MovieChat Forums > Wicked: Part I (2024) Discussion > Technically a prequel

Technically a prequel

posted 2 months ago by Magicdave (917)
7 replies | jump to latest

I am not really interested in seeing this. For me, prequels are for the most part, a waste of time. We all know the Wicked Witch of the West's final fate, and she is a baddie then. This whole idea of showing how she becomes evil and trying to make us root for her is not something I want to see.

In "Hannibal Rising" we are shown how he became the cannibalistic serial killer, but in such a way that we are supposed to root for him. I'm sorry, but as it was horrible what happened to him as a child, it still does not make me root for him, considering what he does later in life.

It was like the three "prequels" to Star Wars. Everyone knows that Anakin Skywalker wouldn't die in them, and neither would Obi-Wan Kenobi, so the tension that could have been present due to NOT knowing their fates was gone.

To those who choose to see it, I hope you enjoy it.

[–] beauq81 (1125) 2 months ago

In the past 20 years, millions of people all over the world have seen it on stage

[–] Magicdave (917) 2 months ago

And that's wonderful. I love seeing Broadway plays. I have seen several, but just not interested in this one as a movie or a live musical. As I said, I feel, with very few exceptions, that prequels are a waste of time.
As far as I am concerned, my favorite Broadway musicals are "Cats" (Not the film), "Phantom of the Opera" and the home run hit of all time "Les Miserables".

[–] strntz (12735) 2 months ago

It's *part* prequel and part remake of The Wizard of Oz filmed from the wicked witch's point of view. The canon of the 1939 film is not changed, but just the perspective which is part of the story's brilliance.

I won't see the film because I've seen it on Broadway, and movies from stage plays rarely do the plays justice (there are exceptions, yes), but the main reason I won't bother is that I really hate the casting choices in film.

[–] telmarine (426) 2 months ago

This isn’t necessarily true. The original Star Wars trilogy came out close to 50 years ago and the original Wizard of Oz , close to 100 years ago. Because of this, millions of people have not seen the original source material, and Wicked may be their introduction into the Land of Oz. These people may not know the conclusion to the story arc. I, for one, started Star Wars at Ep. 1 myself.

[–] mikethemartian (6903) 2 months ago

I used to see this book on display at Barnes &Noble and always assumed it was a Snow White story.

[–] rnmboon (443) a month ago

Haven't seen the movie but I have seen the stage musical and I wouldn't call that a prequel in the literal sense. It is more of an "alternative" prequel in the sense that not only the perspective of the characters is changed but also both a comedic and musical element is added that wasn't there in the original film. Because of that the story can be enjoyed without it affecting ones enjoyment of the original The Wizard of Oz film.

[–] adamsmo (15) a month ago

Not really. It's truly its own animal. They even show Dorothy, the Cowardly Lion, etc., which alone shows it's clearly not truly a prequel to the original movie, but truly its own continuity and story (although it does try to keep its lore more in line with the TWOO's movie). It's basically a re-imagining.