MovieChat Forums > Wicked: Part I (2024) Discussion > Wait a minute...

Wait a minute...

posted 3 months ago by jcdugger (395)
17 replies | jump to latest

...Am I correct in what I just heard...the black lead actress with the green skin is the infamous "Wicked Witch of the West"??

If so...whaaaattt...that actress doesn't even remotely resemble the Wicked Witch of the West! The original actress was clearly a white lady painted green while this is clearly a black lady painted green. The lips are 100% different, as with almost everything else about the two. Makes no sense! Please tell me I'm missing something here.

PS - Does she ever wickedly say "My Pretty" or any of the WWOTW catch phrases in this movie??

[–] fc31 (6110) 3 months ago

You are not missing anything, it is just Hollywood.

Even black-washing is common, exhibit A: Gladiator II.

And the wicked witch is green.

[–] ADBruno1985 (3577) 2 months ago

Gladiator II, a bit of a reach, but it's not like they were trying for complete historical accuracy (just look up Lucilla's real death, for one). But, he was clearly portrayed as wealthy, powerful, well-traveled. Plenty made their way from Egypt to Rome, so not completely unreasonable to think he just started from a bit further south

[–] fc31 (6110) 2 months ago

I am talking about black-washing, not anything else.

[–] fc31 (6110) 2 months ago

Plenty made their way from Egypt to Rome, so not completely unreasonable to think he just started from a bit further south

So I bet you like Jada Pinkett Smith's "Queen Cleopatra" too, right?

You can use the same argument.

[–] strntz (12773) 3 months ago

You heard correct. There are plenty of black actresses they could have used that hard similar hard angular features that would have tipped toward Margaret Hamilton. The problem with Enviro is that her features are too broad to put face appliances on her like they did for Margaret Hamilton - plus if they did, they would be accused of being racist.

[–] Goodgirl1980 (43) 3 months ago

That because its not a prequel the the 1939 The Wizard if OZ movie... she's not supposed to be the wicked witch from that movie... it's an adaption of the novel "Wicked" and and the Broadway play which is more of a prequel to the original story.

[–] redban (6771) 3 months ago

“it’s not a prequel the the 1939 The Wizard if OZ movie“

“it's an adaption of the novel "Wicked" and and the Broadway play which is more of a prequel to the original story.”

^ my man, you gotta make up your mind . You say that it’s not a prequel only to say 2 sentences later that it is a prequel

[–] Goodgirl1980 (43) 3 months ago

First of all I'm not a man!

Second of all if you read the post properly I said its not a prequel to the FILM!... but it IS a prequel to the original BOOK by L. Frank Baum. It's based on the novel "Wicked" written by Gregory Maguire . It's also adaption of the Broadway play-as you probably know.
The story was written as the wicked witches' side of the story and it has nothing do to with 1939 Wizard of OZ movie.

Now do you get what I was saying? it's a completely different version... That's why the actresses look nothing alike.

[–] strntz (12773) 3 months ago

The story was written as the wicked witches' side of the story and it has nothing do to with 1939 Wizard of OZ movie.

I haven't seen the film and haven't read the book, but the play does indeed have to do with 1939's Wizard of Oz - that's why the play was clever and well received. A lot of the scenes from 1939 were shot from the witch's point of view. If this film is anything like the play, then the tie ins to 1939 Oz will be there.

Elpheba is the Wicked Witch of the West from 1939's Oz.

[–] Goodgirl1980 (43) 2 months ago

oh I see...well I haven't seen the play so I'm not sure about that, but I can tell you the movie version of Wicked has nothing to do with the 1939 movie. They use the silver shoes from the book...not the ruby slippers from the movie , and Glinda is like 19 or 20 years old .... the one from the The wizard of Oz movie is was 54.. and they look NOTHING ALIKE!
This version does not follow the movie version, but I can understand why you thought that, I also was confused as many others were, as they did not make that clear when they marketing the movie!
So I did some research though online after I saw it and it was confirmed it was a prequel to the book not the movie and Elpheba is not the 1939 movie Wicked witch.

[–] strntz (12773) 2 months ago

So I did some research though online after I saw it and it was confirmed it was a prequel to the book not the movie and Elpheba is not the 1939 movie Wicked witch.

Your online source is wrong, at least as far as the play is concerned (I haven't seen the movie).

The play runs as both a prequel for the first half of the play, but then also runs concurrently with the 1939 Oz movie in the second half.

[–] Goodgirl1980 (43) 2 months ago

I just told you in my last post I'm not talking about the PLAY I'm talking about the 2024 WICKED MOVIE. You admitted you haven't seen the new WICKED movie or read the book....and no my online source is not wrong, do some research you will see what I mean... and please I would suggest to watch the Wicked movie and you will see that the movie version has nothing to do the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie.

I don't mean be rude but it seams you are not reading my full posts... so I will repeat it AGAIN the BROADWAY PLAY of WICKED that you saw may have been a prequel of The Wizard of Oz movie yes, BUT the new 2024 WICKED MOVIE is NOT...it is a PREQUEL to the ORGINAL BOOK and it is also based on the 1995 novel WICKED. It does not follow the movie which is why the characters look nothing like the original Wizard of Oz movie.

The play is different than the movie.

[–] strntz (12773) 2 months ago

Have you seen the movie?

OK, just having fun.
But the reason I ask is that you said you researched *after* you saw it.. you aren't sure if Wicked is tied to '39 after seeing it or that Elpheba isn't the Wicked Witch of the West?

I'll allow that the movie may have diverged from the play, but it wouldn't make sense to do so. The stage play sold well over 50 million tickets during it's stage run (which it continues to do), and the reason it was so popular is how it (and the 1995 book) specifically revisited the most popular version of Oz (1939 Garland film) by showing many of the same exact events from 1939 through the eyes of the wicked witch.

I heard the new film added some unneeded plot devices (probably as a money grab to fill out time for two parts), but I never read anything that said that the movie Wicked is not the same as the stage show?

[–] Goodgirl1980 (43) 2 months ago

Well as I said do some research and you will see. I was also confused so I did some research and many others were confused too but yes it was confirmed this version does not follow the 1939 movie.

I will agree it is a bit strange they decided to do it this way , but yes do some research and watch the movie and you will see what I mean. Also, The 1995 "Wicked" book also does NOT follow the 1939 movie , it is a prequel to L. Frank Baum The Wonderful Wizard of Oz book....so I guess the movie decided to follow the original book as well instead of the play.

The movie version is is more of an adaption of the book not the play. I saw some clips of the Broadway play it is very different. They use references from the book in the new movie as well as the characters, that's why they look nothing like the ones in the movie!

[–] liscarkat (19396) 3 months ago

Margaret Hamilton would have loved to do this movie, but hasn't been available since 1985.

[–] ADBruno1985 (3577) 2 months ago

Okay but does it really matter since it's a FANTASY?!

Mila Kunis is Ukrainian but no one got up in arms about that

[–] jcdugger (395) 2 months ago

Does she ever say the "My Pretty" catchphrase though?