An ever-so-desperate industry is trying to kickstart another “Barbenheimer” phenomenon this fall. Good luck with that. It ain’t happening.
“Wicked,” based on the popular Broadway musical, will now be sharing a release date with Ridley Scott’s “Gladiator II” on November 22, which has somewhat gained traction on social media. What will it be called? The consensus seems to be “Wickiator.” Just ask The San Francisco Chronicle, Rolling Stone, IGN, Vanity Fair and Polygon. They’re all in.
There’s a myriad of reasons why this double-bill campaign won’t work. Firstly, there’s still some doubting whether “Wicked” will even be a success. Originally a best-selling novel, it was turned into a Tony award-winning Broadway play, but the NYC theater scene doesn’t represent populist moviegoing.
Secondly, both films are being released in November, which isn’t peak season for moviegoing, unlike “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” getting prime dates in July, the most profitable month for Hollywood at the box-office.
It doesn’t help that the trailers for both “Wicked” and “Gladiator II” have had their fair share of detractors. I already tackled the issues plaguing the “Gladiator II” trailer, but, quite honestly, the reactions to the “Wicked” trailer haven’t been any better. The Super Bowl trailer garnered more dislikes than likes.
To my eyes, at least, “Wicked” plays like bad camp with terrible CGI. Even worse, they’ve decided to split this movie into two parts. Also, why is the trailer 3 minutes and 30 seconds? The whole story, beat by beat, is given away. There’s no intrigue.
Then there’s Paul Mescal, star of “Gladiator II,” having clearly not gotten the “Wickiator” memo prepared for him and telling Entertainment Tonight that his “preference would probably be ‘Glicked’ because “Wickdiator” doesn’t really roll off the tongue.”
It never crossed Mescal’s mind that “Wickdiator” is not what the overlords are currently promoting as the next moviegoing fad, it’s “Wickiator.” This whole thing is D.O.A.