The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

[bluejake01]

Alright...I'll bite.

I'm not sure what kind of help I can be, and seeing as you are embarking on a mad undertaking that has also been a lifelong ambition of my own, I'm not sure I want you to succeed. (That sounds much worse than I meant it to) Having said that if you would like any input or help, let me know. I work for a company that has worked with Tippet Studio, The Orphanage, ILM, PDI, Rythym and Hues, 3ality...etc...I have some experience on independent projects, as both an Art Director and prop master. I have some connections in the vis f/x and video technology communities and I may be able to arrange access to high end cameras, lenses, rigs, DDRs and editing suites...no promises.

I do hope the best for you, as The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is public domain now your project wouldn't compete with my eventual adaptation. (I say that with my tounge in my cheek...I mean sure, it's a life long dream...but I know how much work a small scale production can be, and how much backing I would need to fulfill my epic vision of what an OZ film could be)

Oh and when I said it was a mad undertaking, I meant it. I have read all of Lyman Frank Baum's original Oz books, multiple times. His world is lush and vivid, with living china dolls, and impossible looking creatures. You are talking about a mad amount of location shooting and set pieces...sets that would cost millions to do justice.

My recommendation is to pick your favorite scene from the book, that can also be filmed in a week or two, and has a limited scope. Film a short...set the tone and look you want out of an OZ film. Make it the best 7 minutes worth of short film you can. Polish it, tweak it, love it, craft it, tinker with it and show it off. Garner interest...get funding...No matter how talented you may be, to do the project justice you literally need to be able to throw money at it to complete a feature with that kind of scale.





One more thought...don't be too quick to dismiss the greatness of the MGM Wizard of Oz. It was a brilliant musical, and has remained a part of our pop culture for the better part of a century. The theme of the book remained in tact, and most of the changes were superficial at best. It's a classic film, and paying homage to it may help stave back the rabid fans that will only be able to see it through emerald (MGM) tinted glasses.

 

[bluejake01]

Just checked out your site...The look of your Dorothy is perfect. I can see her being the only vibrant thing on that sunfaded and drab Kansas farm.

 

[K.B.]

Bluejake01 is right about somethings. If money is an issue it is best to film a short section approx 7-10 minutes and make it the best damn 7-10 minutes you can. Show this around like crazy as a means to drum up possible investors.

Other then that if you need any actors or voice work done feel free to contact me.

 

[I-T-B]

My recommendation is to pick your favorite scene from the book, that can also be filmed in a week or two, and has a limited scope. Film a short...set the tone and look you want out of an OZ film. Make it the best 7 minutes worth of short film you can. Polish it, tweak it, love it, craft it, tinker with it and show it off. Garner interest...get funding...No matter how talented you may be, to do the project justice you literally need to be able to throw money at it to complete a feature with that kind of scale.

This may be naive of me, but I think things are changing in that it's not entirely necessary to have money to throw at a project in order to come up with something professional looking. The effects are probably the biggest issue for us here, but if you look at something like Gareth Edwards' work on the Attila the Hun TV movie, all those effects (250+ shots) were done by one man on his home computer. The money involved wasn't an issue, it was just a question of having the time and the talent to pull it off.

One more thought...don't be too quick to dismiss the greatness of the MGM Wizard of Oz. It was a brilliant musical, and has remained a part of our pop culture for the better part of a century. The theme of the book remained in tact, and most of the changes were superficial at best. It's a classic film, and paying homage to it may help stave back the rabid fans that will only be able to see it through emerald (MGM) tinted glasses.

Believe me, nobody's dismissing the 1939 movie. It's a wonderful musical, a great film that has stood the test of time, and it's absolutely an important part of our culture, even today. I enjoy the movie, it was one of my favorites as a kid, and I'd love it to pieces if that were all there is to Oz. But that fact that there's a terrific book out there that's got so much potential for an amazing, fun, dark, fantasy movie is what lessens the appeal of the 1939 film for me. That and the whole thing being a dream. I think that sort of negates the whole film right at the end, there.

 

[bluejake01]

This may be naive of me, but I think things are changing in that it's not entirely necessary to have money to throw at a project in order to come up with something professional looking. The effects are probably the biggest issue for us here, but if you look at something like Gareth Edwards' work on the Attila the Hun TV movie, all those effects (250+ shots) were done by one man on his home computer. The money involved wasn't an issue, it was just a question of having the time and the talent to pull it off.

It's that naive optimism that I envy. Perhaps it's the fact that I wouldn't want to make an OZ film with virtual sets, and CG in every shot, that is limiting my vision of what you hope to accomplish. If you have the time and talent to complete that many shots as composites with CG elements, why make it a live action film at all? You could really increase the size of your canvas by doing a completely CGI feature.

 

[Marvel Spider]

I recently wrote a report on the Wizard of Oz, and explained how I wanted a movie that was close to the source material. It looks like this is it. This looks really amazing! Best luck to the both of you.

 

[Figs]

You know, I like Todd McFarlane as much as the next guy, but I remember when those Twisted Land of Oz figures were announced, and I was rather displeased.

I grew up with the Wizard of Oz - not only the movie, but the book, which was the first book I ever read under my own power (in abridged form). So I have kind of a personal connection to that story.

There's always room for re-imaginings but that McFarlane stuff... was NOT Oz.

What are you smoking Sushi?It's McFarlane's toy line he can do whatever he wants with them. Of course it's not the characters you would be used to from the actual book or any of the films, it's his own twisted version of them. I guess you didn't get the whole 'Twisted Land' part.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

It's that naive optimism that I envy. Perhaps it's the fact that I wouldn't want to make an OZ film with virtual sets, and CG in every shot, that is limiting my vision of what you hope to accomplish. If you have the time and talent to complete that many shots as composites with CG elements, why make it a live action film at all? You could really increase the size of your canvas by doing a completely CGI feature.

Jake, I appreciate the offer. If you don't mind I'd like to keep you as a contact because we may have use of your connections and your input, but with that said Clayton and I are as competitive and passionate about this project as you no doubt are about your own. Just as you admitted that you almost don't want us to succeed, it's fair to say that we almost question your intentions.

As for shooting just one scene... remember that our Dorothy is a young gal and she is growing up a little every day. She's perfect and she WANTS this role, and we want her to have it, but that means we have to get a move on.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

What are you smoking Sushi?It's McFarlane's toy line he can do whatever he wants with them. Of course it's not the characters you would be used to from the actual book or any of the films, it's his own twisted version of them. I guess you didn't get the whole 'Twisted Land' part.

I get that, Figs.

But let me ask you a question. If I decided I wanted to make a movie about Batman, but I wanted him to be gay, and it was not his parents but his life-partner who had been killed, and he wants to dress like a raisin with shark's teeth because he has a severe mental handicap, would it still be Batman?

 

[gkokujin]

this looks nice.

all i have wanted was a movie version as close as possible to the book. Return to Oz was okay, but there is soooo much that could have been done and that CAN be done now.

Good luck in your endeavors man!

 

[The Guard]

I volunteer to review the script. PM me.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

this looks nice.

all i have wanted was a movie version as close as possible to the book. Return to Oz was okay, but there is soooo much that could have been done and that CAN be done now.

Good luck in your endeavors man!

Thanks!

I have to say it's very gratifying for us both to see so much support from everybody here.

At the risk of sounding like a complete ****e, please spread the word.

 

[Watson]

ITB and Keyser!?!? Wow, you two crazy kids :heart:

This is a wonderfully ambitous project and I wish you two the best. I wish I could help in some way. I will try to donate some money next time I get a paycheque. Post lots and lots of updates!

 

[Keyser Sushi]

ITB and Keyser!?!? Wow, you two crazy kids :heart:

Kid hell, I'm 32, babydoll.

This is a wonderfully ambitous project and I wish you two the best. I wish I could help in some way. I will try to donate some money next time I get a paycheque. Post lots and lots of updates!

Doc, I know I've said this before, but you are a lovely, wonderful human being.

 

[bluejake01]

Jake, I appreciate the offer. If you don't mind I'd like to keep you as a contact because we may have use of your connections and your input, but with that said Clayton and I are as competitive and passionate about this project as you no doubt are about your own. Just as you admitted that you almost don't want us to succeed, it's fair to say that we almost question your intentions.

As for shooting just one scene... remember that our Dorothy is a young gal and she is growing up a little every day. She's perfect and she WANTS this role, and we want her to have it, but that means we have to get a move on.

All the luck in the world to you...I truly mean that. I guess I am just being the concerned voice of reason. I know how much work goes into a short film, let alone a feature...that is simultaniously a fantasy epic and a period piece...I mean it's really a huge undertaking. Forget f/x shots, the cost of shooting alone is going to require fat cash...as it were.

I'm really not being a naysayer, I'm trying to prepare you for the logistical nightmare you are stepping into. I mean it when I say I envy your fervor and drive. Maybe I have seen the Hollywood machine in action for too long...perhaps I have forgotten the thrill and freedom of filming something, no matter how difficult, no matter how low the budget.

www.spectsoft.com
You can see what we do, and the projects we have been a part of.


BTW, what are you planning on shooting on and in what format?

 

[bluejake01]

I get that, Figs.

But let me ask you a question. If I decided I wanted to make a movie about Batman, but I wanted him to be gay, and it was not his parents but his life-partner who had been killed, and he wants to dress like a raisin with shark's teeth because he has a severe mental handicap, would it still be Batman?

No...but I think I would be first in line to see it.

 

[steintym]

This sounds very interesting, I wish you guys the best of luck. I'll try and throw a couple of $ your way, I'd like to see something like this be successful.

Please keep us all updated on how things are proceeding.

 

[Watson]

Doc, I know I've said this before, but you are a lovely, wonderful human being.

aw you're too nice

 

[Keyser Sushi]

aw you're too nice

Only to people I like.

 

[Figs]

I get that, Figs.

But let me ask you a question. If I decided I wanted to make a movie about Batman, but I wanted him to be gay, and it was not his parents but his life-partner who had been killed, and he wants to dress like a raisin with shark's teeth because he has a severe mental handicap, would it still be Batman?

If it was called Batman and it was a certain comic writer's 1-shot non canon "what if" story then sure. I say that because it wouldn't be changing the ongoing Batman mythos that is for the most part set in stone but it would be someone's one time interpretation for fun. Basically, you said if you wanted to make a movie about Batman so you kind of shot yourself in the foot for your counter argument in your post I quoted. That would mean despite all those wacky changes(like dressing like a raisin with sharks teeth...c'mon that is a huge stretch in comparison to what Mcfarlane did for his toyline) he would still be called or referred to as Batman.
It wouldn't be the normal Batman everyone knows and are used to but would be a twisted new one time take on the character.
I said that your whole dressing like a raisin with sharks teeth is a stretch because the figures McFarlane made still have a great resemblance to the original characters. It's just done to an almost horror movie extreme. Dorothy may be in an S&M outfit of sorts but it's McFarlane's twisted(key word in the toy line) take that the munchkins are evil looking and are the reason she is bound up. Same with Toto, he may be a mutated looking monster but he's still a quadruped and basically an animal. The Lion is just a more menacing version instead of cowardly and he made the Tin Man look like more of a warrior. All in all, most if not all of the characters are still recognizable despite McFarlane's horror movie like changes.
Forgive me if this comes out as one giant paragraph, for some reason when I space them out it doesn't work.
The key thing is, it's one of the reasons why McFarlane puts his name before the series(like the Christmas character line he did, which was also horror based), it's not the company making exact figures of the characters from the original Oz, it's his own take on those characters.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

This sounds very interesting, I wish you guys the best of luck. I'll try and throw a couple of $ your way, I'd like to see something like this be successful.

Please keep us all updated on how things are proceeding.

Thanks! Every bit helps.

And you bet we'll keep you all posted!

 

[Keyser Sushi]

All the luck in the world to you...I truly mean that. I guess I am just being the concerned voice of reason. I know how much work goes into a short film, let alone a feature...that is simultaniously a fantasy epic and a period piece...I mean it's really a huge undertaking. Forget f/x shots, the cost of shooting alone is going to require fat cash...as it were.

I'm really not being a naysayer, I'm trying to prepare you for the logistical nightmare you are stepping into. I mean it when I say I envy your fervor and drive. Maybe I have seen the Hollywood machine in action for too long...perhaps I have forgotten the thrill and freedom of filming something, no matter how difficult, no matter how low the budget.

www.spectsoft.com
You can see what we do, and the projects we have been a part of.


BTW, what are you planning on shooting on and in what format?

It's not as if we don't know what we're getting into... it's just that we're obviously insane. If you want to help us, help us get funding... that's our biggest stumbling block.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Let's not drag this thread off-topic. I will simply say that McFarlane putting Dorothy in an S&M constume is WRONG on more levels than you seem to realize...

Yes, it's McFarlane's own thing. Again, I get that. But it's pretty much disrespectful to the source material.

If it was called Batman and it was a certain comic writer's 1-shot non canon "what if" story then sure. I say that because it wouldn't be changing the ongoing Batman mythos that is for the most part set in stone but it would be someone's one time interpretation for fun. Basically, you said if you wanted to make a movie about Batman so you kind of shot yourself in the foot for your counter argument in your post I quoted. That would mean despite all those wacky changes(like dressing like a raisin with sharks teeth...c'mon that is a huge stretch in comparison to what Mcfarlane did for his toyline) he would still be called or referred to as Batman.
It wouldn't be the normal Batman everyone knows and are used to but would be a twisted new one time take on the character.
I said that your whole dressing like a raisin with sharks teeth is a stretch because the figures McFarlane made still have a great resemblance to the original characters. It's just done to an almost horror movie extreme. Dorothy may be in an S&M outfit of sorts but it's McFarlane's twisted(key word in the toy line) take that the munchkins are evil looking and are the reason she is bound up. Same with Toto, he may be a mutated looking monster but he's still a quadruped and basically an animal. The Lion is just a more menacing version instead of cowardly and he made the Tin Man look like more of a warrior. All in all, most if not all of the characters are still recognizable despite McFarlane's horror movie like changes.
Forgive me if this comes out as one giant paragraph, for some reason when I space them out it doesn't work.
The key thing is, it's one of the reasons why McFarlane puts his name before the series(like the Christmas character line he did, which was also horror based), it's not the company making exact figures of the characters from the original Oz, it's his own take on those characters.

 

[K.B.]

I'm a GIANT Wizard of Oz fan (books and film version) and had no problems with the McFarlane toys. I thought they were pretty cool in fact but I don't see it as being "disrespectful" to the original source. It's just another interpretation. Now you wanna talk disrespectful...lets talk about that Zooey Daschel P.O.S......t:

It's not as if we don't know what we're getting into... it's just that we're obviously insane. If you want to help us, help us get funding... that's our biggest stumbling block.

Don't take this the wrong way or with attitude, not my intent but he and I both suggested a way to help get funding by doing that short and you guys wouldn't consider it.

The problem is is that people like money and potential investors want to make money but aren't willing to write the big cheques if they have no idea what your capable of. People want to bet on a sure thing. You can show storyboards and skecths and talk of a grand vision but if you cant sit them down and SHOW them, they won't bite. The short method has been tried and true and for what you want to accomplish, might not be so bad. It dosent need to even be an extravagent,effects driven scene just one with 2 or 3 people, maybe one of the more dramtic scenes, would be enough to elicit some cash.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I'm a GIANT Wizard of Oz fan (books and film version) and had no problems with the McFarlane toys. I thought they were pretty cool in fact but I don't see it as being "disrespectful" to the original source. It's just another interpretation. Now you wanna talk disrespectful...lets talk about that Zooey Daschel P.O.S......t:





Don't take this the wrong way or with attitude, not my intent but he and I both suggested a way to help get funding by doing that short and you guys wouldn't consider it.

The problem is is that people like money and potential investors want to make money but aren't willing to write the big cheques if they have no idea what your capable of. People want to bet on a sure thing. You can show storyboards and skecths and talk of a grand vision but if you cant sit them down and SHOW them, they won't bite. The short method has been tried and true and for what you want to accomplish, might not be so bad. It dosent need to even be an extravagent,effects driven scene just one with 2 or 3 people, maybe one of the more dramtic scenes, would be enough to elicit some cash.

No disrespect taken... but nowhere did we say that was a bad idea... the truth is that we have every intention of taking some of what we shoot in June and doing a proof-of-concept that we can use to try and get more interest. That's been our plan from the start. It's just that we realized that our star will only be viable as our star for a short period of time... so just because we plan to focus on completing one scene, doesn't change the fact that we need to shoot as much of the film as we can while she is still the appropriate age.

I mean if we work that hard on one scene and we don't get to finish the movie for two years, we're going to have to start over from scratch. And we think we have a fantastic Dorothy here, so we want to make sure we shoot her parts while she's the age she is now.

When you're working with kids you have to be mindful of that sort of thing.