Universal's WICKED Films - News & Discussion Thread- Page 125

[gibsons2]

Posted: 1/22/26 at 3:38pm

rg7759 said: "Avatars costumes consist of 1 thong. They hated wicked so much they would rather vote for a thong"

They must've really hated Cynthia's chunky cardigan in which she seduced Fiyero lol

[joevitus]

Posted: 1/22/26 at 4:14pm

TheatreFan4 said: "They should have just made this whole thing a 3.5 hour movie. For Good felt like letting air out of the balloon. A movie people went to see out of obligation instead of interest. Everyone knows Act 2 isnt as good as Act 1, but this time you got to walk away for a year before seeing to confirm that yes... Act 2 is still Mid and you made it longer and added, essentially, nothing to goings on. Same thing they did in the first movie, but again... Act 1 will always be better."

I've always been on the Team One Movie myself, but it's quite possible, as let down as people are by Act Two/For Good, if it had been one movie, the second half would have dragged down the first with it, and the movie would have been rated mediocre, rather than Part 1 being hailed amazing and Part 2 being looked on (more retroactively than anything else)  as a botch. 

[tomorrowBIGLITES]

Posted: 1/22/26 at 4:31pm

joevitus said: "TheatreFan4 said: "They should have just made this whole thing a 3.5 hour movie. For Good felt like letting air out of the balloon. A movie people went to see out of obligation instead of interest. Everyone knows Act 2 isnt as good as Act 1, but this time you got to walk away for a year before seeing to confirm that yes... Act 2 is still Mid and you made it longer and added, essentially, nothing to goings on. Same thing they did in the first movie, but again... Act 1 will always be better."

I've always been on the Team One Movie myself, but it's quite possible, as let down as people are by Act Two/For Good, if it had been one movie, the second half would have dragged down the first with it, and the movie would have been rated mediocre, rather than Part 1 being hailedamazing and Part 2 being looked on (more retroactively than anything else) as a botch."


Well they wanted to make Wicked.

[Theatrefan2]

Posted: 1/22/26 at 4:59pm

I rewatched part 1 after For Good and honestly it wasnt as good as I remembered. I enjoyed it, and its a good movie, but I wasnt as wowed as I had been. More things stood out. It felt overlong and stretched out in parts, Cynthia really is one note acting Elphaba all the way through, and Defying Gravity was bodged. And its reminiscent of Grease when it comes to grown adults pretending to be young.

[jlindsey865]

Posted: 1/22/26 at 5:27pm

Winnie Holzman’s awful second act strikes again.

[joevitus]

Posted: 1/22/26 at 5:32pm

Theatrefan2 said: "I rewatched part 1 after For Good and honestly it wasnt as good as I remembered. I enjoyed it, and its a good movie, but I wasnt as wowed as I had been. More things stood out.It felt overlong and stretched out in parts, Cynthia really is one note acting Elphaba all the way through, and Defying Gravity was bodged. And its reminiscent of Grease when it comes togrown adults pretending to be young."

I expect to encounter many more responses like this as time passes. I find it kind of insufferable, but it's also human to get overexcited about something in the moment and then have an ensuing backlash against it. 

Updated On: 1/22/26 at 05:32 PM

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/22/26 at 5:43pm

Let's not forget, also, that for about ten years if not longer, the common consensus was that Wicked was not only a bad musical, it was THE BAD MUSICAL, whose badness and whose impact on the theatrical culture at large was actively harmful. It was very much treated the way rock and roll is treated in Bye Bye Birdie, as a stylistically retrograde and zombifying entity that was dragging other new musicals down with it and harming the tastes and brains of the people who encountered it. That cheese-touch was passed to Heathers, which has not entirely shaken it off despite twelve years of extreme success.

I think the relative disappointment (critical more than audience or financial) of Part 2 is making people look back at Part 1 more critically. You're going to see some thinkpieces like "wait... did Wicked suck all along?," and former darlings Erivo and Grande are going to be caricatured and lampooned a lot harder than they were before.

Now, a moderate sophomore slump is nothing in terms of "two enormously successful projects," but when the eyes of the entire world are on it this way, I wonder if this could have a dampening effect on musical movies to come, or on the reputations as theatre performers of Erivo and Grande. It's not another Dr. Dolittle, for sure, but... with Hollywood the way it is, do we know it won't be TREATED as one?

[joevitus]

Posted: 1/22/26 at 5:50pm

Meh, the critical reception wasn't great, but it was an audience favorite from Day 1. The idea that it was "THE BAD MUSICAL" is a pretty extreme re-writing of history. I wouldn't say the dichotomy between critical consensus and mainstream popularity was even as wide as was the case with, say, Phantom.

Updated On: 1/22/26 at 05:50 PM

[tomorrowBIGLITES]

Posted: 1/22/26 at 10:43pm

Wicked Part One’s only real sins are being way too long and the hatch job on Defying Gravity.

It’s pretty solid and I would bet it’s gonna stay a classic in its own right.

Wicked: For Good very well may fall into obscurity.

[tomorrowBIGLITES]

Posted: 1/22/26 at 10:45pm

I think part of the charm of the stage show is it knows it’s a little stupid.

“I mean come on Elphie it’s shoes. Let it go.”

That’s why Act Two is pretty fun. It never stops being a joke machine.

[Bette's Turban]

Posted: 1/22/26 at 10:48pm

tomorrowBIGLITES said: "Wicked Part One’s only real sins are being way too long and the hatch job on Defying Gravity.

It’s pretty solid and I would bet it’s gonna stay a classic in its own right.

Wicked: For Good very well may fall into obscurity."

No it won’t.  It will be the Lorna to Liza.  

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 1/22/26 at 11:51pm

tomorrowBIGLITES said: "I think part of the charm of the stage show is it knows it’s a little stupid.

“I mean come on Elphie it’s shoes. Let it go.”

That’s why Act Two is pretty fun. It never stops being a joke machine."

Which is why touting it as "Epic Conclusion" makes it fall flat on its face. Nothing epic, or even big, even happens in it. Everything is incredibly small. 

[MagicalMusical]

Posted: 1/23/26 at 12:24am

I can’t believe Ariana didn’t get nom. Oh well, I was wrong.

[LooseTapScrews]

Posted: 1/23/26 at 4:07am

Paul Mescal not getting a supporting nomination and It Was Just an Accident not getting in for Picture and Director are the most egregious things about the nominations. However, I’m ecstatic for Delroy Lindo; I wish there could have been a tie and supporting actor had all six nominated. Not surprised Ariana didn’t make it but I’m kind of shocked Elle Fanning is who knocked her out over Odessa A’zion. I would have nominated Amanda Seyfried for the fifth slot in Lead over Kate Hudson… 

Not surprised by the Wicked shut out but it’s still wild it didn’t get a single craft/below the line nomination. 

I will say, Wicked: For Good had a lot of tough competition this year. I didn’t like it at all (and loved part 1… though haven’t revisited it since seeing it in theatre’s). But in my opinion— this year is probably my second favorite film year over all this century (so far) after 2007. So many good films came out this year. Wonder if we’ll ever have a year come close to 1999 though? Haha 

 

[bear882]

Posted: 1/23/26 at 4:15am

tomorrowBIGLITES said: "I think part of the charm of the stage show is it knows it’s a little stupid.

“I mean come on Elphie it’s shoes. Let it go.”

That’s why Act Two is pretty fun. It never stops being a joke machine."

That’s a fair point. The other advantage of the stage show is that it moves quickly. The audience recognizes who each character is supposed to be without giving them too much time to think about the things that don’t entirely make sense.

The movie just gave me too much time to think, especially during the series of dull ballads - including the boring new songs.

[LooseTapScrews]

Posted: 1/23/26 at 4:23am

Also, regarding these split part movies: I honestly think the best way it’s been done to date is with one of my top 20 favorite films of all time… Kill Bill. Released Pt 1 in theatre’s fall and Pt 2 in the spring. I know that wasn’t supposed to be a split movie and it’s the only time the disgraced rapist EP didn’t go scissor happy and cut the films to pieces… but that model should be followed more often. 

Like, what if Wicked Pt 1 was released in the summer blockbuster season and then part 2 released that Christmas. Pt 2 mainly performs in the new year so it doesnt affect studio BO numbers for the year and gets spread out…And then the film is campaigned for Awards season as one film?  

I guess we’ll get the closest thing to that with Sam Mendez’ 4 film Beatles Biopic all released a week apart in 2 years. 

 

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 1/23/26 at 8:47am

I think there is a difference in something like the Beatles films, which sound like 4 stand alone films united by theme, and Wicked which is clearly one extended film divided into two for maximum box office receipts.

I personally don't have an issue with this setting a loose precedent moving forward for awards consideration: the Wicked film was recognized with multiple Oscar nominations last year. As Wicked for Good is the second part of the same movie,  there is a huge amount of duplicity in all the elements between the two films, with perhaps the exception of makeup and the new songs. 

We don't give Tony Awards for Act two of musicals, why should the Academy reward separate Oscars for two parts of a movie?

[joevitus]

Posted: 1/23/26 at 10:33am

QueenAlice said: "I think there is a difference in something like the Beatles films, which sound like 4 stand alone films united by theme, and Wicked which is clearly one extended film divided into two for maximum box office receipts.

I personally don't have an issue with this setting a loose precedent moving forward for awards consideration: the Wicked film was recognized with multiple Oscar nominations last year. As Wicked for Good is the second part of the same movie,there isa huge amount of duplicity in all the elements between the two films, with perhaps the exception of makeup and the new songs.

We don't give Tony Awards for Act two of musicals, why should the Academy reward separate Oscars for two parts of a movie?"

Well, awarding or just nominating both parts of a two-part movie is different than awarding Act 2 of a play. Angels in America is the better equivalent here, and indeed both Millennium Approaches and Parastroika both won Best Play, two cosecutive years in a row.

[joevitus]

Posted: 1/23/26 at 10:34am

TheatreFan4 said: "tomorrowBIGLITES said: "I think part of the charm of the stage show is it knows it’s a little stupid.

“I mean come on Elphie it’s shoes. Let it go.”

That’s why Act Two is pretty fun. It never stops being a joke machine."

Which is why touting it as "Epic Conclusion" makes it fall flat on its face. Nothing epic, or even big, even happens in it. Everything is incredibly small."

Two friends saying goodbye forever? The wizard exposed and exiled? Morrible locked up? And...nothing happens???

Updated On: 1/23/26 at 10:34 AM

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 1/23/26 at 10:39am

joevitus said: "Well, awarding or just nominating both parts of a two-part movie is different than awarding Act 2 of a play. Angels in America is the better equivalent here, and indeed both Millennium Approaches and Parastroika both won Best Play, two cosecutive years in a row."

 

Angels in America is one of the best things ever written.

[joevitus]

Posted: 1/23/26 at 10:55am

TotallyEffed said: "joevitus said: "Well, awarding or just nominating both parts of a two-part movie is different than awarding Act 2 of a play. Angels in America is the better equivalent here, and indeed both Millennium Approaches and Parastroika both won Best Play, two cosecutive years in a row."



Angels in America is one of the best things ever written."

The analogy still holds. Two parts of one work are different than two acts of one play.

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 1/23/26 at 11:16am

My only point was that Angels in America would win awards in any scenario! 😂

[QueenAlice]

Posted: 1/23/26 at 11:46am

Angels in America and Perestroika were written and performed as two separate works on stage in a single season. Wicked is a single work that was divided into two parts for a movie released over two years.  This is more an argument about how awards bodies chose to recognize (or not) the second installment of one film, for which many of the craft elements remain essentially the same across both movies.

As a relative example, The first installment of THE LORD OF THE RINGS received 13 nominations - part two received 6 and was left out of many of the craft categories for which it had been previously recognized.  The third installment of the film went on be nominated (and win) 11 Oscars - and I think this was partly as industry reward for the massive success of the franchise and ALSO because the third film was considered an extraordinary film unto itself.

I think if you were to ask voters why Wicked Part Two wasn't nominated most would say the second film wasn't one of the best films of the year AND there wasn't an incentive to vote for it in most categories because those were already recognized last year.

[joevitus]

Posted: 1/23/26 at 12:29pm

QueenAlice said: "Angels in America and Perestroika were written and performed as two separate works on stage in a single season. Wicked is a single work that was divided into two parts for a movie released over two years. This is more an argument about how awards bodies chose to recognize (or not) the second installment of one film, for which many of the craft elements remain essentially the same across both movies.

As a relative example, The first installment of THE LORD OF THE RINGS received 13 nominations - part two received 6 and was left out of many of the craft categories for which it had been previously recognized. The third installment of the film went on be nominated (and win) 11 Oscars - and I think this was partly as industry reward for the massive success of the franchise and ALSO because the third film was considered an extraordinary film unto itself.

I think if you were to ask voters why Wicked Part Two wasn't nominated most would say the second film wasn't one of the best films of the year AND there wasn't an incentive to vote for it in most categories because those were already recognized last year."

It's called an analogy, and Wicked as a movie was broken into two seperate parts, as Angels in America--technically, one mammoth work--was broken into two seperate shows. Honestly, there is not the major difference in form you're insisting on. I am in no way saying that Wicked is to movie musicals what Angels was to drama. I'm just saying the structure of a two-part narrative to give both parts the time and space they need is similar. Heck, you could make a similar analogy with the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Updated On: 1/23/26 at 12:29 PM

[joevitus]

Posted: 1/23/26 at 12:30pm

TotallyEffed said: "My only point was that Angels in America would win awards in any scenario!😂"

Totally agree. Angels is like the gay Long Day's Journey into Night. A major milestone in the history of the American theater.