The anxiously awaited second part to the Wicked duology, Wicked: For Good, released this past November and, to quote Glinda, “I couldn’t be happier.” Wicked (2024) was highly regarded by audiences and critics alike; during the 2025 Oscars, the film received ten nominations, winning in Costume Design and Production Design (in addition to other Critics’ Choice Awards, Golden Globes, and more). However, there’s been a significant difference in reception this time around—especially when it comes to critics. The number of 2026 Oscar nominations? None.
The decision to split the iconic musical into two films faced an incredible amount of criticism—a decision some theorize led to the absence of Academy Award nominations this year. That claim falls apart under even light scrutiny. Sequels receive nominations all the time. The Return of the King and The Godfather Part II stand as obvious examples. There is no structural reason Wicked: For Good should be treated any differently. While the second movie showed weaker results on paper (dropping in box office grosses, no wins at the Golden Globes, and no Academy Awards nominations), those outcomes reflect reception, not a flaw of the two–part story itself. In fact, breaking up the iconic musical into two pieces was ultimately the right decision in allowing for a more developed, detailed, and thought–provoking story.
Some critics were upset that the movie had strayed slightly from source material with new music, backing tracks, and even added scenes between iconic music numbers (I’m looking at you, “I’m Not That Girl (Reprise)” and “As Long As You’re Mine”). However, because the second act of the iconic Broadway show is noticeably shorter than the first (traditionally 55 minutes compared to the first act’s 90 minute runtime), it was clear that director Jon M. Chu would need to add content in order to justify a second movie’s existence.
Although I have absolutely no notes for the stage version, the movie was also able to fill in the gaps in the musical because of this extra time—having an extra two hours to tell as story makes such a difference. Both of the films worked to honor the story, strengthen character arcs, and provide more content to the preexisting story, making for a special experience for both new and longtime fans of the show alike. For me, this was particularly seen in the original songs, which offered audience members insight into how Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande embody their characters and their motives—why Elphaba chooses to fight for Oz instead of fleeing and the inner conflict that Glinda faces between maintaining her image as a public figure and wanting to join Elphaba’s efforts.
The first few seconds of Wicked: For Good make it abundantly clear that it is a second half to one continuous story instead of a sequel, as audience members are thrown right back into the unresolved tension of the first film. Picking up after the musical’s theatrical intermission, it begins with Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) learning that the Wizard of Oz (Jeff Goldblum), whom she had grown to idolize, has no real magical power and is actually in pursuit of censoring animals and reducing them to laborers. While she decides to lead a fight against the Wizard in order to expose his lies to the citizens of Oz, Glinda (Ariana Grande) stays behind and takes on the role of a public figure, uplifting the spirits of the people of Oz who believe that Elphaba is a wicked villain, thanks to propaganda spread by Shiz University professor and fellow conspirator to the Wizard, Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh).
As someone familiar with the show, I knew what direction the story was going in, and in effect, how the film’s tone would change to be more devastating and intense. However, for new audience members, the striking difference in mood may feel unexpected, ultimately creating too great a juxtaposition to the first movie. It made the two films feel like different narratives—and in many ways, they are. Glinda and Elphaba are beyond their time at university, and as the colorful walls of Shiz disappear, a harsher reality takes their place. Both characters become trapped by the roles assigned to them. Glinda is locked into life as a public figure and moral symbol. Elphaba is cast as the “evil villain,” even as she fights to protect Oz.
But the greatest whiplash comes not from the difference in tone, but lack of transition. Despite picking up directly where the first film ends, For Good offers little grounding for how much time has passed or how the emotional pivot fully takes hold. What was once bubbly and lighthearted becomes intense and politically charged with minimal adjustment for the audience. The one–year gap between releases gave viewers time to sit with the themes, but sustaining that investment requires a specific kind of Wicked devotee. Within the film itself, the timeline remains hazy. It is unclear how much time separates the events of the two films, or how long the second story spans (The Wizard of Oz unfolds over a day, two at most, right?).
So is the lack of Academy recognition disappointing? Absolutely. But films don’t need awards leave a lasting impact. Part what makes Wicked resonate is its refusal to offer a clean, happy ending. Elphaba and Fiyero leave Oz forever together with no certainty of survival. Glinda never learns they are alive, even as her moral awakening allows her to access real power and help others beyond her carefully maintained “bubble.” That emotional imbalance is the point, and it is what gives the story its raw weight.
Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo carry that weight to the finish. Filming both movies at the same time, and out of order, demanded a precise understanding of their characters’ development and growth. That same care is evident in Jon M. Chu’s direction and the broader cast’s commitment to the material. The films treat the source not as a brand, but as something personal. If there was a mistake, it lies in assuming the general audience would meet that level of investment. Wicked was made foremost for those who already care—and it succeeds most fully on those terms.
