Wicked has taken the U.S. box office by storm. The long-awaited film adaptation of the classic Broadway musical is breaking records domestically. Internationally, however, the story is different. While many factors contribute to this disparity, one key aspect of the film’s development has been carefully kept from audiences by Universal Pictures.
Breaking records. In the U.S., Wicked has grossed $114 million, with an additional $50 million internationally. The film has broken several records, including the best first-weekend gross for a movie based on a Broadway hit (surpassing Les Misérables), best debut for a film starring a pop star, and best worldwide gross of the year for a non-sequel. Other notable achievements include the third-best opening weekend of the year (behind Deadpool & Wolverine and Inside Out 2) and the sixth-best debut for a musical in history, ahead of hits like The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and Frozen 2.
The success isn’t international. Despite its domestic success, Wicked’s performance in international markets has been less impressive, with overseas earnings amounting to less than half its U.S. box office total. Recommendations, good reviews, and the December holiday weekend will tell if this movie will achieve international success in the near future.
The musical problem. One potential explanation for this disparity lies in the film’s origins. Wicked, based on a Broadway hit and a literary bestseller, isn’t widely known outside the U.S. It’s comparable to Hamilton, a cultural phenomenon in America that has struggled to resonate as deeply abroad, partly due to its subject matter. Musicals, as a genre, also tend to fare better in the U.S. This preference is reflected in Universal Pictures’ marketing strategy, which downplayed the film’s musical nature in trailers, similar to Warner Bros.’ approach with Wonka last year. But the movie’s musical identity isn’t the only thing Universal Pictures has kept under wraps.
A half-baked story. How many moviegoers knew they were signing up for half a story? Although the first Wicked runs as long as the entire Broadway production—about two and a half hours—it tells only part of the tale. Universal Pictures’ advertising and marketing avoided highlighting this fact, perhaps to prevent deterring audiences. Director Jon Chu says the decision to split the film was always clear and well communicated. The financial logic is straightforward: Shooting two $200 million movies simultaneously and releasing them across two Christmas seasons minimizes costs while maximizing potential revenue.
An increasingly common trend. Hollywood’s penchant for splitting movies into multiple parts isn’t new but has become more frequent. Films like Dune, Fast X, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning, and It have all ended with “to be continued” cliffhangers, often without explicitly warning viewers. One notable exception, Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part 1, performed poorly compared to previous installments, earning $220 million less than its predecessor and causing the eighth film to be delayed until 2025. To mitigate backlash, references to “Part 1” and “Part 2” were even removed from the titles.
The risks of splitting. This strategy isn’t without risks. Universal Pictures might recall the case of The Divergent Series: Allegiant, which performed so poorly at the box office that its planned conclusion never made it to theaters. Similarly, Kevin Costner’s Horizon: An American Saga, intended as a four-part epic, saw such dismal results that the second installment, already filmed, still lacks a release date. Still, the successes of movies like Dune and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, as well as earlier examples like the final two Harry Potter films, continue to encourage studios to embrace this model.
Image | Universal Pictures
View 0 comments