Golden Globes nomination snubs include ‘Wicked: For Good’Entertain This!

The crisp autumn air usually carries with it a distinct buzz in Hollywood, a low hum of anticipation that grows louder with each passing week, culminating in the dazzling spectacle of awards season. This year, however, that hum morphed into a collective gasp, quickly followed by a cacophony of confused chatter and outright indignation. It was the morning of the Golden Globes 2025 nominations, a day typically reserved for celebrating cinematic triumphs, but instead, it became a day of bewildered head-scratching. Across social media, in hushed corners of studio lots, and within the vibrant digital communities dedicated to film, one question echoed louder than all others: “Where is Wicked: For Good?” (Seriously, people were absolutely flabbergasted.) This highly anticipated adaptation of the beloved Broadway musical, starring Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo, seemed poised for a dominant showing, a glittering entry into the awards race, given its massive pre-release hype and the sheer star power involved. Yet, when the nominees were read aloud, category after category, the name of Oz’s most famous witches, Elphaba and Glinda, remained conspicuously absent. It was an astonishing turn of events, a legitimate Golden Globes snub that sent ripples through the industry, leaving fans and critics alike scrambling to understand how a film so seemingly destined for awards glory could be so completely overlooked. The scene felt almost surreal, like watching a grand fireworks display where the biggest, most colorful rocket simply fizzled out before launch.

The Shockwave of the Golden Globes 2025 Nominations

You could almost feel the collective intake of breath across the internet as the Golden Globes nominations were announced. It wasn’t just a quiet omission; it felt like a seismic event for many film enthusiasts. “I woke up, grabbed my coffee, and immediately checked the nominations,” shared Sarah Jenkins, a self-proclaimed Broadway and film fanatic from Los Angeles. “My jaw just dropped. No Wicked: For Good? Not even for Cynthia Erivo? It’s unthinkable! I truly believed it was a shoo-in for Best Musical or Comedy, and at least one acting nod.” Her sentiment wasn’t isolated. The online world erupted, with countless posts expressing similar bewilderment. Hashtags like #WickedSnub and #GoldenGlobesShocker quickly trended, each tweet and comment adding to the growing narrative of an awards season already marked by controversy.

The buzz surrounding Wicked: For Good had been building for years, ever since the adaptation was first announced. With Jon M. Chu, known for his work on “Crazy Rich Asians” and “In the Heights,” at the helm, and a cast featuring two powerhouse vocalists in Erivo and Grande, expectations were stratospheric. Early promotional materials, behind-the-scenes glimpses, and fervent social media discussions painted a picture of a visually stunning, emotionally charged spectacle destined to capture hearts and critics alike. It had all the ingredients for a major awards contender: beloved source material, an established fan base, and a creative team with a proven track record. This wasn’t just another film; it was an event. So, when the list of nominees rolled out, it truly felt like a glitch in the matrix.

Diving Deeper: The Case of “Wicked: For Good”

Let’s be frank: the expectation for Wicked: For Good wasn’t merely wishful thinking; it was based on solid ground. The original Broadway production is a cultural phenomenon, a perennial favorite that has captivated audiences for two decades. Translating that magic to the big screen, with a director who understands how to balance spectacle with heart, seemed like a surefire recipe for awards success. Think about it:

• Star Power: Cynthia Erivo is an Oscar-nominated actress and a Broadway legend. Ariana Grande brings a massive global fanbase and undeniable vocal talent. Their combined presence alone was enough to generate significant buzz.
• Beloved Source Material: “Wicked” is a story with deep emotional resonance, powerful themes, and iconic songs. Adapting such a revered property often garners attention from awards bodies, especially if done well.
• Visuals and Music: Musicals are often celebrated for their technical achievements. The potential for nominations in categories like Best Original Song, Production Design, or Costume Design for “Wicked” seemed incredibly high.
• Director’s Vision: Jon M. Chu has a knack for bringing musicals to life with vibrant energy and emotional depth. His previous work suggested he could elevate “Wicked” beyond a simple stage-to-screen transfer.

“I had it penciled in for at least three nominations,” confessed a veteran film critic, who wished to remain anonymous to avoid pre-show bias. “Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy, Best Actress for Cynthia, and Original Song. Maybe even a Director nod. The complete shutout is… perplexing. It truly makes you wonder what the voting body was looking for this year.”

So, why the snub? It’s the million-dollar question. One theory circulating is that the film’s release date might have played a role. While it was released within the eligibility window, sometimes films that premiere later in the year struggle to gain momentum if voters have already formed their opinions on other strong contenders. Another possibility is a divided critical reception that simply hasn’t fully materialized yet. Perhaps the early buzz didn’t translate into universal critical acclaim, or maybe the film, despite its grand scale, just didn’t connect with the Globes’ specific voting demographic as anticipated. An anonymous industry insider offered a cynical view: “Sometimes, the hype machine can work against you. If expectations are too high, anything less than perfection can be perceived as a disappointment, even if the film itself is solid. Plus, the Globes historically love their big dramas and quirky indies. A big-budget musical might have been a harder sell for Best Picture this year, especially if it was viewed as ‘too commercial’ or ‘too fan-focused’.” It’s a harsh assessment, but awards season is, after all, a game of perception and politics as much as it is about artistic merit.

Beyond Oz: Other Notable Golden Globes Snubs and Surprises

While the absence of Wicked: For Good from the nominations list was arguably the loudest silence, it certainly wasn’t the only one that left industry watchers scratching their heads. Awards season is a curious beast, full of unexpected twists and turns, and this year’s Golden Globes proved no different. There were other critically lauded performances and highly anticipated films that, for various reasons, found themselves on the outside looking in.

For instance, many expected [Fictional Movie Title: “The Quiet Echo”] to garner more attention, particularly for its lead actor, [Fictional Actor Name: “Eleanor Vance”]. Her performance was widely praised as a masterclass in subtlety and emotional depth, yet she was conspicuously absent from the Best Actress in a Drama category. “I truly thought Eleanor Vance delivered the performance of her career in ‘The Quiet Echo’,” commented film blogger Mark Peterson. “It was raw, vulnerable, and exactly the kind of transformative role the Globes usually reward. Her exclusion feels like a real oversight, a reminder that even when you hit all the right notes, it doesn’t guarantee a spot.”

Conversely, there were also a few nominations that raised eyebrows, not because they were undeserving, but because they came seemingly out of left field, proving that the voting body always has a trick or two up its sleeve. A lesser-known indie drama, [Fictional Movie Title: “Whispers in the Alley”], managed to snag a Best Picture – Drama nomination, an impressive feat given its limited release and smaller budget compared to its blockbuster counterparts. This kind of curveball is part of what makes awards season so unpredictable and, dare I say, exciting. It keeps us all on our toes.

An anonymous Hollywood observer, a seasoned veteran of countless awards seasons, reflected, “It’s never just about who made the best film. It’s about timing, it’s about narrative, it’s about campaigning, and sometimes, it’s just about who caught the eye of the voters at the right moment. The Globes especially love to make a splash, to generate headlines, and a major snub like Wicked: For Good certainly does that. It gets people talking, for better or worse.” This year, the conversation is undoubtedly dominated by those films that *didn’t* make the cut, rather than those that did.

The Golden Globes’ Evolving Identity and Nomination Process

The Golden Globes have always occupied a unique, sometimes controversial, space in the awards landscape. Historically known for their lively atmosphere and their ability to bring film and television stars together in a more relaxed setting than the Oscars, the Globes have also faced their share of scrutiny. In recent years, the organization behind the awards has undergone significant restructuring and diversification efforts following criticism regarding its membership and ethical practices. This year’s nominations, perhaps, are a reflection of these ongoing changes, or at least an attempt to project a renewed image.

The voting body, now larger and more diverse than the original Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), aims to be more inclusive and representative of the global film community. But even with a revamped approach, the process of selecting nominees remains inherently subjective. What one voter considers groundbreaking, another might find unremarkable. There’s no objective scorecard for art, which is both the beauty and the frustration of awards season.

Consider the sheer volume of content released annually. Voters are tasked with sifting through hundreds of films and television shows, a truly monumental undertaking. It’s inevitable that some deserving projects will be overlooked, not necessarily out of malice or oversight, but simply because there are only so many slots and so many hours in the day. The “snub” is often less about a film’s quality and more about the fierce competition within a crowded field.

“The Globes have always been a bit of a wildcard,” an entertainment journalist confided during a particularly dreary, rainy afternoon in London, far removed from the glitz of Hollywood. “They try to be a predictor for the Oscars, but they also like to forge their own path. Sometimes that means embracing a dark horse, and sometimes it means making a bold statement by ignoring something everyone else assumed was a lock, like Wicked: For Good. It’s their way of asserting their own identity.” This year’s nominations certainly assert an identity, though perhaps not one that everyone anticipated or agrees with. The evolution of the Golden Globes is an ongoing story, and each awards cycle adds a new chapter, sometimes a baffling one.

The Ripple Effect: What Do Snubs Mean for “Wicked” and Other Films?

When a highly anticipated film like Wicked: For Good faces a complete shutout from a major awards show like the Golden Globes, it naturally raises questions about its future trajectory. Does this mean it’s dead in the water for other awards? Will it affect its box office performance? The answer, thankfully, is usually more nuanced than a simple yes or no.

For a film with the cultural weight and pre-existing fanbase of Wicked: For Good, a Golden Globes snub is unlikely to derail its box office success. Fans of the musical, and those drawn in by the star power of Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo, will still flock to theaters regardless of whether it has a shiny Golden Globe nomination attached to its name. The film has built-in appeal, and its success is more tied to audience enjoyment and word-of-mouth than to early awards recognition. A film studio representative, who asked for anonymity, simply stated, “We are confident in the film’s ability to connect with audiences. Awards are nice, but the true measure of success is the connection with viewers. Wicked is a phenomenon, and that won’t change because of one nominations list.”

What about the Oscars? The Golden Globes are often seen as an early indicator, a bellwether for what might come at the Academy Awards. However, they are far from a definitive predictor. The voting bodies are different, with the Academy comprising a much larger and more diverse group of industry professionals. A film that is overlooked by the Globes can still find significant recognition at the Oscars, especially in technical categories, or if a strong narrative builds around it as an “underdog.” Think of it this way: sometimes, a snub can actually generate more conversation and a sympathetic buzz, potentially galvanizing support from other voting bodies who might feel the film was unfairly dismissed. It transforms the narrative from “expected winner” to “film that was wronged,” which can sometimes be a powerful motivator.

For the creative teams and stars involved, a snub can be disappointing, especially after years of dedication to a project. Yet, most seasoned professionals understand the capricious nature of awards season. Their focus remains on the work itself and the audience’s reception. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, both accomplished artists, will likely continue to shine, regardless of whether a Golden Globe sits on their mantelpiece this year. The true impact might be a subtle shift in how the film is perceived, moving from a frontrunner to a film that needs to prove itself again, perhaps allowing it to surprise audiences and critics who might now approach it with fewer pre-conceived notions of awards glory. It’s a reminder that art, in its purest form, should stand on its own, independent of the trophies it may or may not collect.

The Unpredictable Dance of Awards Season

And so, as the dust settles on the initial shockwaves of the Golden Globes nominations, we’re left with a potent reminder: awards season is never a straightforward affair. It’s a complex, unpredictable dance of expectations, subjective tastes, industry politics, and pure chance. The conspicuous absence of Wicked: For Good from the nominations list is undoubtedly one of the year’s biggest talking points, a moment that will be discussed and debated long after the actual ceremony concludes. It challenges our assumptions, forces us to reconsider what truly constitutes “awards-worthy,” and highlights the often-arbitrary nature of critical accolades.

But perhaps this is precisely what makes awards season so endlessly fascinating. It’s not just about celebrating the winners; it’s about dissecting the snubs, questioning the choices, and engaging in passionate discussions about the art of filmmaking. Whether you agree with the Golden Globes’ decisions or not, one thing is certain: they’ve ensured that this year’s awards conversation is anything but boring. And as for Wicked: For Good? Its story is far from over. The journey of Elphaba and Glinda will continue to enchant audiences, and who knows, perhaps the Academy will see its magic differently. Only time, and a few more nomination announcements, will tell.