Oz

Sweet Melissa

Well-Known Member
I saw it today. All the actors did a great job, especially Rachel Weiss. I wasn't thrilled with the visual effects, but I was pleasantly surprised by the story itself. I'm a big fan of Baum's Oz series, and I thought the story came together well. I hope this does kick off a big franchise based on the books.
 

Sweet Melissa

Well-Known Member
Disney can always use the Warner Brothers concepts -- but they have to pay for them. If I were warner brothers, and Disney wanted to use the concept of "Ruby slippers", then I would ask them to pay somewhere in the vicinity of 20-25 million dollars for that. It just plain old is not going to happen.
Agreed, and it shouldn't happen. If Disney wants to continue to insist that the films are based on the text and not trying to re-make the 1939 film, they won't go anywhere near ruby slippers. Especially not when they can use silver shoes like the book did (which now, unlike in the early days of Technicolor, will look nearly as good on screen).
 

Hakunamatata

Le Meh
Premium Member
Agreed, and it shouldn't happen. If Disney wants to continue to insist that the films are based on the text and not trying to re-make the 1939 film, they won't go anywhere near ruby slippers. Especially not when they can use silver shoes like the book did (which now, unlike in the early days of Technicolor, will look nearly as good on screen).
They won't have to touch the ruby slippers. They will use ruby flip flops......then market and sell thousands of them.
 

Hedwig's Keeper

Active Member
Disney can always use the Warner Brothers concepts -- but they have to pay for them. If I were warner brothers, and Disney wanted to use the concept of "Ruby slippers", then I would ask them to pay somewhere in the vicinity of 20-25 million dollars for that. It just plain old is not going to happen.

Yes, you are totally right. I just learned that Congress extended copyrights from 75 years to 95. So Wizard of Oz was scheduled to be up in 2014 but now they have until 2034! And I think Sweet Melissa posted in here about how they changed the Baum's sliver slippers to red because they wanted the color appeal on screen. I am so attached to the image of the ruby slippers, I was really hoping. But Disney is doing the right thing by sticking with Baum's original works. My favorite trivia about WoO is:

"Stranger than fiction. For Marvel's look, the director wanted a kind of seedy gentility, so the costume department went down to a second-hand store and picked out a bunch of coats. On set, actor Frank Morgan turned the coat pocket inside out. To his shock, "L. Frank Baum" was stitched on the inside. Later both Baum's tailor and widow would confirm the jacket had belonged to the author."
 

muteki

Well-Known Member
I thought it was neat, but it had a few cliche plot points that I thought dragged Alice down (and other recent movies) and they are repeated here in Oz. Completely unnecessary for a film like this.

Wasn't a fan of Kunis' makeup/CG appearance either.
 

KJ1081

Active Member
Those of you who've seen it, which would you recommend- IMAX 3D or REALd 3D? Going with the hubby tomorrow, and this will be our first 3D experience outside of a theme park. Typically, I can't justify the extra cost, but I've been looking forward to this movie so I think we'll splurge.
 

Hakunamatata

Le Meh
Premium Member
Those of you who've seen it, which would you recommend- IMAX 3D or REALd 3D? Going with the hubby tomorrow, and this will be our first 3D experience outside of a theme park. Typically, I can't justify the extra cost, but I've been looking forward to this movie so I think we'll splurge.
The 3D effect in theaters, to me, adds depth to the screen. It's not intended to be as much of a "make you dodge" or a "gag" type of special effect. I think the new 3d really enhances the movie watching experience.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
Those of you who've seen it, which would you recommend- IMAX 3D or REALd 3D? Going with the hubby tomorrow, and this will be our first 3D experience outside of a theme park. Typically, I can't justify the extra cost, but I've been looking forward to this movie so I think we'll splurge.

IMAX 3D is the best way to see it. There's enough 3D effects to justify the watch, without being too distractive.
 

DisneyGuyNYC

Well-Known Member
I can take or leave 3D. It's nice but a few minutes in I forget I'm watching it in 3D. I've seen movies that were meant to be in 3D in 2D and just thought "eh, who cares?"
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
..maybe not all great, perhaps not so powerful...but...not bad. Not bad at all.

Saw it at a matinee this morning, in 3D. And I'm happy to say that it's not the Wonderland debacle. It's much much better. It has real magic in it, a real sense of, well, wonder. In this film, Oz seems like a "real, truly live place", thanks to a judicious and artful use of CG. It's stunning, and whimsical, and not the least bit Tim Burtonesque, which in my view is a plus. (Burton's palette is somewhat limited, and so stylized it gets a bit wearying on the eyes before long).

But best of all...the movie enchants you the very minute it starts. (Spoilers below).



The film opens with the usual Disney castle signature...or rather, not so usual. It's in black-and-white, and CG is used to give the effect of an old stereopticon - one of those old-fashioned 3D viewers with cards, the predecessor of the Viewmaster. And wow...WOW. We go right inSIDE the Castle, and the wonders we see...simply put, I was spellbound. It's simply one of the best sequences I have ever seen in any movie EVER. Whew! Blew my mind. I thought, "This might be all right."

By contrast, the Oz sequences aren't quite up to that dazzling opening spectacle...but they are pretty darn good, just the same, in their own right. There are loving homages to the 1939 film everywhere, and they're cleverly done, and add to the rich nostalgia the film evokes. Of course, Disney had to be careful, because rival studio Warner Bros. owns the rights to the Victor Fleming version of Oz (there's one sequence in which the characters travel by bubble, a la Glinda in the original film -a form of magical conveyance L. Frank Baum did not invent - how'd Disney get away with that?) But there are enough hints from the original film, and bits and pieces from Baum's books, to make the Disney Land of Oz seem authentic. That is frankly something I didn't expect, or dare to hope for...but damned if Disney didn't do it.

Now, of course, this film does NOT, cannot, match the sparkle, the wit and the heart of the immortal MGM classic. That was an unusual alchemy of acting, art, words and music that perhaps can never be repeated. But you know, just the same, one has to wonder...can't anybody in Hollywood write good dialogue anymore? There are lines in this "Oz" that don't register, jokes that fall flat, situations that seem forced...you know what I mean, such unfortunate blunders seem to occur in too many modern movies. You really have to wonder why. The people who made the original Oz film probably weren't as educated and didn't have the technical tricks at their disposal the way modern screenwriters do. And yet bad writing abounds in Hollywood, ESPECIALLY in fantasy films. That kind of thing is what sank Wonderland. And it comes close to sinking Oz too.

But I'm happy to say...it doesn't come THAT close. The bad dialogue is more of a momentary irritant rather than a tonal disaster. Sam Raimi has managed to cobble together a fantasy that holds together throughout. As for the acting - James Franco is fine as the wayward Wizard. Rachel Weisz and Mila Kunis are fine as the Witches of East and West. The only letdown is Michelle Williams as Glinda. Really, she looks more like a beauty contest entrant than a luminous Good Witch (Billie Burke could eat her lunch). But she's not a disaster. As for the creatures - by far the China Girl is the best. She is lovable and very convincing - akin to the kind of wondrousness the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Lion provided in the original film.

Personally, I could have done without the mushy stuff in the film. The kids around me got restless at those points, and frankly I did too. I don't like the idea of the Wizard getting cozy with the Witches - that is way too far out of canon for my comfort. But again, this unfortunate element isn't a film-killer.

So all in all, I'd give "Oz, the Great and Powerful" 3 out of 4 emeralds. I rather enjoyed this second trip down the Yellow Brick Road. If it's not quite the Oz I love, it's an Oz I'm comfortable with. And that's much more than I expected.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
But you know, just the same, one has to wonder...can't anybody in Hollywood write good dialogue anymore? There are lines in this "Oz" that don't register, jokes that fall flat, situations that seem forced...you know what I mean, such unfortunate blunders seem to occur in too many modern movies. You really have to wonder why. The people who made the original Oz film probably weren't as educated and didn't have the technical tricks at their disposal the way modern screenwriters do. And yet bad writing abounds in Hollywood, ESPECIALLY in fantasy films. That kind of thing is what sank Wonderland. And it comes close to sinking Oz too.

The problem with fantasy/sci-fi movie dialogue is that the worlds with which these movies exist each have their own rules and logic that has to be conveyed to the audience in order for them to make sense of it, and since this Oz movie uses multiple soucres and makes up new stuff it can't assume the auidence will just know things. The challange is how to do this without making it sound like the dialogue is reciting plot points and more like real conversation and more often than not, as you point out, they don't and it sounds clunky and fake. Loading up your plot with prophecies and twists for the sake of twists never helps either.

The easy cheat rule is to have an identifiable "outsider" (like the Wizard in this case) or just get some old pro actor who can make anything sound good (like the older cast of Star Wars or Lord of the Rings). This Oz movie has the former, but not really the latter, which doesn't help it.
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Those of you who've seen it, which would you recommend- IMAX 3D or REALd 3D? Going with the hubby tomorrow, and this will be our first 3D experience outside of a theme park. Typically, I can't justify the extra cost, but I've been looking forward to this movie so I think we'll splurge.

I saw it in Real 3D and it was great. You really want to see it in 3D. Usually I'm not a fan of it, because in part of the cost, and in part because it's usually not done well/not very impressive/or necessary, but for this film it works extremely well. Worth the money IMO.
 

bsiev1977

Well-Known Member
Did anyone else notice in the opening sequence when Michele Williams, as Annie, comes to see Oz in his trailer, she mentions that a Mr. Gale has asked her to marry him? Can't remember what they said the man's first name is. Remember, Dorothy's last name was Gale.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom