Oz: The Great and Powerful

Status
Not open for further replies.
For some reason, as said before, I more imagined the wicked witch impaling her for some reason when you first said it. I think I got my *Baum properties mixed up there probably. But, as said, magic works. It's this whole non-sense thing of "cartoon violence" vs "realistic violence." And for realistic violence - impaling someone, it seems you can work that in and get the studios to agree if there's no other alternative. I do think someone will force me to cut out the other two deaths though since it just has a slight story explanation and emotional punch, but overall not 'necessary to the overall plot;' seriously hoping that's not the case.
 
Last edited:
Disney did the first two Narnia movies. Both were rated PG and had some intense battles / deaths (albeit bloodless ones).

Just throwing stuff out there.
 
They did some nice work with the Lion in the Narnia movies. I wonder how authentic the cowardly lion would look, compared to something like Richard Parker from Life of Pi.
 
Disney had some Violent Death. In Tarzan Clayton pretty much Hanged himself by cutting the vines.
 
Disney doesn't shy away from violence. Don't let the mouse ears fool you, some of the scariest **** has come out of that studio.
 
The world of Oz is a beautiful place filled with mystery and adventure. The Wizard of Oz introduced me to a unique world, while Return to Oz just ended up scaring the **** out of me (all those screaming heads still send a shiver down my spine to this day). I haven’t ventured into other adaptations, but I would like to check out Wicked someday. When it was announced that Sam Raimi would be directing Oz The Great and Powerful, I was trilled. I thought it would be a fitting flick for the director…until I saw the bland trailers and ugly posters. It smelt too much like the Tim Burton’s lackluster Alice in Wonderland. I entered the theater with low expectations.

The opening credits to Oz The Great and Powerful is beautifully done with a German expression influence. The film begins in black and white with a 4:3 aspect ratio. This entire segment of the film looked fantastic – Oz The Great and Powerful had me hooked, but would it let go of me when we got to Oz? I thought I would be met with cluttered CGI scenes and a bland story, but instead we get introduced to charming and visually interesting characters. The CGI never takes away from the narrative at any point. Every place is a sight to behold as we dig deeper into the Oz mythology.



The casting was fitting, from James Franco’s deceiving and charming Wizard, to the highlight of the film, Mila Kunis, who explodes onto the screen with great energy.

Oz The Great and Powerful allowed Raimi to incorporate some of his horror trademarks, such as; dutch tilts, eerie sounds accompanied by frantic shots of objects, even to a deadite-like moment. The nine-year-old girl inside me screamed in satisfaction.

I saw Oz The Great and Powerful in 2D, but I was distracted as some frames were fuzzy (obviously converted into 3D) and that pissed me off. Don’t put 3D frames on screen when the damn movie is 2D. My only other complaint is the ending, without giving anything away; you’re left with unanswered questions.



I left the theater very satisfied. If you’re a fan of the world of Oz you’ll enjoy this film, but if you are a Raimi fan, I think you may have a little more fun with this.
 
Favorite movie since Avengers. I seriously see this quickly becoming a MEGA earner at box office. Everyone clapped after it was over. And sitting there as the next guy to bring another Baum property to life - it was amazing and surreal and freaking AWESOME seeing all of these people continuing to enjoy the fantastical worlds L. Frank Baum has given us in its full cinematic glory that effects can create now. It was just really inspirational since it was CLASSIC film making - it seriously felt like an old style film brought into the 21st century, just like Whedon did with 'Avengers' and it made me feel like my decision to go the same route with the Baum property I'm invested was the best choice ever because classical story-telling still works. 10/10.
 
So is this an actual prequel to the 1939 film? because aren't they from different studios? I believe the OZ stories are in the public domain but doesn't the wicked witch in this film look exactly like she was depicted in the original wizard of Oz?
 
I wouldn't call it a prequel to the 1939 film just like 'Batman Begins' wasn't a prequel to Tim Burton's 'Batman.' The audience will likely be confused, but once the other pieces of 'The Wizard of Oz' fall into place in the future films, I think that misconception will get cleared up. Apparently the witch can have green skin as long as it's a different shade of green and looks different from the film's depiction overall.

And as I called it earlier -- Scarecrow will without a doubt be made by Oz now.
 
It's a prequel like Return is a sequel.
 
It's a prequel like Return is a sequel.

To Baum's novel. I think even saying that would confuse some people. It pays reverence in some iconography visually, yes. But, the overall story is Baum and not Fleming. Other than the ruby slippers -- Return paid all its reverence to the original novel rather than to the film. It's core characters are visually represented in favor of the novel as well:

dstwwooThe_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz_L_Frank_Baum_abridged_cassettes_Naxos_T.jpg

rto10.jpg
 
I don't know, did Baum ever actually write a prequel to his original story?

Also the backstories for all the witches is totally different from what Baum wrote and implied. I think Raimi was drawing far more inspiration from the classic film since that is his favorite movie.
 
Baum didn't dive into the histories, or at least that I know of - I've only read 'The Wizard of Oz,' nor did the 1939 film. However, it has more in common with Baum's novels than it does with the 1939 film. And due to copyright it can only be a prequel to the books because legally they can't make a prequel to the film. Which I say, more power to them because there's a lot more they can do. For example, I think the audience will love this franchises' possible Tin Man more than they do the 1939 film if they stick true to Baum's vision because he is such an interesting and surprisingly complex character. And as a fan of the lion in the 1939 film, Baum's lion also quickly became my favorite. I'm a little shaky about who my favorite Scarecrow is though.
 
Last edited:
Well they didn't even introduce a Tin Man or a Scarecrow. Raimi didn't seem to care or be interested in those things at all.
 
They naturally wouldn't. However, they did set the seeds for the Scarecrow possibly being built by Oz. The tin workers who will be able to help Nick. And they did introduce the Cowardly Lion as we know him from the books. And at this point in time -- that was perfect. If they did introduce the Tin Man or Scarecrow at this point it would be way way WAY too soon. That wouldn't be faithful at all. I'd envision Nick became the Tin Man about a year or less than that before Dorothy arrives. And the Scarecrow just a week before or closer to when Dorothy arrives. I'd say this film happens five years or six years even before Dorothy arrives. Five years definitely before she's even a blip on the radar.
 
So is Disney trying to stake its claim to the "OZ world" now? I wonder how MGM feels about all of this? Do they own any specific copyrights to anything in the original film?
 
So is Disney trying to stake its claim to the "OZ world" now? I wonder how MGM feels about all of this?

I love the 1939 film, so don't get me wrong when I say this - they had their chance and they've had their chance for years but they seriously blew it. I can say this with utmost confidence - the 1939 film is in no way near as good as Baum's book. If you read the novel, you'll probably start to find yourself disappointed in the film for how far they strayed. It was one of those cases in which the book was clearly better than the film. Yes, they couldn't achieve it budgetary wise. But, why the hell wouldn't they aim for a truer remake when Lord of the Rings first took off? They waited too long, they blew their opportunity. Disney just was smart enough to see the mountains of untapped potential Baum offered them.

A magical creature made out of tin. Or a tragic man who was cursed to become a man made out of tin by an evil witch? Which one offers the most awesome drama and fairy tale notion? To me, it's the man who was cursed - and that's what Baum had. I'll never have any clue why they changed that. That was perfect.
 
Warner Bros. owns the original 1939 film now, not MGM.

I mean had their chance to do what exactly? Make sequels or prequels? I mean the books are public domain so a lot of people can do new stuff, but the 1939 movie will always be the enduring classic.
 
Remake it. Do ACTUAL justice to the book rather than bastardize it. I HATE saying that because I love the 1939 film and it is a true classic in it's own right. And for budgetary reasons, I'd say it was as faithful as it could be. But it would have been like trying to make a Spider-Man movie when the comics first came out, they wouldn't be able to truly do the comic justice. But they completely missed the most intriguing elements of that novel. They had years to do it justice and they should have done it justice after Lord of the Rings and Narnia took off. The fact that they didn't, it's their own fault for waiting that long. I can't feel sorry for them because of that.

For those who haven't read the book yet, I highly suggest it. There's a whole other Oz you'll get to experience as Baum first intended for it to be.
 
I mean this movie UltimateHero had a $200 million budget so they could do all the big bells and whistles and production design and I still wasn't as inspired and amazed as when I watched the original.
 
They naturally wouldn't. However, they did set the seeds for the Scarecrow possibly being built by Oz. The tin workers who will be able to help Nick. And they did introduce the Cowardly Lion as we know him from the books. And at this point in time -- that was perfect. If they did introduce the Tin Man or Scarecrow at this point it would be way way WAY too soon. That wouldn't be faithful at all. I'd envision Nick became the Tin Man about a year or less than that before Dorothy arrives. And the Scarecrow just a week before or closer to when Dorothy arrives. I'd say this film happens five years or six years even before Dorothy arrives. Five years definitely before she's even a blip on the radar.


How old was the Wizard in the book? I see Nick becoming the Tin Man at least eight years before Dorothy's arrival. I see the Scarecrow being in his cornfield for at least two years before Dorothy's arrival. I actually thought this movie had to be taking at least 10 or 15 years before Dorothy's arrival.

Gives Oz time to age himself, along with the wicked witch and everyone else in Oz. This includes the Tin Man, who I think should be an older and wiser man than when he first faced the wicked witch with Oz. I don't see a year really getting that point across. They don't need to be as old as they were in the older movie, but they should be considerably older than they are in this movie( referring to Oz and Theodora).
 
Last edited:
I was more so with this due to the worlds and everything. Not as strong a story as 'The Wizard of Oz' - but the story largely was Baum and not Flemming; so the better story has to do with the story being purely Baum's whereas this was a completely original story. So of course BAUM'S story will be the strongest of the two. I can only see this series getting better from here. And I hope to God that Raimi will go forward with 'The Wizard of Oz' because I honestly think it will rival the 1939 film if it's anything like the book which does rival the 1939 film. As said, for what it is the 1939 film was great. But it wasn't a true adaptation - as said it would be like trying to make Spider-Man all those years ago. You wouldn't be able to capture it. The company had years to make something more faithful, but they missed their opportunity. I won't be surprised if they announce they're going to remake it - but at this point it would just like a cash grab. And they should have taken it way back then in the early 00's when Narnia and LOTR and Potter hit big.
 
I will post my full thoughts on OZ tomorrow but one things for sure Mila Kunis was very badly miscast.
 
I will post my full thoughts on OZ tomorrow but one things for sure Mila Kunis was very badly miscast.
YES! She was.

And it's not a knock on Kunis. I like Kunis a lot and I generally enjoy her performances. She really surprised me in Forgetting Sarah Marshall since my main points of reference for her acting was That 70's Show, Family Guy, and some trash like that DTV Honey I Shrunk the Kids movie, American Psycho 2, and some other stupid teen comedy she did with Kirsten Dunst in Get Over it.

But in this role she was severely miscast. She does good at the beginning but after that goes downhill.
 
Should have gotten Kirsten Dunst instead. No prostethics required, just paint her face green.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"