Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2013-03-24 03:34 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2013-03-24 03:34 pm
[ SECRET POST #2273 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2273 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10. [repeat]
__________________________________________________
11.
__________________________________________________
12.
__________________________________________________
13.
__________________________________________________
14.
__________________________________________________
15.
__________________________________________________
16.
__________________________________________________
17.
__________________________________________________
18.
__________________________________________________
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 117 secrets from Secret Submission Post #325.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ], [ 1 2 3 - trolls ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
no subject
Wicked is not, and it isn't supposed to be. It isn't saying, "here's how you got to what what you know," it's saying "everything you know is wrong." Therefore completely revolutionizing what you know about the characters is the entire point. It's intent is to change how you think about the characters and to change your perspective on the entire work.
Also it's the difference with taking an already main character and changing your perspective on their motives and taking a side character and making them essential to the action. The latter is always going to be self-indulgent.
no subject
And even if WWoO had been billed as a clever subversion...the whole point of the Wizard in the original story is to subvert the trope of "the wise old powerful man will reward us if we complete the quest." (See: every fairy tale in which the King rewards the hero with wealth/power/his daughter's hand.) The surprise twist ending is that he's a sham, and our heroes were braver, cleverer, and more worthy than him all along.
Writing a story in which the Wizard actually was a brave, clever, and worthy hero isn't a subversion, it's an un-subversion. It's saying "but what if, instead of turning a cliche on its head, we just wrote the original cliche? Wouldn't that be a fascinating twist?" No. No, it wouldn't.
no subject
This. This is exactly everything.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-03-24 10:56 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-03-25 03:46 am (UTC)(link)Another subversion is that the real wise sage is Glinda, a witch, subverting the typical wicked witch (also present in the story, though), which had become a very solid trope by that time. The balance of good and evil is in the witches, not the Wizard.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2013-03-24 09:19 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
I don't see how people fail to understand this.
no subject
no subject
The witch of the west is green, and almost none (except for the china doll) of the novel elements incorporated into the movie were promoted by movie posters or interviews or pictures of scenes. Not so for the movie elements (I mean seriously the poster has a green witch on it looking exactly like the movie witch, arguably the most reminiscent symbol they could have used. Are you seriously saying they weren't trying for that?). The witches line up with the movie far more than they do with the books, although tbf you're going to have to explain what you doesn't think lines up.
There's a difference between support and contradiction, which one are you saying? Nothing that happens seems contradicted by WoO, which in a prequel is the only issue.
no subject
What did I find different? Glinda was like a robot in OtGaP who went on and on about how she was a former princess. In WoO, Glinda is snarky and full of personality. Theodora, if we'll call her that, is only who she is because of what her sister did to her and seems hell bent on destroying the Wizard. In WoO she doesn't give a damn about the Wizard (and for that matter, neither does Glinda save to send Dorothy to him), mourns her sister's death and only wants the damn shoes back. The only one who fits who he's supposed to be is the Wizard himself; he's still a bumbling moron using the same tricks to fool the people of Oz into thinking he's someone he's not.
no subject
1)Why would you need to incorporate Dorothy in a prequel that ends before Dorothy gets there? Dorothy being or not being there doesn't make it less of a prequel. It certainly doesn't make it less of a straight one.
2)I said Wicked was a subversive adaptation. I never said it was an adaptation of the books. It's an adaptation of the movie, with book elements thrown in. A subversive one.
3)All that just makes it a bad straight adaptation. Again, it doesn't make it less of a straight one. The characters are in the position they are in when the movie starts, and the OtGaP explains, perfectly straight, how they got there. Personality traits may inform the straightness or subversiveness, but they are by no means dispositive. There is no commentary about the social assumptions of the audience and no intent to screw with any of those assumptions. It's a straight adaptation.
Just like WoO is a straight adaptation of the novels, despite the many various changes they made to plot and character.
4)Glinda is not full of personality in the movie, stop.
no subject
Well, strictly speaking the musical is an adaptation of the book, only it's not The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, but Gregory Maguire's Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West ... Which is, of course, a subversive adaptation of the Wizard of Oz movie, and I'll stop my nitpicking now.
Sorry if you already knew this; I certainly didn't until after I saw the musical, and it wouldn't surprise me if many people don't.no subject
no subject