Also, in the original movie, the Wicked Witch already had a reason to be pissed: a house fell on her sister. Why do people need more than that very simple reason?
To be fair, the original story of oz is weird and morally ambigous enough for people to make weird assumptions I mean, canonically , The wizard of Oz is a fraud who used a little girl to kill and steal from the witch. Don't tell me that doesn't sound weird as hell
To their credit, Wicked is based on a musical. It's not it's own spinoff story that Hollywood just invented. And Hollywood took the Wizard of Oz movie from Frank Baum's novels.
The reason most musicals don’t have a recording is because of some crazy copyright stuff. I don’t know the exact details, but getting the rights to a musical is a wild process.
6:14 about the whole “discrimination” thing, did bro remember that there’s a whole subplot about talking animals being scapegoated in Oz’s society and having both their rights and intelligence taken away?
The funny thing is, the Wicked Witch of the West was barely in the first Oz book. Her role was expanded in the 1939 movie and that's where Gregory Macguire got his inspiration for his novel Wicked and Stephen Schwartz and Winnie Holzman for the musical. In the books, the reoccurring villain is actually the Nome King, who some of you may recognize from the 1985 "Return to Oz" movie.
You attribute too much good will to filmmakers 😂 the studio requested to make it into film to make MONEY They can care less of people see it on Bway or not 😂😂😂 their ultimate goal is cash not Art
No it is not. There are very well executed filmed stage productions all over PBS for example; it is easily doable. In fact the stage cast of the various Wicked productions undoubtedly themselves have a DVD; I have my own collection of plays and musicals I was in!
I give you a lot of credit for getting that line about Wicked being that “one insufferable contrarian you get on every online forum ever made” out with a straight face. Pot meet kettle lmao
@@silvia_leev Your opinions on the Divine Comedy don't somehow make Wicked better so I don't get your point That's like saying Pride and Prejudice exists so Twilight can't be bad because it's also a love story
@@drawingdragon i just proved the point that fanfiction exists since the dawn of times and that is studied in school. not whether is good or bad. for me? the best. but I mainly said that to provoke lol Anyway, if you ask any student in Italy, they'll reply that they hate the Devine Comedy. mainly the difficult lexicon or how Dante resolves poorly some situations, like fainting at every end of every chapter or distorting the bible itself. I personally kind of like the Devine Comedy, and I recognize that something decent can come out of a fanfiction lol
@@baalgodofrain no right, because on broadway they use “blind casting” we’ve literally had Brittney Johnson on broadway as Glinda, like 😭they could literally casted whoever they wanted, the choice of having Cynthia as Elphaba was perfect because she was BORN to play this character, no such thing as “alternative casting” these clowns hate representation that isn’t for their demographic like
@@Julián-w1j I doubt that colourblind casting is truly occurring in most film productions. They are unlikely to pass up the opportunity to cast a minority for one of the leads to score points with part of the audience and drum up interest in production. Just the same as they wouldn’t want to cast 2 black women as the leads and risk alienating part of the audience in some way. I think that casting is more calculated than just a matter of meritocracy. Hamilton seems like it comes pretty close though. Maybe they went all the way.
As a theatre kid here is my take: yeah idk why theres no proshot or decent recording. there was a very good one on youtube a few months ago but ofc they copyright struck that. But hey, they shouldnt be surprised when people watch wicked themed slime tutorials or sail the seven seas. honestly i think the complaint about not liking the concept of wicked bc its essentially revisionism or whatever it is a very pretentious and unserious criticism. the original wicked (book version) was used for the author to explore themes of human nature, when writing he decided it would be effective to use the world of Oz as an allegory. It isnt just a lazy cheap rewrite, so much depth, lore, and characters are added that wasn't in the wizard of oz is that it might as well be its own thing entirely. honestly the only real issue i can think of in the same ballpark of that complaint is that wicked the stageshow sugarcoats or removes some of the depth in the original novel. in regards to the runtime. i was initially worried, however the movie flew by in the theater. and after having watched the movie i understood what jon chu meant when he said it could only work as 2 parts. in the stage show act 2 felt very rushed due to time constraints and i think this will be fixed in the movies as i noticed in act 1 scenes had more time to breathe and develop more. i think this anti-woke bs has gone too far. i guess i sort of understood where it was coming from the beginning but now people just assume DEI if an actor is a poc, as if they didn't audition like everyone else for the role, and did better than them which is why they were chosen. To deliberately choose not to acknowledge this, is frankly racist and harmful to the actors and poc as a whole. cynthia wasn't "alternative casting" to be woke or whatever. in broadway black women and other women of color have played elphaba. shes green, all the actor needs is green facepaint, and singing talent and theyre good to go. plus imo she was the strongest actor in the movie, brought a refreshing new interpretation to the role of Elphaba, and has one of the best voices of this generation. the irony is yall will complain about the movie directors focusing too much on race if the main cast isnt 100% white, when it's yall who focus way too much on the ethnicity of actors than anyone else. also, gay actors cant be cast either?? wth overall i think the movie was a perfect adaptation, i also wish they kept some lines in from the stage show especially in dancing through life jonathan bailey didnt say "whats the most swankified place in town." and the plot hole in that same sequence when madam morrible wasnt upset that the whole school snuck to the ozdust which they rewrote to be some 'illicit place' but ive come up with my own headcanon to justify that.
This is exactly the product you get from a culture who has worshipped Youth to the point where imaturity becomes desirable and moral ambiguity serves as a placeholder for the concept of freedom that can't be understood.
As a straight man that loves musicals one of them is wicked I am annoyed by other straight men that when talking about musicals have to make a point that they hate musicals but also say they went and saw one, or make an excuse that their girlfriend dragged them along to see it
It definitely comes from some kind of insecure masculinity. In this video he brands musical theatre fans as "prancing ninnies" which was a big yikes moment from me. Some guys just want to be seen to hate anything that girls like, as if it makes them seem more masculine. It's really weird. On a side note, he's also made no less than 27 videos about Rings of Power, a show he apparently also hates. If you hate something that much why would you devote so much time and energy into it?
I’ve never been a musical guy or a theatre guy in general but I like music and I like movies so if they do it well I like it. It’s so tired every dude bro has to say this 😂😂
As a straight woman, I WANT to hear feedback from men who do not like a certain type of movie - IE Barbie - because I want to hear something else besides "Oo I just WUB this movie!!" And I probably will have the same opinion as them being that I have no interest in seeing this crap and so I want to hear THEIR take on it. I hated Barbie as well. And She-Hulk. Funny how no one goes after WOMEN who gripe about 'guy' movies. I guess women are in a special, protective class.
You know there was trouble on the horizon when they tried to remake the original theater poster as homage and you saw Cynthia Erivo’s scowl without lipstick instead of a smile.
I can say that, generally, stage shows are hesitant to do proshots because (particularly for shows still on broadway) they are terrified that it will drive ticket sales down significantly. People are dropping an absurd amount of money on Broadway tix, so if they know they can just see a proshot on Netflix or some other service, they'll spend their money on a show they CAN'T otherwise see. Others will maybe point to Hamilton as an exception, and rightfully so, but Hamilton was so absurdly popular that it would still sell out the stage despite a recording being available. There's also this attitude towards the "ephemoral" nature of theatre, and that performances should remain on the stage and that pro-shots dilute the performances to something less real. Personally, I think the culture is dumb and I think shows that have completed their runs should have proshots released. I'm surprised that more artists don't push for it. The most ridiculous thing is that proshots DO EXIST for most Broadway shows, but they are extremely hard to access and are only shown to specific people (I believe NYU theatre students are able to watch them for research, for example).
Pro shots can only be viewed by NYU theater students and the students can only view a show once. So even to the few people that have access it’s ridiculously difficult. It begs the question why record the show at all.
@@alansmithee5595 It's important to archive for future generations. You never know who will need to research an actor, staging, score, etc. for scholarly work. It's not being used for entertainment purposes. When people entertain you, they need to be compensated. Filming and distributing stage shows for entertainment purposes is probably a contractual nightmare. Film and theater unions are different and each would need to be involved. This would inflate a budget with no promises of a return on investment.
Pro shot are available for companies that buy the full rights, for example, partners in other countries, as they have the right to mount the show exactly like the original if they want to, and also to those doing revivals, who usually want to make something completely different. Also PBS, BBC and other TV stations used to show some plays and musicals, as cultural outreach, but i haven't seen that practice anymore, except during the pandemic that Android Lloyd Weber, and others put several of their shows online, for a limited engagement.
I think it is a genuine fear. I never saw Hamilton when it was out with the original cast because not only were the tickets expensive but super hard to come by. And I don't live near NYC so getting there would not be like going to a local show. However, since I saw the pro recording with the original cast on Disney, I don't really have a desire to see a live show on Broadway because I feel like whoever is in the show they cannot possibly compete with the original cast, so I will go see something else if I get a chance to visit Broadway. On the other hand, some people would nevler go to any Broadway show because it's either too expensive or too far so a recording is a great way to share with those people.
As someone who likes musicals (Wicked not being one of them though) yes, I don't understand why they never release pro shot plays. The footage exists for some, but apparently it's left to rot on a shelf somewhere. And then you have to be careful what you wish for, because then you get Jekyll and Hyde with Hasselhoff or a Phantom with a nuked set. A lot of performances would be lost to time were it not for bootlegs.
I think it has something to do with the price of rights and royalties. I do volunteer tech work for a theatre group and they have to pay thousands of dollars just to use a logo/rent scripts, and they are not allowed to stream the content on UA-cam for more than a few days or they could get sued. I also wonder if theatre figured out: if we stream live performances or record them, we'll be shooting ourselves in foot financially the way orchestras did with recordings. People might stop going to the theatre. People are doing that even with films now bc of streaming.
@@jennowak3160 Oh, this is cool to know! Thanks! I remember they experimented with this for a while with operas at the Met. Not sure if it worked out though.
Why can't people do their research when they have the urge to do a review about something? This video is clearly biased and lacks basic knowledge on its main topics.
I absolutely disagree with your take on the concept of Wicked. For context, I haven't seen the show and I have little interest in musical theatre so I have no horse in this race in that sense. As someone who is a fan of a lot of the things you have covered on your channel, I understand where you are coming from. Time and time again we have had our stories stolen from our fandoms by greedy corporations, maliciously transformed into something unrecognizable, thrown back in our face and told we are the problem for feeling disrespected. I absolutely hate the current remake culture too and I completely agree that these things are terrible and should have been stopped years ago. But the fact of the matter is Wicked does not fall under this category. There is nothing inherently wrong with exploring a universe wider than it's initial portrayal. There is nothing wrong with wishing to explore characters in different scenarios, or perhaps take a completely different spin on a character and see where the story goes from there. One could get into a legal discussion about rights and profits and whatever but that is not really what I'm here to talk about. The thing that separates the WIckeds from the Last Jedis and the Rings of power is the fact that this is clearly a project born of genuine love and passion for the original, which is also an answer to your question of "how come the musical fans are getting good adaptations and we aren't." This is a story clearly made by people who genuinely understand, love and respect the material and wish to create something in that universe and share it with existing fans along with a whole new generation, unlike something like the modern Star Wars which is made by people who dislike the source material and are only interested in using it as a platform for their diaries. Fandom culture, and I mean true fandom culture, not just Hollywood suits reading fandom twitter to find out the best way to bait money from fans, is an incredibly important cornerstone of good stories being able to exist in the first place. True fan works, made out of actual love are not the problem here, and I feel like you are conflating two completely different entities into one and demonizing the whole thing. Without these things existing, so many works of fiction would have never happened in the first place, whether that be potential authors never picking up the pen for the first time, a piece inspired by something else never having been made, etc. Going back to Star Wars again since I mentioned it so much in this post, the entire concept of it is just Lucas taking an already established formula and saying "What if it was in space instead", which according to the way I interpreted your take on these things sounds like something you would be against, no? I might have misunderstood your point, but what I'm trying to say is that I feel this is a topic more nuanced than the opinion you gave and these are two completely different things that have been lumped into one. One is a further exploration into a world/character/concept made out of genuine love and passion for something and a wish to share that with others, and another is a malicious lazy way to make money or tear down something you don't like and replace it with something you do. To me it is all about intention, and it is very clear when something is one or the other. Sorry for wall of text, hope I was able to make myself a little clear lol
One small rebuttle, if children and families watch the 1939 W.O.Z, and see Judy garland's performance as a result of Wicked, then I think that's a win !!! Wicked making the W.O.Z film relevant and prominent again is a huge cultural win!
Great point. Every Christmas I was on the edge of my seat terrified the wicked witch would get her claws on Toto. I loved all dogs with all of my little child heart. What a truly fantastic film. Who gives a fk why the wicked witch was wicked?? The musical was the very, very worst show I have ever seen.
I usually don’t comment on stuff but it needs to be said: the notion that “re-context work from original authorship is inherently dishonest/creatively lacking/immoral” is bad take imo. Given how many creative works are made in the first place. For example: You like the Disney Renaissance movies? Those would be gone. No interpretations of beauty and the beast, no Hunchback, no Lion King since that’s based on Hamlet etc. The practice is not inherently wrong. It depends on how you use it. Is it blatantly lazy? A repainted copy in a new format to cash in? Or does it take the time and effort to craft something different through it with intent. It’s the standing on the shoulders of giants vs ripping-off argument, one is a common option of inspiration, the other just plain bad. I’m no musician, but I can admire how works build upon each other creatively this way. One can be wholly original, but will it be good? How can we tell what’s good or not with out looking back? Without looking at the great stories/songs/movies or art/history/culture that inspire/shaped us? Or will we just put them on a pedestal and never try to question them, never see what they missed, and never attempt something of similar or greater quality again.
Actually, the question is the one he harped on: moral inversion. Are you suggesting that the Lion King inverts Hamlet? Don't think so, in fact, it is rather too slavish an adaptation to be bothered with if it weren't that the score is so memorable (if not to my taste, overall). Beauty and the Beast is even better and one of the least Disneyfied musicals ever made. The live action remake is the one to push into the memory hole because it DOES invert the moral standing of the original fairy tale as well as the animated adaptation.
Won't it be something when they finally come out with Lord of the Rings the musical? Can you just imagine Frodo and Sam holding hands and singing their way up to Mount Doom?
You hate musicals. Perfectly entitled to....so why bother reviewing one? Just ignore it. The movies you would love would probably be loathed by the millions who're going to make Wicked another success of Barbie proportions.
@OlexiVR true. But if you know you don't like it in the first place. I don't like upside down roller coasters because I tried it once. Won't do it again
You seem like someone with pretty horrendous opinions. You complain about it being PG for “discrimination” and say that besides “people being mean to her for her green skin is about it,” when there is a literal subplot of citizens being rounded up, silenced, and put in cages, kinda betrays pretty shit media literacy on your part.
Yeah, him completely skipping over the Animals sideplot is baffling. On top of that calling Cynthia's casting as Elpheba "alternate" casting? The hell? What makes her different than the "default" casting you'd be expecting, hmm? If there were any concerns about acting ability from the cast that I heard, it was people worried Ari wouldn't be able to pull it off and was cast solely for the singing.
@@andrewshirley9240 agreed, but what do you expect from someone who unironically uses the word "woke" to describe things? making that comment about cynthia and then another about bowen, completely disregarding their talent in favor of dividing people because of "wokism," it's truly insane
It’s not “alternative casting” for Elphaba…there’s been black actresses playing that role over the past 20 years - as well as Hispanic and other ethnicities that are darker than “white”….. the character is *green* race of the actress has 0% to do with the casting. Cynthia killed the acting and singing - also her chemistry and voice blended well with her co-lead…that’s why she was cast.
I don’t normally like musicals or want to watch them, especially after accidentally watching joker 2 this past year which I did not know was a musical. This one was surprisingly good, sure there was a slow burn being that the runtime was 2 hours and 40 minutes long. But the movie kept you interested in it the whole way through. Singing was top notch. I would recommend
I know it must be difficult for you to listen to someone who has a different experience and opinion than yours. And actually he did talk about the movie without giving too many spoilers. Now go back to sleep.
Haven't watched the video yet but I have been seeing a lot of intense comments just hating on musicals and, by all means ppl are entitled to their opinions, but shitting on musicals just because you think it's a stupid medium gives similar vibes to ppl dunking on animation as being just for kids. Different mediums to adapt entertainment. I'm sure a lot of ppl cannot understand why others love animation and, as an animation fan, I dont expect their view to change but I'd just appreciate some basic respect that ok, you like this, cool, not for me. Same energy with musicals. I don't expect most straight men to like them but there seems to be too many who wouldn't even give them a chance and like...critical drinker actually enjoyed Wicked on the West End and Come From Away and Book of Mormon are musicals I have seen every man I know enjoy. The Little Big Things is also one many of my musical-skeptical friends have liked. Hating on musicals just because seems rather immature to me (which btw I think hating vs disliking them or acknowledging they're not your thing are different)
3 дні тому
I'm one of Johnny's biggest supporters and I love musicals.
@@SilentlyScreaming-c5t my theory is if you have such a narrow-minded black-and-white view about it you're either pretty young, trying to troll, or both. But hey, thanks for helping me realise my husband, father-in-law and girlfriend's husbands are gay. I'll be sure to get the divorce papers going
@@SilentlyScreaming-c5tstraight man here, raised classical music, and wicked was phenomenal in terms of musical and vocal skill. The fuck are you on about?
If you hate musical theatre then why did you see an almost 3hr movie based on a Broadway musical? Looking for content to complain about and record I guess.
I happened upon this video to see an interesting take or differing opinion from my own, but disappointed to see that its so sloppy? Using 'turning your grandmother's house into a strip club" as a metaphor to describe Wicked being adapted is so lazy and so ignorant of the fact that art is very much referential and self-referential. It does not exist in a vacuum. All art is an inspiration or a reference!! Even in the most original of works. If you create art that is so damn good, it will inevitably spawn creations that grounds itself in it. Sure, some of it is derivative, but you will come across gems that remain faithful to the source material. Let's be real, expecting truly original stories from artists all the time is simply unrealistic.
There's a difference between "all art is inspired by something else, nothing exists in a vacuum" and "literally every blasted movie to come out in the last 10 years is either a sequel, a prequel, a remake, a reboot, an extended universe (psuedo-sequel), or otherwise SOMEHOW based on an existing beloved IP" or "this movie is based on a musical that was based on a series of fanfiction that was based on a film adaptation that was based on one book from a fiction series."
I dunno, this kind of sounds like this is a good movie and you had to reach to find stuff to bash it for...because otherwise someone might think you like a "chick flick". (Even though, btw, there are loads of perfectly normal, straight, regular guys who saw the stage show and liked it. Same as I know a lot of guys who love Sound of Music.) I It's okay to like a movie that isn't directly aimed at you, you know, and not have to find reasons to take it apart. You can still just enjoy a well executed bit of entertainment that didn't fail the way you hoped/expected.
Nah, it's your insecurities not being able to see that people have a different experience and opinion than yours. You're hilarious. 😆 Now go back to sleep.
@@grosbeak6130the fact that he has to explain more than once that he’s a dude and that musicals aren’t for dudes shows he has an abundance of insecurities. Sweet dreams to you too 🤡
@@grosbeak6130there’s a fine line between having a different experience and opinion and simply posting bullshit. This video is about to get tons of backlash from a lot of music majors lmao
@@bennywho7180 your comment is nonsensical, this is a movie a fiction and he's giving his personal experience. There's an old saying; it takes all kinds to make a world. If you think that this is BS, well okay that's on you. But I don't see it that way and neither do some others here in the comments section.
the whole video basically scream straight guy who thinks musicals will crushes his fragile masculinity, so he hate on musicals but even with so much hate he still go to watch it just so he can understand the story to talk shit on it without looking dumb. Honestly the moment you say you hate musicals I already know this video is not genuine facts and just your biased opinion as a hater. Also "alternative casting for elphaba" what does that even mean? Like is it because she's Black? Now we're crossing a certain territory here. I'm not going to get too into it but just know elphaba is green, she is green, she is a green women. Just saying... just saying...a black women playing doesn't change that she's green... just saying...so idk where alternative casting came from...
This critique is incredible. It's incredibly eloquent to the point of being erodite. You've popped up on my feed because I watched you (incredibly accurate) critique of Gladiator II which I'd seen the night before and wished I'd watched your critique before I'd lost two and a half hours of my life. I'll be back - regularly.
@@andsster It boils down to "revisionism bad" with no argument as to why aside from "that's someone else's character" which is a very boring critique and honestly a real head scratcher. Just a total consumerist mindset.
@@k--musici really don't think how that's a bad critique. It matters a lot when you swap people's roles. It's the same thing as when people say "No culture" to white people but get offended when someone says an actual bad thing about their culture.
@@k--music I like JL but I also think it's a thin statement. If someone doesn't already know and have love for wizard of Oz they're not gonna be interested in wicked so why are we even worried. I don't even think original OZ has that much moral clarity. I'd like people to respect each others ability to see things more than one way and stop policing each others minds.
I don't know, some musical versions of plays turn out pretty good: 'The Trickster of Seville' ends up as Mozart's 'Don Giovanni,' for example. (And, no, neither Mozart nor DaPonte had anything to do with the original.) The 'Oz' books were smoothed over for the movie, the same way 'Cabaret' was. Yet both are classics. At the same time, subversion for the sake of subversion? Yeah - or, No - we don't like the past, so go ahead, cancel it; but reversing polarities changes nothing , so what have you got in the way of a future?
Fun fact, all of the singing in the movie was all recorded live while recording the movie. They did that so they could feel more connected to the words they were singing while acting.
And that a majority of those who refuse to agree with him. I saw the stage show. Except for the two earworms, I don't remember a thing about it, except for wondering why two guys were sitting up at the top corners of the proscenium. And knowing this is an overblown sensory overload experience with little to no original content in any sense means I would rather spend the same two and a half hours rereading Lord of the RIngs (or, better, rewatching Fellowship of the Ring).
So because a majority disagrees with him automatically means the movie is GOOD? Give me a break. There was a time people said TWILIGHT was good. And Barbie. Both were crap.
I have a very interesting question, is your entire channel dedicated to negativity? I am aware it’s easier to get people to hate something versus like it, but I wish there was less negativity. Offer something more than just critique, criticism is lazy.
If it's a good stripclub and your grandmother basically had no taste - i'll throw my weight behind the stripclub. There are some very talented and artistic strippers out there. One more word of advice - if you want to be a reviewer - review it for what it is - not for what is lacking in your own personality. And know something about the stuff you review.
There is of course no reason to stop reviewing things that one doesn't like. It is perfectly legitimate to say "I don't like X and here are the reasons why I don't like this particular X". Obviously people who are uncondtionnal fans of X will never understand and act agressively because they are unable to make any criticism. You see that all the time.
It’s kind of sad that you spent so much time and money on the musical and the film just to hate it. I don’t think Wicked subverts the Wizard of Oz at all… In The Wizard of Oz The Wizard is still a con man- he tells a small girl go kill a witch because he has no real power. In Wicked, he tells Elphaba to read the grimmerie because he has no real power. The moral of the story in The wizard Of Oz is that through helping others, friendships and believing in yourself, you can do anything. Wicked the musical, has the exact same moral and message. To millions of people Wicked is a symbol of resistance, self actualization and a desire to uplift those who are marginalized and beat down by society. I hope the next film you watch is something you enjoy.
He's not really hating here just expressing a different experience and opinion than yours. Your whole social justice warrior commentary here is hilarious. Are you always this preachy and giving lectures to people?
@@grosbeak6130 I'm sorry that "social justice warrior commentary" was what you got from that. It's unfortunate because he spent a LOT of money seeing a stage musical that he didn't like and then spent more money seeing a movie based on it that musical he ALSO didn't like. Clearly it wasn't his cup of tea and he doesn't really value plays or musicals as a form of entertainment. And that's okay, he doesn't have to. Just as he's allowed to have his opinion, millions of others (including myself) are allowed to have ours. I was simply giving the counter argument that it doesn't subvert the message of The Wizard of Oz like he was accusing Wicked of doing. And explaining what millions of other people love about it and why it's important and applicable to our world today. If you have a valid counter argument, I'm all ears.
@@notenoughtreble here are your own words: "To millions of people Wicked is a symbol of resistance, self actualization and a desire to uplift those who are marginalized and beat down by society." Yep, "social justice warrior" lingo and talking points if I ever heard any. You're probably more deeply influenced by today's zeitgeist then you are aware of. And then you imply that this is exactly the same thing with the original Wizard of Oz movie in 1939 saying that that's the moral of it. Also you make condescending remarks about how unfortunate it is that he really didn't appreciate or enjoy the movie because he spent so much money on it. Do you see how you sound here in all of this? Your problem is that you reduce the original film to some kind of moral or moralizing it. Turning it into a morality tale. And then you went from there. But the original wizard of Oz didn't have all of those talking points in mind. To me fairy tales are what they are, beyond the moralizing within today's lingo, sensibilities and mentality of the current zeitgeist of which you seem totally caught up in. Now I do agree that the movie Wicked today does indeed reflect that i.e. the social justice warrior mentality that you expressed in the quotation I gave of you at the beginning here. So I don't disagree with you there. But that's the very reason I don't like the reimagining and interpretation and morality play of Wicked has on the original Wizard of Oz movie for our modern contemporary audience. And on top of that, the whole idea of the wicked witch and the good witch are just really in the beginning and in the end just besties. They're just really buddies. You know, it's all good with them really. But If you ever read the original Grimm's fairy tales and the original Wizard of Oz along with the 1939 movie this is far from that kind of mentality and sensibility. But you are altogether free to interpret it that way, and I'm sure maybe some others do too. But that's not how I look at the nature of true fairy tales especially of the past. I don't reduce those to that kind of thing - only that kind of level of vision. True and original fairy tales are dark and deep in many ways beyond merely our kind of reimagining and superficial moralizing vision of today's Wicked. The original 1939 wicked witch in Wizard of the Oz really has nothing to do with this navel gazing version and story of Wicked, and the redemptive vision that this new movie gives to her. No, the wicked witch in The Wizard of Oz is wicked, but in today's zeitgeist that is not acceptable and will not do as your statement again declares: "To millions of people Wicked is a symbol of resistance, self actualization and a desire to uplift those who are marginalized and beat down by society." That's not the witch in The Wizard of Oz in 1939, nor in the book. That only exists in today's social justice warrior sensibilities and mentality.
@@grosbeak6130 So. You said a lot of word salad and The only rebuttal you seem to have is that Fairytales SHOULDN'T have morals? Grimm's Fairytales, stories and parables have ALWAYS had moral messaging behind them since the beginning of time. Suggesting that writing, poetry and art are supposed to be consumed at face value and that's it, is crazy. You can't use "The current zeitgeist of today" in an argument about a book that came out 30 years ago. The problems of our current society are not new. And just like L. Frank Baum, Gregory Maguire used World of Oz to convey a message about friendship, society, critical thinking and being true to yourself. Gregory just looked at it through a more mature, detailed and nuanced lens. You clearly don't have an argument here other than "I don't like it because I don't like it."
@notenoughtreble of course you would respond that way to my analysis and commentary on your comment. It goes along with your superficial and two-dimensional reading of the subject matter at hand. You're hilarious. 😆 But consistent.
Go see it, it's magical and emotional and hysterical. You don't have to like someone to respect the level of hard work and effort but into a performance.
I’m a 36 year old guy who went to this movie with my kids. This movie is certainly not made for me, but it was fine, even good at times. I wouldn’t be so hard on the film, I think it would be A LOT harder to make a better Wicked than it would be to make a worse version
To be honest, this is a boring and generally anti-art review. What do you mean "let's not try to paint objective villains as misunderstood." That's not what maguire was trying to do. It's a wholly separate story for a reason, and a thought experiment on the nature of evil. That the (genre? field? idk) of revisionist storytelling spawned a bunch of lazy "what if bad guy actually good" disney copycats is just a symptom of pop culture and Hollywood capitalizing on trends, not an inherent problem with the act. It's not "bad sport," it's a what-if based on a real intellectual curiosity. Criticizing the entire genre because it inspired Malevolent is like criticizing something like Farenheit 451 because of Divergent and all the other dystopia YA novels in the 2010s, or like criticizing Dracula and vampire stories in all because Twilight is annoying, not to mention you made no argument for *why* it's "bad sport" to do this aside from "you didn't come up with the characters," to which one should say "no shit, that's the point." Very shallow way to look at things.
I'm honestly surprised, but I think your review of this is spot on. I am a fan of musical theater and I am a fan of musicals generally, but when it comes to revisionism I agree. The problems you point out I agree. The things they did well I agree. Also that we gamers are constantly screwed over I agree +
why so much hate? "a certain type of gentlemen like it" ...are you afraid to say gay men? why hesitate? you know what is said about "wanna be tough guys" who can't say the gay word right? (anyway...i can imagine what are you watching secretley on your laptop😉😂)
As i have not seen any comment on it I feel it necessary to give credit to your mighty moustache. I can only field a full beard well and my wife forbids me to only have the stashe. Keep it.
You must really hate your job. A person with such childish views on who has the right to revise original work would be incapable to meaningfully review most of Hollywood films. And your statements that rushed and campy musical production would be so great as a movie are laughable.
I have to leave a comment. The interaction you got from the inflammatory nitpicking is a master class I can apply to my channel. All this time I have been trying to give honest opinions. I'm such an internet noob.
Sound of music is old as shit. Granted it’s good and a classic but time moves on. Compared to the vocal skill presented between wicked and sound of music, there’s an astronomical difference in skill level. Huge skill diff. It’s hilarious how people go watch a musical and don’t even critique the music part of it. Instead picking out useless nonsense shit completely unrelated. It’s like watching action movies and critiquing there was no comedy. As I’ve told my friends, if you like musicals you’ll love this. If not, this is the most boring shit you’ll ever see.
I’m baffled at how much of a simpleton you are. The moment you said that the only discrimination was towards elphaba, I had to stop watching. The discrimination towards the animals is the driving force behind elphaba’s biggest decisions. If it weren’t for that, she would have stayed with the wizard and would have never been labeled as wicked. Also, would it kill you to do some research on theater and why it’s against the craft to simply release life performances on blueray? Just because you have no respect for something doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t educate yourself before releasing commentary on the subject.
As a new viewer specifically looking up reviews for this movie... I would've been more inclined to finish had there been an ounce of open mindedness at the beginning. To each their own - I'd probably speak the same way about a movie based on a tv show based on a comic book.
I'm Not watching the video because I haven't seen the movie yet but I just want to point out how much I hate it when movie reviewer's say I watched it so you Don't have to ! 🤦🙄 like seriously I Don't need you to watch movies for me I can watch movies for myself and I'll decide if there Good or not so Don't act like your doing me a favor by watching movie for me or so I don't have to also because I still plan on seeing the movie I just had a bad weekend but I am going to watch for myself so you didn't do me a favor 🙄
My guy you could have just gone and watched it instead of raving on a UA-cam comment section there are plenty of times these videos have helped people get an understanding of a movie where they didn't have to watch it fully
Every "authentic" idea or piece of work is essentially a person's unique adaptation of something they’ve seen or experienced. In my opinion, gatekeeping these creations or stories is limiting. Innovation and progress, whether in medicine, tech, or literature, stem from people building on existing ideas and infusing them with their own creativity. This process of adaptation and contribution is what drives evolution and improvement in our society.
I don't mind it. If it's good, why not? I loved getting the story from a different point of view. Most people know that it's not related to the original writer's story, there's no confusion about that. I don't wanna hear non stop singing personally, I need dialogue in between musical numbers otherwise it'll get on my nerves. We're in Christmas season, this movie yes was made for the fans but also for families. The wizard of Oz was a scammer in the original story the recent writers just built around that and wondered, what if...?
The musical theatre peeps get better adaptations bc the source material and subject matter inherently leans towards the demographic that is more in favor in Hollywood-- more queer or female-centric themes (usually without too much girlbossing). The stories told more closely align with what is "culturally acceptable.". The musicals are made for the correct audience. The movies/source material that are geared towards gaming until recently usually dealt with more masculine-themed subject matter because that is the primary base demographic. But Hollywood doesn't want those themes on screen right now so they alter the source material or try to morph it into material for the wrong audience. It would be so cool to see a side by side breakdown of Male versus Female IP brands and then see which ones are more intrusively Woke/"The Message" infused. Because I think one is going to be much more blatantly obvious than the other.
The Wicked books are no more fan fiction than the 1939 film… back then, it was about acquiring rights, but since 1954, The Wizard of Oz has been in the public domain. You you know how loose of an adaptation the ’39 film is of the 1900 original book? Here are a few spoilers… the Witch of the West isn’t at all green or even remotely similar in any way, and Glinda wasn’t the one to send Dorothy to see the Wizard. You’re so upset at this revisionist standpoint but lack basic understanding of the franchise in its entirety 😂 The books’ original author had no input in the ’39 film, and it completely reimagined his concept of Oz. The point Wicked is trying to make is how far of a reach political corruption and propaganda can have. And Wicked isn’t the only one to subvert expectations within the franchise… the ’39 film, The Wiz, Return to Oz, Tin Man, and Emerald City all take the source material and flip it on its head. Being upset about a 30 year old book and its 20 year old musical adaptation NOW is just you wanting to generate hate content and engagement farming 🙄 The movie is an excellent adaptation of the musical. It’s a 1:1 remake that expands scenes to allow for world building… if musical theater isn’t your thing, then go do something that is 🙄
The reason it’s not recorded is because the right s are owned by universal, not the theatre or troupe that made it and would result in legal trouble if it were to be recorded.
My wife watched a movie last night called Holiday in the Wild and thoroughly enjoyed it. I witnessed a clearly green screen scene where Rob Lowe said to a baby elephant "go make something of yourself", my wife didn't batter an eye, I immediately texted my mates.
Dude this time around you are the only one that hates this Literally every single comment is someone who hates musicals or doesn’t like Wicked This movie was so funny and so good that I watched it twice already I recognize bad movies and would never watch them twice I agreed with you on other things such as the new Peter Pan movie but this one I have got to say that I disagree on strongly Wicked is one of the only movies now that has the critics and the people agreeing on giving it 90% If it is so bad then why can’t people on UA-cam stop talking about just how good it is Long time fans of Wicked including myself love this movie and some have already seen it a few times No they are not getting paid to see it if that’s what you are going to say. There is so much talent and work put into this movie I’m sorry you didn’t like it but you telling people that it is bad simply because you don’t like it and telling people that it’s bad is outrageous I’m sorry to say that you and everyone else who doesn’t like this movie are very much in the minority and that’s not an opinion it’s a fact
Also, in the original movie, the Wicked Witch already had a reason to be pissed: a house fell on her sister. Why do people need more than that very simple reason?
What's funny is she seemed to get over her sister's murder pretty quick when glinda mentioned those Ruby slippers, then it was like what sister who? 😆
The original, the book and the play are vastly different beasts
To be fair, the original story of oz is weird and morally ambigous enough for people to make weird assumptions
I mean, canonically , The wizard of Oz is a fraud who used a little girl to kill and steal from the witch. Don't tell me that doesn't sound weird as hell
To their credit, Wicked is based on a musical. It's not it's own spinoff story that Hollywood just invented. And Hollywood took the Wizard of Oz movie from Frank Baum's novels.
@@darkthrone7201 Well, I guess when you're called the Wicked Witch, sentimentality isn't really a concern. LOL!
The reason most musicals don’t have a recording is because of some crazy copyright stuff. I don’t know the exact details, but getting the rights to a musical is a wild process.
Also why did he frame that question as if the fans ahem excuse me “prancing ninnies” are the fault for why there aren’t more procasts of musicals?
The Oz books are incredibly subversive.. in the same way Alice in Wonderland is.
They are also surprisingly funny especially the 3rd one.
I felt the same way about the Remus stories. The animals are complete a-holes to each other. It's basically South Park in 1870s Georgia
Ozma of Oz was great, I agree.
I like TikTok of Oz the best though because it had so many levels of weird.
Exactly, if you look at Baum's female characters, he's clearly an early feminist. Oz is almost exclusively populated with powerful baddies.
I loved all of my Oz books. Not this movie. We left after an hour. Done!
"Subversive?" How on earth do you work that out?
6:14 about the whole “discrimination” thing, did bro remember that there’s a whole subplot about talking animals being scapegoated in Oz’s society and having both their rights and intelligence taken away?
The funny thing is, the Wicked Witch of the West was barely in the first Oz book. Her role was expanded in the 1939 movie and that's where Gregory Macguire got his inspiration for his novel Wicked and Stephen Schwartz and Winnie Holzman for the musical. In the books, the reoccurring villain is actually the Nome King, who some of you may recognize from the 1985 "Return to Oz" movie.
Also Known As the movie, along with The Neverending Story, that traumatized a generation!
Your point about not being able to easily see the stage production IS why they made it a film...
Lol no it’s not. They just want money and to subvert our morals.
You attribute too much good will to filmmakers 😂 the studio requested to make it into film to make MONEY
They can care less of people see it on Bway or not 😂😂😂 their ultimate goal is cash not Art
No it is not. There are very well executed filmed stage productions all over PBS for example; it is easily doable. In fact the stage cast of the various Wicked productions undoubtedly themselves have a DVD; I have my own collection of plays and musicals I was in!
I give you a lot of credit for getting that line about Wicked being that
“one insufferable contrarian you get on every online forum ever made” out with a straight face. Pot meet kettle lmao
Wicked sucks, and you fans are all gay.
@@BryceShamwow ok Bryce, go read The Devine Commedy, the best fanfiction out there
@@silvia_leev Your opinions on the Divine Comedy don't somehow make Wicked better so I don't get your point
That's like saying Pride and Prejudice exists so Twilight can't be bad because it's also a love story
@@drawingdragon i just proved the point that fanfiction exists since the dawn of times and that is studied in school. not whether is good or bad. for me? the best. but I mainly said that to provoke lol
Anyway, if you ask any student in Italy, they'll reply that they hate the Devine Comedy. mainly the difficult lexicon or how Dante resolves poorly some situations, like fainting at every end of every chapter or distorting the bible itself. I personally kind of like the Devine Comedy, and I recognize that something decent can come out of a fanfiction lol
"alternative Elphaba casting" oh boy....
Right… weird… idk
I feel like at that point, nothing is of worth in this review
@@baalgodofrain no right, because on broadway they use “blind casting” we’ve literally had Brittney Johnson on broadway as Glinda, like 😭they could literally casted whoever they wanted, the choice of having Cynthia as Elphaba was perfect because she was BORN to play this character, no such thing as “alternative casting” these clowns hate representation that isn’t for their demographic like
@@Julián-w1j I doubt that colourblind casting is truly occurring in most film productions. They are unlikely to pass up the opportunity to cast a minority for one of the leads to score points with part of the audience and drum up interest in production. Just the same as they wouldn’t want to cast 2 black women as the leads and risk alienating part of the audience in some way. I think that casting is more calculated than just a matter of meritocracy. Hamilton seems like it comes pretty close though. Maybe they went all the way.
As a theatre kid here is my take:
yeah idk why theres no proshot or decent recording. there was a very good one on youtube a few months ago but ofc they copyright struck that. But hey, they shouldnt be surprised when people watch wicked themed slime tutorials or sail the seven seas.
honestly i think the complaint about not liking the concept of wicked bc its essentially revisionism or whatever it is a very pretentious and unserious criticism. the original wicked (book version) was used for the author to explore themes of human nature, when writing he decided it would be effective to use the world of Oz as an allegory. It isnt just a lazy cheap rewrite, so much depth, lore, and characters are added that wasn't in the wizard of oz is that it might as well be its own thing entirely. honestly the only real issue i can think of in the same ballpark of that complaint is that wicked the stageshow sugarcoats or removes some of the depth in the original novel.
in regards to the runtime. i was initially worried, however the movie flew by in the theater. and after having watched the movie i understood what jon chu meant when he said it could only work as 2 parts. in the stage show act 2 felt very rushed due to time constraints and i think this will be fixed in the movies as i noticed in act 1 scenes had more time to breathe and develop more.
i think this anti-woke bs has gone too far. i guess i sort of understood where it was coming from the beginning but now people just assume DEI if an actor is a poc, as if they didn't audition like everyone else for the role, and did better than them which is why they were chosen. To deliberately choose not to acknowledge this, is frankly racist and harmful to the actors and poc as a whole. cynthia wasn't "alternative casting" to be woke or whatever. in broadway black women and other women of color have played elphaba. shes green, all the actor needs is green facepaint, and singing talent and theyre good to go. plus imo she was the strongest actor in the movie, brought a refreshing new interpretation to the role of Elphaba, and has one of the best voices of this generation. the irony is yall will complain about the movie directors focusing too much on race if the main cast isnt 100% white, when it's yall who focus way too much on the ethnicity of actors than anyone else. also, gay actors cant be cast either?? wth
overall i think the movie was a perfect adaptation, i also wish they kept some lines in from the stage show especially in dancing through life jonathan bailey didnt say "whats the most swankified place in town." and the plot hole in that same sequence when madam morrible wasnt upset that the whole school snuck to the ozdust which they rewrote to be some 'illicit place' but ive come up with my own headcanon to justify that.
Movie was AMAZING!!!!!!!! I fell in love with the wicked witch LOL Ariana and Cynthia did a great job 👏
I am honestly impressed that you watched the live show one night and then the movie the next morning. VERY thorough, and I, for one, appreciate that.
6:35 um... the entire plot with the animals???
Media illiteracy in a nutshell
This is exactly the product you get from a culture who has worshipped Youth to the point where imaturity becomes desirable and moral ambiguity serves as a placeholder for the concept of freedom that can't be understood.
As a straight man that loves musicals one of them is wicked I am annoyed by other straight men that when talking about musicals have to make a point that they hate musicals but also say they went and saw one, or make an excuse that their girlfriend dragged them along to see it
I, a straight man, also like musicals. That is all.
It definitely comes from some kind of insecure masculinity. In this video he brands musical theatre fans as "prancing ninnies" which was a big yikes moment from me.
Some guys just want to be seen to hate anything that girls like, as if it makes them seem more masculine. It's really weird.
On a side note, he's also made no less than 27 videos about Rings of Power, a show he apparently also hates. If you hate something that much why would you devote so much time and energy into it?
I’ve never been a musical guy or a theatre guy in general but I like music and I like movies so if they do it well I like it. It’s so tired every dude bro has to say this 😂😂
None of you guys are straight.
As a straight woman, I WANT to hear feedback from men who do not like a certain type of movie - IE Barbie - because I want to hear something else besides "Oo I just WUB this movie!!" And I probably will have the same opinion as them being that I have no interest in seeing this crap and so I want to hear THEIR take on it. I hated Barbie as well. And She-Hulk. Funny how no one goes after WOMEN who gripe about 'guy' movies. I guess women are in a special, protective class.
For someone hating musicals, you criticize the movie for not having enough singing. Interesting.
Very suspicious
So I can't criticise a wine bar for not selling wine unless I like wine?
and it's a dumb take, because this is all the songs in Act 1. Bro is being a reactionary.
@@GeoffInfield I'd be extremely suspicious of any self-professed wine haters having any sort of knowledge of wine vintages.
The film is filled with singing, like every few minutes, so he's daft saying that!
You know there was trouble on the horizon when they tried to remake the original theater poster as homage and you saw Cynthia Erivo’s scowl without lipstick instead of a smile.
I bet she introduce herself with her pronouns
I can say that, generally, stage shows are hesitant to do proshots because (particularly for shows still on broadway) they are terrified that it will drive ticket sales down significantly. People are dropping an absurd amount of money on Broadway tix, so if they know they can just see a proshot on Netflix or some other service, they'll spend their money on a show they CAN'T otherwise see.
Others will maybe point to Hamilton as an exception, and rightfully so, but Hamilton was so absurdly popular that it would still sell out the stage despite a recording being available.
There's also this attitude towards the "ephemoral" nature of theatre, and that performances should remain on the stage and that pro-shots dilute the performances to something less real. Personally, I think the culture is dumb and I think shows that have completed their runs should have proshots released. I'm surprised that more artists don't push for it. The most ridiculous thing is that proshots DO EXIST for most Broadway shows, but they are extremely hard to access and are only shown to specific people (I believe NYU theatre students are able to watch them for research, for example).
Pro shots can only be viewed by NYU theater students and the students can only view a show once. So even to the few people that have access it’s ridiculously difficult. It begs the question why record the show at all.
@@alansmithee5595 It's important to archive for future generations. You never know who will need to research an actor, staging, score, etc. for scholarly work. It's not being used for entertainment purposes. When people entertain you, they need to be compensated. Filming and distributing stage shows for entertainment purposes is probably a contractual nightmare. Film and theater unions are different and each would need to be involved. This would inflate a budget with no promises of a return on investment.
@@alansmithee5595you can stream them now.
Pro shot are available for companies that buy the full rights, for example, partners in other countries, as they have the right to mount the show exactly like the original if they want to, and also to those doing revivals, who usually want to make something completely different. Also PBS, BBC and other TV stations used to show some plays and musicals, as cultural outreach, but i haven't seen that practice anymore, except during the pandemic that Android Lloyd Weber, and others put several of their shows online, for a limited engagement.
I think it is a genuine fear. I never saw Hamilton when it was out with the original cast because not only were the tickets expensive but super hard to come by. And I don't live near NYC so getting there would not be like going to a local show. However, since I saw the pro recording with the original cast on Disney, I don't really have a desire to see a live show on Broadway because I feel like whoever is in the show they cannot possibly compete with the original cast, so I will go see something else if I get a chance to visit Broadway. On the other hand, some people would nevler go to any Broadway show because it's either too expensive or too far so a recording is a great way to share with those people.
...The discrimination in Wicked isn't talking about Elphaba as much as the Animals who are literally having their right to speak and work taken away
Which happened in exactly none of the Oz books.
@MaskedMan66 It's the core of the book Wicked
@@MaskedMan66 Embarrassing
@@MrsRen I mean the real Oz books.
@@MaskedMan66 The movie is based on the musical based on Wicked by Gregory Maguire though so what you're talking about doesn't fucking matter.
gamer 'bro' is talking to an audience I haven't thought existed since 2009.
As someone who likes musicals (Wicked not being one of them though) yes, I don't understand why they never release pro shot plays.
The footage exists for some, but apparently it's left to rot on a shelf somewhere.
And then you have to be careful what you wish for, because then you get Jekyll and Hyde with Hasselhoff or a Phantom with a nuked set.
A lot of performances would be lost to time were it not for bootlegs.
I think it has something to do with the price of rights and royalties. I do volunteer tech work for a theatre group and they have to pay thousands of dollars just to use a logo/rent scripts, and they are not allowed to stream the content on UA-cam for more than a few days or they could get sued.
I also wonder if theatre figured out: if we stream live performances or record them, we'll be shooting ourselves in foot financially the way orchestras did with recordings. People might stop going to the theatre. People are doing that even with films now bc of streaming.
They have a streaming website for broadway shows.
@@jennowak3160 Oh, this is cool to know! Thanks! I remember they experimented with this for a while with operas at the Met. Not sure if it worked out though.
I do agree, considering you can buy dvds of shakespeare plays, I think there's a real market there :/
How I wish there was an official HD release of Jekyll & Hyde with literally anyone else...
Why can't people do their research when they have the urge to do a review about something? This video is clearly biased and lacks basic knowledge on its main topics.
I absolutely disagree with your take on the concept of Wicked. For context, I haven't seen the show and I have little interest in musical theatre so I have no horse in this race in that sense. As someone who is a fan of a lot of the things you have covered on your channel, I understand where you are coming from. Time and time again we have had our stories stolen from our fandoms by greedy corporations, maliciously transformed into something unrecognizable, thrown back in our face and told we are the problem for feeling disrespected. I absolutely hate the current remake culture too and I completely agree that these things are terrible and should have been stopped years ago. But the fact of the matter is Wicked does not fall under this category. There is nothing inherently wrong with exploring a universe wider than it's initial portrayal. There is nothing wrong with wishing to explore characters in different scenarios, or perhaps take a completely different spin on a character and see where the story goes from there. One could get into a legal discussion about rights and profits and whatever but that is not really what I'm here to talk about. The thing that separates the WIckeds from the Last Jedis and the Rings of power is the fact that this is clearly a project born of genuine love and passion for the original, which is also an answer to your question of "how come the musical fans are getting good adaptations and we aren't." This is a story clearly made by people who genuinely understand, love and respect the material and wish to create something in that universe and share it with existing fans along with a whole new generation, unlike something like the modern Star Wars which is made by people who dislike the source material and are only interested in using it as a platform for their diaries. Fandom culture, and I mean true fandom culture, not just Hollywood suits reading fandom twitter to find out the best way to bait money from fans, is an incredibly important cornerstone of good stories being able to exist in the first place. True fan works, made out of actual love are not the problem here, and I feel like you are conflating two completely different entities into one and demonizing the whole thing. Without these things existing, so many works of fiction would have never happened in the first place, whether that be potential authors never picking up the pen for the first time, a piece inspired by something else never having been made, etc. Going back to Star Wars again since I mentioned it so much in this post, the entire concept of it is just Lucas taking an already established formula and saying "What if it was in space instead", which according to the way I interpreted your take on these things sounds like something you would be against, no? I might have misunderstood your point, but what I'm trying to say is that I feel this is a topic more nuanced than the opinion you gave and these are two completely different things that have been lumped into one. One is a further exploration into a world/character/concept made out of genuine love and passion for something and a wish to share that with others, and another is a malicious lazy way to make money or tear down something you don't like and replace it with something you do. To me it is all about intention, and it is very clear when something is one or the other.
Sorry for wall of text, hope I was able to make myself a little clear lol
"Wicked" has no connection either to the Oz books or to the MGM version of the first of them.
One small rebuttle, if children and families watch the 1939 W.O.Z, and see Judy garland's performance as a result of Wicked, then I think that's a win !!!
Wicked making the W.O.Z film relevant and prominent again is a huge cultural win!
Great point. Every Christmas I was on the edge of my seat terrified the wicked witch would get her claws on Toto. I loved all dogs with all of my little child heart. What a truly fantastic film. Who gives a fk why the wicked witch was wicked?? The musical was the very, very worst show I have ever seen.
I usually don’t comment on stuff but it needs to be said: the notion that “re-context work from original authorship is inherently dishonest/creatively lacking/immoral” is bad take imo. Given how many creative works are made in the first place. For example: You like the Disney Renaissance movies? Those would be gone. No interpretations of beauty and the beast, no Hunchback, no Lion King since that’s based on Hamlet etc. The practice is not inherently wrong. It depends on how you use it. Is it blatantly lazy? A repainted copy in a new format to cash in? Or does it take the time and effort to craft something different through it with intent. It’s the standing on the shoulders of giants vs ripping-off argument, one is a common option of inspiration, the other just plain bad. I’m no musician, but I can admire how works build upon each other creatively this way. One can be wholly original, but will it be good? How can we tell what’s good or not with out looking back? Without looking at the great stories/songs/movies or art/history/culture that inspire/shaped us? Or will we just put them on a pedestal and never try to question them, never see what they missed, and never attempt something of similar or greater quality again.
Actually, the question is the one he harped on: moral inversion. Are you suggesting that the Lion King inverts Hamlet? Don't think so, in fact, it is rather too slavish an adaptation to be bothered with if it weren't that the score is so memorable (if not to my taste, overall). Beauty and the Beast is even better and one of the least Disneyfied musicals ever made. The live action remake is the one to push into the memory hole because it DOES invert the moral standing of the original fairy tale as well as the animated adaptation.
just wait for the lord of the rings remake where sauron is really the good guy,.
@phloxie he's just misunderstood
Sauron was an incel
They already did that in Rings of Power! What a horrible sh*t-show that was
@@sentient_typewriter "Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made."
Won't it be something when they finally come out with Lord of the Rings the musical? Can you just imagine Frodo and Sam holding hands and singing their way up to Mount Doom?
You hate musicals. Perfectly entitled to....so why bother reviewing one? Just ignore it. The movies you would love would probably be loathed by the millions who're going to make Wicked another success of Barbie proportions.
I mean the book it’s based on is interested in the idea of inherent evil, and uses Oz and the Witch as a touchstone to discuss that
Why do people go to things they hate 🙄
Because how else will they get clicks on their pointless videos.
how will you know you've hated it until you've tried?
@OlexiVR true. But if you know you don't like it in the first place. I don't like upside down roller coasters because I tried it once. Won't do it again
To whine about wokeness & icky girls.
@@harrisonbarr7239 oh yes 🤣
You seem like someone with pretty horrendous opinions. You complain about it being PG for “discrimination” and say that besides “people being mean to her for her green skin is about it,” when there is a literal subplot of citizens being rounded up, silenced, and put in cages, kinda betrays pretty shit media literacy on your part.
Yeah, him completely skipping over the Animals sideplot is baffling. On top of that calling Cynthia's casting as Elpheba "alternate" casting? The hell? What makes her different than the "default" casting you'd be expecting, hmm? If there were any concerns about acting ability from the cast that I heard, it was people worried Ari wouldn't be able to pull it off and was cast solely for the singing.
@@andrewshirley9240 agreed, but what do you expect from someone who unironically uses the word "woke" to describe things? making that comment about cynthia and then another about bowen, completely disregarding their talent in favor of dividing people because of "wokism," it's truly insane
It’s not “alternative casting” for Elphaba…there’s been black actresses playing that role over the past 20 years - as well as Hispanic and other ethnicities that are darker than “white”….. the character is *green* race of the actress has 0% to do with the casting. Cynthia killed the acting and singing - also her chemistry and voice blended well with her co-lead…that’s why she was cast.
!!!and mind you the girl is green
Yeah it just sucks that she doesn't know what a publicist is
I don’t normally like musicals or want to watch them, especially after accidentally watching joker 2 this past year which I did not know was a musical. This one was surprisingly good, sure there was a slow burn being that the runtime was 2 hours and 40 minutes long. But the movie kept you interested in it the whole way through. Singing was top notch. I would recommend
So much yapping jesus christ do you even talk about the actual film
I know it must be difficult for you to listen to someone who has a different experience and opinion than yours. And actually he did talk about the movie without giving too many spoilers. Now go back to sleep.
You’re going to give yourself an aneurism working your brain this hard to poke holes in Wicked.
Haven't watched the video yet but I have been seeing a lot of intense comments just hating on musicals and, by all means ppl are entitled to their opinions, but shitting on musicals just because you think it's a stupid medium gives similar vibes to ppl dunking on animation as being just for kids. Different mediums to adapt entertainment. I'm sure a lot of ppl cannot understand why others love animation and, as an animation fan, I dont expect their view to change but I'd just appreciate some basic respect that ok, you like this, cool, not for me. Same energy with musicals. I don't expect most straight men to like them but there seems to be too many who wouldn't even give them a chance and like...critical drinker actually enjoyed Wicked on the West End and Come From Away and Book of Mormon are musicals I have seen every man I know enjoy. The Little Big Things is also one many of my musical-skeptical friends have liked. Hating on musicals just because seems rather immature to me (which btw I think hating vs disliking them or acknowledging they're not your thing are different)
I'm one of Johnny's biggest supporters and I love musicals.
My theory is that you don't know any straight men.
@@SilentlyScreaming-c5t my theory is if you have such a narrow-minded black-and-white view about it you're either pretty young, trying to troll, or both. But hey, thanks for helping me realise my husband, father-in-law and girlfriend's husbands are gay. I'll be sure to get the divorce papers going
@@SilentlyScreaming-c5tstraight man here, raised classical music, and wicked was phenomenal in terms of musical and vocal skill. The fuck are you on about?
If you hate musical theatre then why did you see an almost 3hr movie based on a Broadway musical? Looking for content to complain about and record I guess.
I happened upon this video to see an interesting take or differing opinion from my own, but disappointed to see that its so sloppy? Using 'turning your grandmother's house into a strip club" as a metaphor to describe Wicked being adapted is so lazy and so ignorant of the fact that art is very much referential and self-referential. It does not exist in a vacuum. All art is an inspiration or a reference!! Even in the most original of works. If you create art that is so damn good, it will inevitably spawn creations that grounds itself in it. Sure, some of it is derivative, but you will come across gems that remain faithful to the source material. Let's be real, expecting truly original stories from artists all the time is simply unrealistic.
No, he is describing the wizard of oz being adapted into wicked, which is adapted into a stage play, which is adapted into a two part movie.
There's a difference between "all art is inspired by something else, nothing exists in a vacuum" and "literally every blasted movie to come out in the last 10 years is either a sequel, a prequel, a remake, a reboot, an extended universe (psuedo-sequel), or otherwise SOMEHOW based on an existing beloved IP" or "this movie is based on a musical that was based on a series of fanfiction that was based on a film adaptation that was based on one book from a fiction series."
Dude, you don't like musicals. This ain't for you then. Why bother?
Because he wants to monetize it while it's relevant.
“Camera seemed to be attached to a startled arthritic jack hammer” - true artistry haha
Inception levels of "based on" lmao
“I came expecting a circus, but there was nary one clown.”
Lovely.
I love Wicked, by the way.
I see the book as a fan-fiction of the original. I always thought the Wizard of Oz was the American version of Alice in Wonderland.
I dunno, this kind of sounds like this is a good movie and you had to reach to find stuff to bash it for...because otherwise someone might think you like a "chick flick". (Even though, btw, there are loads of perfectly normal, straight, regular guys who saw the stage show and liked it. Same as I know a lot of guys who love Sound of Music.) I It's okay to like a movie that isn't directly aimed at you, you know, and not have to find reasons to take it apart. You can still just enjoy a well executed bit of entertainment that didn't fail the way you hoped/expected.
Your insecurities are showing.
Nah, it's your insecurities not being able to see that people have a different experience and opinion than yours. You're hilarious. 😆 Now go back to sleep.
@@grosbeak6130the fact that he has to explain more than once that he’s a dude and that musicals aren’t for dudes shows he has an abundance of insecurities. Sweet dreams to you too 🤡
Horrible critique. Never critique anything again.
Edit: Sorry, that was mean. I meant horrible critique but do keep on critiquing idc.
Are you so challenged by someone who has a different experience and opinion than your own? You're hilarious. 😆
@grosbeak6130 i simply critiqued his critque. pls don't feel so challenged by someone who has an opinion 🤷♂️
@@grosbeak6130there’s a fine line between having a different experience and opinion and simply posting bullshit. This video is about to get tons of backlash from a lot of music majors lmao
@@jakeho4390 your laughable attempt to turn the tables here says a lot about yourself.
@@bennywho7180 your comment is nonsensical, this is a movie a fiction and he's giving his personal experience. There's an old saying; it takes all kinds to make a world. If you think that this is BS, well okay that's on you. But I don't see it that way and neither do some others here in the comments section.
the whole video basically scream straight guy who thinks musicals will crushes his fragile masculinity, so he hate on musicals but even with so much hate he still go to watch it just so he can understand the story to talk shit on it without looking dumb.
Honestly the moment you say you hate musicals I already know this video is not genuine facts and just your biased opinion as a hater.
Also "alternative casting for elphaba" what does that even mean? Like is it because she's Black? Now we're crossing a certain territory here.
I'm not going to get too into it but just know elphaba is green, she is green, she is a green women.
Just saying... just saying...a black women playing doesn't change that she's green... just saying...so idk where alternative casting came from...
This critique is incredible. It's incredibly eloquent to the point of being erodite. You've popped up on my feed because I watched you (incredibly accurate) critique of Gladiator II which I'd seen the night before and wished I'd watched your critique before I'd lost two and a half hours of my life. I'll be back - regularly.
The critique is eloquent but if you remove eloquence there is no substance.
@@andsster It boils down to "revisionism bad" with no argument as to why aside from "that's someone else's character" which is a very boring critique and honestly a real head scratcher. Just a total consumerist mindset.
@@k--musici really don't think how that's a bad critique. It matters a lot when you swap people's roles. It's the same thing as when people say "No culture" to white people but get offended when someone says an actual bad thing about their culture.
@@k--music I like JL but I also think it's a thin statement. If someone doesn't already know and have love for wizard of Oz they're not gonna be interested in wicked so why are we even worried. I don't even think original OZ has that much moral clarity. I'd like people to respect each others ability to see things more than one way and stop policing each others minds.
Damn, imagine admitting you're an idiot like this.
I think that's another one that I disagree with, I feel like this channel is changing into winging whining rants.been here since you reviewed Velma
I don't know, some musical versions of plays turn out pretty good: 'The Trickster of Seville' ends up as Mozart's 'Don Giovanni,' for example. (And, no, neither Mozart nor DaPonte had anything to do with the original.)
The 'Oz' books were smoothed over for the movie, the same way 'Cabaret' was. Yet both are classics.
At the same time, subversion for the sake of subversion? Yeah - or, No - we don't like the past, so go ahead, cancel it; but reversing polarities changes nothing , so what have you got in the way of a future?
Fun fact, all of the singing in the movie was all recorded live while recording the movie. They did that so they could feel more connected to the words they were singing while acting.
Must have wrecked their larynxes depending on how many takes were needed.
I guess it’s good that a majority of people who have seen it disagree with you!
And that a majority of those who refuse to agree with him. I saw the stage show. Except for the two earworms, I don't remember a thing about it, except for wondering why two guys were sitting up at the top corners of the proscenium. And knowing this is an overblown sensory overload experience with little to no original content in any sense means I would rather spend the same two and a half hours rereading Lord of the RIngs (or, better, rewatching Fellowship of the Ring).
🤷🏻♀️ People like different things.
So because a majority disagrees with him automatically means the movie is GOOD? Give me a break. There was a time people said TWILIGHT was good. And Barbie. Both were crap.
@@roedhunt Both garbage movie
Thank you for sacrificing yourself on something i had no intention to see, very cool.
Maybe you'd like Matt Walsh's new film ?
@palmereldritch7777 You bet!
@@hispanicfarmboy Isn't it amazing how i can gauge someone's taste in movies :-)
@@palmereldritch7777 So clever of you!
As a theatre person, I would much prefer watching a recording of the actual stage show over a movie.
I have a very interesting question, is your entire channel dedicated to negativity? I am aware it’s easier to get people to hate something versus like it, but I wish there was less negativity. Offer something more than just critique, criticism is lazy.
I honestly feel sad for you
it’s like these guys get off on being miserable and insufferable
@@sorryitsjackexactly!
Feel sad for yourself that you cannot see that other people can have different experiences and opinions than your own. Now that's sad.
If it's a good stripclub and your grandmother basically had no taste - i'll throw my weight behind the stripclub. There are some very talented and artistic strippers out there.
One more word of advice - if you want to be a reviewer - review it for what it is - not for what is lacking in your own personality. And know something about the stuff you review.
I can review it for you. CRAP, start to finish. End of
@@vivian9187 Sorry sweetie, that's just an opinion without arguments. End of.
@palmereldritch7777 Fair enough. I didn't think that my opinions were likely to match someone who thinks strippers are talented.
There is of course no reason to stop reviewing things that one doesn't like. It is perfectly legitimate to say "I don't like X and here are the reasons why I don't like this particular X".
Obviously people who are uncondtionnal fans of X will never understand and act agressively because they are unable to make any criticism. You see that all the time.
Really clutching on straws here mate
Not really it's you who are having a problem with someone who has a different experience and opinion then you. Go back to sleep. 😆
I loved Les Miserables. musical or not God carrying a man through hell and fortune to find out who he really is was amazing to watch.
It’s kind of sad that you spent so much time and money on the musical and the film just to hate it.
I don’t think Wicked subverts the Wizard of Oz at all…
In The Wizard of Oz The Wizard is still a con man- he tells a small girl go kill a witch because he has no real power.
In Wicked, he tells Elphaba to read the grimmerie because he has no real power.
The moral of the story in The wizard Of Oz is that through helping others, friendships and believing in yourself, you can do anything.
Wicked the musical, has the exact same moral and message.
To millions of people Wicked is a symbol of resistance, self actualization and a desire to uplift those who are marginalized and beat down by society.
I hope the next film you watch is something you enjoy.
He's not really hating here just expressing a different experience and opinion than yours. Your whole social justice warrior commentary here is hilarious. Are you always this preachy and giving lectures to people?
@@grosbeak6130 I'm sorry that "social justice warrior commentary" was what you got from that.
It's unfortunate because he spent a LOT of money seeing a stage musical that he didn't like and then spent more money seeing a movie based on it that musical he ALSO didn't like.
Clearly it wasn't his cup of tea and he doesn't really value plays or musicals as a form of entertainment.
And that's okay, he doesn't have to.
Just as he's allowed to have his opinion, millions of others (including myself) are allowed to have ours.
I was simply giving the counter argument that it doesn't subvert the message of The Wizard of Oz like he was accusing Wicked of doing. And explaining what millions of other people love about it and why it's important and applicable to our world today.
If you have a valid counter argument, I'm all ears.
@@notenoughtreble here are your own words: "To millions of people Wicked is a symbol of resistance, self actualization and a desire to uplift those who are marginalized and beat down by society."
Yep, "social justice warrior" lingo and talking points if I ever heard any. You're probably more deeply influenced by today's zeitgeist then you are aware of. And then you imply that this is exactly the same thing with the original Wizard of Oz movie in 1939 saying that that's the moral of it. Also you make condescending remarks about how unfortunate it is that he really didn't appreciate or enjoy the movie because he spent so much money on it. Do you see how you sound here in all of this?
Your problem is that you reduce the original film to some kind of moral or moralizing it. Turning it into a morality tale. And then you went from there. But the original wizard of Oz didn't have all of those talking points in mind. To me fairy tales are what they are, beyond the moralizing within today's lingo, sensibilities and mentality of the current zeitgeist of which you seem totally caught up in. Now I do agree that the movie Wicked today does indeed reflect that i.e. the social justice warrior mentality that you expressed in the quotation I gave of you at the beginning here. So I don't disagree with you there. But that's the very reason I don't like the reimagining and interpretation and morality play of Wicked has on the original Wizard of Oz movie for our modern contemporary audience. And on top of that, the whole idea of the wicked witch and the good witch are just really in the beginning and in the end just besties. They're just really buddies. You know, it's all good with them really. But If you ever read the original Grimm's fairy tales and the original Wizard of Oz along with the 1939 movie this is far from that kind of mentality and sensibility. But you are altogether free to interpret it that way, and I'm sure maybe some others do too. But that's not how I look at the nature of true fairy tales especially of the past. I don't reduce those to that kind of thing - only that kind of level of vision. True and original fairy tales are dark and deep in many ways beyond merely our kind of reimagining and superficial moralizing vision of today's Wicked. The original 1939 wicked witch in Wizard of the Oz really has nothing to do with this navel gazing version and story of Wicked, and the redemptive vision that this new movie gives to her. No, the wicked witch in The Wizard of Oz is wicked, but in today's zeitgeist that is not acceptable and will not do as your statement again declares:
"To millions of people Wicked is a symbol of resistance, self actualization and a desire to uplift those who are marginalized and beat down by society."
That's not the witch in The Wizard of Oz in 1939, nor in the book. That only exists in today's social justice warrior sensibilities and mentality.
@@grosbeak6130 So. You said a lot of word salad and The only rebuttal you seem to have is that Fairytales SHOULDN'T have morals?
Grimm's Fairytales, stories and parables have ALWAYS had moral messaging behind them since the beginning of time.
Suggesting that writing, poetry and art are supposed to be consumed at face value and that's it, is crazy.
You can't use "The current zeitgeist of today" in an argument about a book that came out 30 years ago.
The problems of our current society are not new. And just like L. Frank Baum, Gregory Maguire used World of Oz to convey a message about friendship, society, critical thinking and being true to yourself. Gregory just looked at it through a more mature, detailed and nuanced lens.
You clearly don't have an argument here other than "I don't like it because I don't like it."
@notenoughtreble of course you would respond that way to my analysis and commentary on your comment. It goes along with your superficial and two-dimensional reading of the subject matter at hand. You're hilarious. 😆 But consistent.
I'm tempted to see the movie. I can't stand Ariana Grande though.
Well, somebody had to be the bad white person
Go see it, it's magical and emotional and hysterical.
You don't have to like someone to respect the level of hard work and effort but into a performance.
@@juliepetkovska520are you so giddy over this movie?
I’m a 36 year old guy who went to this movie with my kids. This movie is certainly not made for me, but it was fine, even good at times.
I wouldn’t be so hard on the film, I think it would be A LOT harder to make a better Wicked than it would be to make a worse version
To be honest, this is a boring and generally anti-art review. What do you mean "let's not try to paint objective villains as misunderstood." That's not what maguire was trying to do. It's a wholly separate story for a reason, and a thought experiment on the nature of evil. That the (genre? field? idk) of revisionist storytelling spawned a bunch of lazy "what if bad guy actually good" disney copycats is just a symptom of pop culture and Hollywood capitalizing on trends, not an inherent problem with the act. It's not "bad sport," it's a what-if based on a real intellectual curiosity. Criticizing the entire genre because it inspired Malevolent is like criticizing something like Farenheit 451 because of Divergent and all the other dystopia YA novels in the 2010s, or like criticizing Dracula and vampire stories in all because Twilight is annoying, not to mention you made no argument for *why* it's "bad sport" to do this aside from "you didn't come up with the characters," to which one should say "no shit, that's the point." Very shallow way to look at things.
I'm honestly surprised, but I think your review of this is spot on. I am a fan of musical theater and I am a fan of musicals generally, but when it comes to revisionism I agree. The problems you point out I agree. The things they did well I agree. Also that we gamers are constantly screwed over I agree +
It wasn't that bad; however i have no nostalgic attachment to the other adaptions so, I understand 👍🏾.
I watched the wicked play on UA-cam a while ago and it was great.
10:37 tell me your masculinity is fragile without telling me its fragile.
12:20 Tell me ur racist without telling me your racist
🙄
@@justinkador2496 tell me you have thin skin with out telling me
Four more years of Trump! Ain't that Amazing! FOUR MORE YEARS!
why so much hate? "a certain type of gentlemen like it" ...are you afraid to say gay men?
why hesitate? you know what is said about "wanna be tough guys" who can't say the gay word right?
(anyway...i can imagine what are you watching secretley on your laptop😉😂)
Referencing something without actually naming it is just common British style humour. Maybe stop assuming nonsense about people?
All these straight guys saying they hate musicals because "it's gay" is baffling to me
As i have not seen any comment on it I feel it necessary to give credit to your mighty moustache. I can only field a full beard well and my wife forbids me to only have the stashe. Keep it.
Chicago is a great musical movie. It’s the only one I enjoy. Well, besides South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.
"Some people say that I'm a bad guy. They may be right, they may be right."
@@SomeNorwegianGuy “Without evil there could be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometime!!!”
You must really hate your job. A person with such childish views on who has the right to revise original work would be incapable to meaningfully review most of Hollywood films. And your statements that rushed and campy musical production would be so great as a movie are laughable.
I have to leave a comment. The interaction you got from the inflammatory nitpicking is a master class I can apply to my channel. All this time I have been trying to give honest opinions. I'm such an internet noob.
Genuinely cracking up at the Tetsuya Nomura joke.
THIRTEEN XEHANORTS!?!?
Please, a bookmark?
I’ll rewatch Return to Oz instead. That was the only Oz film true to the books’ dangerous ambience.
it does not hold up 😅
@_Dark222Angel_ 🤡
Wicked was incredible but go off queen 💅
Return to Oz is great. So underrated and overlooked.
The wicked part one is the best musical movie I ever watch
Watch more then lol.
Singing in the rain and sound of music, for starters.
@@jost914 theyre entitled to their opinion. ive seen both and prefer wicked
@@jost914 don't sound bitter
Sound of music is old as shit. Granted it’s good and a classic but time moves on. Compared to the vocal skill presented between wicked and sound of music, there’s an astronomical difference in skill level. Huge skill diff. It’s hilarious how people go watch a musical and don’t even critique the music part of it. Instead picking out useless nonsense shit completely unrelated. It’s like watching action movies and critiquing there was no comedy. As I’ve told my friends, if you like musicals you’ll love this. If not, this is the most boring shit you’ll ever see.
@bennywho7180 You do know that musical movie and Broadway musical are not the same.
It's "Hamlet"; every generation feels the urge to retell the same story in their own ways.
I’m baffled at how much of a simpleton you are. The moment you said that the only discrimination was towards elphaba, I had to stop watching. The discrimination towards the animals is the driving force behind elphaba’s biggest decisions. If it weren’t for that, she would have stayed with the wizard and would have never been labeled as wicked. Also, would it kill you to do some research on theater and why it’s against the craft to simply release life performances on blueray? Just because you have no respect for something doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t educate yourself before releasing commentary on the subject.
Any reference to Turnip Head in Howl's Moving Castle gets a thumb's up.
As a new viewer specifically looking up reviews for this movie... I would've been more inclined to finish had there been an ounce of open mindedness at the beginning. To each their own - I'd probably speak the same way about a movie based on a tv show based on a comic book.
Boring review ughh
I'm Not watching the video because I haven't seen the movie yet but I just want to point out how much I hate it when movie reviewer's say I watched it so you Don't have to ! 🤦🙄 like seriously I Don't need you to watch movies for me I can watch movies for myself and I'll decide if there Good or not so Don't act like your doing me a favor by watching movie for me or so I don't have to also because I still plan on seeing the movie I just had a bad weekend but I am going to watch for myself so you didn't do me a favor 🙄
My guy you could have just gone and watched it instead of raving on a UA-cam comment section there are plenty of times these videos have helped people get an understanding of a movie where they didn't have to watch it fully
@@mr.breadman4181Shut up. Stupid comment.
“Plagiarist graffiti”! Jonny Law on form! Great take and infotaining as always 😄🤘🏻🤘🏻🍀
The villain in wicked is wizard of oz who was also a villain in the first movie.
Every "authentic" idea or piece of work is essentially a person's unique adaptation of something they’ve seen or experienced. In my opinion, gatekeeping these creations or stories is limiting. Innovation and progress, whether in medicine, tech, or literature, stem from people building on existing ideas and infusing them with their own creativity. This process of adaptation and contribution is what drives evolution and improvement in our society.
The most insecure man I've seen on youtube and that's saying something
I honor your sacrifice
I don't mind it. If it's good, why not? I loved getting the story from a different point of view. Most people know that it's not related to the original writer's story, there's no confusion about that. I don't wanna hear non stop singing personally, I need dialogue in between musical numbers otherwise it'll get on my nerves. We're in Christmas season, this movie yes was made for the fans but also for families. The wizard of Oz was a scammer in the original story the recent writers just built around that and wondered, what if...?
This whole review is annoying.
Being forced to go and see this with the wife.
Wish me luck. 🙁😞😫😖
Ariana Grande is purty. Other than that, the whole thing makes me sleepy.
Take a look at her before plastic surgery
The musical theatre peeps get better adaptations bc the source material and subject matter inherently leans towards the demographic that is more in favor in Hollywood-- more queer or female-centric themes (usually without too much girlbossing). The stories told more closely align with what is "culturally acceptable.". The musicals are made for the correct audience.
The movies/source material that are geared towards gaming until recently usually dealt with more masculine-themed subject matter because that is the primary base demographic. But Hollywood doesn't want those themes on screen right now so they alter the source material or try to morph it into material for the wrong audience.
It would be so cool to see a side by side breakdown of Male versus Female IP brands and then see which ones are more intrusively Woke/"The Message" infused. Because I think one is going to be much more blatantly obvious than the other.
The Wicked books are no more fan fiction than the 1939 film… back then, it was about acquiring rights, but since 1954, The Wizard of Oz has been in the public domain. You you know how loose of an adaptation the ’39 film is of the 1900 original book? Here are a few spoilers… the Witch of the West isn’t at all green or even remotely similar in any way, and Glinda wasn’t the one to send Dorothy to see the Wizard. You’re so upset at this revisionist standpoint but lack basic understanding of the franchise in its entirety 😂 The books’ original author had no input in the ’39 film, and it completely reimagined his concept of Oz. The point Wicked is trying to make is how far of a reach political corruption and propaganda can have. And Wicked isn’t the only one to subvert expectations within the franchise… the ’39 film, The Wiz, Return to Oz, Tin Man, and Emerald City all take the source material and flip it on its head. Being upset about a 30 year old book and its 20 year old musical adaptation NOW is just you wanting to generate hate content and engagement farming 🙄 The movie is an excellent adaptation of the musical. It’s a 1:1 remake that expands scenes to allow for world building… if musical theater isn’t your thing, then go do something that is 🙄
The reason it’s not recorded is because the right s are owned by universal, not the theatre or troupe that made it and would result in legal trouble if it were to be recorded.
Where did you get all that HD footage of the original stage show with Idina?
Arrrgh
The critique is beyond stupid. Criticising the film because it wasn’t written by the original creator. Beyond ridiculous.
Thank you, good sir. Excellent review all round. Spot on!
My wife watched a movie last night called Holiday in the Wild and thoroughly enjoyed it. I witnessed a clearly green screen scene where Rob Lowe said to a baby elephant "go make something of yourself", my wife didn't batter an eye, I immediately texted my mates.
Dude this time around you are the only one that hates this
Literally every single comment is someone who hates musicals or doesn’t like Wicked
This movie was so funny and so good that I watched it twice already
I recognize bad movies and would never watch them twice
I agreed with you on other things such as the new Peter Pan movie but this one I have got to say that I disagree on strongly
Wicked is one of the only movies now that has the critics and the people agreeing on giving it 90%
If it is so bad then why can’t people on UA-cam stop talking about just how good it is
Long time fans of Wicked including myself love this movie and some have already seen it a few times
No they are not getting paid to see it if that’s what you are going to say.
There is so much talent and work put into this movie
I’m sorry you didn’t like it but you telling people that it is bad simply because you don’t like it and telling people that it’s bad is outrageous
I’m sorry to say that you and everyone else who doesn’t like this movie are very much in the minority and that’s not an opinion it’s a fact
Hot take: the first sequel book to the Wizard of Oz is better than the original.
You remind me of Disparu! Very similar comedy style, both very funny. You deserve way more subscribers!