#Wicked Media

[grrwoof-woof]

"but the text never explicitly stated it!!!" hey, so that's actually what they tried to teach you in those english classes you barely passed 😁

[prokopetz]

I don't have any strong opinions about Wicked (2024) as a film, but I have to admit it's very funny seeing reviewers who clearly have no prior exposure to the material outside the 1939 MGM adaptation getting their knickers in a twist about politicising the legacy of L Frank Baum.

[theartofjessicalivian]

Wicked🧹

5x7 in

Mixed Media (Copics, Colored pencils, Pen, and Black Gouache)

Limited prints are coming soon!

UPDATE (TUES 12/03): My Glinda portrait has been uploaded as well, so go check it out!

[manitapaleta]

Historians will say they were roommates

[yorit1]

[wandering-words]

Idk if anyone has already done this but

(Inspired by @elizabeth-stone)

[meerawrites]

They are correct and should say it louder.

Source: (x)

[jemkyus]

cassandra confirming ty was in love with kit makes everything about him asking kit to be his watson so much funnier...

his flirting really is "can you be the watson of my sherlock?" and i think that's BEAUTIFUL

[violet-moonstone]

is the book "confusing" or does it just ask you to think instead of spoon feeding you all the answers?

is the character "unlikable" or are you being uncharitable and unused to seeing main characters as anything other than a vehicle for self projection and wish fulfillment (either someone you'd want to be or want to be friends with)?

is the writing "problematic" or does it just display complex and flawed characters navigating a cruel world?

are the sex scenes "gratuitous" or do you just have puritan sensibilities and think that sex is something that needs to be justified because you think it cheapens art?

does "nothing happen" in the book or are you expressing your subjective preference for plot-driven stories as an objective evaluation on the book's value?

did the book "traumatize" you or is that just a term you throw around loosely to describe anything that upsets or disturbs you?

remember that one scene at shiz where elphaba says she likes to read things that challenge her because she likes to think about what she reads, and glinda stares at her like she's speaking gibberish?

yeah.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand why people don't like Maguire's writing but there is a growing trend of people hating any fiction that challenges them.

I saw a review where someone was saying they "weren't a pearl clutcher, but..." and then in the next sentence proceeded to clutch pearls. Your tolerance for bizarre fiction isn't as high as you thought it was. That's fine. It doesn't mean the book is bad.

Imagine reading a book for adults and then finding mature topics in it. The horror!

Maybe instead of blaming the author, blame whatever person or circumstances led to to believe it was a kids' book. *Hint* it was probably the popularity of the musical adaptation and the book reprints with the musical cover on it. Can't wait for more people to watch the movie and then read the book expecting it to be sunshine and rainbows. (No hate to the movie, btw it actually looks pretty good).

[c0s-lettuce]

poppy fields - fiyero tigelaar x reader, part one

social media au

a/n: i have no idea where i'm going with this but we're just gonna roll with it. pls forgive any lore/timeline inaccuracies. hope you enjoy :)

< twitter profiles - masterlist - part two >

[the-aroace-artist]

Love the fact that 2024 is the year of gay witches

[thatmultifandomchick]

Thinking about how in the original Oz books, blue is the munchkins’ color, and Dorothy’s blue dress is what signals to the munchkins that she’s trustworthy.

In act one of Wicked, Elphaba and Nessa wear blue. It makes sense, their father is the ruler of the munchkins, they’ve grown up in munchkin land.

In act two, Elphaba and Nessa wear black. At this point, both are considered wicked witches and enemies to the munchkins.

At the end of the story, the wicked witches are gone, the munchkins are free, and Glinda the good is there to share in the celebration. Here, Glinda wears blue rather than her signature pink.

[girlymoviegal]

[musicalgifs]

*reference to this video, not my actual opinion

[yorit1]

[alexanderwales]

I saw a post (which I cannot find now) which was about the casting of a Black woman as Elphaba in the new film version of Wicked, and pointing out that the musical is about discrimination, so this casting is a natural one.

But this seems ... kind of incorrect to me? That is, the musical has themes of personal identity, discrimination, prejudice, etc., but this is fantastical prejudice. So when, through casting or direction or acting choices or costuming or coding you pull some subtext (e.g. real-world prejudice) forward, you're changing the texture of the allegorical elements.

I don't think that this casting choice is wrong, I just don't find it to be "natural". It is a choice, and unlike a musical that was about nothing in particular, it's a choice that more meaningfully affects how the audience reads the musical. It makes the musical much less about prejudice generally, and much more about racial prejudice specifically. Maybe I'm being nit-picky about the word "natural" here, as though I think it's making a claim about what's in harmony with the work. Like "natural" means that someone is claiming the title of "most cohesive".

Imagine a version of Wicked where they cast a fat actor to play Elphaba. This obviously invites a different reading of the musical, right? Is this "less natural"? Is it "more natural"? I think it's a different choice to make, and I think people would be inclined to get different readings out of it.

This is the sort of thing that I sometimes have cause to think about, because I'm a writer, and have to decide on basic facts about characters, and figure out how those basic facts fit in with whatever kind of point (if any) I'm trying to hit.

If I wrote a story about how someone was kidnapped by aliens, and they think their human is just oh-so special, and this is maybe initially nice but it becomes clear that they just want the novelty human ... I would have choices for my human, right? And even if we keep all the dialog exactly the same, the readings become different if we're touching any kind of live wire. This would be a story about fetishism and exoticism and the way that makes a person feel like they're less of a person, or like they're only valuable for specific superficial traits.

So we could write our human to be an "everyman", nothing distinctive within the dominant culture. Or we could write our human to be someone with dwarfism. Or we could write our human to be an Asian woman. Or we could write our human to be transwoman. Or we could write our human to be an influencer. And all of these would substantially change our reading, right? The surface of the story wouldn't change, but the comparisons we invite would be different, and that changes the experience of the story, subconsciously or not. None of these are wrong, none are more natural, they're just choices.