I surprisingly found the songs in Tick Tick Boom to be rather catchy and Andrew Garfield’s performance was completely engaging. But yes, had it had a wide theatrical release, it likely would’ve flopped big time.
I know Wicked is a huge name and a huge show, but aside from the fan base, I still don’t even see that adaptation doing overly great. The key takeaway from musicals like Cats and West Side Story (which both had $100M production budgets) to take away going forward imo is to try and make sure the budget stays low. If we know Musicals don't sell initially and nothing is a sure fire hit (as musicals make their money over time, not in one lump sum), don't give them a budget higher than that of Ghostbusters: Afterlife ($75M) and closer to Ant Man and the Wasp than ($130M) to In The Heights ($50M) or Tick Tick Boom ($30M).
The brand is not big enough and the music isn't modern enough, no matter how much you love it Spielberg (even if it is a good film as Spielberg seems to have made). Audiences now want less and less of the Rodgers & Hammerstein, Sondheim, Webber, etc classics. If you want to attract general audiences to watch a musical adaptation, the way to do it is to make it feel less fake and showtime-y and more "real" and have the songs be more modern in style. Lin Manuel Miranda and Benj Pasek & Justin Paul have hit that on the head, both on Broadway and in multiple original movie musicals.
....otherwise, you need to accept that movie musicals without the Disney Brand attached open SUPER low. Even Les Mis only opened to $27.5M (although they really blew casting for that movie) and with as big as Les Mis is, I have to think that's around the ceiling for Wicked.