Fans customized the Wicked movie poster to more closely match the original Broadway poster.

Original Broadway Poster:

Movie poster:

Some fans, disappointed by the poster, altered it to be closer to the original, moving Grande’s hand and lowering the brim of Erivo’s hat to cover her eyes. The edits prompted Erivo to respond. “This is the wildest, most offensive thing I have seen

“None of this is funny. None of it is cute. It degrades me. It degrades us,” Erivo continued. “The original poster is an ILLUSTRATION. I am a real life human being, who chose to look right down the barrel of the camera to you, the viewer… because, without words we communicate with our eyes.”

So, this seems like a completely reasonable reaction to fans making fan content.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    115·
    2 months ago

    “Cynthia’s hurt arises from her own actions of hurting the fans of the original.”

    this is incorrect and more victim blaming.

    when you are assaulted, it is not your fault that you are assaulted.

    is the fault of those assaulting you.

    "Cynthia is allowed to be upset. "

    Yes, glad tp hear at least one person admitting that she is allowed to be upset.

    “What she is not entitled to do is pretend that this is degrading, or in someway offensive.”

    she’s not pretending anything, and do you alleging that is rejecting her right to be upset, invalidating her emotions, dehumanizing her.

    she finds erasing her face from her portrayal of the character offensive.

    That’s perfectly valid, as you finally agreed with earlier.

    “That’s no more or less wrong than what she did.”

    you mean making fan art in general?

    do you understand fan art as morally wrong in some way?

    “If her feelings are hurt, that’s unfortunate, but it is incidental.”

    it is not incidental, it is a direct result of having erased her from the official artwork featuring her.

    that was not an incidental action, that was a deliberate action to erase part of her face and her hair. and color the sky green. which looks terrible.

    “if people disagree with yours, it’s not a personal attack, even if it feels like one.”

    this isn’t a disagreement. this is a personal erasure. an erasure of her person.

    It’s not the same as a fan thinking to themselves that “aw gee, I like the cartoon poster better.”

    "I understand her feelings are hurt, and she is “lashing out” in what is ultimately a very small potatoes kind of way. "

    this acknowledgment of her feelings are the simple concept that other people will not admit to.

    If you now understand her feelings are hurt, there’s not much more to worry about.

    people are saying Cynthia isn’t allowed to be upset, but she is because she is a real person with feelings.

    other people do not understand that or are dehumanizing her by rejecting her feelings and upset it having her identity erased as invalid.

    fans are allowed to make fan art, Cynthia is allowed to be upset by fan art that erases her identity.

    I’m sure I’ll watch it at some point, but it’s number 700 on my watch list for now(I try to go chronologically).

    I like musicals and have fond, if vague, memories of wicked.

    they’re going to try and make cats again in the next 20 years also. no property will be left untouched.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        112·
        2 months ago

        correct, that was an analogy of how an attacker is not a victim, a victim is a victim.

        when someone is attacked, they are the victim.

        The attacker is not a victim because they feel bad or ashamed about attacking the victim.

        The attacker is still the attacker and the victim is still the victim.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            17·
            2 months ago

            “there is no attacker.”

            you’re still mistaking the analogy for the previous comments.

            “She doesn’t like it, sure.”

            she sure doesn’t.

            “But she wasn’t attacked.”

            Denial of your own creation. cool.

            you sound very confused, but you aren’t asking any questions.

            is there something you need clarified?

        • 5in1k@lemm.eeEnglish
          61·
          2 months ago

          It’s not an attack. It’s a mild retouching of a photo.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            19·
            2 months ago

            nobody said the photo was an attack.

            you’re getting confused.

            go back and read from the beginning, slowly, and maybe you’ll understand the point this time.

            “It’s a mild retouching of a photo.”

            It’s an erasure of her face and deliberate expression, and that is not as important as all of you criticizing her for expressing herself, for letting people know how she feels.

            she isn’t attacking anyone, like all of you are.

            she isn’t demanding change, like all of you are.

            she is expressing her own feelings, and that makes many of you upset.

            try to figure out why that is.