You didn’t actually think they were going to let the curtain fall, did you? In this town, “The End” is just a negotiating tactic. With Wicked: For Good pulling in $147 million domestically—outperforming its predecessor by a cool $35 million—Universal Pictures has done the math. And the math says you don’t retire a golden goose; you clone it. The studio is now openly admitting what we all knew the second the pre-sales numbers dropped: they are actively figuring out how to churn out more Wicked sequels.
It’s the classic Hollywood pivot. You finish the story you set out to tell, count the money, and then realize the quarterly earnings report looks terrifying without that IP on the books for next year.
The “Fanship” Trap
Universal’s head of film marketing, Michael Moses, gave the game away in a recent interview with Vulture. He noted that due to the film’s success and the “fanship,” the studio feels a “responsibility” to continue the universe.
Let’s translate that. “Fanship” is corporate shorthand for “a captive audience that buys merchandise.”
“Have we figured it out yet? No. But there are things underway,” Moses said. That’s the tell. Usually, studios at least pretend to have a grand artistic vision mapped out on a whiteboard somewhere. Admitting they have no idea what the movie is, only that there must be one, is refreshingly honest. It reminds me of when Warner Bros. decided Harry Potter needed to become Fantastic Beasts without checking if anyone actually cared about the beasts. We know how that ended.
The marketing machine for Wicked has been relentless. You couldn’t walk into a Target or a Starbucks for six months without being assaulted by that specific shade of aggressive pink and green. That wasn’t just ad spend; that was brand conditioning. Universal has spent millions training audiences to associate those colors with dopamine. They aren’t going to let that conditioning go to waste just because the story is technically over.
Not A Sequel, But An “Adjunct”
The creative team is already spinning the wheels. Stephen Schwartz, the composer-lyricist who has been living in Oz since the Broadway show premiered, confirmed to The Ankler that he and co-writer Winnie Holzman are brainstorming.
“We are doing some work right now on ideas that aren’t a sequel to Wicked,” Schwartz said. He clarified that the Elphaba and Glinda story is done—thankfully avoiding the “somehow, Palpatine returned” trap—but hinted at other aspects. “Not a sequel, but an adjunct. Let me put it that way.”
This is where it gets messy. Or interesting. Depending on your tolerance for lore.
Gregory Maguire wrote several books in the Wicked series (Son of a Witch, A Lion Among Men, Out of Oz). The material exists. It’s dense, political, and frankly, a lot weirder than the musical. Whether mainstream audiences who just want to hear high notes and see pretty dresses will tolerate the darker turns of Maguire’s later novels is a gamble.
The Public Domain Wildcard
Here is the leverage point nobody is talking about: Frank L. Baum’s original Oz books are largely in the public domain. Anyone can adapt them. But Universal currently owns the aesthetic of the modern Oz. They have the momentum.
It’s a race. By announcing they are looking into Wicked sequels or spinoffs now, Universal is effectively planting a flag. They are telling other studios, “Don’t bother. We own this lane.” It’s smart strategy, even if it feels creatively bankrupt.
The reality is that Hollywood hates a vacuum. If Universal doesn’t fill the Oz-shaped hole in the release calendar, someone else will try. But watching a studio try to reverse-engineer a franchise from a completed story is always a spectator sport. Sometimes you get Better Call Saul. Usually, you get Joey.
Does Oz have more stories? Sure. Do we need them? That’s irrelevant. The box office spoke, and it said “yes.”
What Universal’s Strategy Actually Reveals
- They Have No Plan, Only Metrics
Admitting they haven’t “figured it out yet” while simultaneously announcing development confirms this is a reaction to the $147M opening, not a pre-meditated creative choice. - The “Adjunct” Terminology is Specific
By using the word “adjunct” instead of “sequel,” Schwartz is lowering expectations. He’s signaling that whatever comes next won’t be Wicked 3, but a side story designed to keep the brand alive without undoing the finale. - Merchandise is Driving the Bus
The reference to “fanship” directly correlates to consumer products. A film franchise ends, but a “universe” keeps selling dolls, makeup, and LEGO sets indefinitely. - Maguire’s Books are the Safety Net
Referencing Gregory Maguire’s other novels provides a shield against claims of purely inventing cash grabs. They can claim literary provenance, even if they strip-mine the books for parts.
FAQ
Why is Universal making more movies if the story is finished?
Because public companies cannot allow successful intellectual property to lie dormant. When a film opens to $147 million, the studio executives have a fiduciary duty to shareholders to exploit that success, regardless of narrative closure.
Will Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo return for the sequels?
Extremely unlikely. Stephen Schwartz explicitly stated that the story of Glinda and Elphaba is “complete.” Any future projects would likely focus on side characters or new protagonists within the same universe to avoid expensive contract renegotiations and narrative clumsiness.
What is the difference between a sequel and an “adjunct”?
A sequel continues the main timeline directly. An adjunct—in Hollywood terms—is a parallel story or spinoff that exists within the same world but doesn’t necessarily advance the main plot. Think Rogue One relative to Star Wars, rather than Episode VIII.
