Nicely-Nicely
|
Wicked 2... sequel in the works?Okay people... I heard from a huge musical fan at my school that right now, under the works... there are people working on a sequel to Wicked... based on the sequel to the book Wicked. What are your thoughts on this?
|
cabaretfreak
|
That is all we need, a sequel. Yes, it is a very popular play, but the minute a sequel being considered it should be scrapped for the sanity of musical theatre buffs.
|
Nicely-Nicely
|
You never know... the sequel could be better than the origanal.
|
B3TA07
|
That huge musical fan is a huge idiot.
|
Nicely-Nicely
|
Are you talking about me? I never said it'd be better than Wicked... I just said it might be good. I mean it's a completely different story.
|
Luc
|
WICKED is a prequel. Making it a pre-prequel seems rediculous (sp?). As soon as I think of a sequel to WICKED I think of THE WIZARD OF OZ. The whole point of WICKED is that you see what happened just before Dorothy popped by for a visit. "The witch is dead!" Does that remind you of anything? With "ding"ing and "dong"ing and "the witch is dead"ing?
My point is that WICKED started out as a prequel. Making it a pre-prequel just doesn't work in my mind. 
EDIT: And also, think of all of the crap people are saying about WICKED now. Things like "oh, they totally wrecked the Wizard of Oz with these dumb musicals". Imagine all of the sh** it would get after a sequel! That's like having THE WIZ II. Yuck. I can't even imagine what everyone would say about WICKED II. In my mind, WICKED will be a classic (I could be totally wrong, though). I think that if we toy with it now, we could lose something special. And I don't mean to sound cheesey, but it's true. We could lose WICKED. Cuz my guess is that WICKED II wouldn't run long on Broadway (again, I could be totally wrong), so if #2 closes, chances are high that the original won't have much longer, either.
So Mr. Schwartz, quit while you are ahead!
|
MzGalinda
|
Holy balls...that would be a little scary, actually. A pre-prequel...that's so Twilight Zone. 
|
TheNextTenMinutes
|
I don't think of Wicked as a prequel. I think of it as more of a historical companion to the Wizard of Oz. consdering the stories overlap and Act two pivots on some of the plots twists in Winzard of Oz I wouldn't call it a prequel. I would call it...yes, a companion. That's the word I'm looking for.
ut as sequel to the musical? I think I just vomited in my mouth a little bit. Sequels should be restricted to books and terrible films and nothing more. I can't even imagine how annoying the fan base would be.
And I barely ever trust word of mouth, so the huge musical fan sounds like they're talking out their ass.
|
B3TA07
|
| Nicely-Nicely wrote: | | Are you talking about me? I never said it'd be better than Wicked... I just said it might be good. I mean it's a completely different story. |
Did you even read your own post? You said
| Nicely-Nicely wrote: | | I heard from a huge musical fan at my school that right now, someone is writing an even shittier show than Wicked |
*
..duh
*Some parts added but completely true.
|
TheNextTenMinutes
|
B3TA07.... gold.
|
Nicely-Nicely
|
You guys have true points... very true! I myself wouldn't really want to see Wicked 2... but the book isn't about the wicked witch... it's about her son. It's completely different and Wicked the musical kind of wasn't a prequel because it went from Elpahaba's birth... to her fake death... WHICH IS IN THE ORIGANAL WIZARD OF OZ. Therefore Wicked isn't a prequel and Wicked 2... the book actually called "Son of a Witch" isn't a pre-prequel... it's way after the fake death of Elpahaba. So it'd be after the Wizard of Oz.
|
rockyrocks666
|
I'd give it a chance, sure. but it just seems a little pointless.
I tend to think that sequals are for films, they dont really work on stage. to see a sequal, you generally have to see the one befor so it makes sense, but its not as easy with a show as it is with film.
why spoil a perfectly good show
|
B3TA07
|
Alright here's how it is. In the Musical genre, "Son of a Witch" would be a sequel.
In the entire Oz Lore, it would be like those stupid "Published fanfiction" Star Wars books. Expanded Universe or whatnot is what it's called. Yeah.
Now please stop debating it. There are better things to talk about, like the ozone or caramel hershey's kisses.
|
Nicely-Nicely
|
We're talking about this because its what the topic is. If you don't like it there are plenty others... but discussion on the maybe sequel is what this forum is about.
|
B3TA07
|
| Nicely-Nicely wrote: | | We're talking about this because its what the topic is. |
The topic of this thread is wether "Son of a witch" would be a prequel pre-prequel or sequel or whateverquel? I thought it was about a possible musical version of it.
| Nicely-Nicely wrote: | | If you don't like it there are plenty others... |
I'm aware. Thanks though!
| Nicely-Nicely wrote: | | discussion on the maybe sequel is what this forum is about. |
This forum is about much more than that. So is this board. "discussion on the maybe sequel" might be what the thread is about though. I'm not sure. Why don't I go check.
Yup, it is.
|
Nicely-Nicely
|
Well at least we agree!
|
qpidsangel
|
Son of a Witch is horrible horrible horrible. Maguire accidentally wrote a good book with Wicked, everything else he has penned that I have read is complete crap.
Why would you base a musical on a horrible book?
And I agree with whoever said that sequels don't work for stage shows. Every single one of them that has been done has flopped.
|
Descartes
|
Let's remember that the best predicter for the future is the past, and what have musical sequels done in the past? FLOPPED.
Des.
|
Nicely-Nicely
|
Okay... I agree with what you guys are all saying here... but keep in mind, a lot of people (maybe not you guys) hate Wicked the book... but love the musical... Therefore the theory that bad books don't make good musicals isn't true. I hated, hated, hated with a passion Wicked the book... but the musical was outstanding.
And if Son of the Witch is a bad book, what makes you think it might not be a good musical. (Just pretend its not a sequel for a moment.)
|
Kaiana
|
| Nicely-Nicely wrote: | Okay... I agree with what you guys are all saying here... but keep in mind, a lot of people (maybe not you guys) hate Wicked the book... but love the musical... Therefore the theory that bad books don't make good musicals isn't true. I hated, hated, hated with a passion Wicked the book... but the musical was outstanding.
And if Son of the Witch is a bad book, what makes you think it might not be a good musical. (Just pretend its not a sequel for a moment.) |
Personally, I'm the opposite. I rather liked Wicked the book, while I thought Wicked the musical was shallow, stupid and ditzy. Besides, there were major differences between the book and the musical, which is what made some people like the musical so much. I'm sure if they did Son of a Witch musical it would only be loosely based on the book and entirely sugar coated.
|
TheNextTenMinutes
|
| Kaiana wrote: | | Personally, I'm the opposite. I rather liked Wicked the book, while I thought Wicked the musical was shallow, stupid and ditzy. |
Just like its fans always seem to be!
|
AngelOfMusic867
|
| musikal_geek wrote: | WICKED is a prequel. Making it a pre-prequel seems rediculous (sp?). As soon as I think of a sequel to WICKED I think of THE WIZARD OF OZ. The whole point of WICKED is that you see what happened just before Dorothy popped by for a visit. "The witch is dead!" Does that remind you of anything? With "ding"ing and "dong"ing and "the witch is dead"ing?
My point is that WICKED started out as a prequel. Making it a pre-prequel just doesn't work in my mind.
EDIT: And also, think of all of the crap people are saying about WICKED now. Things like "oh, they totally wrecked the Wizard of Oz with these dumb musicals". Imagine all of the sh** it would get after a sequel! That's like having THE WIZ II. Yuck. I can't even imagine what everyone would say about WICKED II. In my mind, WICKED will be a classic (I could be totally wrong, though). I think that if we toy with it now, we could lose something special. And I don't mean to sound cheesey, but it's true. We could lose WICKED. Cuz my guess is that WICKED II wouldn't run long on Broadway (again, I could be totally wrong), so if #2 closes, chances are high that the original won't have much longer, either.
So Mr. Schwartz, quit while you are ahead! |
I didn't read all the posts so I don't know if someone has already said this... but unless I'm mistaken "Wicked" ends where "The Wizard of Oz" ends, so if there WERE to be a sequel it would just pick up where both stories left off.
I'm not saying a sequel is a good idea. I wouldn't be totally against it but it'd have to be done VERY carefully.
|
MademoiselleMusicals
|
| Quote: | musikal_geek
WICKED is a prequel. Making it a pre-prequel seems rediculous (sp?). As soon as I think of a sequel to WICKED I think of THE WIZARD OF OZ. The whole point of WICKED is that you see what happened just before Dorothy popped by for a visit. "The witch is dead!" Does that remind you of anything? With "ding"ing and "dong"ing and "the witch is dead"ing?
My point is that WICKED started out as a prequel. Making it a pre-prequel just doesn't work in my mind.
EDIT: And also, think of all of the crap people are saying about WICKED now. Things like "oh, they totally wrecked the Wizard of Oz with these dumb musicals". Imagine all of the sh** it would get after a sequel! That's like having THE WIZ II. Yuck. I can't even imagine what everyone would say about WICKED II. In my mind, WICKED will be a classic (I could be totally wrong, though). I think that if we toy with it now, we could lose something special. And I don't mean to sound cheesey, but it's true. We could lose WICKED. Cuz my guess is that WICKED II wouldn't run long on Broadway (again, I could be totally wrong), so if #2 closes, chances are high that the original won't have much longer, either.
So Mr. Schwartz, quit while you are ahead
|
Couldn't have put it any better, a sequel is a BAD idea fullstop.
|
katieanne
|
i thought wicked the book was much better than wicked the musical, though i like both quite a bit. son of a witch was kind of boring to me, nothing was really happening, so i put it down and never picked it up again. i rather liked gregory maguire's "mirror, mirror" - a wicked-like take on snow white. it's nice, if a bit formulaic.
wicked 2 is just a bad idea. let's not open the doors of theatre to the age of the bad sequel. if i want a bad sequel, i'll see the fast and the furious 17.
|
MademoiselleMusicals
|
| Quote: | | wicked 2 is just a bad idea. let's not open the doors of theatre to the age of the bad sequel. if i want a bad sequel, i'll see the fast and the furious 17 |
Haha! Or Grease 2 
|
Salome
|
I havent read "son of a witch" yet..but what do you mean by the fake death of elphaba. she seemed pretty dead to me at the end.
|
The Modern Art Movement
|
Too many sequels ruin the mystique (and integrity) of a story. Anyone remember the Land Before Time series?
...
|
WillowFae
|
| Kaiana wrote: |
Personally, I'm the opposite. I rather liked Wicked the book, while I thought Wicked the musical was shallow, stupid and ditzy. Besides, there were major differences between the book and the musical, which is what made some people like the musical so much. I'm sure if they did Son of a Witch musical it would only be loosely based on the book and entirely sugar coated. |
Well considering even Maguire says that the book and the musical are two different stories, then this is not suprising. He views the musical as loosely based on his book, in the same way that he based his book loosely on Baum's.
And of course there are those of us that like both the book (currently re-reading) and the show.
|
WillowFae
|
| TheNextTenMinutes wrote: | | Kaiana wrote: | | Personally, I'm the opposite. I rather liked Wicked the book, while I thought Wicked the musical was shallow, stupid and ditzy. |
Just like its fans always seem to be! |
Don't tar us all with the same brush!
|
qpidsangel
|
| The Modern Art Movement wrote: | Too many sequels ruin the mystique (and integrity) of a story. Anyone remember the Land Before Time series?
... |
or Rocky...
but yea LBT is THE WORST
|
mtgirl118
|
If there is a sequel I will shoot myself repeatedly.
Well, maybe not. But I'll think about it.
Ellen
|
purplepolkadot
|
| qpidsangel wrote: | | The Modern Art Movement wrote: | Too many sequels ruin the mystique (and integrity) of a story. Anyone remember the Land Before Time series?
... |
or Rocky...
but yea LBT is THE WORST |
Haha yeah.. there are what? 209357 Land Before Time movies now?
|
TheNextTenMinutes
|
Oh LBT. The first one was so great as well! My childhood revolved around that movie....
|
broadway_bound
|
i hate sequels most of the time they are so bad, i dont think they should ruin wicked by making a 2nd one it will run for a long time just how it is by its self!
_____________________
Current roles- The Music Man (Zaneeta Shinn) & Parade (Mary Phagen)
musicals only
Previous roles- The Jungle Book (Baby Monkey)
The Beauty and the Beast (feather duster)
The Wizard of Oz (Lacreecia the Witch)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (Princess Starlight)
Peter Pan (Liza)
R&H's Cinderella (Rose the citizen)
The Secret Garden (chours)
The Sound of Music (Elsa Shrader)
Mamma Mia (Rosie)
Wicked (chours)
|
Tinker Rigger
|
The sequel to Wicked has already been written. It's called "The Wizard of Oz"
|
Salome
|
| qpidsangel wrote: | Son of a Witch is horrible horrible horrible. Maguire accidentally wrote a good book with Wicked, everything else he has penned that I have read is complete crap.
Why would you base a musical on a horrible book?
And I agree with whoever said that sequels don't work for stage shows. Every single one of them that has been done has flopped. |
Mirror Mirror is a superior book to Wicked.
|
ConverseSneaker
|
Let's end this by using simple logic. Son of a Witch is based on what happens after Elphaba dies. However, the musical changed it so Elphaba faked her own death and there was no mention of a son. it's Impossible to fix that. No sequel based on Son of a Witch, guys, ok?
Besides, the sequel's already been made. The Wizard of Oz.
|
Musical Fanatic!!
|
But the sequal isn't Wizard Of Oz The story of the Wizard Of Oz takes place in the second Act of Wicked The Musical because Wicked ends after dorothy has returned to kansas, so the sequal wouldn't be Wizard of Oz...
|
ALoneWanderer
|
Deja vu.
|
ALoneWanderer
|
Deja vu.
Yes this was on purpose 
|
Glinda Upland
|
Sure!
But what would it be about?
Elphie leaving Oz or what happend after the wizrd left or what?If it would be as good as the first I would see it.
|
Patch
|
| Salome wrote: | | qpidsangel wrote: | Son of a Witch is horrible horrible horrible. Maguire accidentally wrote a good book with Wicked, everything else he has penned that I have read is complete crap.
Why would you base a musical on a horrible book?
And I agree with whoever said that sequels don't work for stage shows. Every single one of them that has been done has flopped. |
Mirror Mirror is a superior book to Wicked. |
agreed...Mirror Mirror is a superior book.
Also...Wicked, while wildly popular, isn't THAT great a show so no to a sequel. Besides...we already know what happens when they do sequels to mediocre shows...Annie Warbucks...Come Back Biride...or whatever that abortion of a show is called...
|
Valjean_Jean24601
|
If they choose to continue the "Oz" stories on Broadway, they'll have to leave Elphaba out of it. .unless it's a bit part or a cameo.
Let me just say it once more. . "Wicked" is NOT a prequel.
The story of "Wicked" ends at roughly the exact same spot in the story's chronology as "The Wizard of Oz". . with the Wizard leaving Oz . .
If they want to continue with Oz, they'd have to use one of the 20 other stories L. Frank Baum wrote. . but I can promise it wouldn't be nearly as successful.
A HUGE part of Wicked's popularity is the fact that is spins the original Wizard of Oz story to create Elphaba as a heroine. Without the little tie-ins and layovers to the original story, I don't think it would have been as successful.
Sm**chies!
Jacob.
|
sunrae
|
[quote="TheNextTenMinutes"]Sequels should be restricted to books and terrible films and nothing more. [quote]
I concur. It just sounds like money going down the drain to me.
|
zeppy1223
|
The idea of sequels should just die altogether.
|
MzGalinda
|
| zeppy1223 wrote: | | The idea of sequels should just die altogether. |
"Beauty and the Beast II- Return to The Castle"
I dunno, it sounded epic, dramatic, and worthy of a sequel.
|
lucy-lu
|
Ok bottom line, if there was a sequel to Wicked, which there is I'd be called the Wizard of Oz and and be about this girl named Dorothy and her adorable little puppy Toto, THE END!
|
happyguava
|
Quit while you're ahead, Mr Schwartz...
|
klutzyk8ie
|
What would a sequel be on? There is no mention of Liir in the show, so Son of a Witch is out, and the entirety of the Wizard of Oz was covered in Wicked. If they "flip" any of the other Oz books, Elphaba wouldn't be in it because the Witch never returns in anything from "The Marvelous Land of Oz" to "Glinda of Oz." There was never any sequel made to the Judy Garland film.
In short, anything they do will be sacrilegious to every source possible: the original L. Frank Baum books, the Gregory Maguire books and the film.
|
Lazarus (Adam G)
|
For the love of God why make a sequel to one of the worst musicals ever made?
|
Pounce
|
| Lazarus (Adam G) wrote: | | For the love of God why make a sequel to one of the worst musicals ever made? |
Because it is a money machine. That's all that matters.
|
xsophiex
|
what a lovely opinion
wicked, i think is an amazing musical. making a sequel would ruin it i think. it'd be too confusing also.
i don't think it's going to happen once someone gives the whole thing some real thought.
wicked seems to have some kind of superficial reputation on here. like it IS only a money making machine and nothing more.
quite sad actually.
|
Eponine93
|
Despite all the crap people say about Wicked, its destined to be a classic, and if not a classic, a long running show people abide (sort of like a 21st century "Cats"). Stephen Swartz knows that. And the number one way to get a show off Broadway in a year or less? Write a sequel.
Even if they do write a sequel to Wicked, it wouldn't be based on the book. My personal opinion of the Wicked books are... they're disgusting. I made it halfway through "Wicked" and had to stop, and a page through "Son of A Witch" because I was at the theatre and had to stop. They're not family-friendly, to say the least. They are disgusting. If they base a musical on that book, they have to clean it up.
If Wicked the musical and Wicked the book had different names I wouldn't believe they were based off the same thing. Wicked the book is disgusting and perverted. The musical is amazing.
|
lostquiche
|
| Eponine93 wrote: | Despite all the crap people say about Wicked, its destined to be a classic, and if not a classic, a long running show people abide (sort of like a 21st century "Cats"). Stephen Swartz knows that. And the number one way to get a show off Broadway in a year or less? Write a sequel.
If Wicked the musical and Wicked the book had different names I wouldn't believe they were based off the same thing. Wicked the book is disgusting and perverted. The musical is amazing. |
You are so right in so many ways.
|
What Is This Feeling?
|
First of all, making a sequal would kill the musical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Say, what you want about how Wicked is overrated, yeh... whatever. Ummm, wether you like it or not, Wicked is going to be remembered and a classic for a long time. If it runs for another 5 years, it will be remembered!!!! It already surpassed many original classics in their original run. And honestly, how many people who HATE Wicked, saw the musical LIVE on stage? I can't imagine you'd hate it? I just can't understand it. Half of the people who saw it, came out they actually never saw it live, that means your not allowed to comment. A sequal would kill Wicked, but Wicked is very good! So, don't hate it, just cause it's a top 5 bestseller right now!  xoxo love u all
|
milkywhite24601
|
If a sequel is made, most likely it will flop because I highly doubt it will measure up to the first. And if the sequel fails, there's a good chance Wicked will become less popular as well and close. Now-there's always a chance that the sequel WILL be great-however it doesn't seem likely at all. Sequels usually don't work in plays. I find it annoying that everytime a musical/movie/book is really popular and doing well sale-wise someone has to jump up and make a sequel. Now if it comes out great-then fine. However many times they don't, and sometimes it just ruins the first one.
|
ado amber
|
thats just whack
|
Sweeney Hyde
|
Consider this:
Annie opened in 1977 and was huge with both families and the professional world. After it closed, they decided to make a sequal, Annie 2: Miss Hannigan's Revenge. It was less than successful, yet they decided to make a third instalment, Annie Warbucks, which was even less successful.
I would hate for Wicked to get a sequal marred to its name like Annie did and turn the whole thing into a strive to get money, which is more than likely what it would be, rather than an artistic triumph.
|
ClareBell
|
A second Wicked would be a sequal to the Wizard of Oz plain n simple, and altho I enjoyed Wicked, it would be a serious error to follow up something successful (even though some people don't like it) with something that may (I'm not saying will) not be as good.
|
ChrisFitzpatrick
|
| Sweeney Hyde wrote: | Consider this:
Annie opened in 1977 and was huge with both families and the professional world. After it closed, they decided to make a sequal, Annie 2: Miss Hannigan's Revenge. It was less than successful, yet they decided to make a third instalment, Annie Warbucks, which was even less successful.
I would hate for Wicked to get a sequal marred to its name like Annie did and turn the whole thing into a strive to get money, which is more than likely what it would be, rather than an artistic triumph. |
Sequels to musicals are rarely successful. Off the top of my head, I can not recall one that did decent. Bye Bye Birdie had Bring Back Birdie which only had four performances on Broadway.
Having a Wicked Sequel would not only make the original not worthwhile, it'd kill the franchise they have going. Sequels of musicals never succeed because, the original is never readily available.
|
Theaterfan101
|
I don't think the sequel would work because the book sequel centers around characters not in the play.
|
music is my life!!!
|
i will give it a chance but how would there be a sequel with Elphie not there? it might be called "Wicked, No More" or "Gone are the Wicked" 
Seriously tho, how would Steve Schwartz continue with the story if the main charcter isn't even in it?
|
Matthew
|
Ew.
No.
Son of a Witch was horrible.
I could barely pick it up.
And who would want to sequel Wicked in the first place?
|
