Why Hollywood fell out of love with Wicked

In today’s Oscar nominations, the biggest shock was that massive musical sequel Wicked: For Good, starring Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, earned zero nods – despite its predecessor earning 10. It proved the perils of overstretching your material.

The Oscar nominations had their usual share of snubs and surprises, with no best supporting actor nod for Paul Mescal, the co-star of Hamnet, and two different nods for Norway’s Sentimental Value in the best supporting actress category. The biggest surprise of all, though, is what might be called a multi-snub, or even an omni-snub: there were no nominations at all for Wicked: For Good.

This was a shock for two reasons. The first is that Wicked: For Good is part two of an adaptation of a Broadway show, and part one, which was released a year earlier, racked up a whopping 10 Oscar nominations. The Academy was spellbound, it seemed, by this colourful prequel to The Wizard of Oz. It adored Oz’s two iconic witches, Elphaba and Glinda, and especially the two actresses who played them, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande. How could things go so disastrously wrong that the franchise’s Oscar-nomination total should plummet from 10 to zero?

The other reason why the omni-snub was unexpected was that, at the start of awards season, Wicked: For Good appeared to be a major contender. At the Golden Globes in January, Erivo was nominated for best actress in a comedy or musical; Grande was nominated for best supporting actress; the film as a whole was on the shortlist for cinematic and box office achievement; and it had not one but two nominations for best original song.

Most commentators assumed that the Oscars would follow suit and honour Wicked: For Good in the best supporting actress and best original song categories, at least. The film was longlisted for seven technical awards, so nominations for hair and make-up, costume design and production design seemed probable. And, with 10 slots available on the best picture list, a nomination there was likely, too. It’s amazing how quickly and completely the magic wore off.

One factor behind this is obvious. Wicked: For Good just wasn’t good enough. The first film scored 88% on Rotten Tomatoes, the reviews round-up site, whereas the second’s score dropped to 66%. And some critics did the equivalent of dropping a house on the film, squashing it flat. Robbie Collin gave it a one-star review in The Telegraph, under a headline proclaiming: “Ariana Grande is painfully wooden in Wicked’s irritating sequel”, while Justin Chang’s review in The New Yorker was entitled “Wicked: For Good is Very, Very Bad”.

Suddenly, the unprecedented idea of chopping the Broadway musical into two parts, released in successive years, didn’t seem like such a stroke of genius. Even among the show’s fans, it’s accepted that the show’s second half isn’t as enjoyable as the first, so padding out that post-interval material to two hours 17 minutes was always a risk. Seeing Elphaba and Glinda as frenemies at school was a treat that combined the sparkiness of Mean Girls with the magical setting of Harry Potter; but seeing them fly all over Oz, hiding from each other and fighting each other, was a bit of a chore.

Wicked: For Good also spends much of its running time showing what the Tin Man, the Scarecrow and the Cowardly Lion got up to before they met Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz – and that, it turned out, was not what audiences were after. The first film made $758m (£561m) at the global box office. The second made about two-thirds of that, $523m (£387m).

Maybe the signs were there at the Golden Globes, after all. Not only did Wicked: For Good fail to convert any of its nominations into wins, but it was the target of a deadly joke by the ceremony’s MC, Nikki Glaser: “Two hours into that movie, I was in tears. I was like, ‘I can’t believe there’s still 45 minutes left.'” Whether you saw it as a calculating cash-grab, or just a dark and ponderous sequel, Wicked: For Good didn’t generate the same goodwill as its predecessor.

One key point is how much of an event the first Wicked film was. In the wake of the Barbenheimer phenomenon in 2023, audiences were primed for another cinematic special occasion – a film to dress up for, to see with friends, to post about on social media. Wicked fit the bill in 2024, not just because it was marketed as a musical with singalong potential, but because its stars were so entertaining on their promotional tours.

Erivo and Grande were as much of a tornado as the one that whisks Dorothy into the sky. Side by side at interview after interview, photo shoot after photo shoot, they played the role of two best friends who were elated to be in each other’s company. They gushed about each other. They wept. They pioneered new handholding techniques. They dressed in colour-coded outfits. They made social media-watchers everywhere want to be a part of their eccentric, joyous world – and one way to do that was to see Wicked.

A year on, the press campaign for Wicked: For Good was more muted. How could it not be? Considering that both films were made at the same time, what could Erivo and Grande say that they hadn’t said already? And how could they maintain the novelty of being theatrical besties in a unique, two-part film musical? The marketing of Wicked sold it as an unmissable, Barbenheimer-rivalling sensation – a one-off. And you can’t have a one-off twice.

It says a lot that, of all this year’s big box office hits, it was Sinners that the Academy loved: Ryan Coogler’s vampire thriller had a record-breaking 16 nominations, far more than such sequels as Avatar: Fire and Ash (two nominations) and Jurassic World: Rebirth (one), not to mention any of the superhero films (none). You can’t argue with the Academy’s priorities. Sinners isn’t just a great night out at the cinema – it’s a film that feels original, exhilarating and unmissable. Wicked had some of that buzz a year ago. Wicked: For Good just doesn’t have the same feelgood factor.