For much of the fall, it was all too easy to pencil in “Wicked: For Good” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash” as automatic Best Picture nominees. Both were sequels to films that also reached Best Picture, both were destined to be the biggest and most profitable films in the race, and both were automatically assumed to have the same nomination packages that got their predecessors in. However, if anyone remembers what happened in 2024, they might remember how these exact assumptions fell apart 12 months ago.
Last year, “Joker: Folie à Deux” and “Gladiator II” were the fall mega sequels that were preseason locks to do what earlier mega hits and Oscar winners “Joker” and “Gladiator” did. Still, those sequels came up way short of their originals. A year later, between the much lower reviews and steadily lower box office of “Wicked: For Good” compared to “Wicked,” and a rather tepid first wave of social reactions for “Avatar: Fire and Ash” compared to “Avatar” and “Avatar: The Way of Water,” it was starting to look like two fall sequels would collapse in Oscar season again – until the first few major precursor groups gave them breaks they never gave last fall’s sequels.
Until “Wicked: For Good” made the NBR, AFI, and Critics’ Choice top 10, it was threatening to be the “Joker: Folie à Deux” of the 2025 race, if one brushes aside some key asterisks. Not only did “Wicked: For Good” pretty much gross in one day what “Joker: Folie à Deux” did in its entire domestic run, and not only did it rate several points higher on MetaCritic and Rotten Tomatoes, but it was not written out of the Oscar race after one disastrous weekend and a disastrous film festival premiere. Nevertheless, although it is doing financially and somewhat creatively better than “Joker: Folie à Deux” by comparison, “Wicked: For Good” still suffers against its predecessor in the same way so far.
Like the original “Joker,” the original “Wicked” defied plenty of skepticism and low expectations, overcame some rather mixed review scores to be an audience and Academy darling, and steamrolled into Best Picture nominations and a few wins as one of the biggest hits of its year. But like “Joker: Folie à Deux,” the very existence of “Wicked: For Good” seemed that much more questionable anyway, and both happened to be musicals with several question marks around their music and storytelling.
“Joker: Folie à Deux” was a purely optional sequel to a movie that seemed fairly complete on its own, but was fast-tracked by studio greed and a misguided belief that the same creative team behind “Joker” could just do it all again without speed bumps. “Wicked: For Good” was a purely optional way to turn the second act of the “Wicked” musical into a solo movie, fast-tracked by studio greed and a misguided belief that the same creative team working wonders in “Wicked” could just keep doing so in the second half of shooting.
“Joker: Folie à Deux” became a jukebox musical with a very muddled soundtrack, yet the faith was that two award-winning stars with very different musical backgrounds, Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga, would carry it off. “Wicked: For Good” adapted Act Two of “Wicked” with a much less beloved soundtrack than Act One, yet the faith was that two award-winning stars with very different musical backgrounds in Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande would carry it over, as they turned out to do in “Wicked” first.
Between all of that, any early skepticism over “Joker: Folie à Deux” and “Wicked: For Good” really being another “Joker” and “Wicked” was waved off by early pundits. Most of them penciled these sequels into Best Picture just like the first time, penciled their two leads into acting nominations, and penciled a ton of craft nominations like last time, too. But when critics actually saw both movies, they mostly sang an off-key tune on them.
Of course, the mixed reaction to “Wicked: For Good” was nowhere near the large-scale critical drubbing that “Joker: Folie à Deux” got as soon as it opened. Still, even by the low standards of actual critical praise “Wicked” got, “Wicked: For Good” is a decided downgrade, just as “Joker: Folie à Deux” was a steeper downgrade even by the low standard of “Joker’s” reviews. And while “Wicked: For Good” wasn’t being taken off as many Oscar predictions in such a hurry as “Joker: Folie à Deux” was, it still looked a lot shakier than it was weeks earlier.
That all seemed to change when “Wicked: For Good” finally did a few things “Wicked” did a year ago – namely, make both the NBR and AFI’s top 10 lists, and then get nominated for Best Picture at Critics’ Choice again. If it also makes Best Picture at the Golden Globes this coming Monday, it will hit all four of these major precursors just like “Wicked” and so many other Best Picture nominees in this era did. Surely this is something “Joker: Folie à Deux” never came remotely close to doing, which would seem to make all comparisons between them moot.
But the danger still isn’t over yet, which was especially made clear when the Critics’ Choice snubbed Erivo from Best Actress entirely and only gave “Wicked: For Good” seven overall nominations to “Wicked’s” 11 – further endangering Erivo’s second straight Oscar nomination and making it less likely the film is strong enough to launch Grande’s Supporting Actress win campaign at the Critics’ Choice. Even if it makes the Golden Globes Best Picture Comedy/Musical lineup too, a Best Picture nomination for “Wicked: For Good” will not be a mortal lock like it was when the original “Wicked” did it last year. And although “Wicked: For Good” could still secure a lot of craft nominations, it will now almost surely not come close to the 10 overall nominations “Wicked” got.
Just as in fall 2024, the fall’s first presumed smash sequel to an Oscar-winning predecessor has dramatically underperformed – creatively and, maybe, financially this time – and is not a total lock yet for Best Picture or any other major races, as was assumed in preseason, despite some recent victories. As such, since “Wicked: For Good” could still be a “Joker: Folie à Deux” in the making in some way if further backlash continues, it is time to wonder if that’s a sign “Avatar: Fire and Ash” will follow suit by being a “Gladiator II” in the making next.
After the collapse of “Joker: Folie à Deux,” “Gladiator II” was a sequel to an Oscar winner that at least turned out better by comparison. Yet even with that low bar set, it did not match the reviews or Oscar buzz of its earlier film either. Despite salvaging some critical and fan adoration, a Best Costume Design nomination that eventually lost to “Wicked,” and some brief Oscar buzz for Denzel Washington as its scene-stealing villain, “Gladiator II” still became the second fall 2024 sequel to underperform with pundits and critics, and the second to go from widely picked Oscar contender to afterthought by nomination morning.
Like “Gladiator II,” “Avatar: Fire and Ash” is a visually driven sequel from a blockbuster director whose original film won Oscars and launched a franchise many years later, although “Avatar: Fire and Ash” is actually the second sequel in its franchise. But just as many figured Ridley Scott would repeat the history of “Gladiator” in some ways with “Gladiator II,” the assumption was that James Cameron would repeat history for a second time with a third straight “Avatar” Best Picture nomination.
When screenings for “Avatar: Fire and Ash” started this week, it was easy to assume it would be received at least a little better than “Wicked: For Good” was, just as “Gladiator II” cleared the low bar of “Joker: Folie à Deux.” In a way that proved true, although “Avatar: Fire and Ash” still received a lot of criticism for everything that didn’t have to do with the visuals, even more so than the last two films did. As such, once reviews and scores for “Avatar: Fire and Ash” are finally allowed on December 16th, there’s no guarantee they will go over the low bar of “Wicked: For Good’s” 58 on MetaCritic and 68 percent/6.6 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes, let alone the numbers of the last two “Avatar” movies.
Like past “Joker” and “Wicked” films, the “Avatar” films have never been critical darlings, and are among the lower reviewed Best Picture nominees of their years and eras. Yet big box office and audience adoration made them crossover hits and major Oscar nominees anyway. With that track record and the same creative team returning, it was once more easy to think “Avatar: Fire and Ash” would do what the earlier films did all over again. But those same assumptions collapsed for “Joker: Folie à Deux” and “Gladiator II” in short order last year, were seemingly collapsing for “Wicked: For Good,” and didn’t look very promising after “Avatar: Fire and Ash’s” first reactions either.
And yet, like with “Wicked: For Good,” NBR and AFI both gave “Avatar: Fire and Ash” a lifeline that it didn’t provide any 2024 fall sequel. NBR did put “Gladiator II” in its top 10 in 2024, but once AFI didn’t do the same, and then the Critics’ Choice and Golden Globes followed suit, its fate was all but sealed then and there. Now, like “Gladiator II,” “Avatar: Fire and Ash” also missed the Critics’ Choice top 10 and is all but sure to miss the Golden Globes as well, putting it that much closer to a “Gladiator II” like downward trajectory.
“Joker: Folie à Deux” and “Gladiator II” were both Oscar season cautionary tales and debatably creative cautionary tales as well, while some critics and disappointed fans have already argued “Wicked: For Good” is one as well, and will probably say the same for “Avatar: Fire and Ash” too. However, not a whole lot of people, even the negative reviewers, have deemed “Wicked: For Good” a “Joker: Folie à Deux” level kind of catastrophe and tarnish on its predecessor’s legacy, although many might say it isn’t far off – and maybe that will be the same for “Avatar: Fire and Ash” soon.
Maybe such faint praise is giving awards voters enough leeway to hand them a free pass so far, or perhaps they just want to take it easy this season and check off things they already voted for before, instead of being curious or daring enough to champion something different on the bubble. Or maybe once more negative word spreads on both sequels closer to voting time, it will catch up to them in ways it didn’t to the earlier films and endanger them then.
Up until the NBR, AFI and Critics Choice, fall 2025 was an all too close carbon copy of fall 2024 – right down to one musical sequel about a famed villain turned antihero getting much less love from critics, another lower regarded sequel to an Oscar winner on its heels, and even another sequel to a Disney animated megahit from 2016 out as well on Thanksgiving. But even if “Wicked: For Good” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash” are luckier thus far than the misguided sequels from 12 months ago, does it necessarily mean they won’t have the exact same ending this season anyway?
So what do you think? Between “Wicked: For Good” and “Avatar: Fire and Ash,” which one do you think will be in Best Picture? One of them? Both of them? Neither of them? 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
