The musical sequel “Wicked: For Good” was completely shut out of the 2026 Oscar nominations, a stunning reversal after its predecessor earned 10 nods last year, signaling a dramatic cooling in Hollywood’s enthusiasm for the franchise. This omni-snub underscores the perils of overextending beloved material and highlights shifting audience and critical tastes in a competitive awards season.
When the 98th Academy Award nominations were announced on January 22, 2026, the absence of “Wicked: For Good” from all categories sent shockwaves through the industry. The film, starring Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, had been widely expected to contend in several races, particularly after its predecessor, “Wicked” (2024), garnered 10 nominations including best picture. Instead, the sequel received zero nods, with the Academy favoring films like “Sinners,” which broke a record with 16 nominations, and other critically acclaimed works such as “Hamnet” and “One Battle After Another.”
The snub follows a rocky critical reception for “Wicked: For Good,” which saw its Rotten Tomatoes score drop to 66% from the first film’s 88%. Prominent reviews were scathing; The Telegraph called it “irritating” and criticized Grande’s performance as “painfully wooden,” while The New Yorker labeled it “Very, Very Bad.” This contrasted sharply with the initial film’s acclaim, which was praised for its vibrant adaptation of the Broadway musical and the chemistry between its leads. The sequel’s longer runtime and focus on less compelling subplots, such as the backstories of Oz’s iconic characters, failed to captivate audiences and critics alike.
Commercially, “Wicked: For Good” underperformed relative to its predecessor, grossing $523 million globally compared to $758 million for the first film. Despite a 30% larger domestic opening, the sequel’s box office reflected diminishing returns, attributed in part to audience fatigue. The marketing campaign lacked the novelty of the first film’s promotional blitz, where Erivo and Grande’s enthusiastic friendship drove social media buzz and positioned “Wicked” as a must-see event akin to the Barbenheimer phenomenon. This time, the press tour felt repetitive, undermining the sense of urgency that had propelled the original.
The Oscar shutout mirrored earlier awards misfires, including at the Golden Globes where “Wicked: For Good” earned nominations for Erivo, Grande, and best original song but won nothing. Host Nikki Glaser’s joke about the film’s length—”Two hours into that movie, I was in tears. I was like, ‘I can’t believe there’s still 45 minutes left'”—encapsulated the growing sentiment that the sequel was a chore. The film also missed out on recognition at the Actor Awards, further cementing its decline in Hollywood’s esteem.
Universal Pictures, the studio behind the franchise, remains optimistic about the “Wicked” universe’s future, citing the combined gross of nearly $1.3 billion and strong fan engagement. Executives have hinted at exploring adjunct projects, though nothing is confirmed, with composer Stephen Schwartz mentioning potential new stories set in the same world. However, the Oscar snub serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of splitting a musical into multiple parts and diluting its magic.
In the broader context, the Academy’s embrace of original films like “Sinners” over sequels such as “Wicked: For Good” suggests a preference for fresh, exhilarating cinema. This trend may influence future franchise decisions in Hollywood, encouraging studios to prioritize quality over expansion. For now, “Wicked: For Good” stands as a reminder that even the most spellbinding stories can lose their charm when stretched too thin, leaving fans and filmmakers to ponder what could have been.
The fallout from this Oscar season highlights the volatile nature of awards acclaim and the importance of maintaining creative integrity in blockbuster filmmaking. As the industry looks ahead, the lessons from “Wicked’s” rise and fall will likely inform how musicals and sequels are crafted and marketed in the years to come.
