“Wicked: For Good” released Nov. 21, 2025, grossed over $520M worldwide but was shut out of the 2026 Oscar nominations despite the first film’s 10 nods. (Image Courtesy of MSN)
Alexia: Hi! I’m Alexia Bailey, a sophomore here at CU Boulder. While I may just be in my second year, I’m here to share everything I’ve picked up so far, which is a surprising amount of information. “What’s Eating at Alexia” is my unofficial and unfiltered guide to some of the things that being a CU Boulder Buff brings. Think of it as your guide to navigating everything that makes CU Boulder, well, CU Boulder. Whether you’re a freshman finding your footing or a senior with “no body, no crime” level grievances about finals week, I’m here to share my takes, tips and honest observations on everything from the sometimes-unpredictable Buff Bus system to navigating campus protests (or dodging them entirely). College is a wild, unforgettable ride, and “What’s eating at Alexia” is here to make sense of some of it, one opinion at a time.
They say no one mourns the wicked, and I’m pretty sure the Oscars don’t either.
Folks, the internet is positively abuzz with the release of the Oscar nominations and the complete and utter lack of “Wicked: For Good (2025)” in every major and minor category. For a film that dominated box offices, making $523.5 million globally in its first nine weeks, its masterful soundtracks and powerfully beautiful costuming, and its invisibility on the Academy’s list feels less like an oversight and more like a statement. Somehow, in a year obsessed with spectacle, star power and nostalgia, the green-skinned phenomenon that had everyone singing in their cars was left standing in the rain.
And let’s be clear: this isn’t about hurt feelings from theater kids (though there are many, and they are loud). This is about a pattern the Academy has perfected over decades. They reward safe prestige while quietly sidelining the very genres that move mass audiences. Musicals, especially ones led by women or with spectacle or fantasy, are treated like guilty pleasures rather than serious cinema. Enjoy them, sure. Celebrate them at the box office. But when awards season rolls around, pretend they were never invited to the party. The irony, of course, is delicious. A story literally about how history erases inconvenient women is itself being erased.
It’s no secret that period dramas, British-produced films and films addressing important social concerns or historical events are among the genres that the Academy frequently honors. I mean, if we look at the lineup of nominees for Best Picture, it includes science fiction treasures like “Bugonia” and “Frankenstein,” heartbreaks such as “Hamnet” and “Train Dreams,” and prestigious, director-driven, adult dramas such as “Marty Supreme,” “One Battle After Another,” “The Secret Agent,” “Sentimental Value,” “Sinners” and “F1.” What’s striking is not that these films were nominated—many of them deserve the recognition—but how narrow the definition of “deserving” still is. Even in a year that boasts science fiction and romance, the unifying thread is seriousness. Gravitas. Restraint. Films that signal their importance in hushed tones. I mean, how many brand deals have you seen of “Bugonia” or “One Battle After Another”? And then there is “Wicked: For Good,” a film that seemingly refuses subtlety. It is loud. It is emotional. It is unapologetically theatrical. It wears its heart, its politics and its pink and green on its sleeve. And for that, it is treated as commercial noise rather than cultural text.
Last year, at the 97th Academy Awards, “Wicked (2024)” received ten Oscar nominations, winning two for costume and production design, according to IMDb. Many weren’t concerned by the lack of wins, expecting the second film to sweep the award season the following year. However, it’s the following year, and…nothing.
I think that the Academy is out of touch and needs to remember that the story of “Wicked” is not just a musical. It is a story about propaganda, about institutional power and about how history is edited by those who benefit from the edit. It is about how women who disrupt systems are branded as villains, while those who comply are crowned and canonized. To dismiss that as frivolous while rewarding yet another parade of tortured men is ironic and a little bit too much nose.
Now, I am not saying that because “Wicked” and “Wicked: For Good” engage with these themes, they should automatically be showered with nominations. I get that. Awards are not participation trophies. Not every commercially successful film deserves a gold statue, and not every politically resonant story is well told. Craft still matters. Execution still matters. Taste still matters. But here is where the rebuttal begins. Because the argument is not that the film was entitled to win. The argument is that it was not even allowed to compete.
When a film of this scale, this craftsmanship and this cultural reach is excluded wholesale—not a single nomination, not even a courtesy nod—that is no longer about taste. In fact, let’s go ahead and talk about “craft” and “taste,” since those are supposedly the Academy’s northern stars. This is a film with world-class production design, costuming that does narrative work, vocal performances executed live, large-scale choreography, and a score that carries character, politics and plot simultaneously. These are not accidents. These are not shortcuts. These are disciplines the Academy claims to value, until they appear inside a musical. And might I say that is quite the double standard. When a war film moves us, it is profound. When a courtroom drama confronts power, it is brave. When a musical does the same thing with melody and movement, it is dismissed as entertainment. So, my rebuttal is not “you owe ‘Wicked’ awards.” The rebuttal is that “you owe it serious consideration.”
There is also a gendered undercurrent that’s hard to ignore. Female ambition is still coded as excess. Female friendship as a niche. Female rage as melodrama. When men brood, it is art. When women sing, it is a spectacle. Of course, the Academy will insist this is simply a matter of taste. That awards are subjective. That box office success is its own reward. And they’re not wrong. But awards do more than validate egos. They shape the archive. They decide which films are restored, taught, revisited and remembered. They decide what future critics will call “the cinema of this era.” Years from now, when someone looks back at the cultural footprint of this decade, the record may suggest that the most culturally dominant musical of its time barely existed. That the story about erasure was itself erased.
“Wicked: For Good” being snubbed won’t drastically change my life. My life will still consist of admiring the newly reconstructed Hellems building and mourning the lack of food options at the University Memorial Center. However, the “Wicked” franchise taught me how to love a musical in a way that “Hamilton” could never. “Wicked” is female-led, it’s beautiful, and it shows its teeth. And might I add that, unlike “Hamilton,” it actually passes the Bechdel test.
So, they say that no one mourns the wicked. But every awards season, the Academy proves something else: no one mourns the joyful, the fantastical or the women who dare to be loud until history has already made up its mind, and that’s a damn shame.
Contact CU Independent Opinion Editor Alexia Bailey at alexia.bailey@colorado.edu
