Are Ariana Grande’s Oscar Chances Locked Up For Good? History Says It Might Be

Not many pundits expected “Wicked: For Good“ to score much higher than “Wicked’s“ 73 on MetaCritic and 7.8 average critics’ rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Yet something equal to or only slightly lower than those scores was expected to be enough to help, or at least not hurt, Ariana Grande as the likely favorite for Best Supporting Actress this time. But now that the “Wicked: For Good“ reviews have not been favorable, Grande’s most significant obstacle may not be another Zoe Saldana-like challenger, or even current contenders like Teyana Taylor, Amy Madigan, and others from “Sentimental Value“ and “Marty Supreme,“ but her own movie instead.

With “Wicked: For Good“ only scoring 58 on Metacritic and 70% with a 6.7 average critics’ rating on Rotten Tomatoes after its opening weekend, Grande has no choice but to try to join a very lucky group of Oscar winners. In the expanded ballot era, only eight other actors have won with movies as low or lower reviewed than “Wicked: For Good,“ though some had the same advantages Grande hopes to have, while others had far more of a leg up.

These are the acting winners who had the least amount of help from their films since 2009 – a group Grande will be stuck in if she defeats “Wicked: For Good’s“ critics as well.

Anne Hathaway (2012 Best Supporting Actress winner) for “Les Misérables“ – 63 on MetaCritic, 70%/7.0 average rating on Rotten TomatoesThis is by far the biggest parallel “Wicked: For Good,“ and Grande can draw inspiration from. “Les Misérables“ was also a fall/winter big screen musical from Universal Pictures, was also based on a massive Broadway hit that was always loved by audiences more than critics, also had a show and movie widely considered to have peaked at intermission, made a ton at the box office to drown out critics just like “Wicked: For Good“ hopes to do, and also had a Supporting Actress frontrunner who rose from teen star to serious actress and aimed to win the Oscar with her second nomination.

Of course, as so many have and will keep pointing out, “Les Misérables” wasn’t split into two parts, and Hathaway didn’t try to win a part two, unlike “Wicked: For Good“ and Grande. In addition, Hathaway was only in act one of “Les Misérables“ before leaving until the final minutes – ironically, just like Grande’s main competitor in Taylor – while Grande might well be more of a full-on lead in “Wicked: For Good.“ And of course, by the time Hathaway was awarded, she already had a longer big-screen resume and a past nomination for a non-musical film, “Rachel Getting Married,“unlike Grande.

Yet beyond that, “Les Misérables“ did exactly what “Wicked: For Good“ has to do now – use box office, a Best Supporting Actress frontrunner, and a possible lead acting nominee to make its mixed reviews irrelevant, force its way into Best Picture anyway, and at least secure a Supporting Actress win as a collective reward. If that too big to fail Universal musical based on a too big to fail Broadway production could do it for Hathaway, so could this one for Grande – or so it has to tell itself and voters.

Octavia Spencer (2011 Best Supporting Actress winner) for “The Help“ – 62 on MetaCritic, 75%/7.0 average rating on Rotten TomatoesThe year before Hathaway won, another Best Supporting Actress winner prevailed for a movie that had big box office but fewer critical raves. However, “The Help“ was a racial comedy/drama rather than a musical, was released in late summer, and featured a Supporting Actress leader who wasn’t a musical star or A-lister beforehand. In that regard, perhaps Spencer’s example doesn’t apply to Grande as Hathaway’s does.

Still, like “Wicked: For Good“ hopes to do, “The Help“ received nominations in both actress categories to bolster its strength. Yet unlike with “Wicked: For Good“ and “Les Misérables,“ Spencer was not the only nominee in her category from “The Help,“ though she avoided vote-splitting with co-star Jessica Chastain. Given that Spencer won despite “The Help’s“ reviews without Grande’s kind of star power, pre-existing fame, or previous nomination, it might well be a more impressive feat – and might well show how Grande could have it easier by comparison.

Brendan Fraser (2022 Best Actor winner) for “The Whale“ – 60 on MetaCritic, 64%/6.6 average rating on Rotten TomatoesThis could be an example Grande has to take inspiration from, should “Wicked: For Good“ actually fall out of the Best Picture lineup completely. As the only Best Actor winner for a film that missed Best Picture since 2009, Fraser is a special exemption from many Oscar trends, with narratives that Grande can’t exactly match.

As a “comeback“ success story with Oscar-winning prosthetics, Fraser managed to overcome being in a very divisive tearjerker. While that divisiveness and backlash for the rest of the movie cost it a Best Picture nomination, it still had a Best Makeup and Hairstyling win in the bank for Fraser to build on. And like “Les Misérables“ and “The Help“ did, and “Wicked: For Good“ is still hoping to do, “The Whale“ had an additional acting nominee, Hong Chau, to ensure Fraser wasn’t carrying the movie and overcoming it alone.

Grande obviously doesn’t have Fraser’s resume, makeup, and prosthetic controversy. Nonetheless, in the absolute worst-case scenario that “Wicked: For Good“ misses Best Picture, “The Whale“ will be one of the few things she can point to as precedent that not all hope may be lost from it.

Joaquin Phoenix (2019 Best Actor winner) for “Joker“ – 59 on MetaCritic, 68%/7.3 average rating on Rotten TomatoesThis is another example of how the massive box office can speak louder to Oscar voters than far less impressed critics. In a way, Phoenix doing this for “Joker“ was even more unprecedented, since he did it for a comic book movie – a far darker than average comic book movie – than a more awards-baity Broadway musical adaptation or a civil rights drama. Yet “Joker“ first got legitimacy by playing at and winning the Venice Film Festival, whereas “Wicked: For Good“ famously skipped festivals and didn’t play for many actual critics until this past week.

Of course, Phoenix had already been a three-time Oscar nominee and was riding personal “overdue“ and “transformation“narratives, none of which Grande can use. In addition, “Joker“ crossed $1 billion worldwide, whereas “Wicked: For Good“ has a long way to go to reach that milestone, especially after the original “Wicked“ topped out at over $750 million.

“Joker“ was attacked by critics for a far different tone and wider ambitions than “Wicked: For Good“ had – and for all the changes “Wicked: For Good“ made from its source material, it is nowhere near as radical an adaptation as “Joker.“ Once “Joker“ took off with specific audiences and prospective voters, it and Phoenix were unstoppable, no matter the backlash, but “Wicked: For Good“ has not started that strong yet.

Jessica Chastain (2021 Best Actress winner) for “The Eyes of Tammy Faye“ – 55 on MetaCritic, 67%/6.6 average rating on Rotten TomatoesIn a way, this is the furthest thing from a parallel to Grande and “Wicked: For Good,“ given that “The Eyes of Tammy Faye“ was an outright box office flop when it came and went from theaters in September 2021. However, that didn’t matter in a muddled pandemic year like 2021, where standard rules and trends didn’t apply, and every other Best Actress nominee alongside Chastain had a film that missed Best Picture, too.

If only thanks to “One Battle After Another“ and “Sentimental Value,“ if not “Marty Supreme“ too, Grande won’t have such a field to breeze past. Chastain also benefited from being far more “overdue“ like Phoenix, and from being in a film that did win Best Makeup and Hairstyling for her prosthetics like Fraser’s. All of this was enough for a small movie with worse reviews and far fewer Oscar prospects than “Wicked: For Good“ currently has, so in that context, Grande is in a much better opening position.

Sandra Bullock (2009 Best Actress winner) for “The Blind Side“ – 53 on MetaCritic, 66%/6.3 average rating on Rotten TomatoesLike “Wicked: For Good,” “The Blind Side“ opened around Thanksgiving, made a lot of money, and received negative reviews and backlash. Yet it still stole a Best Picture nomination and then an acting win, although whereas Grande was a preseason favorite, Bullock came out of nowhere as a potential winner and won barely anything at all that season until SAG.

Of course, like most everyone else on this list, Bullock had much more of a big screen resume and movie star power in 2009 than Grande has as a movie star in 2025. Since “The Blind Side“ was her first nomination, she wasn’t as overdue as Phoenix or Chastain. Still, it marked a considerable elevation from box-office draw to Oscar-worthy actress, like “Les Misérables“ was for Hathaway. If “The Blind Side“ could do that for her and get into Best Picture with far worse reviews, “Wicked: For Good” wouldn’t seem to have as hard a time ahead with Grande. 

Meryl Streep (2011 Best Actress winner) for “The Iron Lady“ – 52 on MetaCritic, 51%/5.7 average rating on Rotten TomatoesThere is no reason a movie like “The Iron Lady“ should have propelled anyone to an acting win. While it did win Best Makeup and Hairstyling for the prosthetics on its award-winning lead, like so many on this list, it had nothing else in its favor on the surface – not box office and certainly not reviews. And yet, as with so many other things, this did not apply to Meryl Streep, especially after she had waited 29 years for her third Oscar.

Streep’s win is still one of the least regarded acting wins of this era, but it made sense at the time because Streep was playing a real-life world leader. Since pretty much no one else could get away with that for a movie this lowly rated and received, it’s not exactly something Grande can or needs to do either.

Rami Malek (2018 Best Actor winner) for “Bohemian Rhapsody“ – 49 on MetaCritic, 60%/6.1 average rating on Rotten TomatoesWhen it comes to Metacritic, “Bohemian Rhapsody“ is the lowest-rated movie of this era, if not of all time, to have an Oscar-winning performance anyway. Like “Wicked: For Good,“ it is technically a musical of sorts, albeit a biopic of a famous musician. It also grossed over a billion worldwide despite the objections of scathing reviewers, countless offended Freddie Mercury fans, and countless others offended by Bryan Singer’s involvement. Yet over the most heated backlash and mockery, Oscar voters made it a point of pride or spite to give it still the most Oscar wins of 2018, including one for its leading man.

Malek, like Grande, was mainly famous in another medium – in his case, as an Emmy-winning TV lead – before making his first leap into the big screen and getting Oscar buzz. Like Grande, he performed songs beloved for decades, though Malek mostly had to lip-sync Mercury and Queen’s famous ballads. Yet he was virtually the only thing to escape “Bohemian Rhapsody’s“ endless waves of wrath from critics – at least until he started winning major awards – just as Grande is one of at least two things to escape the early “Wicked: For Good“ wrath thus far.

No matter how much worse “Wicked: For Good“ fares with critics and disappointed fans, it shouldn’t get to the “Bohemian Rhapsody“ level of bad. But it might not reach its box-office level, or overall Oscar wins either – whether that puts a win for Grande in any further trouble than it’s already fallen into lately.

So what do you think? Do you think Ariana Grande can still win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress after being a favorite so early in the season? She’ll likely still be nominated but how do you think this race is going to go down? Please let us know in the comments section below and on Next Best Picture’s X account and check out the team’s latest Oscar predictions here.

You can follow Robert and hear more of his thoughts on the Oscars & Film on X @Robertdoc1984