A hideous day for ‘Wicked: For Good’

OSCAR NOMINATIONS

- MARY MCNAMARA

ARIANA Grande, left, and Cynthia Erivo in “Wicked: For Good,” which received no Oscar nominations.

(GILES KEYTE Universal Pictures)

The sequel was pretty great and deserved way better than zero Oscar nominations.

Was it the “Wicked: For Good” limited-edition Swiffer? Or the laundry detergent, dish soap, body spray, Dutch ovens, bath bombs, high-tops, $49 popcorn buckets, insulated water bottles and the rest of the licensed (and unlicensed) merchandise/special menus/cocktails that relentlessly turned the world pink and green for months on end?

It could have been the endless memes, popups, interviews and media blitz, all promising that the second film in the “Wicked” franchise would be even better than the first.

More likely it was the reviews, which, with a few notable exceptions (including the one from Times film critic Amy Nicholson), announced in tones that ranged from mildly disappointed to “Kill the Witch” scathing, that this was very much not the case.

An opinion seemingly backed up by the precipitous second-week drop off at the box office.

Whatever the reason, academy voters made it clear Thursday that they are 100% over Jon M. Chu’s vision of Oz. Where “Wicked” received 10 Oscar nominations, “Wicked: For Good” got zero.

Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road indeed.