The sequel to the hit film "Wicked," "Wicked: For Good," is a mess of a blockbuster that prioritizes profits over quality. The decision to split the final adaptation of L. Frank Baum's classic novel into two films, released eight months apart, may have seemed like a good idea at first, but it ultimately led to this disappointing result.
The original film was a visually stunning and emotive take on Gregory Maguire's book, with standout performances from Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba and Amanda Seyfried as Glinda. However, the sequel is a different story altogether. The pacing is glacially slow, the songs are muddled, and the writing lacks depth.
One of the main problems with "Wicked: For Good" is its focus on profits over artistic merit. By splitting the film into two parts, the studios have managed to prolong the franchise's lifespan, but at the cost of a genuinely good product. The sequel's attempts to condense the story into a single film are admirable, but ultimately misguided.
The problem is that "Wicked" was never really an original story to begin with. As a stage production, it already pushes three hours, and audiences know some version of this tale already. In fact, the musical is based on L. Frank Baum's 1939 film adaptation of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," which has become a beloved classic.
By splitting the franchise into two films, the studios have managed to prolong the story's lifespan, but at the cost of a genuinely good product. The sequel's attempts to include every detail from the original book are admirable, but ultimately misguided. The result is a film that feels like it's trying too hard to fit everything in, without any real focus or direction.
The performances from Erivo and Grande are notable exceptions in an otherwise disappointing film. However, they are often overshadowed by the mess of a narrative that surrounds them. The chemistry between the leads is undeniable, but it's not enough to save the film from its overall shortcomings.
Ultimately, "Wicked: For Good" feels like a symbol of franchise filmmaking greed and capitalism run amok. By prioritizing profits over quality, the studios have managed to create a product that feels more like a commodity than an art form. The result is a film that's only notable for its commercial success, rather than any real artistic merit.
The irony is not lost on fans of the original book or film. "Wicked" was always meant to be a story about the power of embracing your true self and defying those who try to control you. But in the sequel, we're left with a hollow space where that heart should be, instead of the empty, profit-driven narrative that takes its place.
As we watch "Wicked: For Good," it's hard not to feel like we're watching an example of what happens when franchise filmmaking prioritizes profits over quality. The result is a mess of a blockbuster that leaves us feeling disappointed and frustrated.
The original film was a visually stunning and emotive take on Gregory Maguire's book, with standout performances from Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba and Amanda Seyfried as Glinda. However, the sequel is a different story altogether. The pacing is glacially slow, the songs are muddled, and the writing lacks depth.
One of the main problems with "Wicked: For Good" is its focus on profits over artistic merit. By splitting the film into two parts, the studios have managed to prolong the franchise's lifespan, but at the cost of a genuinely good product. The sequel's attempts to condense the story into a single film are admirable, but ultimately misguided.
The problem is that "Wicked" was never really an original story to begin with. As a stage production, it already pushes three hours, and audiences know some version of this tale already. In fact, the musical is based on L. Frank Baum's 1939 film adaptation of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," which has become a beloved classic.
By splitting the franchise into two films, the studios have managed to prolong the story's lifespan, but at the cost of a genuinely good product. The sequel's attempts to include every detail from the original book are admirable, but ultimately misguided. The result is a film that feels like it's trying too hard to fit everything in, without any real focus or direction.
The performances from Erivo and Grande are notable exceptions in an otherwise disappointing film. However, they are often overshadowed by the mess of a narrative that surrounds them. The chemistry between the leads is undeniable, but it's not enough to save the film from its overall shortcomings.
Ultimately, "Wicked: For Good" feels like a symbol of franchise filmmaking greed and capitalism run amok. By prioritizing profits over quality, the studios have managed to create a product that feels more like a commodity than an art form. The result is a film that's only notable for its commercial success, rather than any real artistic merit.
The irony is not lost on fans of the original book or film. "Wicked" was always meant to be a story about the power of embracing your true self and defying those who try to control you. But in the sequel, we're left with a hollow space where that heart should be, instead of the empty, profit-driven narrative that takes its place.
As we watch "Wicked: For Good," it's hard not to feel like we're watching an example of what happens when franchise filmmaking prioritizes profits over quality. The result is a mess of a blockbuster that leaves us feeling disappointed and frustrated.
. On one hand, I think splitting the final adaptation into two films was a genius move, it's like they're giving the fans exactly what they want, more Wicked! 
And let's be real, who doesn't love Cynthia Erivo and Amanda Seyfried? They absolutely brought the house down in the first film. But on the other hand, I think the pacing is actually pretty slow, especially if you've read the book, like I have 
. It feels like they're trying to cram too much into the second part, it's like they're not trusting their audience to keep up 
.
But at the same time, I don't think it's fair to expect perfection from a franchise film. It's like they're trying to be too clever for their own good 
. And honestly, I'm still not sure if I'd even call it a mess... is that just me being contradictory again? 
at least they kept cynthia erivo as elphaba, that was my only hope for this movie 
. Can't they just make one good movie instead of trying to milk this franchise for all it's worth? The pacing in "Wicked: For Good" is so slow, I was like, 'is that even a song?' 
The whole thing feels like they're trying to cram every detail from the book into a 2-hour runtime and it just doesn't work. And don't even get me started on the writing, it's like they forgot what made "Wicked" special in the first place 
. I mean, I loved Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba in the original, but this time around she's not even getting the chemistry she needs from her co-star. It's just a mess 
the pacing is so slow and the songs are just meh cant wait for the next movie where i can just fast forward through it 
and yeah Cynthia Erivo and Grande r the only ones holding it together but even their acting cant save this mess 
. I mean, splitting it into two parts was probably a good idea to keep fans engaged, but it's like they took all the heart and soul out of the story and replaced it with just... profits 
. The pacing is so slow, the songs are meh, and don't even get me started on how rushed everything feels 
.
. Like, what happened to just making something beautiful for its own sake? Instead, they managed to make a film that's more about box office numbers than actual storytelling 
. And honestly, I'm just disappointed because "Wicked" was always about embracing your true self and defying those who try to control you... but in this sequel, it feels like they took all that out and replaced it with something empty and soulless 
.
it's not even about making the story better, but more about stretching out the franchise to milk as much cash as possible 
. It feels like they're more worried about getting their money back than making a good film. The pacing is slow, the songs are all over the place, and the writing just doesn't feel right. I mean, I love Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba, but even she can't save this mess 
.
1 in 5 movies get made just to make more money, not to tell a good story 
(based on 2022-2024 box office data) . They could've spent that on hiring better writers and directors instead of going for more profits 
.
.
.
the whole thing feels like they were trying to cram as much into one movie as possible but it ends up being super disjointed and boring 
but seriously who thought splitting a story into two movies was a good idea? its like they wanted to make more cash than actually make a good film 
Overall, I'm super disappointed in this sequel. It's a perfect example of how franchise filmmaking can go wrong when you prioritize profits over quality. 
i mean, who thought splitting a story into two films would be a good idea? 
but in the end, it's just not worth watching