“To be continued.”
“Wicked” ends with these three words, leaving audiences to wait a year for resolution.
Until then, there’s much to discuss about Universal’s ambitious adaptation of the blockbuster stage show, especially its more narratively daring moments — likely affecting both devout fan and casual “Wizard of Oz” aficionados. So whether you left the theater crying or confused, The Times is here to share some clarity on “Wicked.”
Why is ‘Wicked’ split into two movies?
While not uncommon for fantasy flicks and sci-fi entries, it’s never been done before with the film adaptation of a stage musical. And this one in particular — based on Gregory Maguire’s 1995 novel “Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West,” which draws from Frank L. Baum’s 1900 fantasy novel “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” and the 1939 film adaptation — “comes heaped high with a century’s worth of heritage, in the traditions of literature, screen and stage, plus the massive expectations that come with that,” wrote Katie Walsh in her review.
After months of detailed discussions between director Jon M. Chu, composer Stephen Schwartz and book writer Winnie Holzman about potentially sacrificing songs or subplots, “it became very clear that you cannot tell this story in one movie, and if you did, you’d have to literally transform it into something very different, and that’s not something I was interested in doing,” Chu told The Times.
While split at the stage show’s intermission point, “these are two movies with integrity, and they can stand on their own,” said Holzman. And according to producer Marc Platt, each act — and therefore, each film — has a point of view that’s distinct to the witches played by Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande.