Oz: The Great and Powerful - Part 1

Rate the movie

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
Yeah, I assume the next one might involve Glinda, Oz and maybe Locasta going up against Mombi and the other evil witches with Ozma and Pastoria (her father) caught in the middle.
 
I suspect they'll make a couple more where it's Oz dealing with random **** like other creatures and monsters or enemies that want to take over and the trials of being a ruler. Then the final flick sets up everything happening with Dorothy coming and he's an older man. We never see it play out, but it leads up to it at the end, somewhat of a "and this is where the Wizard of Oz begins."

I doubt that Disney's going to pass up the chance to do a rebooted Wizard of Oz. I think that's the point of these movies, to lead up to their version of it. It's the most popular Oz story, that's just too much money for them to pass up.
 
...saw it this weekend. I really enjoyed it. :up:
 
Yeah, I don't see Disney looking at this with the narrow mindset of trilogy, they definitely will look at it as a new franchise for them, especially considering all the source material they have and the success of fantasy movies as a whole; especially the Oz franchise itself.

Add on the fact another Oz movie coming out this year, and the possibility of a Wicked movie moving ahead(I know nothing is concrete but it is one of Broadway's highest rated and a long running show), there's no reason Disney wouldn't look at this as another money maker for them.
 
Disney's never going to pass up Dorothy. As said, take this as pretty much a concrete fact. I'm taking this from knowing and having seen first hand how high up powered executives think and approach things like this. Especially if the second film succeeds at box office similarly - the second film will introduce concepts leading into Dorothy's arrival. The third film will then deal with Dorothy's arrival. Then in the end of the third film, Oz will leave - like he does in all versions. And from there Dorothy will become the protagonist.

What this gives Disney is a means to continue the franchise without having to reboot it because they will be dealing with a new protagonist, mostly new characters, and a different kind of franchise. Setting up as such avoids the need to have to reboot the franchise if it continues to be successful. You have to look at this in terms of money and how you can easily continue to get this money. In this case, you have a whole franchise in place without the need of a reboot, you have a trilogy leading into another which then eliminates the work the studio would need to put in to rebooting it.

As studios executives think - continue the franchise without needing to reboot it, acquire the most money possible while having very little work needed to go into it. There's a gold mine in continuing that which they will not pass up. It's just not how executives approach things. This would require as little work as possible and lead to a higher box office earning over a franchise just starting up or rebooting. Thus having the third film as a "passing of the torch" eliminates any of the problems they'll see in continuing past the third film, because for all intents and purposes the forth would practically be a reboot just not in the form we're used to seeing. New contracts, new story, new vision, same old story with the same old money and all they have to do is green light it.

If the question comes into place of -- they could just do that in the forth film -- true, but look at this like executives look at it. Doing such would mean having to write up new contracts with the actors. They would be spending more money having that take place in the forth film and less money overall if it was in the third.
 
Last edited:
MGM changed the silver slippers to ruby to better show off the wonders of Technicolor. There's no reason for WB not to stick to the original silver color, other than the possibility of confusing people who think they've always been ruby.

I don't think they'll have any problem adapting the WWoO book, because the 1939 version is SO different from the book that if they make a pretty close adaptation, the two movies won't be anything alike. They can cast Dorothy with an age appropriate actress (closer to 9 than 19) and cut back on the vaudeville schtick that worked in 1939 but won't come into play today.

It'll be interesting to see if today's audiences who are used to the 1939 interpretation will be OK with newer versions of the characters who are closer to Baum's ideas but nothing like the 1939 incarnations they're used to.
 
I'd say Scarecrow people would probably not have a problem with. But Tin Man and the Lion are bound to throw people for a loop lol. The Tin Man's a human and the lion is an action hero, people won't see those coming - just like people who saw the 1939 film and then read the book were seriously surprised.
 
The Lion will be CG obviously, as they aren't trying to pull some weird anthropomorphic thing. Probably a hybrid of Aslan and Scooby Doo.
 
Cowardly lion was CG in this movie, so I don't see them changing something that seemed to work in this one. He looked great.
 
Saw this today. Really enjoyed it. Franco, Williams and Weisz were great. I was surprised how much I really liked Franco and Williams in these roles. Finely and China Girl were absolutely adorable and you can't help but care for them. Some amazing effects work combined with great voice acting. The film is beautiful, and while there are a few CGI hiccups, I think the look was strong throughout.

However, Mila Kunis was horrible. Like really, really horrible. She has no presence and it felt like every decision she made with her acting was the wrong one. She was the weakest "evil" supernatural being I have seen in a long time. They should have at least augmented her voice. All I could think was, whiny, evil Meg and I haven't watched Family Guy in a long time. But it also touches on another issue. The sisters don't have a lot of time.

The film was always solid, even great when ever with Oz. But the sisters almost have nothing to grab a hold of when he isn't around. Their entire story is rushed so we could get to Oz's confrontation with them, but the story needed more reason for the change and to establish their characters.

Still what little was there, Weisz used and used well. I like how she was a bully and reacted to the situation as such. She is a threat, but also clearly has fears. Kunis had a bit more, but wasted it completely. She was meant to the very essence of evil. To the point that Evanora was a bit turned off. Instead of enhancing the weaker part like Weisz did, she actually brought it down. Whiny, brat throwing a temper tantrum.
 
I think the issue with doing a straight remake of The Wizard of Oz or even any film with that title. Is that for a lot of people the 1939 film is up there with Gone with The Wind as one of those untouchable classics. Most people aren't even very aware of the original books and just the film version.

Which is probably why a straight remake has never been made yet but we've had a few sequels/re-imaginings i.e The Wiz,Wicked to an extent. I honestly think MGM (when they had the rights) were so confident in the years following the release of the Wizad of Oz that no other studio would have the balls to do a straight re-make of the material.
 
Yeah, you attempt to do this again in live action it's on par with the remaking of King Kong, of Psycho, etc. Scrutiny up the ass big time. With these Oz flicks, you can bring it without having to technically try and "remake" anything.
 
They will do "The Wizard of Oz" at some point, and if it is fun people will watch it. For every person who will tell the '39 film is untouchable, 10 more are born that don't care.
 
Cowardly lion was CG in this movie, so I don't see them changing something that seemed to work in this one. He looked great.

Nah, the lion was stupid. It's just a lion. Looked just like Aslan. No humanoid appearance or personality whatsoever. I'm sure the the Cowardly Lion is meant to literally just be a lion and not appear as he did in the '39 film, but where's the fun in that?

I'd love to see a practical makeup effect mixed with CGI, rather than just straight up CGI or a real lion with a CGI mouth or something.
 
Nah, the lion was stupid. It's just a lion. Looked just like Aslan. No humanoid appearance or personality whatsoever. I'm sure the the Cowardly Lion is meant to literally just be a lion and not appear as he did in the '39 film, but where's the fun in that?

I'd love to see a practical makeup effect mixed with CGI, rather than just straight up CGI or a real lion with a CGI mouth or something.

The fun in a talking lion needs to be explained?
 
In the book he's a realistic looking lion, albeit kind of exaggerated. CG is fine, but he should look a little more...not cartoony, but kind of as real as Finley looks.
 
Nah, the lion was stupid. It's just a lion. Looked just like Aslan. No humanoid appearance or personality whatsoever. I'm sure the the Cowardly Lion is meant to literally just be a lion and not appear as he did in the '39 film, but where's the fun in that?

I'd love to see a practical makeup effect mixed with CGI, rather than just straight up CGI or a real lion with a CGI mouth or something.

He did have that cowardly personality, the scene was just too quick but you could even see it on his worried face(while he ran away from Oz) that this was no normal lion. I've always wanted to see a cowardly lion that literally looks like a lion, so I'm happy about it.

Also I think it's unfair to say he looks like Aslan when Aslan looks like every lion anyway.
 
This is where it comes down to the book is better than the film. You make a true and honest adaptation of the book and it will stand right alongside the 1939 film and possibly even be better than it. This isn't a knock on the 1939 film. It's just saying there was probably a lot that even they wanted to do back then but couldn't. The book is more LOTR. You could have made LOTR all the way back then and have it turn out similarly amazing, but then you've also got Jackson's LOTR which was able to truly capture the book's adventure.

I wouldn't liken it to King Kong. King Kong was first and originally a film. Here there's a book series and the book is leagues different and surprisingly leagues better. But, again, that's solely because of the worlds film can create now.

The lion was never meant to be human, they only did that back then because that's all they could do. The filmmakers of that film, if they made it today would in no way shape or form make it human if they were making it these days. The lion can talk and actually has a stronger personality than in the 1939 film. And this is coming from a guy who the lion used to be my favorite character, now Baum's lion is. Baum's lion is just a lot more bad ass lol.

Also remember the lion didn't really have any time to have any lines of dialog in this film. I'm certain it will be a lot like The Lion King. Animal roar while human voice.

ADDING: Those who want to see how this could possibly be, read the book online (it's public domain) because you won't regret it. I used to love the 1939 film, now I'm kind of disappointed by it but understand that they couldn't make a faithful adaptation back then at the same time.
 
Last edited:
I'd prefer they stuck with the lion from the book - him being an actual lion that walks on all fours (I even think Dorothy rode him at one point in the book) over the humanoid one from the classic movie.
 
I'd prefer they stuck with the lion from the book - him being an actual lion that walks on all fours (I even think Dorothy rode him at one point in the book) over the humanoid one from the classic movie.

They all do actually... if I remember correctly. They have to get onto his back one at a time to jump over a large gap.
 
Saw this today. Really enjoyed it. Franco, Williams and Weisz were great. I was surprised how much I really liked Franco and Williams in these roles. Finely and China Girl were absolutely adorable and you can't help but care for them. Some amazing effects work combined with great voice acting. The film is beautiful, and while there are a few CGI hiccups, I think the look was strong throughout.

However, Mila Kunis was horrible. Like really, really horrible. She has no presence and it felt like every decision she made with her acting was the wrong one. She was the weakest "evil" supernatural being I have seen in a long time. They should have at least augmented her voice. All I could think was, whiny, evil Meg and I haven't watched Family Guy in a long time. But it also touches on another issue. The sisters don't have a lot of time.

The film was always solid, even great when ever with Oz. But the sisters almost have nothing to grab a hold of when he isn't around. Their entire story is rushed so we could get to Oz's confrontation with them, but the story needed more reason for the change and to establish their characters.

Still what little was there, Weisz used and used well. I like how she was a bully and reacted to the situation as such. She is a threat, but also clearly has fears. Kunis had a bit more, but wasted it completely. She was meant to the very essence of evil. To the point that Evanora was a bit turned off. Instead of enhancing the weaker part like Weisz did, she actually brought it down. Whiny, brat throwing a temper tantrum.

Yeah, Kunis becomes Evil Angry Meg and it's downhill from there. I thought she was working best when she was acting naive, chipper, and lovely while at the same time somewhat pushy and possessive. The writing and her performance were hitting all the right beats for a brief while there. I kind of dig her outfit then too. When trying to be evil, she sometimes looks like she just needs a hug. Or several. Oh well.
 
They all do actually... if I remember correctly. They have to get onto his back one at a time to jump over a large gap.

Yep, you're correct. I think it was when they were escaping the dark forest.
 
I think it would be an interesting contrast if the lion had like this booming, regal sounding voice yet still acted pretty timid on occasion.
 
The fun in a talking lion needs to be explained?

Never said anything had to be explained. I'm talking more about an aesthetic choice here, something that might make the character more memorable/unique. I'm sorry that I don't just want to see another convincing CGI lion that can talk.

It'd be cool if he could go back and forth between standing on two legs and walking on all fours. He could still be larger than, say, a normal human.
 
Aslan was good, but far from convincing. If they could make a giant Lion that could talk convincingly, like Finely, it would be a wonderful sight.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,269
Messages
22,077,642
Members
45,877
Latest member
dude9876
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"