I did not know that, and it is disappointing to hear.

With a runtime of 160 min I certainly didn't think I was only getting half the musical.

And the back half of the musical is...not the best part of the show...

That really feels like a thing that should be mentioned in the marketing, if not the actual name of the film (ie, Wicked: Part I). I'm less interested in seeing it now.

Yeah, I think it's ridiculous and it does make me unlikely to go out for it (I didn't like the stage show that much!).

(I didn't like the stage show that much!).

See, I did, which is why I went into it somewhat enthusiastically despite the runtime (and the fact I hadn't liked the book very much). Note: My critic friend, who was completely unfamiliar with the various permutations, besides the original Wizard of Oz, liked it quite a bit. Though he was a bit confused when "to be continued" showed up at the end. Given where it ends (just after "Defying Gravity") one can see why. (He hadn't noticed the Part 1 on the opening title card, despite the fact that I pointed to it and said "Oh, fuck...")

I didn't care for the book, and I remember enjoying the stage production but I don't actually remember anything about it so I was figuring on skipping the movie. Knowing it is only Part I is reinforcing that. Probably unfair, but I feel like Dune disappointing me is contributing to that, too

I'm sorry to hear this! It makes me want to skip out too - but the stage show is my *favorite* musical and I've been looking forward to the movie for literal years (when they [whoever "they" is] decided to do "Cats" first, you could have heard my distressed cries in the next town), so I'll suck it up and go still (and go again if they market a sing-along version), but it'll be under protest!

I'm sorry to hear this! It makes me want to skip out too - but the stage show is my *favorite* musical and I've been looking forward to the movie for literal years (when they [whoever "they" is] decided to do "Cats" first, you could have heard my distressed cries in the next town), so I'll suck it up and go still (and go again if they market a sing-along version), but it'll be under protest!

It's not bad! There are pros (Cynthia Erivo, the big solos/duets, the sets and costumes) and cons (cinematography/lighting, the length, the "talk-singing" by Yeoh and Goldblum) and then there's the sticking point for me, which I suspect won't be/isn't a problem for most, namely, Ariana Grande (who turns out to be a better actress than I would have suspected but who plays Glinda as much more of a mean girl than a spoiled girl. It's a fine line to be sure but I think she falls on the wrong side here. Hard to know if that's her or the director, but, given CRA, I'm going with the director. Also, I'm reserving my judgement of Jonathan Bailey until Part 2 (I liked him, but he's not given much to do here.)

tldr: It's no Cats.

I've never read the book or seen the play, but I'm really confused on how they can only cover half of a play in a movie of nearly same length. I also agree that not mentioning the part 1 in any of the marketing is really shitty.

My wife wanted to see it, so we were trying to figure out if we wanted to make it a date night, but it being only half the story really pushes it into wait for video territory for us.

I've never read the book or seen the play, but I'm really confused on how they can only cover half of a play in a movie of nearly same length

IIRC the musical strips a lot from the book, but it has been a long time since I've encountered either so I can't really say what might come from what.

I do have a see-it-in-a-theater rec though. Just got back from Babygirl. It most certainly is not for everyone, but it was worth seeing it in a theater for the audience reactions alone.