I honestly hope for the best with this production. Casting is interesting for sure. Casting a 36 yo Diana Ross in the film version playing 24, sank that ship.
The music should be good. It's the story being acted out that might be a concern. The "Peter Pan" production has left me skiddish.
Diana Ross was certainly a casting disappointment, considering how much better many musical films would be if they'd had the original stage cast. Ted Ross as the Lion is a great example. (Or Streisand in "Funny Girl" or Tim Curry in 'Rocky Horror".) However Diana's performance has grown on me because she's really good and Michael, Nipsey & Ted were all great supporting payers. Maybe her bond with Michael was a part of it all too. But really even Judy Garland was much older than the author's vision of a young Dorothy in the books.
(Obviously too many stage actors get left out of the film versions because studio execs "need a name star". I understand the logic, you need investors or the studio to pony up a budget, but it doesn't always pay off.)
It was no surprise when Ross was cast, it was a big deal at the time within the black community, she was exec producer Barry Gordy's side piece at the time. Her look in the movie was an attempt to make her look younger and downplay her celebrity glamour.
I do have high hopes for this production. Especially since it's a combonation of the stage and movie productions.
True, Stephanie Mills could still pull off Dorthey as she is petite and very young looking (ok maybe not now) but Diana Ross always looked old....
shareI think Diana would have been perfect if they made her up like when she played Billie as a little girl in "Lady Sings the Blues". As young Billie, Diana was totally believable. As for Shanice, I don't know about age-appropriateness, but she's certainly the biggest bosomed Dorothy of them all. I don't know why they can't just hire a little girl for the part. Even Judy was too old. The producers originally wanted Shirley Temple. Now THAT would have been age-appropriate.
shareTemple was seen as too young and her singing not up to par.
shareActually, Shirley Temple was replaced by Judy because Judy Garland belonged to MGM, and Shirley Temple belonged to Fox -- and Fox wouldn't loan her out.
Actually, Shirley Temple was replaced by Judy because Judy Garland belonged to MGM, and Shirley Temple belonged to Fox -- and Fox wouldn't loan her out.
I agree that Diana Ross was a bad choice for Dorothy, but THIS actress doesn't look anything like Stephanie Mills did in the original. Dorothy should appear to be at least a little cute...this actress makes her look/act way too trashy. It doesn't work. It was a bad choice. In fact, Stephanie Mills, who plays Aunt Em, would have been a better choice as Dorothy in this, even though it's been 40 years since she originally played the role!
shareShanice Williams is absolutely adorable. "Trashy"? I totally disagree. What was trashy about her? She was sweet, cute and feisty, just like Dorothy should be.
"Do you even remember what you came here to find?"
Stephanie sure didn't look like she'd changed much! A soft filter on close-ups and she'd still be a great Dorothy. Interestingly, Cathy Rigby played Peter Pan on stage from the age of 20 to 63! (She also played Dorothy when she was 29.)
Trashy!? I agree with most other posters... she was completely charming and absolutely adorable.
My IMDb lists: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5570856/lists?ref_=nv_usr_lst_3
You have to remember the movie version of The Wiz wasn't supposed to be the story of a young girl; it was the story of a young woman at a crossroads. That's why the movie was set in Harlem. Diana was fine. She gave a great performance of someone trying to escape and not realizing the blessings they have in their life. People always fail to realize this. If they would just recognize that the movie was not meant to mirror the play scene for scene, then I think they would really appreciate what Sidney Lumet was trying to do.
shareEverything you say is correct. The movie was not the play. Otherwise there would have been a 12ish year old running around wanting to go home. That follows the original books, movie and stage musical.
The fact that has always been an issue is that they wrote a screenplay for a 24 year old character and then they cast Diana Ross. Who at the time was well beyond anyone's perception of a 24 year old. Had they cast Stephanie or almost anyone else closer to the written age it would have been more acceptable.
Bottom line, Diana was just too damned old at the time! talented, yes, no question but Too damned old for the role!
Some of us prefer illusion to despair ~Nelson Muntz