Cynthia Erivo says "Wicked" poster "deeply hurtful". Really??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It tracks that an entire thread of probably-white women wouldn't be able to relate to a Black woman's upset at being erased, but...

It's pretty sad that none of y'all can put yourself in an artist's shoes, and face makeup, and imagine the time that went into making those artistic decisions, setting up the shot(s), making that work, only to have some punk with photoshop or AI think they knew better by making something that's already been made as an illustration. If they'd wanted it to look like the illustration, don't you think they could've replicated it themselves, and better?

Yes, yes they could've. And they didn't. Why not? She obviously had some agency to present the character and her interpretation of same in the way she wanted, and you're mad at her for being upset that some anon stole that away to make her work derivative and basic? And that the edits remove the features that make her "her" in the process? What of what's left in that edit says "That's Cynthia Erivo"? That could be literally anyone, and you don't think she has a right to be upset about being erased so you can have your trite repeat image?

Probably because you're basic, and can't appreciate anything beyond what you already know. And now you want to call her names and call her a homewrecker and all this other unrelated trash.

Who's het up about a picture now?

Can't tell if serious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It tracks that an entire thread of probably-white women wouldn't be able to relate to a Black woman's upset at being erased, but...

It's pretty sad that none of y'all can put yourself in an artist's shoes, and face makeup, and imagine the time that went into making those artistic decisions, setting up the shot(s), making that work, only to have some punk with photoshop or AI think they knew better by making something that's already been made as an illustration. If they'd wanted it to look like the illustration, don't you think they could've replicated it themselves, and better?

Yes, yes they could've. And they didn't. Why not? She obviously had some agency to present the character and her interpretation of same in the way she wanted, and you're mad at her for being upset that some anon stole that away to make her work derivative and basic? And that the edits remove the features that make her "her" in the process? What of what's left in that edit says "That's Cynthia Erivo"? That could be literally anyone, and you don't think she has a right to be upset about being erased so you can have your trite repeat image?

Probably because you're basic, and can't appreciate anything beyond what you already know. And now you want to call her names and call her a homewrecker and all this other unrelated trash.

Who's het up about a picture now?

I can understand both all of the above and a fan’s desire to re-create a beloved poster from a beloved musical at the same time. Art begets art begets art, as is literally the case of a book becoming a movie becoming an alternate book about a book/movie becoming a musical becoming a movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bizarro-world

Apologies for going off topic here, but my DH says "bizarro world" and I thought he made it up, lol. I didn't realize anyone else says this.

It's from Superman.

[Anonymous]

I like the new one. It’s more about the character. The one she likes so much is more about her.

[Anonymous]

So this was just some rando fan’s edit? The way she reacted I thought this new one was put out by the studio or something

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So this was just some rando fan’s edit? The way she reacted I thought this new one was put out by the studio or something

Yeah, I can see her saying “I liked our version better! We are making it our own.” But seems really weird to get this upset over a fan edit that was just an attempt to recreate the original play poster. Feel like this does not bode well for her mental health as an actor in the public eye.

[Anonymous]

Hope she didn’t hurt her back with that reach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It tracks that an entire thread of probably-white women wouldn't be able to relate to a Black woman's upset at being erased, but...

It's pretty sad that none of y'all can put yourself in an artist's shoes, and face makeup, and imagine the time that went into making those artistic decisions, setting up the shot(s), making that work, only to have some punk with photoshop or AI think they knew better by making something that's already been made as an illustration. If they'd wanted it to look like the illustration, don't you think they could've replicated it themselves, and better?

Yes, yes they could've. And they didn't. Why not? She obviously had some agency to present the character and her interpretation of same in the way she wanted, and you're mad at her for being upset that some anon stole that away to make her work derivative and basic? And that the edits remove the features that make her "her" in the process? What of what's left in that edit says "That's Cynthia Erivo"? That could be literally anyone, and you don't think she has a right to be upset about being erased so you can have your trite repeat image?

Probably because you're basic, and can't appreciate anything beyond what you already know. And now you want to call her names and call her a homewrecker and all this other unrelated trash.

Who's het up about a picture now?

It’s random fan art. I put it in the category as fan fic. People have all sorts of artistic variation in skill level and may not always do the source material justice. This edit would have faded into oblivion if she hadn’t made a big deal of it. At first I though she was upset because the actual movie producers edited something, but to get this angry at some internet rando is totally weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are being more dramatic in the comments than she was in her reaction. The play poster is intentionally generic because it isn't made to be changed every time a new actor is hired. The movie poster showed both actresses' faces because they're the stars of the show, and there won't be any substitutions. Hiding most of their faces does erase them and revert to just showcasing the idea of the character, which makes sense for Broadway but not for a movie.

She was hurt to be erased from a movie poster where she's the main character, and I don't think it's crazy to say that out loud since people were probably asking her about it. Her reaction certainly doesn't make her unintelligent, even if it does seem sensitive.

Close, but not quite. It erases HER, only. The other actress's hand is moved, and dimple removed, but she's still herself. There's nothing left in the photo to indicate that the hat-wearer is Cynthia Erivo at all. It's total erasure.

But isn’t it erasure of the character, not Cynthia Erivo? I thought when you act you are representing that character. She made it about her as a person but it isn’t about her. No one is seeing Cynthia Erivo in this movie- it’s to see Elphaba.

[Anonymous]

Maybe she was relying as the character or something? I can’t imagine she’s been asked if her blank is green.

[Anonymous]

I've never heard of her and probably never will again, so I guess she has achieved what she intended by making this statement.

[Anonymous]

She’s just Method

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It tracks that an entire thread of probably-white women wouldn't be able to relate to a Black woman's upset at being erased, but...

It's pretty sad that none of y'all can put yourself in an artist's shoes, and face makeup, and imagine the time that went into making those artistic decisions, setting up the shot(s), making that work, only to have some punk with photoshop or AI think they knew better by making something that's already been made as an illustration. If they'd wanted it to look like the illustration, don't you think they could've replicated it themselves, and better?

Yes, yes they could've. And they didn't. Why not? She obviously had some agency to present the character and her interpretation of same in the way she wanted, and you're mad at her for being upset that some anon stole that away to make her work derivative and basic? And that the edits remove the features that make her "her" in the process? What of what's left in that edit says "That's Cynthia Erivo"? That could be literally anyone, and you don't think she has a right to be upset about being erased so you can have your trite repeat image?

Probably because you're basic, and can't appreciate anything beyond what you already know. And now you want to call her names and call her a homewrecker and all this other unrelated trash.

Who's het up about a picture now?

It’s random fan art. I put it in the category as fan fic. People have all sorts of artistic variation in skill level and may not always do the source material justice. This edit would have faded into oblivion if she hadn’t made a big deal of it. At first I though she was upset because the actual movie producers edited something, but to get this angry at some internet rando is totally weird.

A fanfic based on a very popular cover. They put the title in the same place. Her reaction was uncalled

[Anonymous]

Well ... the story of her outrage is getting a lot more press than the movie was getting. I had no idea there was a movie until I saw all these stories about how upset the actor is about an altered movie poster.

So, if nothing else, the outrage was effective at generating publicity for the movie.

[Anonymous]

I think the actress is being overly sensitive. I think the fan art was good, but they should have changed Glinda’s crown for a white hat to match the original poster.