According to the Wall Street Journal, "Wicked" Parts One and Two cost $320 million ($160 million per film). Both parts were shot back-to-back.

I’m not a fan in the slightest but someone else said that the stage production omits a lot of stuff from what is written in the books. If that is true then there’s a possibility that the film(s) could be an expanded version… but it’s probably just a cash grab.

It's probably not going to flop.

Wicked is one of the most popular Broadway musicals of all time. There's been a lot of marketing for this film, and on other non-Fediverse social media platforms there's been a lot of buzz and genuine excitement for this.

It'll probably break even on the first film's gross alone; Part Two's gross will be pure profit.

I can, but only when it makes sense.

It made sense for Dune, where the story is too vast to tell in one movie of reasonable length. Lawrence of Arabia proved that it is possible, but also that it's not easy.

This was a stage production, which you watch in one sitting, with intermission, more than likely.

In this adaptation, that intermission will be longer than half an hour. Way longer.

I have no hope that it will turn out to be a good adaptation.

I did ask for it. Not holding my breath thou.

Also I wanted a series, could have been a 1 or 2 season arch and then Netflix or whoever could flail off into other characters and deeper cannon and non-cannon lore, and I would have had my fill and moved on.

Musicals are massively popular. People go to them to get drunk and sing along too loud, and maybe have a fight.

Right, because people are only allowed to do anything if they have been explicitly asked beforehand to do it

That reminds me, please provide evidence that someone asked you to write this comment