What better time could there be to see 'Wicked'? It's got all the studio could want for a feature film -- a friendly film market, a growing increase in shnazzy musical numbers from the rise of 'Glee' and a built-in audience of fans.
But instead of the big-screen announcement we've been waiting for, especially after last July's rumblings, the story of Glinda and Elphaba is heading to TV.
Michael Ausiello (over at his new digs -- TVLine) reports that Salma Hayek is prepping a 'Wicked' mini-series with ABC. Here's the twist that should please some of the readers out there -- it won't be based on the popular musical, but rather the darker tome by Gregory Maguire: 'Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West.' Ausiello's insider "stresses that it would be based on the novel and not the musical," which means that this would be more of a parallel Oz story, rather than a prequel. This news also sees ABC turning direction after a previous studio head refused the project two years ago.
To ease the seemingly dashed hopes of 'Wicked' enthusiasts -- Universal is still said to be developing their movie. But they'd better hurry. While Hollywood does love to compete with any number of ridiculously similar stories, from Truman Capote to Steve Prefontaine, there are a lot of Oz projects in development, and while the time is right now and could thrive on joint television and film action, it'll be risky if the audience is worn out on fairy tales as well as the ever-growing pile of Oz-related fare -- Robert Zemeckis' all-out remake, 'Oz Wars,' a Robert Downey Wizard and other dueling flicks.
In the past, many Cinematical readers have wished for a treatment of Maguire's bestselling novel rather than the Broadway musical. Is a television mini-series the way to handle it? What about the big-screen adaptation? Is Hollywood big enough for all these treatments of Oz that includes two 'Wickeds'?
'Wicked': Should it be on television, on film or both?