Podcast Summary: The witches of flops? | Why Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth can't succeed on Broadway post WICKED

Podcast: MickeyJoTheatre
Host: Mickey Jo
Date: December 5, 2025

Overview of Episode’s Main Theme

This insightful episode sees Mickey Jo exploring a provocative question in contemporary Broadway: Given their star power from originating the roles of Elphaba and Glinda in Wicked, why have Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth struggled to replicate that same level of Broadway success since 2003? Through a detailed retrospective, Mickey Jo breaks down both stars’ post-Wicked stage careers, contrasts their approaches, analyzes the unique “Wicked effect,” and ponders what conditions must align for true theatrical lightning to strike twice.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The “Wicked” Phenomenon as a Career Catalyst

• In 2003, Wicked catapulted Menzel and Chenoweth to household-name status, creating enormous anticipation for their subsequent returns to Broadway (01:22).
• Yet, a pattern emerges: subsequent musical vehicles crafted around each star fail to reach either commercial or cultural heights comparable to Wicked.

2. Idina Menzel’s Broadway Journey: Before & After Wicked

Examined via three critical metrics: Financial success, cultural significance, and awards recognition.

Before Wicked

• RENT: Massive success (financial, critical, and cultural).
  “Rent in every category across the board was a huge success for Idina Menzel.” (06:14)
• The Wild Party (Lippa, Off-Broadway): Moderate success, some lasting impact.
• Aida (Broadway, as Martneris, replacement): Not especially impactful for her career.

Wicked (2003)

• "Few other performers can aspire to anything even approaching this level of cultural impact and recognition. And not only was she nominated for the Tony, but she went on to win the Tony for playing Elphaba." (13:19)

After Wicked

• See What I Wanna See: Limited impact.
• If/Then (2014): Written as a Menzel vehicle with obvious “Wicked” shadow, but didn’t fully recoup or spawn enduring songs. Menzel nominated for a Tony but did not win.
• Skin Tight (2018, play): Not a musical, little awards/cultural resonance.
• Redwood (2025): Recent return; heavily marketed on her star power, with callbacks to Rent and Wicked, including aerial work. However, the musical failed to earn Tony nominations and didn’t recoup.
  “Unfortunately, beyond Idina Menzel belting while flying around the stage, there is just so much that Wicked and Redwood...did not have in common, namely a compelling narrative.” (16:37)

3. Kristin Chenoweth’s Broadway Journey: Before & After Wicked

Before Wicked

• Steel Pier (small role): Minimal impact, awarded for her debut.
• You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown: Breakout, award-winning, culturally significant.
  “She would win the Tony Award that year as well as every other award that she was nominated for for playing Sally Brown.” (19:15)

Wicked (2003)

• Nominated for Glinda; “one of the most culturally impactful musicals of all time.” (20:03)

After Wicked

• The Apple Tree (revival): Flop, no Tony nom, minimal cultural memory.
• Promises, Promises: Closed early in spite of high expectations.
• On the Twentieth Century: Nominated for Tony (did not win); did win some other awards; strong but not iconic cultural impact.
• The Queen of Versailles (2025): Written for her, but both critical and box office disappointment, plus marred by social media scandal and early closure.
  “...not only has the show been something of a critical disappointment...and an early closing date of January 4th.” (24:25)

4. Why Haven’t “Wicked’s” Stars Repeated Their Success?

• Both have had projects built around their star image, rather than organically suiting narrative needs.

• Marketing challenge: “...does [star power] actually, after that point, get in the way of communicating that story to audiences?” (28:53)

• Elevated expectations—their benchmark is Wicked, a “lightning in a bottle” phenomenon.

• The creative process changes: With fame comes the ability to curate and control, perhaps limiting surprise or serendipity in casting/choice.
  “A part of me would really love to see Idina Menzel do more revivals. A part of me is wondering whether Kristin Chenoweth's best work is always going to be as a standout, brilliant supporting performer rather than a leading lady of a troubled show.” (37:01)

• Missed opportunities: Both workshopped or passed on projects which later became successes with other actors (Thoroughly Modern Millie, Death Becomes Her, Next to Normal).

• The “Wicked effect” may be double-edged: having been defined by an iconic role can make it hard to be seen as anyone else on stage.

5. Broader Trends and Industry Impact

• Now, composers write more roles in the “Elphaba style” (e.g., belty, pop/rock range), but Menzel isn’t pursuing those as much.
• Chenoweth’s talents could have slotted into classic Golden Age revivals, but contemporaries like Kelli O’Hara often took those jobs.
• Both have found massive, lasting success on screen (e.g., Frozen, Glee), thereby confirming their star power even as stage vehicles flounder.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Not only is Wicked inherently sort of just slightly more Elphaba centric, but also she remained attached to the brand of the whole thing for a little longer. She... is the green girl.” —Mickey Jo, (04:13)
• “If you ever listened to more than one girl sing [‘Popular’] within the same hour of performance, then you will know that Kristin Chenoweth has so much to answer for.” —Mickey Jo, (20:31)
• “A part of me would really love to see Idina Menzel do more revivals. A part of me is wondering whether Kristin Chenoweth’s best work is always going to be as a standout, brilliant supporting performer rather than a leading lady of a troubled show.” —Mickey Jo, (37:01)
• “It's hard when that is your benchmark and your expectation to replicate that kind of success.” —Mickey Jo, (36:17)
• “They each have found a thing which for musical theater actors is so, so hard to find, which is true name recognition.” —Mickey Jo, (34:57)

Timestamps for Major Segments

| Timestamp | Segment/Topic | |-----------|---------------| | 01:22 | Opening: Framing the “Wicked Effect” on Idina and Kristin’s careers | | 03:55 | Structure: How the episode’s analysis will proceed | | 04:47–16:31 | Deep dive: Idina Menzel’s pre- and post-Wicked stage successes/failures | | 18:23–25:00 | Deep dive: Kristin Chenoweth’s pre- and post-Wicked stage trajectory | | 27:45 | Why have their shows faltered post-Wicked? (industry, cultural, personal factors) | | 29:45 | What roles and projects might have changed their fortunes? (workshopped/developed but not performed) | | 32:00 | Comparison of their choices: New shows vs. revivals, project curation | | 34:00 | The changing landscape: New “Elphaba style” roles, missed classic opportunities | | 36:17 | Broader reflection: Lighting in a bottle and the reality of career expectations |

Conclusion & Final Thoughts

Mickey Jo concludes that the struggles of Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth to land post-Wicked Broadway hits are due to a complex mix of enormous expectations, typecasting, the perils of star-driven vehicles, evolving industry trends, and plain bad luck. Their ability to cultivate true name recognition and diversify into screen successes is celebrated, but whether they will again capture true Broadway lightning remains an open, tantalizing question. Mickey Jo invites listeners to share their own experiences and opinions, fostering an ongoing, audience-driven theatre discussion.

For further thoughts, feedback, and participation in this vibrant theatrical debate, listeners are encouraged to comment on YouTube or podcast platforms.