Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Thursday, November 14, 2024
'Wicked' Was Originally Trashed: 'Boring, Colorless, Overstuffed'
www.hollywoodreporter.com: Universal’s Wicked, tracking to an $85 million Thanksgiving weekend opening, is itself based on a stage show — one of the most successful of all time, having grossed $1.7 billion in ticket sales since its Broadway debut 21 years ago.
It’s almost frightening how much power critics have over the success of a show. For most of Broadway’s history, critics for major news outlets like The New York Times, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter have been disproportionately white, male, upper-class, and old. The reviews they leave are representative of their tastes but fail to account for the vast majority of theatergoers. Although many outlets have begun hiring from a more diverse pool of critics, the imbalance is still a problem. This is especially true as we move into a new era of theatre with younger directors, designers, performers, and, most importantly, AUDIENCES! Theatrical criticism is important, but it can do more harm than good if the critics don’t reflect the values and interests of the people they write for. What would have happened if audiences had listened to the critiques of Wicked, which is arguably one of the most important shows in the modern musical theatre canon? I wonder how many other potential hits have been lost this way.
I didn’t know that Wicked originally got such terrible reviews – reading the snippets of those reviews in this article was crazy. The reviews are literally trashing the show; it must have been wild to read those reviews if you were associated at all with the production (cast, crew, design, production, etc) which was such a large undertaking with such a large price tag. I wonder at what point the reviews turned around. With reviews this bad, I’m sort of surprised that the show didn’t end up flopping just because people read the reviews and decided not to go. I’m excited to see what the movie mostly out of curiosity towards the creative decisions that were made, and I’m also excited to read the reviews of the movie. I think that there will be a mix of responses, probably with hardcore theatre people saying that Wicked could never be fully put on screen and maintain everything that it is on stage as well as movie people maybe being bigger fans of the movie (or maybe not). I also think there will be a lot of people who love the movie just because it is such a nostalgic show and now it can be seen in a new medium.
I found this article about Wicked’s rocky start really interesting because it shows how opinions can change over time. When the show first opened, critics were pretty brutal, calling it “boring” and “overstuffed” and focusing on its $14 million budget instead of its overall potential. But it’s hard to believe that some reviewers didn’t even like the songs or the characters we now consider insanely iconic. What I loved about the story is how Wicked proved everyone wrong. Despite the harsh reviews, the musical found its audience and became a cultural phenomenon. Even though it got beat for the Tony by Avenue Q, it's still one of the most decorated shows of all time. I'm so excited for the movie adaptation to come out this week and for it to once again break box office records. Wicked, now running for 20 years and grossing over 2 billion dollars, is something I'm sure those critics never expected to happen.
I find it quite shocking that a musical as widely renowned as Wicked received such intense levels of backlash initially. I mean clearly the critiques were very wrong considering the fact that the show has now been on tour for over twenty years and it's still going. Perhaps it was the fact that it was jumping off of another widely renowned story, The Wizard of Oz, and maybe people were just looking at it as a mediocre spin off with a crazy price tag. Still now between then one point seven billion dollars of revenue and the fact that its being recreated into a movie twenty years later really has to stand for something. Its just really surprising to me that such classic musical theatre songs I grew up listening to were bashed so harshly early on. Calling Defying Gravity unoriginal really seems way too harsh. I’m glad that despite the rough reviews in the start the show has seen a massive amount of success since then.
That is crazy that Wicked received such backlash when it first came out! It reminds of how people like to bash TV shows when they first come out nowadays. "It's too rushed, the dialogue is bad, the writing is bad," when really they have no authority to dictate how other people should feel about the show. Everyone should make up their own minds. I find the idea of "professional" critics to be ridiculous. First of all, what makes them more qualified to decide the quality of a show than anyone else? Are they mor educated or have seen more films and musicals and shows than the average person? Well, that's still ridiculous, because the main audience to whom the show/movie/musical is catering is to the average person, to the public. So, the art is not even MADE for these critics; it isn't designed to appeal to them. So.. why would it make any sense for them to like it, when their tastes are clearly so refined? I don't really get it. And anyways, they're probably spouting nonsense most of the time, as we can see with this article. Their reviews really aged like milk.
This article reminds me of the special attributes of the drama review department. I know that in many drama schools, there is a special major called drama review. I think we often overlook the important role of drama review in drama production. I think it can even be classified as a part of post-production. Especially in today's society where social media is so developed, both audience and expert reports are very important. But from another perspective, I think it is difficult to evaluate a work from a completely objective perspective without separating it from personal preferences and tastes. But we should still avoid using and only using the three adjectives in the title of this article as our own drama review. At first glance, I felt that it was a child's angry review, which is also a great misleading to other audience groups who have not watched it. Judging from the success of wicked, we can't judge the final score of production from a few extreme drama reviews. We also need to keep a dialectical mind when reading drama reviews.
I have not seen the new production of wicked, but I am not shocked that it didn't land well. However I AM shocked that the New York Times didn't like it. This is because musical and movie remakes, reboots, and sequels are outrageously overdone. The times said that the casting did not compare to idina menzel and christine chenowith’s performances which should be an obvious assumption. Of course a show with such previous iconic casting now replaced with big names like ariana grande isnt going to land the same. Constant reboots are just obvious money grabs because the industry believes nostalgia sells, which to a certain extent, it does. Nostalgia sells because even if the production is bound to be bad, people will still buy it, watch it, and tune in. Even most movies at this point are remakes or ‘new stories’ clearly trying to be something else for the nostalgia factor. What's even worse is when there is a reboot that tries to add a new modern twist or modern political commentary which most of the time never works because it is cheesy. Broadway, Hollywood, and just the mainstream entertainment industry need to stop rebooting things and start producing and shining light on new stories.
7 comments:
It’s almost frightening how much power critics have over the success of a show. For most of Broadway’s history, critics for major news outlets like The New York Times, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter have been disproportionately white, male, upper-class, and old. The reviews they leave are representative of their tastes but fail to account for the vast majority of theatergoers. Although many outlets have begun hiring from a more diverse pool of critics, the imbalance is still a problem. This is especially true as we move into a new era of theatre with younger directors, designers, performers, and, most importantly, AUDIENCES! Theatrical criticism is important, but it can do more harm than good if the critics don’t reflect the values and interests of the people they write for. What would have happened if audiences had listened to the critiques of Wicked, which is arguably one of the most important shows in the modern musical theatre canon? I wonder how many other potential hits have been lost this way.
I didn’t know that Wicked originally got such terrible reviews – reading the snippets of those reviews in this article was crazy. The reviews are literally trashing the show; it must have been wild to read those reviews if you were associated at all with the production (cast, crew, design, production, etc) which was such a large undertaking with such a large price tag. I wonder at what point the reviews turned around. With reviews this bad, I’m sort of surprised that the show didn’t end up flopping just because people read the reviews and decided not to go. I’m excited to see what the movie mostly out of curiosity towards the creative decisions that were made, and I’m also excited to read the reviews of the movie. I think that there will be a mix of responses, probably with hardcore theatre people saying that Wicked could never be fully put on screen and maintain everything that it is on stage as well as movie people maybe being bigger fans of the movie (or maybe not). I also think there will be a lot of people who love the movie just because it is such a nostalgic show and now it can be seen in a new medium.
I found this article about Wicked’s rocky start really interesting because it shows how opinions can change over time. When the show first opened, critics were pretty brutal, calling it “boring” and “overstuffed” and focusing on its $14 million budget instead of its overall potential. But it’s hard to believe that some reviewers didn’t even like the songs or the characters we now consider insanely iconic. What I loved about the story is how Wicked proved everyone wrong. Despite the harsh reviews, the musical found its audience and became a cultural phenomenon. Even though it got beat for the Tony by Avenue Q, it's still one of the most decorated shows of all time. I'm so excited for the movie adaptation to come out this week and for it to once again break box office records. Wicked, now running for 20 years and grossing over 2 billion dollars, is something I'm sure those critics never expected to happen.
I find it quite shocking that a musical as widely renowned as Wicked received such intense levels of backlash initially. I mean clearly the critiques were very wrong considering the fact that the show has now been on tour for over twenty years and it's still going. Perhaps it was the fact that it was jumping off of another widely renowned story, The Wizard of Oz, and maybe people were just looking at it as a mediocre spin off with a crazy price tag. Still now between then one point seven billion dollars of revenue and the fact that its being recreated into a movie twenty years later really has to stand for something. Its just really surprising to me that such classic musical theatre songs I grew up listening to were bashed so harshly early on. Calling Defying Gravity unoriginal really seems way too harsh. I’m glad that despite the rough reviews in the start the show has seen a massive amount of success since then.
That is crazy that Wicked received such backlash when it first came out! It reminds of how people like to bash TV shows when they first come out nowadays. "It's too rushed, the dialogue is bad, the writing is bad," when really they have no authority to dictate how other people should feel about the show. Everyone should make up their own minds. I find the idea of "professional" critics to be ridiculous. First of all, what makes them more qualified to decide the quality of a show than anyone else? Are they mor educated or have seen more films and musicals and shows than the average person? Well, that's still ridiculous, because the main audience to whom the show/movie/musical is catering is to the average person, to the public. So, the art is not even MADE for these critics; it isn't designed to appeal to them. So.. why would it make any sense for them to like it, when their tastes are clearly so refined? I don't really get it. And anyways, they're probably spouting nonsense most of the time, as we can see with this article. Their reviews really aged like milk.
This article reminds me of the special attributes of the drama review department. I know that in many drama schools, there is a special major called drama review. I think we often overlook the important role of drama review in drama production. I think it can even be classified as a part of post-production. Especially in today's society where social media is so developed, both audience and expert reports are very important. But from another perspective, I think it is difficult to evaluate a work from a completely objective perspective without separating it from personal preferences and tastes. But we should still avoid using and only using the three adjectives in the title of this article as our own drama review. At first glance, I felt that it was a child's angry review, which is also a great misleading to other audience groups who have not watched it. Judging from the success of wicked, we can't judge the final score of production from a few extreme drama reviews. We also need to keep a dialectical mind when reading drama reviews.
I have not seen the new production of wicked, but I am not shocked that it didn't land well. However I AM shocked that the New York Times didn't like it. This is because musical and movie remakes, reboots, and sequels are outrageously overdone. The times said that the casting did not compare to idina menzel and christine chenowith’s performances which should be an obvious assumption. Of course a show with such previous iconic casting now replaced with big names like ariana grande isnt going to land the same. Constant reboots are just obvious money grabs because the industry believes nostalgia sells, which to a certain extent, it does. Nostalgia sells because even if the production is bound to be bad, people will still buy it, watch it, and tune in. Even most movies at this point are remakes or ‘new stories’ clearly trying to be something else for the nostalgia factor. What's even worse is when there is a reboot that tries to add a new modern twist or modern political commentary which most of the time never works because it is cheesy. Broadway, Hollywood, and just the mainstream entertainment industry need to stop rebooting things and start producing and shining light on new stories.
Post a Comment