20
votes
‘Wicked: For Good’ opening to $150m; records broken for Cynthia Erivo, Ariana Grande, Jon M. Chu, Broadway musical feature take and more
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Anthony D'Alessandro
- Published
- Nov 23 2025
- Word count
- 2281 words
I watched the first Wicked recently (haven’t read the books) and it struck me as a kid’s movie, and not in a good way like Pixar or Studio Ghibli films. More like mediocre Disney. (Though it was from Universal. Maybe it’s not a coincidence that the Wizard of Oz seemed suspiciously like a corrupt version of Walt Disney?)
I think my niece would like it, though.
There was something samey about the music that I can’t put my finger on. Maybe it’s that it’s not very groove-based? Contrast with the original Wizard of Oz, which has songs everyone knows, that have become standards. Maybe that’s too much to hope for, but I was hoping for some catchy tunes.
Wicked has always been a polarizing show. When the musical first began production, it was panned by almost the entire theatrical critic community. It was only due to strong positive reactions from the audience that it endured, and became one of the longest running and most beloved of broadway theatrical productions.
I just watched it with my mom a couple of days ago. I’ve seen the musical live and think the music is one of the better parts. My main issue is they’ve taken something that should have 2 or 2.5 hours of runtime and stretched it to 4.5 hours. The first part ends up being rather boring as a result.
A movie is more like a short story than a novel; space for storytelling is normally very limited. I think they could have added or at least hinted at more detail about how the world really works, like Pixar films often do. Outside the main story, it didn't seem very well-defined?
Like in other modern movies, there are also the enormous exaggerated buildings that imply vast wealth and advanced construction skills, without any real explanation for how that's possible and why they would build that. It's just backdrop. It's big because it's easy to do using modern 3d graphics.
Baum's original novels don't really explain why Oz is the way it is. If you're only familiar with The Wonderful Wizard of Oz but keep reading you'll find quite a few more witches, a deadly border desert, and yet neighboring kingdoms, a princess heir to the throne that's completely forgotten about (she's a trans icon btw), and the Emerald City is built either by the Wizard or it's always been there depending on the day (said princess says both). It has precisely 9,654 buildings and absolutely no explanation for why or how it was built either. The sort of magic and tech available varies based on plot, need a couch to come to life? We got you. A witch who can swap heads? We got you. A magical belt that daily grants 1 wish, teleports you and gives you chocolate? Guess what!
And the original movie is much the same. There's no reason Dorothy couldn't have gone home via the shoes from Munchkin land, for example, because they combined the Good witches into one character. Why does water melt a witch? Does it melt all witches or just evil ones? How'd she fly in a tornado then, notably full of rain. And since it's all a dream, nothing has to make any sense.
Oz just isn't the sort of place that should have explanations IMO. It's fair not to enjoy it, opinions differ. I find the music very catchy and memorable for example; I have the entire show memorized. But I just want to push back on the idea that movies should explain everything. Especially with a property that started without that internal logic and whose fanfic mostly continues without it.
Yes, I agree that Baum's novels don't hold together, but they are interestingly weird. Perhaps it was partly due to historical context that we don't have, where Baum was making political jokes? But it might just be that fairy tales often have inexplicable things in them and he was going for that vibe when he was making stuff up.
But it's not that I think the story has to make sense, but rather, if there's more time to fill, adding more detailed background is something you could do. I would have liked to learn more about the talking animals and how they fit into society. Also, how did Galinda end up so spoiled? What's her backstory?
Slowing down the story to spend time on these things would probably be a bad idea, but they could be hinted at more. There are often things in family movies that only the adults would get.
An example of a movie I like more is The Incredibles. It's a family movie with great music and things that both adults and kids can relate to.
I've also read some interesting Harry Potter fan fiction where much of the fun was retconning explanations for things that didn't make sense in the original.
Im not saying they don't hold together, they hold up nicely regardless of their lack of a hard magic system. Oz is definitely a fairy tale type world and operates at the whims of several young girls mostly.
My point is that the backstory would not actually be satisfying and isn't really needed. It becomes Oz the Great and Powerful which I hear is awful. Doing prequels to explain the world is way less satisfying than telling a story (and I think Wicked succeeds as a play - I haven't seen part 2 yet - for spinning off the original, not actually explaining the world). I really can't imagine having to watch Glinda get spoiled growing up or something to explain her... She just is. (And tbh even Part 1 gives her a kinder edit than the musical IMO)
McGuire's Oz takes the premise and goes forward rather darkly. if you wanted more potential backstory, I don't personally recommend the book, and the Shiz part of the story is quite minimal so Glinda isn't that important... And I don't recall much explanation of any of the things you ask about, but it's your best shot. It's just not an enjoyable read IMO.
I liked both the Incredibles and this, so I'm not sure what factors work for you in one vs the other. Wicked has always been pretty watchable by kids but they'll miss the already hinted at themes of fascism, xenophobia, etc.
I thought the fascism and xenophobia were extremely obvious, particularly when the goat professor got hauled away by a henchman that appeared out of nowhere. What I didn't get is how power works or what's motivating this. The Wizard doing it so people would have a common enemy didn't seem like enough of an explanation.
This is why I was curious to know more about the talking animals, their relationship with the rest of society, and how that changed. That subplot seemed underdeveloped. (Contrast with Zootopia.)
Maybe it's explained more in the next movie?
Unless it's something they added, nope. The wizard is using it as a way to control Oz. There's nothing more behind it than the setup for the metaphor because Baum's world has all animals, even visiting ones, capable of speech and thought, down to flies.
The closest thing to any additional explanation in the musical and Part 1 is implied bigotry. Zootopia does at least make that bigotry blatant.
I don't think you'll be satisfied here but I think what youre looking for doesn't typically come from musical theater and would bog down the story
I wonder how different Wicked would be if, instead of a goat professor, it were a tiger professor?
That would be closer to what Zootopia does, where they use the predator / prey relationship to make it vivid why some animals were scared of the predators even though they are all supposed to be civilized now. If anything, it sells it a little too well.
In Wicked, the first time we see really scary animals are the winged monkeys near the end.
It would undercut the fact that there's zero reason to be afraid of the Animals? That's actually one of the critiques of Zootopia, that there is a good reason to be scared of predators as a prey animal undermines the racism analogy.
(In Baum Oz, all animals can speak they mostly don't choose to, which is why Toto doesn't for a while)
Yeah, that’s what I meant by “it sells it a little too well.” I guess Wicked making it seem entirely unmotivated is an artistic choice, but to me it comes across as simplistic. How does the Wizard successfully promote xenophobia so quickly if there isn’t some preexisting bias in society?
It just aligns with the real world though? There could be more but it doesn't matter because ultimately nothing justifies or explains the hate. It's never actually rational. The in-movie history lesson (and in the book as well iirc) provided the Great Drought (mirroring the Dust Bowl) as a trigger for tensions and the wizard (and Morrible) as being opportunistic and taking advantage of it.
But there's no more actual reason for it than any hatred. Even the most obvious current comparison of the violent detainment and incarceration of immigrants - most of whom have at most minor violations - might pretend to have policy arguments and is really just a xenophobic, racist action to remove "undesirables" as defined by people like Stephen Miller. By the time you're at Dr Dillamond being dragged off, it's moved past any made up reasons. It's just bullshit
While I wouldn’t call it rational there is certainly an extensive history of suspicion and discrimination against immigrants in the US that goes all the way back to before the US was founded. It didn’t appear out of nowhere.
(At the same time, there’s also a substantial pro-immigrant tradition.)
I would have liked a bit more than the extremely brief history we got in the movie.
I've found that a novella translates to movies the best.
Edit:
Two examples: Arrival and The Shawshank Redemption.
Heart of darkness jumps to mind as well
It’s a family friendly film, it’s rated PG. Though it is shot like a lot of modern day Disney blockbusters, which is to say flat.
The book is adult though. IIRC there’s an orgy scene in the book and everything is much more graphic than you’d expect.
The music is very much 00s Broadway songs
Do you recommend the book?
It's not my thing. But some women I know absolutely love it. It does feel a lot like fan fiction, which it is. I think both the stage musical and the two films do a better job at telling a structured story with character arcs. The adaptations of the book are loose.
They're both more adaptations of the concept as applied to the original movie in the same way the movie only sort of adapted the book(s). Return to Oz hit a lot of the darker notes of the original books - the Wheelers remain haunting - with a more age appropriate Dorothy while insisting on a psychiatric hospital framing narrative.
I really wonder what kind of fever dream an accurate adaptation would look like.
I have read a couple of the books in the series. Do not recommend them personally.
I suppose I'll go against the grain here and reveal that I quite enjoyed this movie. The new original songs were a bit shallow, but generally played well with the musical and plot themes of Act 2. The cinematography was pretty fun at times -- the mirror bits in "Girl in the Bubble" and the zoom out through Oz's machinations as his figurative machinations grind to a halt stood out to me as particularly inventive. The action scenes remained a bit too actiony (good god, I cringe every time they start that awful drum monkey theme), and Fiyero's scarecrowification CGI was... much worse than the scarecrow makeup in the original Wizard of Oz (it looked like Michael Scott took a George Foreman grill, or perhaps a particularly fine waffle iron, to his face).
I couldn't help but draw parallels between Oz and Trump throughout the movie, maybe a smidge more overt than the typical "Oz is a corrupt, immoral huckster" take. But that's probably just me reading too far into it. Overall I thought Goldblum did a great job (very Gene Wilder Willy Wonka at times), same for the main characters, with the exception of Madame Morrible... I just don't get the enthusiasm for Michelle's acting, I never get any emotion from her. And I was glad that they toned down the comic relief Galinda posse to true background work in this film, they really didn't work for me in Part 1.
8.5/10 musical movie IMO. I enjoy the stage musical a lot, too, so I'm admittedly biased... but I enjoyed this about as much as I liked the Les Mis movie from 2013ish. Honesty I always thought the stage musical Act 2 was a bit rushed, so I was happy to let it breathe. Could have taken even more time for Nessa and Fiyero plots, but you have to cut it somewhere.
It was practical effects. There’s a ton of practical effects in both these films they just look CGI because of the visual style.
Jon M Chu worked with Yeoh on Crazy Rich Asians so she was guaranteed the role. They still auditioned others including Sheryl Lee Randolph (Abbott Elementary), Hannah Waddingham (Ted Lasso), and Jennifer Lopez. Out of those three Waddingham would have been the best choice, she also played Elphaba on stage which would have given it a nice meta element. The other two would still be better than Yeoh. Even Lopez, who I don’t particularly care about, because she would have at least been able to sing better.
Thanks for the link, that's wild! I retract my unwarranted CGI bias. Unfortunately it just looked cheap to me given the very harsh lighting in those last few minutes of the movie, so I assumed it was CGI. I'm glad to hear they tried practical effects, it's too bad it didn't land for me. But I'll appreciate it more now for being practical!
Good point about Yeoh's singing. Really hurt a few of the songs where she popped in for a few lyrics. Sheryl or Hannah would have been fantastic. Hannah's singing voice is so good, it's honestly hard to believe they passed her up.
In my mind, that's an unfortunate sign
Maybe a dumb question, but why do so many people hate the Les Mis movie so much? As I implied before, I honestly like it a lot... but I can see how Russell Crowe's not-very-Broadway singing and the director's insistence on imperfect, breathy, teary live performances of songs might hurt it for true musical aficionados. I can't help but feel like I'm missing something, like I'm some kind of uncultured rube since I honestly liked it.
Generally a frustration with casting actors with no theater/singing/musical skills rather than people like Cynthia Erivo who act and sing and have stage experience...usually so they can hire big names because they're afraid of taking a risk.
There are specific critiques of the movie itself but I'm not a Les Mis person and don't have the knowledge to share them beyond googling. But.... Like what you like. There's no shame in enjoying it. Some folks are just being theater snobs about it.
I'll second the discussion that has occurred down-thread but give the Les Mis movie two points of credit where it's due:
People also don’t like the look and feel of it that Hooper gave it. Nor did they like the like the live singing. IIRC the only casting people had an issue with at the time was Crowe.
Seyfried auditioned for Glinda just to throw that in there as a fun fact
Yeah I knew there were specific critiques, but as an Into the Woods fan the casting is just one I know is always an issue.
That movie could have been so good. It's one of my favorite musicals.
┻┻︵ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ︵┻┻
I can definitely see the look and feel, as well as the live singing, being an issue for some people. Personally I would rather they kept the movie's appearance more basic, and stick to a singing style more in line with what you see on stage. But I also understand that directors want to use the movie medium to its full potential -- it sometimes feels like certain people just want a multicam recording of a stage performance. In which case, Disney's Hamilton recording is the only one I'm aware of. Did people hate that, too? I wish more musicals got that treatment, which is a lot cheaper and honestly better than a full movie IMO.
Into the Woods has a publicly released ProShot, just not marketed as heavily or as recent as Hamilton. All shows are recorded for archival purposes as I understand it but not accessible to the public. My sister did her masters thesis on a topic that got her access to that library!
I think theater fans mostly want a proshot over an adaptation but I think adaptations can be great...If they're made by people that know the genre and care about it.
Nice tip about the Into the Woods proshot -- checking that out now!
Bernadette Peters is wonderful! And I do enjoy Sondheim
Theater kids might prefer that I guess, cinephiles don’t like Les Mis either though and they especially dislike Hooper. Spielberg's West Side Story is highly stylized but was much better received all around.
lol, I've been wondering if Wicked: For Good was a movie title or some sort of advertising campaign tied to a charitable cause. I guess I'm glad to know, now. Maybe it's a fine title, but whatever advertising I've seen sure wasn't doing its job.
Sorry for the noise-y comment, but sometimes I can't help but think out loud.
It was originally Wicked: Part Two. So much so that the first part last year, had “Wicked: Part One” as its opening title card. Wicked Part Two is a better title imo.