"'WICKED' - THE FILMS" IN CONCLUSION...

[ChgoTheatreGuy]

Posted: 11/23/25 at 10:41pm

Now that the final "Wicked" film has been released, what is everyone's general feeling about the musical being split into two films?  The first film had alot of energy and style.  The two leads were perfectly fine, my issue was with the other supporting characters.  Michelle Yeoh was incredibly stiff and has no singing abilities.  Jeff Goldblum plays the Wizard as a doormat and pushover, his singing was serviceable. The actress that played Nessarose was just so-so, that part is always a throw away part, in my opinion.  That brings us to Fiyero and Boq.  Jonathan Bailey really did an excellent job with "Dancing Through Life", his choreography and singing were magnificent, but Boq's character is only there because someone has to become the Tin Man.  I also felt that the director overfilled the screen with too much going on all of the time, all of the tulips, the train, the area where the Wizard lived and so forth.  I saw the second film on opening day first showing, and it was the most draggy and slow second part to a show I could have ever imagined.  As many times as I have seen the musical (over 30 times), the second act always seems to drag and take forever to get to the finish line.  The same can be said for the film, because of the two new songs (both of which, weren't that good) and the extra plot that was needed to make the film longer so that moviegoers got their money's worth from the film company.  I am very glad that this was made into a film, but I'm not looking forward to the third part, that has already been leaked by some people that have worked on the first two films, and I certainly hope that NO ONE has any ideas that this needs to be remade with something catchy or flashy!...

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 11/23/25 at 10:45pm

My conclusion is that they're both fine movies, just too long. You can shave 30 minutes off both of them. I don't get the complaints about Michelle not being able to sing. Plenty of non-singers have played the role. I feel like they underused used her with giving away a lot of her lines in the first part. And then in this one Glinda calling Elphaba "A Child of Both Worlds" instead of her felt so off. 

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 11/23/25 at 11:27pm

I’m not being rude, but why can’t people put breaks into posts!

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 11/24/25 at 6:53am

rosscoe(au) said: "I’m not being rude, but why can’t people put breaks into posts!"

They’ve seen WICKED on stage 30 times. Do the math. It clocks.

[ChgoTheatreGuy]

Posted: 11/24/25 at 11:02pm

Let's all wait a clock tick, It doesn't make any difference whether I have seen the show 30 times or only read the book.  The highlight of being able to enjoy this show, included a visit to London to see a West End preview, as well as, a regular performance of the show, that also included an interaction with Tony Winner Idina Menzel, who was unbelievably kind and thoughtful and also autographed my program.  Those are the kinds of things that make this show so attractive and appealing to it's fanbase.  Making snide comments like this does not further conversation on the message board, but show some ignorance on your participation!...

[shomeika]

Posted: 11/25/25 at 2:03am

I ****ADORED***** the first film.  I was expecting more of the same.  I am NOT a fan of the stage show (yeah, I'm weird) but loved that movie.  We saw the new film this weekend, and I realized they already used up most of the original score in the first film.  The songs weren't as good.  I was bored and went to the lobby more than a few times.

The film WAS gorgeous, it wasn't bad, but it didn't pack the same PUNCH as the first one.  They shoulda/coulda made it all as one film.  Pleasant but "meh". 

[BwayLB]

Posted: 11/25/25 at 9:54am

Well I agree with everyone that Part 1 is the stronger film. Part 2 has the most rushed pacing but it still is enjoyable. One thing I can applaud with Part 2 is it fixed the animal subplot and gave it a proper ending. Overall in spite a few glitches here and there, as an adaptation the decision to split the story into two parts worked almost perfectly.

Updated On: 11/25/25 at 09:54 AM

[MagicalMusical]

Posted: 11/26/25 at 12:15am

BwayLB said: "Well I agree with everyone that Part 1 is the stronger film. Part 2 has the most rushed pacing but it still is enjoyable. One thing I can applaud with Part 2 is it fixed the animal subplot and gave it a proper ending. Overall in spite a few glitches here and there, as an adaptation the decision to split the story into two parts worked almost perfectly."

I don't think I had a problem with the pacing, but otherwise I completely agree! Well said!

 

[John Adams]

Posted: 11/26/25 at 1:13am

ChgoTheatreGuy said: "The two leads were perfectly fine, my issue was with the other supporting characters. Michelle Yeoh was incredibly stiff and has no singing abilities. Jeff Goldblum plays the Wizard as a doormat and pushover, his singing was serviceable. The actress that played Nessarose was just so-so, that part is always a throw away part, in my opinion. That brings us to Fiyero and Boq. Jonathan Bailey really did an excellent job with "Dancing Through Life", his choreography and singing were magnificent, but Boq's character is only there because someone has to become the Tin Man. "

Well... I disagree with your thoughts on Yeoh, Goldblum, and the Nessarose and Boq characters, but "à chacun son goût ". 

Lately, I'm obsessed with Cynthia Erivo as an artist. She's written a memoir called, "Simply More". I just listened to her interview with Tonya Mosley (NPR's Fresh Air 11/17/25) where she talks about Wicked, her memoir, and also how she has synesthesia (a phenomenon where stimulation of one sense leads to involuntary experiences in another, such as seeing colors when hearing music or tasting flavors when reading words). Pharrell Williams shares this ability, also.

Erivo explained that because they shot both Wicked movies simultaneously, she chose a different scent to wear to help her kkep track of Elphaba within her timeline:

ERIVO: [...] I think both of us actually, Ari and I, both of us sort of made really specific decisions about how we looked, what we walked in, the clothes we were wearing, even the scents that we were wearing, because I always find a scent for each character that I play.

MOSLEY: What do you mean by scent?

ERIVO: Perfume. I always find a scent for each person. But this time, I found a scent for each Elphaba. So Elphaba who's young wore a very different scent to Elphaba who's older. And so scent memory was a lot to do with how to sort of click back into where we are in time.

[...]

MOSLEY: And this helped you keep your mind around the different emotional notes between the two...

ERIVO: Yes, that's right.

MOSLEY: ...Movies.

ERIVO: Yeah.

MOSLEY: Do you think that has something to do with because you have...

ERIVO: Synesthesia, yeah.

MOSLEY: Synesthesia.

[joevitus]

Posted: 11/26/25 at 5:45am

Should have been one movie, three-and-a-half hours tops with an intermission. If you can make the entire world wait an entire year for Act 2 and still have them show up, you could have gotten them back in their seats after a 15 minute intermission to watch the rest of your movie.

One thing that has always bothered me in Part 1 is the opening when the camera panned past the castle to the four moving down the Yellow Brick Road, and then to Munchkinland for Glinda's arrival--but then Glinda comments on the Wizard's recent departure, and I'm like "Wait, they already got back to the Emerald City, discovered the Wizard's true nature, got their gifts and then the Wizard took flight for Kansas--all within a few minutes?" Now it's clear that in the course of the movie those events aren't taking place on the same day, but I wonder if that will read clearer now that we have both parts, or if it's just one of the plotholes/time inconsistencies the whole thing has in relation to The Wizard of Oz (with the stage version, to me it doesn't matter much because it feels to me that most of the Wizard of Oz plot is treated like a joke, or at least so irreverently that we don't much care that it doesn't add up right--apart from poor Fiero, whose storyline is just impossible, but life and art aren't perfect).

[MagicalMusical]

Posted: 11/27/25 at 12:23am

I don't think of the opening sequence as too literal. You have it start out hearing Glinda saying the witch is dead from water and show the hat, THEN see the four going to the wizard, THEN back to Glinda appearing and saying the witch is dead and the Wizard departed without mentioning the water. Yeah. I just take it all as cinematic artistic license. I know I'm using the wrong words, but hopefully you get what I mean.

I would have loved to see one 3 and a half hour film, though, too.

[joevitus]

Posted: 11/28/25 at 3:13am

MagicalMusical said: "I don't think of the opening sequence as too literal. You have it start out hearingGlinda saying the witch is dead from waterand show the hat, THEN seethe four going to the wizard, THEN back to Glinda appearing and saying the witch is dead and the Wizard departed without mentioning the water. Yeah. I just take it all as cinematic artistic license. I know I'm using the wrong words, but hopefully you get what I mean.

I wouldhave loved to see one3 and a half hourfilm, though, too."

I do get what you're saying. :)

[kdogg36]

Posted: 11/28/25 at 11:15am

MagicalMusical said: "I wouldhave loved to see one3 and a half hourfilm, though, too."

I understand why this would be appealing from a stylistic perspective, but splitting it into two 2-hour-ish movies got me (a very infrequent movie-goer) to spend two successive Thanksgiving afternoons in a cinema. If it were a single 3.5-hour epic, I would absolutely have waited to see it at home on a streaming service.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 11/28/25 at 10:28pm

Watched PART 1 again this morning then FOR GOOD this afternoon and I agree, WICKED shoulda been one 3.5 hour film. FOR GOOD just felt like a buffet with too many side dishes. Those endless flashbacks. Oy. And the 2 new songs. Double-oy. PART 1 is fantastic and one damn perfect film. The 2nd part just felt like an obligation as we all wanted to close out the story so we endured it. 

[MagicalMusical]

Posted: 11/29/25 at 12:22am

joevitus said: "I do get what you're saying. :)"

:)

kdogg36 said: "I understand why this would beappealing from a stylistic perspective, but splitting it into two 2-hour-ish movies got me (a very infrequent movie-goer) to spend two successive Thanksgiving afternoonsin a cinema. If it were a single 3.5-hour epic, I would absolutely have waited to see it at home on a streaming service."

Oh. Well, if that was the only way to get people in theaters...I understand why it was done. Still, I think just for art's sake, it should have been one movie to be the more artistically better masterpiece. That said...I do not mind that it was two movies and am ok with the decision. Only the two new and not very good songs bug me too much. Also I feel Cynthia should have done a more Margaret Hamilton laugh haha.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 11/29/25 at 7:54am

 

[Musical Master]

Posted: 11/29/25 at 9:49am

kdogg36 said: "MagicalMusical said: "I wouldhave loved to see one3 and a half hourfilm, though, too."

I understand why this would beappealing from a stylistic perspective, but splitting it into two 2-hour-ish movies got me (a very infrequent movie-goer) to spend two successive Thanksgiving afternoonsin a cinema. If it were a single 3.5-hour epic, I would absolutely have waited to see it at home on a streaming service."

Agreed. Though I do get why some people would like that (me included), I'm ultimately quite happy and satisfied with the two films we got and judging both Wicked and Wicked: For Good as a whole, it's probably the best film adaptation of a Broadway musical on the level of The Sound of Music that feels so big and faithful that will go on to be a movie classic down the road. Speaking of The Sound of Music, I do remember reading somewhere that reviews were quite divisive when it first came out back in 1965, just like the divided reviews that Wicked: For Good is getting, so I'm not bothered by the more mixed-negative reviews the second part got in comparison to the first film.

[darquegk]

Posted: 11/29/25 at 11:15am

I suspect the Act 2 problem was going to be a no-win situation no matter which way they went.

They made an expanded two film version, and people say "it's bloated, a capitalistic excess; they should have just made a single film of nearly four hours and trimmed some fat."

If they'd made that extra-long film with an intermission and released it that way, people would have said "it's too long for kids and casual viewers to sit through this way; the stage musical didn't have to be more than two and a half hours to get the job done."

If they'd released a very faithfully adapted single, streamlined film of about 140 minutes instead of an epic, the inherent weaknesses in the material as it stands onstage would have shined through. And people would have said "if you're going to make a movie that's basically they musical onstage, why not make a proshot?"

But if they'd made that proshot, people would complain about how the cast wasn't as good as the OBC or "insert favorite Elphaba/Glinda from the past twenty years." 

...In fact, I think the only way I don't see critical and/or audience reception turning against the film is if you made the Part 1 that we got, ended it with a "to be continued..." and then DIDN'T continue it, at least not immediately. Letting "Wicked: Origins" stand alone for a while as it becomes something of a cultural mainstay. The time gap between the two acts has always been ambiguous anyway, whether it's several days or several years.

[BJR]

Posted: 11/29/25 at 11:35am

My biggest complaint is the second film doesn’t stand on its own, but is simply the second half of the first. And if you’re going to make two movies, then they must be two distinct movies. 

[Kad]

Posted: 11/29/25 at 11:37am

The indicator it's at least a few years between the two acts is that the Lion goes from being a cub to fully-grown in the second act (the movie puts a point on this by introducing the Cowardly Lion as a standalone character early on).

How much time elapses over the action of the second half is far more ambiguous and the movie doesn't offer much clarification there. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 12/1/25 at 4:01am

Musical Master said: "kdogg36 said: "MagicalMusical said: "I wouldhave loved to see one3 and a half hourfilm, though, too."

I understand why this would beappealing from a stylistic perspective, but splitting it into two 2-hour-ish movies got me (a very infrequent movie-goer) to spend two successive Thanksgiving afternoonsin a cinema. If it were a single 3.5-hour epic, I would absolutely have waited to see it at home on a streaming service."

Agreed. Though I do get why some people would like that (me included), I'm ultimately quite happy and satisfied with the two films we got and judging both Wicked and Wicked: For Good as a whole, it's probably the best film adaptation of a Broadway musical on the level of The Sound of Music that feels so big and faithful that will go on to be a movie classic down the road. Speaking of The Sound of Music, I do remember reading somewhere that reviews were quite divisive when it first came out back in 1965, just like the divided reviews that Wicked: For Good is getting, so I'm not bothered by the more mixed-negative reviews the second part got in comparison tothe first film."

The Sound of Music got dreaful reviews on stage and as a film--Wicked, actually didn't get great notices on stage, either. When I was going to For Good, I was trying to buck up my spirits about the two new songs remembering how many of the original reviews for The Sound of Music movie said its two new songs were totally forgettable. But, sadly, this time around the critics were right about the additional songs. They are pretty mediocre. 

But the answer always to the criticisms of Wicked--and I have my share of them--is that they just. don't. matter. What is satisfying is so thoroughly satifsying that the rest is quibbling. Yeah, I'd have preferred one big movie. I think arguing it shouldn't have been one because some people wouldn't have bothered to see it in theaters, is one of the oddest reasons I've seen given. But in the end--so what? It still works. It makes you feel the things. Other stage-to-screen adaptations should be so lucky.

Updated On: 12/1/25 at 04:01 AM

[darquegk]

Posted: 12/1/25 at 8:51am

This is also a weird edge case: there's NEVER been a musical with "multimillion dollar franchise expansion potential" before, and it's hard to imagine one after. The 2010s-2020s are the era of serialization and expansion, and Wicked is that rare case where a two and a half hour stage production showed every signs of being a juggernaut on the scale of the other Universal properties which now hold "worlds" at their immersive theme parks.

The split was about more than "can we put butts in seats twice," it was about "can we make Wicked Universe a thing, the way we failed to make Dark Universe a thing twice?" (Ironically enough, Dark Universe eventually succeeded by abandoning the idea of making movies entirely, and just building the theme park that the movies were meant to justify.)

[chewy5000]

Posted: 12/1/25 at 10:32pm

I wonder what the audience response would have been like had they released For Good immediately after the first film, rather than waiting a full year.

[MagicalMusical]

Posted: 12/2/25 at 12:15am

I agree with Musical Master on how these films have great cultural impact, with darquegk that there was a no-win situation any way you did the film(s), and with joevitus that the complaints just don't matter because what is in the show and now in the movies is just that enjoyable. And yes, I still would have preferred the more artistic 3 and a half hour with intermission movie, directed by Chu.

Updated On: 12/2/25 at 12:15 AM

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/2/25 at 5:28am

darquegk said: "[...] and Wicked is that rare case where a two and a half hour stage production showed every signs of being a juggernaut on the scale of the other Universal properties which now hold "worlds" at their immersive theme parks."

I agree with your entire post, but I want to point out that Universal erroneously stakes a claim re: what they consider to be their "worlds". IMO, "capitalizations" is the accurate term to use.

The "worlds" existed long before Universal capitalized on them. In the case of Wicked, Maguire created the Wicked world via his (5) books, just as JK Rowling created the "Wizarding World of Harry Potter" long before Universal capitalized on her collection of books.

All Universal does is manifest the already existing worlds into a physical form that can generate revenue. If there is anything I disagree with from your post, it's that Wicked should be described as a "rare case", since they've capitalized on other properties from their catalogue of films. This one just happens to be a musical - based on a musical.

Updated On: 12/2/25 at 05:28 AM