This week's Entertainment Weekly Magazine promotes its "The 100 Greatest Movies, TV Shows, Songs Moments & More - Best of the Decade 2000-2009" issue. WICKED was picked as the 'Best Stage Musical!' Congrats Wicked!

http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/WICKE...Weekly_20091206

ETA: Ther link didn't work, but now it does.

Pee double eff tee.

Wow...don't agree with that at all.

I love Wicked...but no.

I agree with this article. I'm sorry I know some of you think that WICKED might not be the most artsy show but you cant ignore the fact that it's the biggest show on earth right now AND the fact people walk out of the theater being effected by it. So yea, I think it is the best show this decade because along with being a mega hit it's still moving people

Mega-hit? No doubt about it. Best show of the decade? Hell no.

I am going to geuss they were looking at the commercial appeal of show and the reach it has on the general public. The choices for the 00's based on that would probably be Wicked or Jersey Boys.

Oh, well. Thank God Billy Elliot didn't get it.

Didn't Harry Potter win too? It's not that it's the best necessarily. What else had the reach Wicked did in the last ten years, even if it was better?

The 00's?

I'm on board with that.

Makes perfect sense to me....people can love it or hate it as much as they want, but the show has spent the last six years selling out nearly all their performance on Broadway...multiple successful productions around the world...and it's one of those shows that I think most people are at least aware of, even if they don't pay attention to Broadway.

Take that Avenue Q.

I'm very happy with this..Wicked has always been prone to mixed reviews by the critics, yet it continues to stand strong...God bless Stephen Schwartz, Winnie Holtzman, Joe Mantello, etc...they knew a good thing when they saw one

NB: Difference between "best" and "most successful".

Oh sorry, that is what I meant. I will fix it.

It's true that there is a difference between "best" and "most successful". However, "best" is sooo subjective....I mean, I could probably find people that would argue that Wicked is the best musical of all time....and I'm sure I could also find people that would say it's the worst thing that ever happened to Broadway and that it's the worst.

So when compiling a list like this, I think "most successful" is a good indicator, because not only is it objective, but it also would not be so financially successful if it wasn't so popular.

Seeing as best is so subjective, it seems silly to try and 'objectively' name something as such.
And again, popular =/= best. I will say this: as a piece of musical theatre and art, Wicked is so far from the best of the past decade it can't even see the finish line.

I agree that as theater, it isn't even in the running, but as a musical, I'd put it as one of the best, because I believe it has some of the best songs of any musical.

I definately agree with that. Artistically, it doesn't come close to being best musical, but it is the only musical of this decade that has appealled to such a vast amount of people (not to mention the wide range of people). It's not a juke-box musical, revival or movie based like so many modern musicals are, so to withstand for the length of time it has done without an initial fan-base (true there is the Wizard of Oz element, but it's not a carbon copy of it) is a real acheivement. And you can hardly say the songs aren't amazing or catchy or the book isn't well written, they are truly so much better than many musicals out there. So with all that combined together, I think it deserves to be called best musical.

I really, really can.

Again, one person's opinion...

I think in ANY context, naming something the best will always be subject to scrutiny because it's always subjective. However, I think the general public has learned to interpret the word "best" as something that is based on mostly objective measurements: popularity vote, earnings, etc. I think it's just a bit silly to get so caught up in the wording of the statement.

For me, no matter where it ranks on my list or anyone else's, I think it should be an opportunity to celebrate Wicked and Broadway in general, rather than making it an opportunity to criticize...

EDIT: And one thing that I want to say from my perspective (without getting into whether I think EW's decision is right or wrong...my opinion only...), I had only seen 1 Broadway show before Wicked. I enjoyed that show, but I wasn't captivated and dying to see more musical theater after the fact. But for me, Wicked opened me up to the Broadway community, and has gotten me to see so many other shows (some light-hearted, some serious) and to better appreciate musical theater as a whole. I don't think I'm the only one that's been affected enough by Wicked to explore other shows, and I do think that may be part of the reason it's received this honor.

Well no. If a film wins the Oscar for Best Picture, and I think it was crap, I'm not just going to smile and nod and say 'well done' - I'm going to say that I disagree and why.
Compared to many, many musicals of the last ten years, Wicked is very poor. In terms of both book and music, it has been surpassed by countless shows. This makes it sound like I hate the show; I don't. I'm just expressing my strong disagreement.

Wouldn't Mamma Mia! be the most successful musical of the last 10 years? Didn't it open in 1999 in London, and later on, on Broadway? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say Mamma Mia has grossed more than Wicked in the last 10 years. The sheer amount of international productions it has had is just astounding, and I think holds a record for it. But again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Wicked can even take the title of most successful show, financially, opening in the last 10 years.

^ I think the article is only counting shows that opened from 2000 onwards, therefore in this decade. Since Mamma Mia opened in 1999, I guess it doesn't count.

^^I stand corrected. I took it as musicals opening in the last 10 years, and under that it would count, but it says of this decade. Oh, and it did open on Broadway in 2001, but I guess this isn't talking about just Broadway shows.

The point I'm making is this: the decision made by EW is nothing but an opinion. Do they probably have some information to support their statement? Sure. But it is nothing more than opinion.

However, I do find it ironic that some feel the need to call out EW for making an educated opinion, and then start bashing Wicked as if their statements are fact.

I'm not trying to argue that Wicked is the best musical of the decade...between my limited information and shotty debate skills, I'd probably lose I'm just saying be respectful of others opinions if you want them to be respectful of yours (because I think we all agree that this is all pretty subjective and based on personal opinion). Because comments such as "Compared to many, many musicals of the last ten years, Wicked is very poor. In terms of both book and music, it has been surpassed by countless shows", which are being stated as if fact, turn me off to the value of that person's opinions.

What about The Producers?

That kind of thing does have an objective standard. If I were to write a show, you would doubtless be able to ascertain that the standard would be below that of Stephen Sondheim - it's easy to judge.
Anyway, I suspect there will be no resolution here. You agree with them and I disagree. Done.

Did I miss something? Why are there a bunch of people on this board, let alone on this website with profiles and Wicked signatures, if they don't think Wicked deserves this amazing award? I think It's the best musical of the decade. It just surprised that people on a Wicked forum are kinda talking down to Wicked...know what I mean?

Exactly.

Nope Wicked has grossed the most behind Lion King with 667 mill and Phantom with 750 mill. Wicked has grossed 430 mill and just passed Beauty and the Beast this week

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Wicked will always be special to me, but that doesn't mean I think it's a great musical.

We have to look at this tho from an average person who doesnt know much about Musical Theatre.
WICKED-Biggest show currently on Earth, and one of the biggest in history (debatably right behind POTO)
Great story that touches an average person, music that makes people burst into tears (seen it many many times) great costumes/sets and characters that EVERYONE can identify with. Yea sure, does the show have flaws? Hell yes, but point me towards a show that doesnt. Overall, the show is a mega hit, it's a spectle, but it still has a story that makes people connect with it. People always say that the show's success is mainly based off of it's spectle. THat's simply not true. Look at the number of other shows the past 5 years alone that have had a much higher budget then Wicked, with more effects, bigger sets, better costumes/lighting that have failed epicaly (Shrek, Pirate Queen, Legally Blonde, Tarzan, 9 to 5 (which kinda suprised me ha)) all these shows were huge in terms of the spectle but overall they failed to connect to a general audience. So yes, the show is a hit, but it's a hit for a reason. I'm just saying, you can nit pick at this and all that but you really cant deny that people have been deeply effected by this show. (AGAIN, not saying it's a flaw free show, it's far from it.)

Nobody is denying any of that.

I think we're taking this article too seriously. It's Entertainment Weekly...come on. It isn't like this came directly from the Tony board. I don't think Wicked is the "best" musical of the decade, but I certainly think it's a great one. It may not have the best music or even the best story, but it's a spectacle that people love.

Honestly, think about all the money the show has ranked in and how it's pretty much become a world phenomenon! Clearly, it's hugely popular and well-liked by a vast majority of people (not all), but a vast majority. The show just broke a god darn record for making two million dollars on Broadway, that's pretty darn impressive.

I don't really think the title of "Best Musical of The Decade" was really meant to incite some sort of debate over how good of a show Wicked it is, it's meant to show that Wicked has become one of THOSE shows (like Phantom, Mamma Mia, Cats, etc.) that EVERYONE knows and has seen in some form. Also, it's had a huge impact on Broadway as a whole, just try and imagine what Wicked not being on Broadway would be like and what show(s) wouldn't have happened or actor(s) wouldn't be working now because of it.

Also, to attack those who don't think Wicked is the end all be all is rude, this is a fan forum for the show and obviously those people have some interest in it or they wouldn't be here. I adore the show, but it's not the greatest musical of all time, but it's something that I love and appreciate for what it's worth.

So it sounds like we all pretty much agree on the following things:
-Wicked has been very financially successful
-Wicked has been popular enough to sustain multiple productions for many years
-Wicked, to the general public, can probably be considered one of the biggest shows in musical theater
-Wicked is not perfect, the degree of which is debatable

Beyond that, it's all pretty much opinion, which we all respect each other's differences in. I hope everyone took this as more of an interesting debate rather than an argument, I certainly found it interesting!

This BWW thread could provide some food for thought:
http://broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage...0&boardid=1

I can really, really agree with you. The book is not well written by ANY means.

But, it one way is is the best, only because of the vast amount of people it has reached in terms of it's message and moral.