or sung) for the audience to get. The fact that they actually say it is what makes me feel like I'm being treated like a stupid kindergartener who can't figure stuff out for myself.
For the record, I disagree with what Defying_Gravity says about a darker muscial blending in during the time period of POTO and Sweeney. POTO, for all its flaws, is still going strong after like 20 years, and Sweeney is experiencing a resurgence with the movie and the recent revival. And one of the most popular shows on B'way right now, Spring Awakening, has a pretty dark plot too. Obviously, people still have a taste for darker shows.
|
Salome
|
you cant call Phantom a dark show. its a flufy love story/detective story.
darker musicals are
Sweeney
Kiss of the SPiderwoman
Parade
Assassins
Cabaret
Jane Eyre
|
Mistress
|
Jane Eyre is dark? In what way?...and one could argue that POTO is 'dark' in terms of Christine's sexual attraction to the Phantom, if you see it that way, as many do (me included, I view Raoul as the caring, dependable lover and the Phantom is Christine's sexual desire)
|
wicked_boy
|
I think of Wicked the musical, Wicked the book, the MGM movie, the original WoO novel as all different things.
They each have their advantages / disadvantages.
BTW, Cabaret freaks me out!
I got tickets to see the UK tour last week.
|
^Defying_Gravity^
|
| What Is This Feeling? wrote: | | ^Defying_Gravity^ wrote: | | I don't particularly think one is "better" than the other. I agree that most people prefer one over the other, but one is supposed to be an emotional and dark novel, whereas the other is a more bright, modern musical. If the musical had been more true to the book, then I don't think that they would have had as good a ticket sales, because it wouldn't appeal to as many people. The book appeals to less people, but those who it does appeal to prefer it over the musical. If the musical was more like the book, then they would lose out on a large amount of their audience, the children and fangirls, and it would seem more out of place in modern musicals. It would have blended in fine at the time of Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd, but now, I don't personally think it would fit in with the general trend today. |
Bright? Your signature doesn't seem to agree. |
No Good Deed's my favourite song from the msuical, and Kerry Ellis is my favourite Elphaba. Hence, the signature.
| mastachen wrote: | | For the record, I disagree with what Defying_Gravity says about a darker muscial blending in during the time period of POTO and Sweeney. POTO, for all its flaws, is still going strong after like 20 years, and Sweeney is experiencing a resurgence with the movie and the recent revival. And one of the most popular shows on B'way right now, Spring Awakening, has a pretty dark plot too. Obviously, people still have a taste for darker shows. |
| Salome wrote: | | you cant call Phantom a dark show. its a flufy love story/detective story. |
| Mistress wrote: | | ...and one could argue that POTO is 'dark' in terms of Christine's sexual attraction to the Phantom, if you see it that way, as many do (me included, I view Raoul as the caring, dependable lover and the Phantom is Christine's sexual desire) |
I see Phantom as darker because of the sexual luring aspect, as Mistress said, something you wouldn't see in some of the more bright and friendly musicals today, such as Mary Poppins and The Lion King, to name a few. Sweeney Todd, Kiss of the Spiderwoman, Parade, etc. are much darker than those, and since I first came to musical theatre through Mary Poppins etc, then I see those as dark compared to where I started from. I am not saying that they are dark, just darker than what I've seen in the past.
|
Salome
|
Lion King isnt all bright and fluffy. it concerns murder and revenge as well.
|
Monsieur D'Arque
|
Yeah. Save for Glockner, it's the most adult of all the Disney shows.
|
^Defying_Gravity^
|
Still, compared to the likes of Sweeney, it is bright and fluffy. There aren't many primary school kids at Sweeney, whereas The Lion King has far more.
|
