-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Anyone see Wicked?
- Thread starter RoboFu
- Start date
ResilientBanana
Member
I had no interest in seeing it, but my wife wanted to and I was pleasantly surprised. I'm no fan of musicals, but it was an enjoyable watch with plenty to see and be entertained by.
diffusionx
Gold Member
I did see the show a long time ago, with an ex, but yea, I would endeavor to avoid this movie. And apparently it's a slog, only covers part of the show, and is longer than that part of the show.
Trogdor1123
Member
I haven’t but people say it is actually pretty good, assuming you like musicals.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Between the Marvel threads, the Moana 2 threads and the Wicked threads...GAF might have the worst taste in film I've ever seen.
RoboFu
One of the green rats
Oh I see so your are so on the fence that one musical could start you sucking all the dick you see?
interesting
diffusionx
Gold Member
Oh I see so your are so on the fence that one musical could start you sucking all the dick you see?
DKehoe
Member
What have been your favourite films of the year so far?
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
If Critical Drinker liked it it must be good, Ami fuck going to the cinema to see it, I'll wait till it hits streaming, having said that the two stars are absolutely batshit crazy especially that black chick, the interview with the two of them is something else
WhiteWaterM00se
Member
My son and girlfriend saw it and said it was very good. I will watch it with my wife when it comes to streaming.
What are they saying about Moana 2, Galdiator 2, and Marvel?
Doom85
Member
Me: “not gonna lie, I loved that shot in the movie where you can see Ariana’s whole leg.”
diffusionx:
DKehoe
Member
Do you mean GAF in general or Men_in_Boxes? He had said about not liking that stuff so I thought I'd ask about what he has liked.
FunkMiller
Member
Not for me, but the reviews suggest it’s a genuinely good time.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
Out of all those I've only seen Planet of the Apes and thought it was OK. Haven't seen Alien Greatest Hits™ or anything else oh wait I did watch that Xfiles episode with Nic Cage aka Longlegs
Doom85
Member
I liked the James Franco Oz movie quite a lot, but agree to disagree in terms of the Witch. I think Mila Kunis’ acting is good before the transformation, and she starts off written well enough, but then her motivation gets boiled down to, “a guy backstabbed me and I’m pissed”. And her appearance and acting as the Witch herself felt very off to me.
I remember when watching the James Franco movie being far more invested in the Wizard’s bond with his companions (I remember the China doll girl, IIRC a monkey, and maybe another companion I forgot) than his relationship with the Witch. Franco is one of those actors who never quite gives an amazing performance IMHO, but he does have a natural charisma with his onscreen presence that makes it easy to get invested in his character. It’s one of Alien Covenant’s many failings that they cut out his early scenes, in the released film I felt nothing when seeing his death except confusion on why a major actor was cast in such a nothing role, and then found out about all the cut footage which was infuriating to discover, no, I’m not watching the scenes on YouTube to “enhance” the film (as they seemed to be marketing as such), make your movie’s characters interesting with the scenes kept in the movie and don’t cut out scenes that could accomplish that!
I personally find the Wicked story more intriguing as an alternate version of the truth behind the events of the film. And I feel it doesn’t totally come out of left field, Glinda is still ultimately a good person by the time she matures, and the original film’s portrayal of the Wizard did have many viewers feeling he was “kind of full of it” what with his “gifts” and hiding his true appearance and such, and that Dorothy and her friends did all the work as opposed to him. So I feel the Wicked story does have a logical hook to it in presenting an alternate continuity.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
A woman scorned.
He broke her heart, not backstabbed her
That's a big difference and she begged her sister to stop the pain which seems did with malice by the use a spell to wither away her heart.
And her as the witch was mainly special effects chaos, I don't think there's much to draw from it to say it felt off.
It was pretty much the Wicked Witch we know from the original film, with the added flare of special effects.
In another note, as I said before.
They're not the same person, Mila was Theodora who is the same Witch from the Books and the Original Film.
Cynthia is Elphaba who is only in Wicked.
I'm curious where the story will go, I'm assuming the slippers makes her sister walk again.. unless Dorothy drops a house on a wheelchair user
Also the stopping Animals from talking and cruelty is a little left field considering there are Animals that talk in The Wizard of Oz.
Hell Oz even gives one courage
Also the flying monkeys are just a breed in Oz
Not all of them are evil or bad.
But like I said, you have to separate the film from everything Oz related otherwise you run into problems with everything.
Last edited:
Neolombax
Member
Didn't watch the first one honestly, but my wife had the same exact reaction though. I thought the songs in the 2nd movie were okay. Best animated movie for this year for me personally is still The Wild Robot.
Doom85
Member
A woman scorned.
He broke her heart, not backstabbed her
That's a big difference and she begged her sister to stop the pain which seems did with malice by the use a spell to wither away her heart.
And her as the witch was mainly special effects chaos, I don't think there's much to draw from it to say it felt off.
It was pretty much the Wicked Witch we know from the original film, with the added flare of special effects.
In another note, as I said before.
They're not the same person, Mila was Theodora who is the same Witch from the Books and the Original Film.
Cynthia is Elphaba who is only in Wicked.
I'm curious where the story will go, I'm assuming the slippers makes her sister walk again.. unless Dorothy drops a house on a wheelchair user
Also the stopping Animals from talking and cruelty is a little left field considering there are Animals that talk in The Wizard of Oz.
Hell Oz even gives one courage
Yeah, I meant a general betrayal of her heart. Regardless, I just felt such a motivation was too generic to be attached to such an iconic villain. I had the same issue with Rob Zombie’s 2007 Halloween film: “we’re going to explore what made Michael evil!” Oookay, I feel that will make him less scary, even John Carpenter said as much, but surely they’ll have something fairly unique to the cause of Michael’s motivation- “tons of people are assholes and as such were really mean to him!” ………right, so nothing remotely unique, yaaaay.
Also, in terms of Mila Kunis as the Witch, I meant her actual physical appearance. It just didn’t look remotely right to me. The poster that obscures her face looks on point, but then once I saw her face clearly after transforming, it felt off to me, like maybe they should have altered her facial structure a bit more if they could, it doesn’t have to completely resemble the original actress, but it felt too different IMHO.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
The Promised Land is my favorite so far.
Toots
Gold Member
Isn't all that hollywood pr bullshit tho ?
GymWolf
Member
Escape from tarkow: the movie
Rran
Member
What the heck man, Somewhere Over the Rainbow is still a lovely song like 90 years later.
Kraz
Member
I'm waiting to catch a sing-along screening.
Read the book a few decades back. Some characters seemed inspired by turn of the century occultists.
Read the book a few decades back. Some characters seemed inspired by turn of the century occultists.
Strong feeling. Trauma?
He couldn't be wrong?
Last edited:
Doom85
Member
He’s definitely got an opinion NO Spider-man comic fan agrees with.
(Peter B. Parker in the Spider-verse films reconnects with MJ, they have a child, and Peter is thrilled to be a father)
Every single Spider-man comic reader, who has been worn down by two decades of Peter not being with MJ, and not even ever having a lasting relationship with anyone, and his future daughter has been retconned away, and the readers just want Peter to grow up already, have this reaction:
(also the new Ultimate universe has Peter Parker long married to M.J with two kids and it’s been a sales juggernaut. There is no denying it, fans want an adult Peter, married to MJ with a family)
Critical Drinker’s reaction to Peter B. Parker in Across the Spider-verse:
“What the fuck is this? Why is this Peter such a dorky dad?”
Every Spider-man comic fan’s reaction to Drinker’s “take”:
Also, Drinker has apparently met zero brand new parents in his lifetime. Honestly, Peter was TAME in his trying to get Miles to hear all about Mayday compared to the way some parents act about their kids for their first few years.
Kraz
Member
Thanks for pointing this out. This is the first time someone has been able to articulate on of his opinions to me.He’s definitely got an opinion NO Spider-man comic fan agrees with.
(Peter B. Parker in the Spider-verse films reconnects with MJ, they have a child, and Peter is thrilled to be a father)
Every single Spider-man comic reader, who has been worn down by two decades of Peter not being with MJ, and not even ever having a lasting relationship with anyone, and his future daughter has been retconned away, and the readers just want Peter to grow up already, have this reaction:
(also the new Ultimate universe has Peter Parker long married to M.J with two kids and it’s been a sales juggernaut. There is no denying it, fans want an adult Peter, married to MJ with a family)
Critical Drinker’s reaction to Peter B. Parker in Across the Spider-verse:
“What the fuck is this? Why is this Peter such a dorky dad?”
Every Spider-man comic fan’s reaction to Drinker’s “take”:
Also, Drinker has apparently met zero brand new parents in his lifetime. Honestly, Peter was TAME in his trying to get Miles to hear all about Mayday compared to the way some parents act about their kids for their first few years.
I've tried to listen to his show once, but couldn't make it past a few minutes due to the gimmickyness of it. Imagining Roger Ebert(a reviewer that I've disagreed with often, but respected) doing a performance like that for his opinions made me laugh contemptuously figuring it would take a lot of fluoride to find it regularly entertaining.
newtypepilot
Member
Oh I see so your are so on the fence that one musical could start you sucking all the dick you see?
Reizo Ryuu
Member
I don't really care either way, but it's silly to deny that parker's whole appeal isn't that he faces a lot of struggles in his life, it's deeply part of the character, without that "with great power.." becomes empty and meaningless. The character is built around experiencing suffering for his heroism and still choosing to be that hero.
So I can see where he's coming from, he probably saw it as parker becoming free of struggles; though him having a kid isn't really a big deal as long as the kid is powered, like she is in spider-verse.
Doom85
Member
But he still clearly has struggles, Peter clearly did in the first film, and while his role is smaller in Across, he does have a good scene with M.J. questioning his capability as a father (likely due to the recent conflict with Miles, who inspired Peter to want to become a father in the first place) and her reassuring him. And of course he’s conflicted with siding with Miguel, and at the end of Across decides with Gwen and the others to ultimately support Miles instead.
The problem with the main universe Peter Parker comics is since the infamous One More Day storyline, Peter has rarely evolved as a person due to his struggles. So much of his own struggles come from repeatedly failing to learn from past mistakes.
There is a comic (during the period of time when Peter’s identity as Spidey was public before that was altered back to being a secret) where Peter is talking to some students, and a whole bunch of them lay down a bunch of options Peter could have done to have a more secure financial life without compromising his time spent on superhero-ing and they question why Peter, a supposed “genius”, didn’t figure any of these out himself.
When Peter and Octavius (Dr. Octopus) switch bodies in the Superior Spider-man storyline, one of the first thoughts Octavius has is disgust towards Peter that he didn’t finish his education. Octavius proceeds to do so, start his own company, while still devoting as much time being Spider-man. He’s still awful in some of his behavior and methods, including starting a relationship with a woman who has no idea “Peter” is someone else controlling Peter’s body, but the point is he does manage to improve so many aspects of Peter’s life (which will also lead to scientific advancements that can potentially help humanity in general) while still putting in the work as Spider-man.
It’s clear to me that the editors (as several people “in the know” have said, yes, Peter’s lack of personal growth in the last two decades is editorially mandated) have no desire to let Peter grow as a person beyond the single (with frequent short-lasting relationships with anyone except MJ) late-20’s, financially struggling guy he’s been for too long despite several writers pointing out, “this no longer makes sense, let him progress and mature already and give him new struggles within that new maturity.”
As I said, the new Ultimate Spider-man comic (set in a new Ultimate universe, so this is a separate world from the original Ultimate universe that Miles originated from after that Ultimate Peter temporarily died), with Peter in his late-30’s, doing financially fairly decent, and maintaining a good marriage with MJ and raising two kids, and dealing with the struggles with THAT as a more mature person, has been a sales juggernaut. The editors are dumbasses if they ignore this.
Jonathan Hickman, the writer of this new Ultimate Spider-man title, did a similar huge move with X-men, after spending years in a rut of tired, “oh, all the tragedy, the X-men must always fail completely!” bullshit that defended their 2010’s comics, Hickman casually kicked the door down and said, “enough of this repetitive bullshit, I’m going to turn this comic in an insane new direction, and I’ve got a huge plan”. Now, sadly Hickman left the X-men books after seeing roughly 30% of that massive storyline completed (like this was probably at least a decade-long story he had in mind), but the impact was left, and the latest phase in Marvel comics is evidence of that given the huge amount of X-men related titles now running compared to their far less number of series in the 2010’s (due to the movie rights ownership, in the 2010’s the Marvel comics only wanted to push the titles where the movie rights were owned by Disney, so X-men were sidelined in the comics to push Inhumans instead. The failure of the Inhumans TV show and Hickman’s plan brought that nonsense to an end).
It’s funny, because in the comics, Batman has grown in his relationships and now has a good-sized hero family with Dick, Jason, Tim, Damian, Selina, Barbara, Cassandra, Stephanie, and a few others. Sure, a few fans (who probably don’t even keep up with comics), try to fight this with the tired, “no, Bruce should be lonely and keep everyone at a distance!” which is just lame, let the character grow already. He still has plenty of solo stories, he still takes the mantle very seriously, but the character can do that while still finding meaningful relationships with the added bonus of having more allies to help him when larger-scale threats and such arise that he can’t deal with effectively by himself.
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
I thought the casting and production were great, but I didn't connect with the music at all, it all just sounds like CANYON.MID to me. It was also kind of bloated and overlong, 3 hours for a half a movie is a lot.
Last edited:
Reizo Ryuu
Member
That post is too big bruv, I'm not reading all that sorry, like I said I don't care either way, just that I can see where the guy is coming from, because if there's one thing that requires a stable life, it's raising a kid, and parker has zero chance of having stable life specifically because of "with great power..", so I can see how he or anyone else connected having a family would have him as a character having much less struggles.
Not saying I agree with that opinion, just that I understand having it.
Doom85
Member
He actually does have a chance of having a stable life and still effectively being Spider-man while having new struggles, as detailed in my post. It worked in the Spider-verse films. It worked in Superior Spider-man (ignoring the immoral actions Octavius did while controlling Peter, but that had nothing to do with finishing Peter’s education and starting his own company). It’s working right now in the new Ultimate Spider-man comic.
Critical Drinker fails to realize this, and just like the comics editors, has a narrow minded look at the character and fails to see how the character can evolve IMHO.
Ahhh hell, we Grace Jonesing now!!! Off the chain!!And with that, we’re back to Grace Jones.
Reizo Ryuu
Member
Not really, he must be a hero and therefore he must suffer, if he somehow manages to be a perfect family man then he's without a doubt neglecting the mantra, or it's just convenient writing to make everything go smoothly; he can't be in multiple places at once, and "with great power.." dictates the choice he must make every time.
Also people always find out his secret identity eventually, having a family in this situation means the family has to suffer now too, which means more suffering for him; stable life is not possible.
It works in spider-verse because his daughter has powers and spider-people are notoriously hard to kill.
Doom85
Member
I never said he was a perfect family man.
By that logic (“family suffer too”), he would have had Aunt May sent to some secret remote location decades (out-of-universe) ago. No, again, this has been debunked by various comics. In fact, his not being open to his secret identity to his loved ones in the past has also been debunked as an illogical move as it only potentially endangers them due to their ignorance of situations (the first Jaime Reyes/Blue Beetle run dealt with this, Jaime tells his family and closest friends very early on, and it helps his loved ones and even Jaime himself in quite a few situations).
Also, usually villains are smart enough to realize not to target loved ones. You make it personal, yeah, it’s not going to end well for you when you’re inevitably caught. Heck, when Matt Murdock was publicly exposed as Daredevil, Nick Fury essentially said, “you can go after Daredevil. Go after Matt Murdock, and see what happens.” And the villains listened IIRC. You don’t want to fuck with the hero community, yes most won’t cross the line, but there are a few who will, and the villains know this. The only exceptions are truly insane ones like Carnage, and to my knowledge he never figured out Spider-man’s identity.
And Peter has never been publicly exposed. When his identity was revealed publicly, it was his choice in Civil War, and it made no sense as the Registration Act did not require identities to be publicly known. So as long as he’s written in-character and not a moron, this has not been an issue for him.
And even if they were in legit danger, SHIELD can protect them and put them in a safe location. Which is fine. If they love Peter, they support him, and accept the danger that comes with that because they love him.
Your interpretation of Peter has him disrespecting his loved ones, because he isn’t giving them a choice to take that risk, he’s arrogantly saying, “NO, I make that call for you.” It’s that self-centered “morality” that made the One More Day comic garbage, Aunt May is dying and wants Peter to accept that, but Peter can’t because HE isn’t willing to lose her and destroys his own marriage due to his own selfish needs.
That outdated version of Peter has become despised within the fandom. He’s short-sighted, self-centered, snd disrespectful to the people he claims he loves. The versions of Peter that mature, grow past their old mistakes, and improve their life, THAT’S the Peter who has taken genuine responsibility.
Last edited:
Reizo Ryuu
Member
whoa now, no reason to get all triggered and say crazy things.
There's no way around the fact the mantra is deeply part of the character, without it he really isn't parker anymore, but some alternate retelling of spider-man.
Goblin's whole thing was targeting spider-man and his loved ones, he wanted parker to suffer as much as possible, it's the entire reason gwen died, to suddenly think similar situations aren't possible anymore is just silly and writing that enforces that is just bad writing, but I digress, one more day was clearly just done to lean into the parker must suffer dogma just for the sake of it, that's why it wasn't good and is far removed from "my interpretation of parker".
That being said I'm team gwen, so I thought house of M was much worse than one more day.
There's no need to reply with another wall of text though, the point was that I understood the leap in logic for that guy's opinion, and this is just getting increasingly more off-topic now.
Doom85
Member
So:
Except for my point about Drinker having never met a brand new parent. As I said, Peter simply insisting Miles hold Mayday once is mild compared to how much some brand new parents lack self control in gushing about their baby constantly to other people.
Also, he was casually in his bathrobe (as Drinker criticizes this too) as he was at the headquarters to chill, no one predicted Miles would sneak out of his universe, so Peter was not expecting to go on anything resembling a mission that day (and even one arose, there are at least hundreds of others there who could handle that, Peter only gets involved with dealing with Miles because obviously he cares about him). So these two things Drinker was being overly nitpicky about for no actual good reason.