Oz: The Great and Powerful - Part 1

[ThePowerCosmic]

Nobody knows what either of you are talking about.

If you can't get a general clue of what we're talking about, that's not our problem to be honest. It's a forum discussion that you are not required to participate in or comprehend

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

I should also state I see this Oz as being much closer, in the end, to the Oz in the books. So it would make perfect sense. That Oz, without the prophecy, sent a little girl, a lion, a scarecrow, and the tin man on a hunt to kill a witch and knew it was a suicide mission. And as to his slightly added in morals - he doesn't necessarily like what he's doing that much, but he knows it's what's needed. And that he can not venture out because he is target #1 and without him everything goes to hell.

And that's why it won't work for a movie. Oz is depicted as heroic in the new movie, and I don't see his character risking the life of a girl unless there was some sort of prophecy to guarantee she was the one meat to destroy the witch. That's another reason why he should intend for scarecrow to watch over Dorothy, so she's not completely alone in a world so alien and dangerous(at the time).

 

[Ultimatehero]

1. Not asking anything, stating that those things I don't see as possible at all in your world. Whereas I've taken them into account to pave way for the book as well as allowing those things to be possible.
2. With groundwork I've created. How Nick is tied into it, then you added the kidnapping element from that; with disputes on whether or not to kill. With the Tin Man representing how fallen apart he's become; with disputes over a magic ax. With the whole Dorothy prophecy and the prophecy changing, which you added because of love. With the scarecrow being set up as a guide to the arriver, which you noticed would also mean no one would be curious of; with disputes about why he doesn't know. With the lion pouncing his way in as to not be connected; with disputes on how cowardly he should be.

Actually, the change there from the novel would be because it would cost him to question what he's been doing and how he's been going about it since he'll now have to do it to a niece of somebody he once loved. And it causes him to have a change in heart. Going from this guy everyone fears because of how everything's impacted him, to going to this guy who cares again. He is put through a tail-spin in the second act and has to find his way back from that. Thematically just like the Tin Man has to find a way back from where he is. It's about these characters who have been broken down, start falling apart - making not the best decisions in their own supposed interest, and with this little girl find their way back again. Characters who think they're lacking something because they keep on ignoring it, only to find that it's still there with them because of this little girl. It thematically ties their arcs together into a unified whole. I see Oz's mind by the time the third film starts as rusted out as Tin Man as self-deprecating as the Scarecrow and as fierce "fight, not flight" as the lion.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

1. Not asking anything, stating that those things I don't see as possible at all in your world.
2. With groundwork I've created. How Nick is tied into it, then you added the kidnapping element from that; with disputes on whether or not to kill. With the Tin Man representing how fallen apart he's become; with disputes over a magic ax. With the whole Dorothy prophecy and the prophecy changing, which you added because of love. With the scarecrow being set up as a guide to the arriver, which you noticed would also mean no one would be curious of; with disputes about why he doesn't know.

Actually, it's because it would cost him to question what he's been doing and how he's been going about it. And it causes him to have a change in heart. Going from this guy everyone fears because of how everything's impacted him, to going to this guy who cares again. He is put through a tail-spin in the second act and has to find his way back from that. Thematically just like the Tin Man has to find a way back from where he is. It's about these characters who have been broken down, start falling apart making not the best decisions in their own supposed interest, and with this little girl find their way back again. It thematically ties their arcs together.

You proposed Nick being involved, and I agreed. You then explained the character from the book and I also agreed with how great that was. Then I went my own way with how the character should be handled, if you don't remember it's back in the first part of the thread. Everything that you have proposed, I have offered a version of that from my perspective. I've also been having ideas about this you haven't been mentioning. It's really all there in the first part.

Oh, I see. In that case:

All I'm basically doing is looking at what kind of regime this would be to explain:

1) Why munchkins are celebrating and throwing a festival beside the entrance to the yellow brick road when Dorothy arrives. This would still happen when Dorothy first arrives and kills Evanora(which would be the reason the munchkins are celebrating). Nothing is stopping that.
2) Why the Scarecrow has been set up somewhere along the way of the yellow brick road by two ordinary folk. Of course that would not be explained, since I have chosen not to go that route of two ordinary folk making him.
3) Why Dorothy is the only one in that dungeon. Dorothy can be easily split apart from the rest of the gang. Things like that do happen.
4) Why nobody knows Oz is a man any longer. He can still use the big head illusion, I never said I didn't want him to since he even does a version of it in the new movie. I'm saying he won't be using it to force people to do his bidding.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Those are the only things I actually remember, unless they were small nuisances which didn't catch my attention that much.

2) That tells me critical aspects about the environment and type of regime the witch has. That this would be sticking true to.

3) I'm offering a reason why it's like that rather than "it happens."

4) And again, another area where we disagree. Since thematically, I've already found a way that connects all of these characters and their arcs together which is essential. But, agree to disagree. To me after the second film, Oz should have to find his way back after the damage that caused to him - just like the journey for every single character in the third film would be a goal of "returning back when it's already inside of them, just lost."

 

[chaseter]

If you can't get a general clue of what we're talking about, that's not our problem to be honest. It's a forum discussion that you are not required to participate in or comprehend

I don't think anyone comprehends the level of made up scenarios you two are arguing about non stop. This is a First Class / X3 level of bending over backwards argument to try and force continuity where there may not or should not be continuity. I can't believe I just saw two people arguing about a Munchkin greeting party.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

I don't think anyone comprehends the level of made up scenarios you two are arguing about non stop. This is a First Class / X3 level of bending over backwards argument to try and force continuity where there may not or should not be continuity. I can't believe I just saw two people arguing about a Munchkin greeting party.

No one is arguing over this. It's a typical forum debate where we discuss hypothetical situations. Nothing different from normal forum stuff, so don't act like it is.

 

[chaseter]

Are you F5ing this thread?

 

[Ultimatehero]

I don't think anyone comprehends the level of made up scenarios you two are arguing about non stop. This is a First Class / X3 level of bending over backwards argument to try and force continuity where there may not or should not be continuity. I can't believe I just saw two people arguing about a Munchkin greeting party.

Especially since the worlds and events in both heads are completely different. I feel like this is round about. Because I've already explained that this is the EXACT reason why there are adaptations that are so different from one another. Not everyone thinks the same way. I can't clearly see the other world, and mine can't clearly be seen either. And it doesn't help having all of these flying strands that branched off that can not be seen on both sides. As said, I'm not saying that in a good or bad way (which I think it's being seen as). In a "neutral" way since it doesn't align with my head because it's like trying to force an idea into an already built one to try to examine it which is giving me a head ache like Raimi trying to watch 'The Amazing Spider-Man' way too soon. Which I've already said - I can't do. Basically, getting tired of talking in these neutral circles. I can't comment on it in a good or bad way, not out of disrespect or anything other than it's so concrete at this point it can't get through.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Those are the only things I actually remember, unless they were small nuisances which didn't catch my attention that much.

2) That tells me critical aspects about the environment and type of regime the witch has. That this would be sticking true to.

3) I'm offering a reason why it's like that rather than "it happens."

4) And again, another area where we disagree. Since thematically, I've already found a way that connects all of these characters and their arcs together which is essential. But, agree to disagree. To me after the second film, Oz should have to find his way back after the damage that caused to him - just like the journey for every single character in the third film would be a goal of "returning back when it's already inside of them, just lost."

2. We already see critical aspects about the environment and what type of regime the witch has. Two ordinary folk that create a scarecrow that can somehow magically talk has nothing to do with that.

3. A reason for that is not hard to explain, I'm saying things like that happen all the time in group movies. The group gets split up. Not that my reasoning is "it happens". Of course it would have to make sense to the story, my point is that it's not hard to come up with a scenario that separates Dorothy from the group.

4.None of that relates to what I'm saying about how it should not be in Oz's character to force the people of Oz to do his bidding or to blindly risk the lives of little girls or munchkins because he wants a powerful witch taken down whom he couldn't take down himself. Just makes him look bad.

On all of this I think yeah, it's best to say agree to disagree and call it a day. I don't think we're going to be on the same page about this anytime soon.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Especially since the worlds and events in both heads are completely different. I feel like this is round about. Because I've already explained that this is the EXACT reason why there are adaptations that are so different from one another. Not everyone thinks the same way. I can't clearly see the other world, and mine can't clearly be seen either. And it doesn't help having all of these flying strands that branched off that can not be seen on both sides. As said, I'm not saying that in a good or bad way (which I think it's being seen as). In a "neutral" way since it doesn't align with my head because it's like trying to force an idea into an already built one to try to examine it which is giving me a head ache like Raimi trying to watch 'The Amazing Spider-Man' way too soon. Which I've already said - I can't do. Basically, getting tired of talking in these neutral circles. I can't comment on it in a good or bad way, not out of disrespect or anything other than it's so concrete at this point it can't get through.

Yes, I know people think the same way. I've explained this when you first brought it up. My point was that what I was saying had no holes and tied everything up sensibly. Of course though, that's just my opinion. It would be best if we just moved on to another topic of discussion.

 

[Ultimatehero]

2. We've seen Evanora's rule, not Theodora's.

3. I'm not saying group, I'm saying various people throughout Oz. It seems like in your notion, they should be rounded all up. This is why, as I said since the beginning, I can't commentate on because I have no idea where your head is clearly. It's like looking through a fog bank. It says nothing about you or what you're saying, it's just what happens when something becomes concrete. It's why it's hard being able to watch a reboot of something you were a part of and just being able to relax with it. As I've always said - it doesn't make sense because I'm looking through a fog bank, it says nothing about the idea itself, but how concrete things are in my head.

4. And thematically to me Oz by the third film would be the Oz we know in the novel and in the 1939 film - the guy who sends people on suicide missions and scares them. The second film would be showing how he got that way. Because thematically, as a screenplay, it ties all of the arcs neatly together; they've all lost something or thought they've lost something because they keep on ignoring it - but through the help of this little girl - realize that it was in them all along.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

2. We've seen Evanora's rule, not Theodora's.

3. I'm not saying group, I'm saying various people throughout Oz. It seems like in your notion, they should be rounded all up. This is why, as I said since the beginning, I can't commentate on because I have no idea where your head is clearly. It's like looking through a fog bank. It says nothing about you or what you're saying, it's just what happens when something becomes concrete. It's why it's hard being able to watch a reboot of something you were a part of and just being able to relax with it.

4. And thematically to me Oz by the third film would be the Oz we know in the film and in the film - the guy who sends people on suicide missions. Because thematically, as a screenplay, it ties all of the arcs neatly together.

2. Theodora's rule would be coming into play after Evanora's death. Also, both sisters would rule together. Just each on different sides of Oz.

3. Once again, that is how you think the situation should be handled. However, in what I have laid down, that would not be the case. At least not in my continuity, but that's the problem with hypothetical discussions.

4. They're working to make the Wizard a likeable or at least relatble character, which shows in the new movie. They're not going to undo all of that to show him as a selfish fear monger. No chance.

 

[Ultimatehero]

2. And on another point, as said - I would have Theodora over power her sister in the second film. An arc of a "rise to evil and power" rather than her inheriting it. And thus why I've stated # 3 for about two hours now.

4. The first film you need a relatable protagonist, it's also going into "how did these things come to be" in - either the 1939 film (if the audience so chooses to believe that) or in the novel. In the second film you'd need that too, a relatable protagonist. In the third film, it's about him finding his way back again. It would be no darker character-wise than seeing where Bruce Wayne is in TDKR and he would be just as mysterious. We would never get a sense that he was enjoying this, but seeing a man who feels like he lost his way somewhere along the way. Which, as said, ties all the characters together with their arcs and goals and themes which is always crucially important to take into account of a screenplay.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

2. And on another point, as said - I would have Theodora over power her sister in the second film. An arc of a "rise to evil and power" rather than her inheriting it. And thus why I've stated # 3 for about two hours now.

4. The first film you need a relatable protagonist, it's also going into "how did these things come to be" in - either the 1939 film (if the audience so chooses to believe that) or in the novel. In the second film you'd need that too, a relatable protagonist. In the third film, it's about him finding his way back again. It would be no darker character-wise than seeing where Bruce Wayne is in TDKR and he would be just as mysterious. We would never get a sense that he was enjoying this, but seeing a man who feels like he lost his way somewhere along the way. Which, as said, ties all the characters together with their arcs and goals and themes which is always crucially important to take into account of a screenplay.

2. She doesn't steal anything, which is how I prefer it. She now takes 100% instead of 50/50 before Evanora's death. It's a natural shift of power instead of one sister backstabbing and overpowering the other.

4. The relatable protagonist will most likely not be changed into the selfish guy who sends kids and munchkins on death missions. The same way TDKR's Bruce Wayne will not send some civilian or kid into Joker's lair to do take him out, unless this kid was proven(John Blake, and like Dorothy would be proven with a prophecy)

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

I think I'm gonna just stop now, Ultimatehero. It was a good debate but now it's getting drawn out. I feel that I've explained my points, so I will leave it at that.

 

[Ultimatehero]

2. So it's still a rise then. To me the back-stabbing would add to her, it would also be an interesting twist of fate. Her sister made her into this and because of that, she bares the results of it.

4. As said, I don't see Oz as anywhere near selfish. That is just the image you're projecting onto it. With Dorothy he has no other choice because of the prophecy and that's when it really hits home for him. The beginning in my head is the two munchkins in the throne room, the mist comes to life and we see them looking up at it and trembling without it saying a word, we then see minutes later Oz hanging in his head in extreme sorrow for what he had to do. A severely broken down rusted over man. We then cut to the main titles and then to the introduction of Dorothy. It causes one to question how much the events of the previous film really did get to him. We also start to understand him a little more through the trio who each sort of represents a part of him. The point is the audience shouldn't like seeing Oz like this and neither does he making his final redemption and "master of two worlds" moment all the more powerful after the 'inability of the return.' It shows how he became the Oz we all know as well as the hidden side of the story we could never sense - just how much of himself he has given for everyone else so that they don't have to. It also makes the screenplay a unified whole in the thematic department.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

They should of just put some kind of effect on Kunis' voice because seeing her in the full makeup and just hearing her normal voice completely took me out of the film every single time. Seriously what was Raimi thinking with that casting choice, it was awful. As miscast as everyone is saying Franco was he was pretty solid when compared but I agree he wasn't spectacular.

 

[terry78]

I love how the last two pages of this thread have just been Ultimatehero and PowerCosmic discussing Oz fanfic.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I really want peoples views and opinions on this film, personally Im very torn on it.

 

[def28]

I thought Kunis sounded pretty solid with her laugh. She really didnt bother me at all. Everyone was cast pretty good imo.

Reading reviews and other comments on the net seems everyone has their choice of actor or actress they thought were miscast though. Read some praising Franco while bashing Kunis then vice versa. A few were going after Michelle Williams which I just didnt get at all. Thought she was prefect. To each their own.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

The wicked witch is one of the most iconic villains in film history her voice should sound full of evil and hateful, not just Mila Kunis using her normal voice. It would be like if Heath Ledger played The Joker just using his normal everyday voice. Her cackling laugh only happened a few times and didn't match the rest of her voice.

 

[terry78]

This witch is still young though. People in their 60s don't sound the same as they did in their 20s.

 

[def28]

The wicked witch is one of the most iconic villains in film history her voice should sound full of evil and hateful, not just Mila Kunis using her normal voice. It would be like if Heath Ledger played The Joker just using his normal everyday voice. Her cackling laugh only happened a few times and didn't match the rest of her voice.

Im surprised they didnt use effectson her voice more either, but in the end her performance didn't really bother me. Seems theres alot who think otherwise though. I got a good vibe that she was pissed off and hated ****.

I was more disappointed in how she turned and her overall role in the film. Felt underplayed and kinda rushed.

Overall I thought it was solid entertainment, alot more comedic then I expected which I dug. China Girl stole the show when she was on screen.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I liked most of the film as a whole, the atmosphere really worked for me and put me in that world but again another waste of 3d use imo. I guess my expectations were all on the wicked witch because she is so iconic and shes's really what I hoped they would get right. I don't mind Kunis I think she is ok in certain roles and in the beginning of the film she was fine, but she just doesn't seem evil or wicked to me in any way, she never felt threatening.