A Greedy Franchise's Dark Side: The Disastrous Sequel to "Wicked"
The decision to split Warner Bros.' latest "Harry Potter" adaptation, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," into two separate films was met with a mixed reaction from fans. While some were disappointed by the prospect of less screen time for their beloved characters, others saw it as an opportunity to relish in more scenes from the book. Fast-forward to the sequel to the hit musical "Wicked," which has taken a far more frustrating approach.
Released two years after its predecessor, "Wicked: For Good" feels like a prime example of franchise filmmaking greed. Unlike the original film, which brought depth and emotion to the story, this sequel is woefully lacking in these areas. The result is a messily paced, poorly constructed blockbuster that fails to live up to the standards set by its predecessor.
The decision to split "Wicked: For Good" into two parts was allegedly made to avoid damaging the story. However, it's clear that this was merely an excuse for the studio to stretch out the narrative and squeeze more profit from the franchise. The result is a film that feels like a shadow of its predecessor, lacking in both depth and momentum.
One of the most glaring issues with "Wicked: For Good" is its over-reliance on the original story's plot holes. The second act of the musical is notoriously messy, and the filmmakers seem to be aware of this. However, instead of addressing these issues, they've opted to ignore them altogether and instead focus on shoehorning in more "Wizard of Oz"-related tie-ins.
This approach not only cheapens the story but also detracts from the performances of its leads, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande. Both actresses deliver respectable performances, but they're constantly undermined by the film's messy construction. The chemistry between them is undeniable, but it's clear that the filmmakers are more interested in padding out the runtime than allowing their characters to shine.
The fact that "Wicked: For Good" exists in this state at all is a testament to the franchise filmmaking greed that plagues the industry today. Studios will often prioritize profit over quality, sacrificing artistic integrity for the sake of making a quick buck. In the case of "Wicked," it's clear that the filmmakers are more interested in milking the brand for every last drop of cash than in creating a genuinely good film.
Ultimately, "Wicked: For Good" feels like a cynical exercise in franchise filmmaking. It's a reminder that sometimes, less really is more. By condensing the story into one film and focusing on delivering a high-quality product, Warner Bros. could have created something truly special. Instead, they've opted for a bloated, messy blockbuster that fails to live up to its predecessor's standards.
The decision to split Warner Bros.' latest "Harry Potter" adaptation, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," into two separate films was met with a mixed reaction from fans. While some were disappointed by the prospect of less screen time for their beloved characters, others saw it as an opportunity to relish in more scenes from the book. Fast-forward to the sequel to the hit musical "Wicked," which has taken a far more frustrating approach.
Released two years after its predecessor, "Wicked: For Good" feels like a prime example of franchise filmmaking greed. Unlike the original film, which brought depth and emotion to the story, this sequel is woefully lacking in these areas. The result is a messily paced, poorly constructed blockbuster that fails to live up to the standards set by its predecessor.
The decision to split "Wicked: For Good" into two parts was allegedly made to avoid damaging the story. However, it's clear that this was merely an excuse for the studio to stretch out the narrative and squeeze more profit from the franchise. The result is a film that feels like a shadow of its predecessor, lacking in both depth and momentum.
One of the most glaring issues with "Wicked: For Good" is its over-reliance on the original story's plot holes. The second act of the musical is notoriously messy, and the filmmakers seem to be aware of this. However, instead of addressing these issues, they've opted to ignore them altogether and instead focus on shoehorning in more "Wizard of Oz"-related tie-ins.
This approach not only cheapens the story but also detracts from the performances of its leads, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande. Both actresses deliver respectable performances, but they're constantly undermined by the film's messy construction. The chemistry between them is undeniable, but it's clear that the filmmakers are more interested in padding out the runtime than allowing their characters to shine.
The fact that "Wicked: For Good" exists in this state at all is a testament to the franchise filmmaking greed that plagues the industry today. Studios will often prioritize profit over quality, sacrificing artistic integrity for the sake of making a quick buck. In the case of "Wicked," it's clear that the filmmakers are more interested in milking the brand for every last drop of cash than in creating a genuinely good film.
Ultimately, "Wicked: For Good" feels like a cynical exercise in franchise filmmaking. It's a reminder that sometimes, less really is more. By condensing the story into one film and focusing on delivering a high-quality product, Warner Bros. could have created something truly special. Instead, they've opted for a bloated, messy blockbuster that fails to live up to its predecessor's standards.
the problem with these franchise films is they just wanna milk every last penny from a successful story. they don't care about doing it justice or adding any real depth. it's all just about making more cash and ignoring the fans who actually care about the story in the first place 
. The fact that they felt the need to split the story into two parts and add all these unnecessary Wizard of Oz tie-ins is just lazy filmmaking 
. It's like they're not even trying to create a good film, but rather just padding it out with extra scenes and subplots. And let's be real, the whole thing feels like a cash grab 
. Maybe they should've just stuck with one film and focused on delivering a high-quality story, rather than trying to milk the franchise for every last drop of cash 
I'm so done with these studios just milking their franchises for every penny 
. Wicked: For Good is a total mess 
and it's clear they're more worried about padding out the runtime to fit in those extra box office dollars 
And don't even get me started on how they're ruining the chemistry between Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande 
. Just give them a decent script and let them do their thing, you know? 
Instead of this cynical exercise in franchise filmmaking 
.
It's just lazy and uncreative.
. It's like, come on, can't you just focus on telling the story you want to tell instead of trying to tie it into another franchise? It's so annoying when that happens. And the fact that they're not even addressing the plot holes from the first movie is just lazy 
. At least that one had some actual depth and emotion to it. This sequel? Forget about it 
it feels like they took every good thing about the original and threw it out the window just to stretch out the runtime and squeeze in more merch opportunities 
I'm so done with franchise filmmaking greed, ugh 