The Ongoing Wicked Discussion Thread

To be honest I don't think they're in any state to be doing that at the moment. When I went recently the sound mixing was definitely off, I think the production team (not necessarily the cast) have become a bit complacent recently, just letting the show trundle along. Hopefully the cast change will bring a burst of new life to the show.

The story goes that when it was originally thought a London soundtrack would be a good idea, those in charge wanted to use the US track and just have our lot sing over it. Of course the London musicians kicked up a fuss and years later still no progress.

If they're so reluctant to spend the £s then why not crowd fund it?

The cast want to do a cd!

Yeah I read about that. That would have been a mistake because I think the orchestrations were changed for London, which sounds a lot better than the orchestrations on the OBC recording. And they don't need to crowdfund it. Surely one of the most successful musicals in the West End can afford this? Especially considering the fact that the CD would definitely sell very well. Many people kind of hate the OBC recording. It would be amazing to have a good recording. And people from the US would probably buy it as well if it has Rachel as Elphaba.    

Further to the above, I don't understand the confusion. It all comes down to contracts. Whether it's crowdfunded or not makes absolutely zero difference. Wicked is an IP (intellectual property) with undoubtedly a very complicated structure of backers/producers. There are legally binding contracts in place between those, the creators, possibly original cast members, upcoming movie producers etc to prevent exactly this from happening.

Why?

1. Asset protection. If I own an IP worth X million that was raking in X million easy profits, with the cast album still selling to anyone who hasn't already got a copy, then why risk damaging my brand with a cast recording which is potentially going to damage my brand.

2. Niche market. You think everyone is clamouring for a new cast recording. They aren't. The average Joe/Joanne doesn't care like you do. It's just another musical. They don't dayseat, they don't know any of the actors names - they probably don't remember any of the characters names. They just want showtunes to sing along to in the car.

3. And most importantly. Contractual obligations. A movie deal has been signed which will, undoubtedly mean a movie cast recording. Any other cast recordings released will be in direct competition to the sale of theirs and therefore reduce profits.


Finally, please look at The Phantom of the Opera. Ever wondered why there hasn't been another cast recording? It's in Michael Crawford, Hal Prince, Sarah Brightman and a host of other people's contracts that an English language album of the show cannot be produced without their consent.

Well, why don't they just give consent? They're so mean!

That'll be because they earn very healthy royalties on every single cast recording ever sold. Enough for Crawford to essentially retire on. Any deal they signed would still involve paying them - even if they aren't on the cast recording.

As excellent as Willemijn is, I'm hoping that stays as a rumour.

Lots of talk over the weekend in Bradford and the general consensus for London seems to be that Alice will take over when Rachel leaves.

I'd love to see Rachelle Ann Go as Elphaba. How much longer is she going to stay at Les Mis?

December I think.

Well....

Or big plot-twist: Katie Rowley Jones is only leaving Nessa because she's taking over as Elphaba

Of course. It's all just whishful thinking. So is the assumption that Alice Fearn will be bumped up to lead.