Wicked stars Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo’s paycheques

Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo have double billing for the Wicked movie – so how much were they paid?

Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo both earn top billing the hit movie musical Wicked – and movie studio Universal has been forced to deny reports that they got paid very different amounts for their respective roles of Glinda the Good Witch and Elphaba, the Wicked Witch of the West.

Multipleoutlets this week reported that Grande, making her lead role film debut, was paid $US15 million for her role in the movie. That’s 15 times as much as Erivo’s rumoured pay cheque of $US1 million.

However, a spokesperson from Wicked’s film studio Universal insists that the two stars were actually paid the same amount.

“Reports of pay disparity between Cynthia and Ariana are completely false and based on internet fodder. The women received equal pay for their work on Wicked,” a Universal spokesperson said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. ⁠

Cynthia Erivo (left) and Ariana Grande in Wicked.

The original reports of each key cast member’s salary also claimed that several supporting cast members reportedly also earned bigger paycheques than Erivo for their smaller roles: Michelle Yeoh and Jeff Goldblum were rumoured to have been paid $US2 million each to play Madame Morrible and the Wizard of Oz respectively.

Another of the film’s key supporting cast members, British actor Jonathan Bailey, was reported to have been paid $US450,000 to play love interest Fiyero.

Wicked is already a confirmed box office smash, raking in more than $10.3 million here in Australia during its first five days in cinemas. In the US, it has scored the biggest box office debut for a musical adaptation in history: $US114 million in the US in its opening weekend.

The two leads were rumoured to have been paid vastly different salaries. Picture: VALERIE MACON / AFP

Among the adulation, Wicked director Jon M. Chu has hit back at one common complaint of the new film, after an interviewer queried the “desaturated” colour palette of his version of Oz.

Some have complained about the somewhat muted colours on show in the movie, particularly compared to the technicolour palette of 1939’s original The Wizard of Oz film.

In a new interview for The Globe and Mail, journalist Radheyan Simonpillai asks Chu about the “aesthetic” of the film, noting that “Wicked is a little desaturated” compared to the “glorious technicolour” of The Wizard of Oz.

Chu didn’t necessarily agree with that observation.

Some have criticised the film for its relatively muted colour palette.

“I mean, there’s colour all over it. I think what we wanted to do was immerse people into Oz, to make it a real place. Because if it was a fake place, if it was a dream in someone’s mind, then the real relationships and the stakes that these two girls are going through wouldn’t feel real,” he said.

However, Chu’s explanation has been met with opposition from some who’ve watched the film.

One person on X called it an “absolute nothing burger response,” insisting that “the film needs to be much more colourful in part two.”

The second Wicked film, which will cover act two of the original Broadway musical, is due out at the same time next year.