When it was announced that Jon M. Chu’s big-screen adaptation of the beloved musical Wicked would be split into two separate films, the decision sparked widespread debate. This move seemed to mirror a popular Hollywood trend that took off after the lucrative success of splitting the final Harry Potter book into two movies. Since then, many franchises have followed suit, often facing backlash as audiences grow weary of segmented storytelling.
The Initial Skepticism: Did Wicked Really Need Two Films?
Critics and fans alike questioned whether a musical with a runtime of less than three hours, including intermission, could realistically or artistically justify expanding into two feature-length films. The first part, covering Act I, notably includes some of Wicked’s most iconic songs, such as its best-known number, yet it ended abruptly before moving into Act II. This raised concerns about pacing and narrative flow—was the split benefiting the story or merely a commercial strategy to double box office receipts?
Wicked: Part One’s Success Shaped Perceptions
The release of Wicked: Part One defied many doubts. Critics praised the film, audiences embraced it warmly, and it earned ten nominations at the 2025 Oscars—tying for second-most that year. The combination of Jon M. Chu’s direction and the powerful performances established a strong emotional connection between the central characters, Elphaba and Glinda, played by Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande respectively. This connection became a pillar of the adaptation’s success and gave fans hope that the second film would address the musical’s traditionally weaker second act.
The Release and Reception of Wicked: For Good
With the release of Wicked: For Good, the split movie debate reignited. The film’s critical reception was more mixed than its predecessor, earning a 71% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a score of 58 on Metacritic – notably lower than the first film’s 88% and 73, respectively. Despite introducing a few new songs and additional story beats, this second installment remained largely faithful to the source material, preserving both its strengths and flaws.
Even with some criticisms, there are compelling reasons why the two-movie approach was ultimately the right choice. The extended runtime of both films allowed for a deeper development of Elphaba and Glinda’s friendship—a central element that makes Wicked so beloved. The distance and emotional tension between the characters in Act II, a frequent point of weakness in the original musical, remains intact by separating the acts into two films rather than condensing them into one.
Box Office Performance Validates the Split
Beyond artistic considerations, Universal Studios is undeniably pleased with the commercial outcome. The opening weekend for Wicked: For Good exceeded expectations, earning $150 million domestically and $226 million globally—surpassing Part One’s $112 million domestic and $164 million global figures. With strong word-of-mouth and another impressive A CinemaScore, the sequel is poised to sustain its box-office momentum. This financial success supports the strategy of splitting the story into two event films, potentially doubling overall revenues.
Balancing Artistic Integrity and Commercial Viability
Critics argue that prioritizing box office performance can sometimes overshadow artistic integrity. While that’s a valid concern, it’s worth acknowledging that a one-film version could have lost much of the emotional nuance and character development that make Wicked resonate with audiences. The choice to keep the two films closely aligned with the original musical’s structure preserves the complete narrative experience without sacrificing key relationship dynamics.
Changing Dynamics of Moviegoing and Cultural Events
The role of blockbuster films in mainstream culture is evolving, with theaters competing harder than ever for audiences’ attention. Hollywood increasingly relies on “eventizing” tentpole films to create moments that feel unmissable. The success of releases like Barbenheimer demonstrated that audiences embrace cinema events when the films themselves strike the right tone and pacing.
Splitting a story into multiple parts is a calculated risk. Studios often downplay this in marketing, fearing viewers might wait for the complete experience via streaming rather than watching in theaters. Yet if early installments captivate audiences, they build anticipation for the conclusion and transform these films into cultural phenomena, benefiting both studios and fans.
Wicked: For Good’s Place in the New Era of Blockbusters
Director Jon M. Chu, much like Denis Villeneuve with Dune, acknowledged that their first films are only half the story. By silently securing viewer interest without overtly advertising the split, they created momentum that encourages fans to remain invested through to the finale.
Ultimately, movies serve both artistic and commercial roles. Wicked: For Good exemplifies how these goals can align. While a single Wicked movie might not have matched the box office numbers or cultural impact, the two-movie split has reignited excitement around moviegoing and honored the musical’s unique storytelling.
Conclusion
Splitting Wicked into two movies was a bold move that satisfied both commercial and artistic objectives. Wicked: Part One set a high bar with strong character development and critical acclaim, while Wicked: For Good delivered a faithful continuation that deepened the emotional core. The two-part release strategy allowed the films to fully explore the complex relationship between Elphaba and Glinda, while maximizing box office success and revitalizing audience engagement in theaters.
Call to Action: Share your thoughts in the comments and explore more at keeperfacts.com.
