Sequels are often disappointing.

It’s a hard gig. Especially when the original is well, good. Even harder when you’re adapting a musical typically viewed in one sitting into two. 

My first introduction to “Wicked” was the Broadway stage show, which I am partial to, but “Wicked,” the movie, excited me. 

I thought it was an impressive musical adaptation. Musicals are often hard to translate into movies because ‌the suspension of disbelief is easier to release watching a stage show. Movies are often too realistic to get their audience to ignore the fact that characters are breaking into song for presumably no reason, unlike on the stage, where it feels natural. The first movie did a good job making the songs flow naturally through the story, though it relied heavily on CGI to get this effect. 

What I didn’t expect originally was the stage show to be adapted into two movies. Like many musicals, “Wicked” is split into two parts. 

The stage musical has a runtime of 2 hours and 45 minutes, including the 15-minute intermission. Combined, both “Wicked” movies have 4 hours and 57 minutes of content — almost double the original length.

“Wicked: For Good” disappointed me. The movie suffers because of time and the structural demands of the story. 

First, the sequel anticipates that a portion of the audience has not seen the first movie, either ever or in a while. Because of this, they have to reintroduce almost all the aspects of the movie. This is not necessary in the stage show, where the audience has 15 minutes between the two parts.

This leads into the plot diagram of the story. The typical structure of a plot follows the exposition, rising action, climax, falling action and conclusion method; but plot structure differs for two-act plays.

Fundamentally, there is more content in the first act. The show has to introduce all of its characters, along with musical themes. Most of it is exposition and foreshadowing, leading up to the act one high point — in this case, “Defying Gravity.” Then curtains go down.

The second act has a lot less to introduce, and a lot more consequences. It also has fewer songs. The solution they found to this was to make new soulless songs to pad the movie’s soundtrack. 

The new songs in the sequel were very noticeable to me, feeling dull and unfamiliar. The songs included “There’s No Place Like Home” for Cynthia Erivo, and “Girl in the Bubble” for Ariana Grande, and other abridged snippets of songs from the first movie to placate the broader audience.

Though I didn’t care for the new additions, I did enjoy the adaptations of the original score. “March of the Witch Hunters” was powerful, and “For Good” was melancholy and bittersweet. There are rare cases where I prefer the movie version to the original songs, and I think the first movie did a better job convincing me than the second. 

The new songs seem like an example of the lack of trust the directors had in their audience. Instead of relying on the many avenues for moving the story along, like dialogue or visuals, it’s odd that they chose to add more songs. 

The plot and themes are spoonfed to the audience which I think is in part‌ because of its PG rating. The movie has to appeal to a wider audience, including children — which is appropriate, but sometimes makes it less appealing to an older audience.

The first “Wicked” felt like a musical adaptation that just happened to be a kids’ movie. “Wicked: For Good” felt like a kids’ movie that just happened to be a part of an incredibly successful franchise.

With the first “Wicked” being such an impressive musical adaptation, it is easy for the second to pale in comparison. It is hard to start a movie in the middle of a story. 

But I don’t think putting it all into one movie doesn’t feel realistic. Stage musicals have a much faster pacing, and movies draw out timelines and have to address plotlines that weren’t addressed in the theater. Instead, I think the “Wicked: For Good ” should have been cut much shorter, and more faith should have been put in the audience to know what happens in the first movie to leave more space for the second half of the story. 

Despite my view, I do hope that “Wicked: For Good” and other movie musicals bring Broadway musicals more into the mainstream. The cultural phenomenon around the movie and its press tour was far more exciting than the sequel ever could have lived up to.

For a non-musical fan, I think this movie can be enjoyable. But as someone with a deep connection and bias towards stage shows, it was deeply disappointing.