I think the Wiz is a bad person because of the things he does.

the Wizard is an idiot! lol

he is smart

Well, he's definitely not idiotic, he fooled an entire land for quite a while. I think he is a "bad" person, but only because he was kind of "forced" to it. He just gave the people of Oz what they wanted, but he got caught up in a lie and couldn't refuse the praise given him, but who could?

I believe the Wizard is neither truly good or bad, pure or evil. Oscar was merely a human being who found himself in a very powerful position in a completely new type of land. Prior to Oz, he was no more than a balloon-man, working for a circus in hopes of earning a living. Suddenly he is carried away into a land where people believe he is an all-powerful Wizard. It was simply too good an opportunity to turn away, given his problem with returning to Nebraska.

Unfortunately, absolute power corrupts absolutely. With King Pastoria dead, the Wizard knew that the little Princess Ozma would come into throne. Because he did not wish to give away power that was all but promised to him, he hid the girl. Granted, he could have been more careful with whom he delivered her to (Mombi), he never inflicted harm on the Princess.

He was a con-artist, a humbug above all else. Merely look at the Emerald City for example. He fooled even its citizens to believe it truthfully was created of the marvelous jewels, when they were only wearing green glasses. He could perform no spectacular stunts, nor could he grant the wishes he claimed he could. He had his circus tricks, book smarts, and nothing more.

It was only when his life was threatened by the Witches of the East and West did his motives become questionable. The Wizard of Oz was human, and feared the true power the Witches held. He was powerless to help the Munchkins, despite his duties. The Winged Monkeys kept him from approaching the Winkies in the West. Thereby, he was relieved when the Witch of the East was killed, and ready for his last threat to be rid of as well.

The only time I ever gave the Wizard a double look was when he decided to send a little girl to destroy the Wicked Witch of the West. However, I believe it continued to prove that absolute power corrupts. Oscar had no true malicious intents; he wanted to save his life. He continually dug himself into a hole so deep that he was afraid of how the people would react if he did admit to not being a Wizard. He was willing to send a girl to possible death to keep the charade awake.

As stated, I do not believe this makes him evil. He has proven in the stories (books and movies) to be a good man. He is just too much of a humbug, and not a very good Wizard to say. The strive to keep up the image of being a Wizard clouded his humanity.

The Wizard is one that ended up believing his own press clippings, for lack of a better phrase. So many people in Oz were telling him how great and special he was, he actually started to believe them, even though he had no special abilities.

no one is black or white... there is a gray area. he's in the gray area. I think he means well, but he screws up

exactly. you can apply this lyric to him. "sure i ment well, well look what well ment did" he means to do good things, but they don't come out they way he hopes

Well, musical wise, I always thought it was "like father, like daughter." Both the wizard and Elphaba had good intentions, but those intentions always ended up backfiring on them in some way. And they were both outcasted in the end. The wizard was neither good or bad persay, he just became caught up with the "ego" everyone suddenly gave him.

Depends on what you mean. The Wizard from Baum's book? The Movie? Broadway? Wicked the novel? They're all so different.

The Musical

i think he meant well but he messed everything up... :disagree:

In the musical, well he means well, and deep down he might be good but he's not a "good" person. In my opinion at least...

In the book... well he's satanic. He kills anyone in his way, pretty much. And he hates the Animals, which makes me POed...

I'm ashamed to admit that this just popped into my mind. I was cleaning out my Oz books I brought with me to the campus, and as I put Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz on my bed, it dawned on me:

I was already confused as to why Gregory Maguire focused on Animal Rights in his novel, an issue that was never a problem in L. Frank Baum's books. Now I'm really asking why he made the actual Wizard so anti-animals himself. In Baum's fourth book, the Wizard own nine tiny piglets. They helped him with his circus tricks and furthered his being a humbug. But, he truly loved those piglets, but he was also willing to stand up for another animal's innocence. When Dorothy's cat - Eureka - supposedly ate one of the piglets, the Wizard told the Tin Woodman to convince the jury that all nine piglets were still alive, even if Eureka had eaten one of them. Eureka was going to have her head chopped off, and the Wizard didn't want to have that happen to the cat, nor did he want to see Dorothy upset from it.

In the end, it was proven that the cat had not performed the deed and that all nine piglets were safe. However, the Wizard's attitude certainly doen't look like something we've seen from Wicked.

Trying to think where Maguire received his motivation for Oscar's anti-animal attitude both confuses and upsets me.

I think he's neither good nor evil. He is simply an ordinary man who suddenly found himself being loved and looked up to by everyone and he let it get to his head. I think he means well but it ends up badly.

Exactly. Except in the book I'd like to kill him haha

But, like you said, Nick...The Wizard in Gregory's novel is different than that in Baum's books. Even in Gregory's novel, he could actually have not minded animals...or Animals, for that matter. True, he was a humbug and in the novel of TLaT, he was truly evil...in the Musical it can also be seen as him being under the influence of Morrible..."Give them a common enemy"...The Animals were that enemy, then Elphaba. He was trying to keep his secret safe.

That's my question, though: Where did Gregory Maguire bring his material from? It's coming across that he drew these themes and plots from out of the air, and that is starting to upset me. Baum had so much to work with from his own series, I am beginning to think that Maguire took too many leaps and bounds to make a POV-changed book.

Coming from an Oz-based fan, I can understand that. But, Gregory based a lot of the book off of World War Two and...The Gulf War, was it? I believe...and...that's exactly what they did int he book..>The Wizard was an evil dictator...What type of person could we pick on? There were Animals in Baum's books...Perhaps that was the closest thing to parallel the universe with. There are many possibilities for this...And, he has his right to do with the story as he pleased. If you think about it, Nick, MGM didn't exactly do a good job in translating problems from Baum's books either. Therefore, I truly don't think you should have a problem with it. Otherwise, there would be that factor of hating the Witch because Gregory kept her green...*shrug* It's all about perspective. Baum's books were to entertain...Gregory takes that all into deeper meaning and changed the story.

Judging from the silent tapes, no one could have asked the 1939 MGM to do better than they did. There is a difference between translating a story in the 1930s and the 1990s.

Animals were in Oz, but there was no distinction between Animals and animals. All beasts in Oz could speak. Even ones that came from the outside world (Toto, Billina, Eureka, etc.) found themselves with the power of speech once they entered the fairy territory. As I mentioned in another thread, there was a difference between the plants and Plants. Again, the Poppy Field was not alive, but the Fighting Trees clearly were.

They could have even used the individual tribes of Oz against the four main countries. Loops, Dainty China People, Tottenhots, Hammerheads, Hoppers, Horners, etc. identified themselves as those separate tribes. They were not seen as Gillikin, Munchkin, Winkie, or Quadling. That was something that could have been covered.

Do not get me wrong: Gregory Maguire's Wicked is better than 80% of what Dark Oz releases. He is a magnificent author, and it is an entertaining story. I just feel as though he left out possibilities that would have made more sense than making the Wizard a dictator or bringing about the Animal/animal situation.

^ nick, i just have to say that i love your responses and i agree with you! :mrgreen:

I think his intentions wer good, but the things he did wern't.

In the musical, he's definately not a bad guy. He's just a bumbling plitician who kind of doesn't have a clue. Like our current president. I hope I don't offend anyone with that comment XD.

I don't think the Wizard is bad. I think he is a good person, but he's weak, and cares too much what people think of him.

Mostly, he had good intentions, to give Ozians what they desired, yet totally lied to them to do it, as well as nearly killing and stripping Animals' rights, tricking Elphaba into mutating the monkeys, and framing Elphaba. Oh, and he let Madame Morrible drop the house on Nessarose. :drink:

And he made Dr. Dillamond an animal instead of an Animal.