“Wicked for Good” Faces a Shocking End: Box Office Numbers Leave Franchise (and Stars) in Limbo

As of early January 2026, Wicked: For Good has generated $522.3 million worldwide, comprised of $341.8 million domestic and $180.5 million international. In a vacuum, that is a major commercial outcome for a PG-rated musical-fantasy sequel. In context, however, it represents a clear step down from Wicked (2024), which finished at $758.8 million worldwide ($475.0 million domestic, $283.8 million international).

The comparison becomes more striking because the sequel did not start soft. For Good opened bigger domestically with $147.0 million vs. $112.5 million for the first film (about a 31% increase in opening weekend). Where the sequel diverged was in staying power. On domestic “legs” (total domestic gross divided by opening weekend), For Good is roughly a 2.3x multiple, while Wicked delivered about 4.2x… a massive spread that usually signals weaker repeat viewing, faster post-holiday decay, heavier front-loading from core fans, or stronger competitive pressure in subsequent weekends.

Elphaba and Glinda on a swing in Wicked: For Good – Universal

READ: Paramount Skydance Confident It Has the Upper Hand Over Netflix in Warner Bros. Discovery Fight

In percentage terms, the sequel’s end-state is meaningfully smaller: down ~28% domestically, ~36% internationally, and ~31% worldwide versus the original. That pattern matters, because it suggests the franchise remained highly potent in North America but softened more materially overseas, and it implies that whatever cultural “event” status Wicked achieved in 2024 was harder to replicate globally for Part Two.

From a distribution and audience-behavior standpoint, the most plausible read is that For Good monetized anticipation up front, hence the larger opening, but did not sustain the same broad, multi-quadrant momentum. A sequel to a widely embraced “Part One” often faces a specific challenge: the first film benefits from novelty and discovery (including casual viewers swept up by buzz), while the second film can skew more heavily to those already invested. When that happens, the opening can be enormous, but the week-to-week hold is less forgiving.

This is not an argument that For Good “failed.” It is an argument that it performed like a large, front-loaded follow-up rather than a long-running, four-quadrant sensation, especially relative to a predecessor that posted unusually strong endurance. And while it didn’t “fail” necessarily, it signals that the franchise might not be deserving of continued investment at the levels required for spinoffs and sequels. Worse, it may also point to Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande having a faded interest with audiences.

Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba in Wicked: For Good – Universal Pictures

However… this one movie by itself is unlikely to be career-damaging for either performer, and there are several reasons why:

First, their professional leverage is not solely a function of the sequel’s worldwide multiple. Both Erivo and Grande can credibly claim participation in a two-film event that collectively generated substantial global revenue, with the sequel still clearing half a billion worldwide. In modern Hollywood economics, studios and financiers often distinguish between (a) a truly underperforming title and (b) a sequel that is “down” versus an outsized breakout. The latter is typically treated as a franchise-normalization story, not an indictment of the leads. That’s a pretty good marketing defense, even if dubious.

Second, both are already demonstrating portfolio resilience by locking in gigs based on the first Wicked’s success before the second could create pause or hesitation. That’s the surest antidote to “sequel narrative” risk. Erivo is actively booked in high-prestige theater work (including a West End commitment that reportedly kept her from attending the 2026 Golden Globes). Grande, meanwhile, remains commercially dominant in music and is publicly framed in entertainment press as continuing to pursue screen work following For Good. Even if one project’s topline under-indexes versus a predecessor, sustained demand across mediums (film, stage, music) tends to insulate talent from the more reductive “box office blame” cycle.

Ariana Grande sits among propaganda magazines in Wicked: For Good – Universal

READ: David Ellison Takes Paramount’s Fight To Congress As Netflix–WBD Deal Faces Antitrust Scrutiny

Third, if there is any “career impact,” it is more likely to show up in negotiation texture rather than opportunity access—for example, how much guaranteed compensation is offered up front versus back-end participation, or how aggressively a studio will build a vehicle around a star at a given budget level. But given the scale of the opening weekend and the final gross, the market signal is still that both women can open a global theatrical event, which is the rarest and most valuable signal a studio can get.

The bigger strategic question is not whether Erivo or Grande get fewer offers. It is whether the industry treats For Good as evidence that musical adaptations are exceptionally high-ceiling but harder to sustain across multiple chapters, particularly internationally. After all, inside the industry, is it really even allowed to speak publicly in a way that criticizes either the movie or its stars? Eveywhere else in America is a different story… but take care in SoCal that you not question two “avant garde” actors.

Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande on the Wicked Press Tour – YouTube, GLAAD

In other words, Wicked: For Good looks less like a referendum on its stars and more like a case study in sequel dynamics for industry analysts. The rest of America likely sees it otherwise.

Are you surprised by the final Wicked: For Good box office numbers? Sound off in the comments and let us know!

UP NEXT: Godzilla Minus Zero Sets 2026 Release Date