Red Flag Alert: "Wicked" will now be two movies long!
Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 2:29PM by Nathaniel R
Though we've been anxiously awaiting the Wicked movie for (checks IBDB) 18 years, 6 months, and 6 days, we are suddenly dreading it. We were fairly pleased with the casting and the director choice but this new information is a major red flag. In keeping with Hollywood's money-grubbing franchise mania in which they attempt to wrestle as much money from consumers as possible even if they have to pad the stories or extend them well past their breaking point -- popularized by finales that were cleaved in half to guarantee an extra billion in ticket revenue (see Twilight and Harry Potter) or three movies based on a single book (The Hobbit) -- they've decided to make Wicked a two part movie.
Director Jon M Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights) writes...
This is the worst movie idea we've heard in many months. Though Wicked is a deservedly popular Broadway show, netting literally billions upon billions in revenue, it is far from perfect. In fact we'd argue that the biggest problem with the show is that there's already too much of it. It is weighed down by too many extraneous characters and multiple weak subplots and a few filler songs. The heart of the show and ALL of its best scenes and songs are focused on the relationship between Glinda and Elphaba before they were "The Good Witch" and "The Wicked Witch". The Broadway show runs about 150 minutes once you subtract the intermission. Given that today's blockbusters often run about exactly that long you could literally transfer it intact without cutting anything.
Not that you should! The stage and the cinema are two different art forms. But in reality it's easier to tell stories with the cinema since you can include much more information in a single image. Still the point is that the basis of this letter above is a lie given Wicked's very typical movie length in its current form.
Unless there's been a decree from the studio that the Wicked movie must run 90 minutes -- and there's about a 0% probability of that since studios no longer balk at movies that run well over two hours -- they wouldn't actually have to cut anything. This means they will keep the weak stuff. Can we have a collective sigh? Now think of all the padding they will have to add to justify almost doubling Wicked's current length!
What would you cut to make Wicked better? And given that they're going to add at least an hour to the musical as is, what would you now include to improve it?
Reader Comments (14)
Not sure how I feel about this yet. The second act of Wicked has always been a problem - a mountain of plot developments happen offstage, the songs shortcut over insane character developments, and there's a whole animal rights subplot that is so underdeveloped that it's tough to care about. I feel in adapting this you either have to go full camp and high energy (which is basically what the musical does) to distract from the general weakness of the plot or flesh everything out which is difficult because the musical is overstuffed as it is.
I don't entirely object to the idea because I think a fleshed out Wicked with more detail from the book could be very interesting and actually work quite well if done properly. But is the story frankly just too silly to add gravitas and depth to it? Perhaps. I also doubt Jon M Chu's control of narrative since that was a huge weakness of In The Heights for me. Incredible production numbers, great performances, but structureless and padded with countless choices that prioritized spectacle over narrative.
Although I prefer No Good Deed over Defying Gravity, for the vast majority - you get to Defying Gravity, part 1 ends....what entices them to come back for part 2? Defying Gravity is the mainstream draw here.
Not sure how I feel about this yet. The second act of Wicked has always been a problem - a mountain of plot developments happen offstage, the songs shortcut over insane character developments, and there's a whole animal rights subplot that is so underdeveloped that is tough to care about. I feel in adapting this you either have to go full camp and high energy (which is basically what the musical does) to distract from the general weakness of the plot or flesh everything out which is difficult because the musical is overstuffed as it is.
I don't entirely object to the idea because I think a fleshed out Wicked with more detail from the book could be very interesting and actually work quite well if done properly. But is the story frankly just too silly to add gravitas and depth to it? Perhaps. I also doubt Jon M Chu's control of narrative since that was a huge weakness of In The Heights for me. Incredible production numbers, great performances, but structureless and padded with countless choices that prioritized spectacle over narrative.
Although I prefer No Good Deed over Defying Gravity, for the vast majority - you get to Defying Gravity, part 1 ends....what entices them to come back for part 2? Defying Gravity is the mainstream draw here.
I feel like this will damage it's Oscar prospects. Will they vote for a performance they're waiting for the second half of? Then by the second film it's a franchise so will they vote for performances there? I can't think of any similar comparison.
Ugh. I was excited about the casting. But honestly, I couldn't get through the book by Maguire, and I actually fell asleep at the one and only production I've ever seen (first tour in Boston) early in the second act. I still don't know WTF is happening in the story, but for years now, I happily and regularly listen to the original cast recording, just as a clueless fan.
2024 seems like a long, long way off, with the 2nd part coming in what, 2025?. Not a fan of this idea.
This reminds me of The Three Musketeers in 1973. After directing two highly profitable Beatles movies, Richard Lester was hired to make a faithful adaptation of Three Musketeers starring the Fab Four. The idea of the Beatles playing the Alexandre Dumas heroes quickly faded but Lester stayed.
The result, by all accounts, was a richly satisfying romp that captured the thrill of the famed novel with a celebrated cast. Producers decided that they could make twice the money by chopping the three hour film into two 90 minute movies. Some of the cast and crew weren't told till the actual premiere.
Actors and crew were outraged that they made two films for one paycheck. Standard contracts now contain a clause preventing such a decision. That's why John Chu's letter acknowledges the approval of leading ladies Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande.
And Oscar? What was previewed as a hot Oscar contender was now dismissed in its two halves.
Of course, I'll see Wicked and More Wicked but I am feeling much less secure about its appearance on either of the Oscar ballot(s).
This is a bad idea. I hate it when films have to be split into two parts like that though there are exceptions in some cases like Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame. I do feel like audiences are going to be robbed of something much bigger which is the long roadshow experience. I went through it twice in my lifetime with Che and The Hateful Eight as I feel it's something filmgoers should experience once in their lifetime. I was upset when Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows were split into two parts as I felt that the fanbase were being robbed of a film-going experience that doesn't happen very often.
Plus, I don't have a lot of confidence in Jon M. Chu as he's only made a few decent films and a lot of bad ones so this is likely not going to be a good idea. If the first part flops, then that film is FUCKED.
This statement is straight out of the Upper Management rulebook,when in doubt print lots of words and hopefully people will get tired of reading shrug and say "Ok makes sense".
I agree that the musical source material doesn't really lend itself to 2 full length movies. I could see this possibly working if Stephen Schwartz wrote a lot of new songs based on more of The Wicked Years books, because the dialogue does really drag often. But, now that so much time has passed since the musical premiered, I also understand relying on this "gimmick" to juice some interest in the film adaptation.
"Wicked" would be better if they only film the first act. It's one of those shows, like "Phantom of the Opera," where the second act is just a slog to the end. Two films is just a terrible idea. It's not Dune. Cut the forgettable and inessential songs or just have the film run 3 hours.
I would gladly change the two Wicked movies for one Sunset Blvd.
"...what would you now include to improve it?"
the second movie is a screening of 'the wizard of oz'
So, they just basically ceded all Oscar glory to the other big Broadway musical coming out- The Color Purple. People sat through a 3 hour Batman movie! Not to mention a 3 hour Les Miserables film production. Did they really think people wouldn't come due to time length?
"In fact we'd argue that the biggest problem with the show is that there's already too much of it. It is weighed down by too many extraneous characters and multiple weak subplots and a few filler songs."
Hmm, I'd be curious for you to be more specific on this point. Not that I disagree, there are a few songs on the soundtrack I always skip (I've never been a fan of As Long as You're Mine or No Good Deed for example), and the show in general always feels at its weakest when dealing with Fiyero (I know he0's more interesting in the book, but I highly doubt they're going to go in that direction if they want to maintain their family audience).
The only thing that sounds good about this is a film that ends with Defying Gravity (I assume they're going to make each act into a film).
I think I am slightly more optimistic than many of you seem to be. Yes, it's a blatant cash grab that isn't motivated by artistic concerns. But... I think it could still result in two good movies? One that functions like a clear prologue to the Wizard of Oz and one that runs parallel to it from the Witch's perspective.
My biggest issue with the play has always been how quick the second act feels and how much it leaves to occur offstage. Perhaps this could be an opportunity to explore more of the nuance that the book does SO well in its second half?
As for Oscars, I'm surprised people seem to think this dooms its chances given the success of Dune this very last year with a similar strategy.