u/Lexabro-10mg

(SPOILERS)

So the Witch of the West dies in pretty much every Oz story telling, including the original Wicked novel. Her deadly weakness being water is one of her fundamental character aspects in all incarnations.

Then the Wicked stage musical and then movie came along and showed the water weakness to be a hoax and Elphaba faked her death. This did well to lessen the melancholy brought by seeing our engaging main character supposedly die. Made the ending more “pleasant” overall, leaving the audience with a bittersweet hope.

But how do we think the show/movie would have sat with audiences—and even resonated theme and message-wise—if Elphaba truly died?

Imo, that would have made the themes heavier and all the more tragic to the point where the general audience probably would have become more depressed than inspired… I know that some media is deliberately made heart-wrenching so as to truly drive home the depth of a message or theme, but in this case, I don’t think it would have worked for the musical’s favor.

In wake of the brand new movie coming out, I recently discovered some info online. Sony and Marvel have strict rules regarding the portrayal of Peter Parker. Apparently one of them is that he can never be portrayed as homosexual. Tbh, this doesn’t make sense within the context of the Marvel Multiverse.

I completely respect the principle of keeping in tact the elements that make a fictional character who they are and how they’re commonly known. Heterosexuality is just part of who Peter is in every known story.
But the idea that no Peter Parker, anywhere in the infinite Marvel Multiverse, can ever be gay seems implausible when regarding an endless void of universes.
With the Spider-Man characters alone, one version of a character from one source can and has been shown to have a different gender, ethnicity, species, age, appearance, personality, etc. than a character from another.

There does exist a canon gay “Spider-Man”—Web-Weaver—in one comic, but he is a completely new character apart from Peter Parker. Frankly, I wasn’t the biggest fan of him, as he felt a little too artificial to me and not as relatable and sympathetic as the standard Peter Parker character. Not that I’m ungrateful for Web-Weaver; I just don’t think he’s nearly as endearing.
As much as I would love to see a Peter Parker that is his usual lovable self but also attracted to guys and relate to him more than I already do, I understand creators have freedom to firmly establish their characters to be a certain way.

But I don’t think it would distract from or tarnish Tobey’s, Andrew’s, Tom’s, Insomniac’s, or anyone else’s Spider-Man legacy to allow for the existence of one gay Peter somewhere deep in the Spiderverse.
If there is a universe where Peter Parker was hatched as a pterodactyl that then became a T-rex, then the idea that there is a universe where Peter Parker is his conventional self but gay shouldn’t be a stretch.

I get that a big reason why they wouldn’t allow for a gay variant is because of the likely onslaughts of homophobic mobs. Predictably, Marvel would try to avoid prompting bigots to ant swarm and devour the name of Spider-Man (because that’s just how it goes), no matter how compelling and well done a suitable storyline could be. But I doubt it would be the end of the world to show some tiny easter egg in someplace like the Spider-Society where one of the thousands of Peters could be clocking in after a date with Harry Osborn or something.

But those are just my thoughts.

What if they encountered Skye Riley during her run-in with the smile demon? Could they have done anything?

Movie, stage show, and book aspects all considerable.

Taking into account all of what happened in TBoSaS, do we think there could have been a set of circumstances during or after the book events that could have led him to become good/not evil?

The book especially shows us that he is at his core selfish and prioritizes his own benefit before everything—traits that influence all his decisions. He seems to be this way because of an eat-or-be-eaten dominance mindset he built up to cope with the traumatic events going on around him. Throughout the story, he gets introduced to differing views of human morality, eventually landing on an even more screwed up level of his sociopathic dom energy.

But do you think there could have been a possible alternate storyline where Coryo eventually became a good guy?

If so, I think it would begin with Dr. Gaul slipping on her head at the reaping ceremony.

For me personally,…

West: Margaret Hamilton, The Wizard of Oz (1939).
While I do adore the added depth and relatable perspective that “Elphaba” brings in all versions of Wicked, and while I think Mila Kunis and Miss Piggy are slightly overhated in their individual movie takes, to me no Witch of the West can be as legendary as the MGM GOAT. Everything about her is superbly iconic—her look, her mannerism, her genuine scariness that spans through generations, you name it. You can’t not love a zany, deliciously devious villain that delights in being a menace.

Glinda: Wicked the stage musical and movie.
Glinda in the MGM movie was memorable and pleasant, but ultimately exploitative and useless (except for the poppy fields scene). She has little character/personality on display and is what I’d call a glittery hint box to advise Dorothy. I still like her, though. I do also like Michelle Williams’s portrayal in Oz the Great and Powerful (2013), which had Glinda be more active and have slightly more of a character.
But the Glinda with the most depth and deserved popularity to me is the one from the stage musical/movie. Her rollercoaster of character evolution not only fascinates me but inspires; you can’t call yourself good if you don’t do good, nor if you allow injustice for the sake of your own comfort.

East: Evanora, Oz the Great and Powerful (2013).
Controversial pick? Perhaps. But again, I love me an unapologetically dubious diva—in this case, one with classy calculation.
Witch of the East in the MGM film is just a pair of legs and hardly a character.
Nessarose from the Wicked stage musical/movie is a close runner up to best, being a greatly negative influence to all other characters around her in numerous, complex ways; however, aside from gaining the one power of transportation from her enchanted shoes, she possesses no magic and does all her damage through her toxic behavior and abuse of political power. Not as flashy, but still potent. Not really a villainess, but more so a mentally and emotionally jaded girl who doesn’t think about the impact of her choices.
The reason why I like Evanora the most is that she feels to me like a more defined baddie. Like the MGM Witch of the West, she embraces her wickedness. The world is her chess board in her game of self interest. She has magic and charm which she uses to play others, which are linked to her necklace. When her necklace is removed, she loses her power and becomes the decrepit hag she truly is. I must say the “enchanted object” thing would have gotten me SO much more stoked if the magic came from her iconic shoes instead, but I guess Disney was dancing around copyright stuff.

But those are just my picks and thoughts. 😬
Which witches are your favorites?

Realistically, I know that since 1957 young Korean men are made to do service in the military—and this could hinder them from being demon hunters full time like Huntrix and the other girls. But could there have been male hunters throughout the decades/centuries prior?
In my research, Korean folklore talks about predominantly female spirit fighters, with an existing minority of males. But I wasn’t sure if the demon hunter order from this movie completely adheres to those legends.
I was curious if there was extra movie lore given in deleted scenes, tie-in books, interviews, etc. explaining why all the visible hunters are female.

Side question: If male hunters are a thing, what are the chances of Bobby…?
Nah.

“This audio matches an existing recording in our catalog” means audio can’t have lyrics that can be found in Webster’s dictionary.

I want them all, of course, but I can only buy one. 😔 Thinking either Rumi or Jinu.
Which one do you all think is the best choice?

Amidst all the supernatural happenings in Season 1 specifically, the one thing that weirded me out the most is the fake Will mannequin.
Somehow Brenner had the means to produce a 99.99% accurate Build-a-Byers in only a few days, with the limited knowledge of Will’s features and what he was wearing on the night he vanished. There were limited details Brenner could get, provided by missing poster descriptions, recent photos, and possibly security cam footage. And still the dummy managed to fool even Jonathan. It’s freaky.
Brenner’s ability to do all this is another level of uncanny. I don’t even wanna know why he has a 1:1 human doll maker at the ready. That’s some Big Brother government end times type of sh!t. I feel the most twisted villains in this show have always been ordinary humans.