{"id":154402,"date":"2025-11-26T19:29:10","date_gmt":"2025-11-26T19:29:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/154402\/"},"modified":"2025-11-26T19:29:10","modified_gmt":"2025-11-26T19:29:10","slug":"are-ariana-grandes-oscar-chances-locked-up-for-good-history-says-it-might-be","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/154402\/","title":{"rendered":"Are Ariana Grande’s Oscar Chances Locked Up For Good? History Says It Might Be"},"content":{"rendered":"

Not many pundits expected \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c to score much higher than \u201cWicked\u2019s<\/a>\u201c 73 on MetaCritic and 7.8 average critics\u2019 rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Yet something equal to or only slightly lower than those scores was expected to be enough to help, or at least not hurt, Ariana Grande as the likely favorite for Best Supporting Actress this time. But now that the \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c reviews have not been favorable, Grande\u2019s most significant obstacle may not be another Zoe Saldana-like challenger, or even current contenders like Teyana Taylor, Amy Madigan, and others from \u201cSentimental Value<\/a>\u201c and \u201cMarty Supreme<\/a>,\u201c but her own movie instead.<\/p>\n

With \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c only scoring 58 on Metacritic and 70% with a 6.7 average critics\u2019 rating on Rotten Tomatoes after its opening weekend, Grande has no choice but to try to join a very lucky group of Oscar winners. In the expanded ballot era, only eight other actors have won with movies as low or lower reviewed than \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>,\u201c though some had the same advantages Grande hopes to have, while others had far more of a leg up.<\/p>\n

These are the acting winners who had the least amount of help from their films since 2009 \u2013 a group Grande will be stuck in if she defeats \u201cWicked: For Good\u2019s<\/a>\u201c critics as well.<\/p>\n

Anne Hathaway (2012 Best Supporting Actress winner) for \u201cLes Mis\u00e9rables\u201c \u2013 63 on MetaCritic, 70%\/7.0 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes\"\"This is by far the biggest parallel \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>,\u201c and Grande can draw inspiration from. \u201cLes Mis\u00e9rables<\/a>\u201c was also a fall\/winter big screen musical from Universal Pictures, was also based on a massive Broadway hit that was always loved by audiences more than critics, also had a show and movie widely considered to have peaked at intermission, made a ton at the box office to drown out critics just like \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c hopes to do, and also had a Supporting Actress frontrunner who rose from teen star to serious actress and aimed to win the Oscar with her second nomination.<\/p>\n

Of course, as so many have and will keep pointing out, \u201cLes Mis\u00e9rables<\/a>\u201d wasn\u2019t split into two parts, and Hathaway didn\u2019t try to win a part two, unlike \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c and Grande. In addition, Hathaway was only in act one of \u201cLes Mis\u00e9rables<\/a>\u201c before leaving until the final minutes \u2013 ironically, just like Grande\u2019s main competitor in Taylor \u2013 while Grande might well be more of a full-on lead in \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>.\u201c And of course, by the time Hathaway was awarded, she already had a longer big-screen resume and a past nomination for a non-musical film, \u201cRachel Getting Married,\u201cunlike Grande.<\/p>\n

Yet beyond that, \u201cLes Mis\u00e9rables<\/a>\u201c did exactly what \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c has to do now \u2013 use box office, a Best Supporting Actress frontrunner, and a possible lead acting nominee to make its mixed reviews irrelevant, force its way into Best Picture anyway, and at least secure a Supporting Actress win as a collective reward. If that too big to fail Universal musical based on a too big to fail Broadway production could do it for Hathaway, so could this one for Grande \u2013 or so it has to tell itself and voters.<\/p>\n

Octavia Spencer (2011 Best Supporting Actress winner) for \u201cThe Help\u201c \u2013 62 on MetaCritic, 75%\/7.0 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes\"\"The year before Hathaway won, another Best Supporting Actress winner prevailed for a movie that had big box office but fewer critical raves. However, \u201cThe Help<\/a>\u201c was a racial comedy\/drama rather than a musical, was released in late summer, and featured a Supporting Actress leader who wasn\u2019t a musical star or A-lister beforehand. In that regard, perhaps Spencer\u2019s example doesn\u2019t apply to Grande as Hathaway\u2019s does.<\/p>\n

Still, like \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c hopes to do, \u201cThe Help<\/a>\u201c received nominations in both actress categories to bolster its strength. Yet unlike with \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c and \u201cLes Mis\u00e9rables<\/a>,\u201c Spencer was not the only nominee in her category from \u201cThe Help<\/a>,\u201c though she avoided vote-splitting with co-star Jessica Chastain. Given that Spencer won despite \u201cThe Help\u2019s<\/a>\u201c reviews without Grande\u2019s kind of star power, pre-existing fame, or previous nomination, it might well be a more impressive feat \u2013 and might well show how Grande could have it easier by comparison.<\/p>\n

Brendan Fraser (2022 Best Actor winner) for \u201cThe Whale\u201c \u2013 60 on MetaCritic, 64%\/6.6 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes\"TheThis could be an example Grande has to take inspiration from, should \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c actually fall out of the Best Picture lineup completely. As the only Best Actor winner for a film that missed Best Picture since 2009, Fraser is a special exemption from many Oscar trends, with narratives that Grande can\u2019t exactly match.<\/p>\n

As a \u201ccomeback\u201c success story with Oscar-winning prosthetics, Fraser managed to overcome being in a very divisive tearjerker. While that divisiveness and backlash for the rest of the movie cost it a Best Picture nomination, it still had a Best Makeup and Hairstyling win in the bank for Fraser to build on. And like \u201cLes Mis\u00e9rables<\/a>\u201c and \u201cThe Help<\/a>\u201c did, and \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c is still hoping to do, \u201cThe Whale<\/a>\u201c had an additional acting nominee, Hong Chau, to ensure Fraser wasn\u2019t carrying the movie and overcoming it alone.<\/p>\n

Grande obviously doesn\u2019t have Fraser\u2019s resume, makeup, and prosthetic controversy. Nonetheless, in the absolute worst-case scenario that \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c misses Best Picture, \u201cThe Whale<\/a>\u201c will be one of the few things she can point to as precedent that not all hope may be lost from it.<\/p>\n

Joaquin Phoenix (2019 Best Actor winner) for \u201cJoker\u201c \u2013 59 on MetaCritic, 68%\/7.3 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes\"\"This is another example of how the massive box office can speak louder to Oscar voters than far less impressed critics. In a way, Phoenix doing this for \u201cJoker<\/a>\u201c was even more unprecedented, since he did it for a comic book movie \u2013 a far darker than average comic book movie \u2013 than a more awards-baity Broadway musical adaptation or a civil rights drama. Yet \u201cJoker<\/a>\u201c first got legitimacy by playing at and winning the Venice Film Festival, whereas \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c famously skipped festivals and didn\u2019t play for many actual critics until this past week.<\/p>\n

Of course, Phoenix had already been a three-time Oscar nominee and was riding personal \u201coverdue\u201c and \u201ctransformation\u201cnarratives, none of which Grande can use. In addition, \u201cJoker<\/a>\u201c crossed $1 billion worldwide, whereas \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c has a long way to go to reach that milestone, especially after the original \u201cWicked<\/a>\u201c topped out at over $750 million.<\/p>\n

\u201cJoker<\/a>\u201c was attacked by critics for a far different tone and wider ambitions than \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c had \u2013 and for all the changes \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c made from its source material, it is nowhere near as radical an adaptation as \u201cJoker<\/a>.\u201c Once \u201cJoker<\/a>\u201c took off with specific audiences and prospective voters, it and Phoenix were unstoppable, no matter the backlash, but \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c has not started that strong yet.<\/p>\n

Jessica Chastain (2021 Best Actress winner) for \u201cThe Eyes of Tammy Faye\u201c \u2013 55 on MetaCritic, 67%\/6.6 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes\"\"In a way, this is the furthest thing from a parallel to Grande and \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>,\u201c given that \u201cThe Eyes of Tammy Faye<\/a>\u201c was an outright box office flop when it came and went from theaters in September 2021. However, that didn\u2019t matter in a muddled pandemic year like 2021, where standard rules and trends didn\u2019t apply, and every other Best Actress nominee alongside Chastain had a film that missed Best Picture, too.<\/p>\n

If only thanks to \u201cOne Battle After Another<\/a>\u201c and \u201cSentimental Value<\/a>,\u201c if not \u201cMarty Supreme<\/a>\u201c too, Grande won\u2019t have such a field to breeze past. Chastain also benefited from being far more \u201coverdue\u201c like Phoenix, and from being in a film that did win Best Makeup and Hairstyling for her prosthetics like Fraser\u2019s. All of this was enough for a small movie with worse reviews and far fewer Oscar prospects than \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c currently has, so in that context, Grande is in a much better opening position.<\/p>\n

Sandra Bullock (2009 Best Actress winner) for \u201cThe Blind Side\u201c \u2013 53 on MetaCritic, 66%\/6.3 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes\"\"Like \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>,\u201d \u201cThe Blind Side<\/a>\u201c opened around Thanksgiving, made a lot of money, and received negative reviews and backlash. Yet it still stole a Best Picture nomination and then an acting win, although whereas Grande was a preseason favorite, Bullock came out of nowhere as a potential winner and won barely anything at all that season until SAG.<\/p>\n

Of course, like most everyone else on this list, Bullock had much more of a big screen resume and movie star power in 2009 than Grande has as a movie star in 2025. Since \u201cThe Blind Side<\/a>\u201c was her first nomination, she wasn\u2019t as overdue as Phoenix or Chastain. Still, it marked a considerable elevation from box-office draw to Oscar-worthy actress, like \u201cLes Mis\u00e9rables<\/a>\u201c was for Hathaway. If \u201cThe Blind Side<\/a>\u201c could do that for her and get into Best Picture with far worse reviews, \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201d wouldn\u2019t seem to have as hard a time ahead with Grande.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Meryl Streep (2011 Best Actress winner) for \u201cThe Iron Lady\u201c \u2013 52 on MetaCritic, 51%\/5.7 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes\"TheThere is no reason a movie like \u201cThe Iron Lady<\/a>\u201c should have propelled anyone to an acting win. While it did win Best Makeup and Hairstyling for the prosthetics on its award-winning lead, like so many on this list, it had nothing else in its favor on the surface \u2013 not box office and certainly not reviews. And yet, as with so many other things, this did not apply to Meryl Streep, especially after she had waited 29 years for her third Oscar.<\/p>\n

Streep\u2019s win is still one of the least regarded acting wins of this era, but it made sense at the time because Streep was playing a real-life world leader. Since pretty much no one else could get away with that for a movie this lowly rated and received, it\u2019s not exactly something Grande can or needs to do either.<\/p>\n

Rami Malek (2018 Best Actor winner) for \u201cBohemian Rhapsody\u201c \u2013 49 on MetaCritic, 60%\/6.1 average rating on Rotten Tomatoes\"\"When it comes to Metacritic, \u201cBohemian Rhapsody<\/a>\u201c is the lowest-rated movie of this era, if not of all time, to have an Oscar-winning performance anyway. Like \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>,\u201c it is technically a musical of sorts, albeit a biopic of a famous musician. It also grossed over a billion worldwide despite the objections of scathing reviewers, countless offended Freddie Mercury fans, and countless others offended by Bryan Singer\u2019s involvement. Yet over the most heated backlash and mockery, Oscar voters made it a point of pride or spite to give it still the most Oscar wins of 2018, including one for its leading man.<\/p>\n

Malek, like Grande, was mainly famous in another medium \u2013 in his case, as an Emmy-winning TV lead \u2013 before making his first leap into the big screen and getting Oscar buzz. Like Grande, he performed songs beloved for decades, though Malek mostly had to lip-sync Mercury and Queen\u2019s famous ballads. Yet he was virtually the only thing to escape \u201cBohemian Rhapsody\u2019s<\/a>\u201c endless waves of wrath from critics \u2013 at least until he started winning major awards \u2013 just as Grande is one of at least two things to escape the early \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c wrath thus far.<\/p>\n

No matter how much worse \u201cWicked: For Good<\/a>\u201c fares with critics and disappointed fans, it shouldn\u2019t get to the \u201cBohemian Rhapsody<\/a>\u201c level of bad. But it might not reach its box-office level, or overall Oscar wins either \u2013 whether that puts a win for Grande in any further trouble than it\u2019s already fallen into lately.<\/p>\n

So what do you think? Do you think Ariana Grande can still win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress after being a favorite so early in the season? She\u2019ll likely still be nominated but how do you think this race is going to go down? Please let us know in the comments section below and on Next Best Picture\u2019s X account<\/a> and check out the team\u2019s latest Oscar predictions here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

You can follow Robert and hear more of his thoughts on the Oscars & Film on X @Robertdoc1984<\/a><\/p>\n