DisneyGuyNYC
Well-Known Member
I'd give a new Dorothy Oz a chance if it went in a different direction. Nothing will touch the MGM picture but it could be a great new interpretation.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Oz
- Thread starter PeterAlt
- Start date
bsiev1977
Well-Known Member
Truthfully, I have no idea exactly what the reality is about who owns what rights. But it seems that Disney could start a new Oz franchise that follows Baum's entire Oz library.
By the way, never listen to Rotten Tomatoes. There are a lot of movies that I think we're exceptional and got poor ratings by that site.Just saw on Rottentomatoes.com that it's not even as favorable by critics as Spiderman 3.
Of course, it's still new and that could all change. I'm still gonna give it a try.
This is before the introduction of Dorothy. So no worries.
DisneyGuyNYC
Well-Known Member
No I meant the next movie they're supposedly working on. I've seen this movie.
I think they will go about it from a different perspective. See how Rise of Planet of the Apes (2011) is very different from the original Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971) and Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972), while respecting the 1968 (first) original. Also, like how Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) will be totally different than Battle of the Planet of the Apes (1973). Disney could use this as a model.
Sorry, I figured that out after I wrote it. I was reading this thread from down to up.
Anyone know what Disney's film budget is? It seems like they are spending an awful lot on their film division in recent years between this, Tron, Marvel franchised movies, Pirates of the Caribbean movies, Prince of Persia, John Carter, all the Pixar movies, Tangled, the new Star Wars films that are coming, etc.
Now, if they could just treat WDW like their film division, new $200 million rides would premier regularly!
Now, if they could just treat WDW like their film division, new $200 million rides would premier regularly!
ChipmunkStar
Member
This is not a major part of the movie at all, they're saving that for the Wicked movie. This film focuses on Oz's journey which I will not spoil because it's fun seeing how a con man becomes a real wizard
This movie wasn't connected to Wicked- I believe Universal has the film rights to Wicked. This is another interpretation of what happened before Dorothy happened upon Oz. The tale from Wicked is *extremely* different, and explains a lot of character backstory as far as the main players of The Wizard of Oz (Lion, Tin Man, Scarecrow, relationship between the witches of Oz, etc.), whereas this film has a different explanation for the Witches and Wizard- but nobody else.
RonAnnArbor
Well-Known Member
I saw the film this morning and really liked it. Its got that weird "Alice in Wonderland" fake 3D CGI-thing going during parts of it, but it looks lovely and colorful overall, the script is clever, and the acting is all decent, though the witches are all bland -- deliberately so since its aimed at a family audience. Franco dials down his weirdo factor.
Warner Brothers 100% owns everything associated with the original movie, so nothing can reference it - not the characters, not the costumes, jokes, songs, even ruby-slippers are not allowed (the books had silver slippers). Nothing can look the same, or sound the same. And they do a good job of not referencing anything in that movie, while setting up the distinctions between Glinda, the witch of the east, and the witch of the west.
Wicked's film rights are owned by Universal -- but its not going anywhere for the time being.
Warner Brothers 100% owns everything associated with the original movie, so nothing can reference it - not the characters, not the costumes, jokes, songs, even ruby-slippers are not allowed (the books had silver slippers). Nothing can look the same, or sound the same. And they do a good job of not referencing anything in that movie, while setting up the distinctions between Glinda, the witch of the east, and the witch of the west.
Wicked's film rights are owned by Universal -- but its not going anywhere for the time being.
Hedwig's Keeper
Active Member
That's just one little element of the movie. There are still a lot of surprises to be seen like when the old wizard's prophesy is revealed that the Wicked Witch of the West will have a daughter only to be taken from her and sent to the land of Kansas to live on a farm with a fake aunt! And her twin brother has the same deal but he is sent to another planet with a desert and two suns!
WED99
Well-Known Member
I was just using it as an example about how the Wicked film will be based around the witch and in Oz it was just a minor part. But thanks for the recap, I saw Wicked in 2008 and to be honest I don't remember any of it.
J03Y
Well-Known Member
Hedwig's Keeper
Active Member
Nice, and I never thought another 5 seconds or less Titanic clip could steal my heart away from this:
J03Y
Well-Known Member
Nice, and I never thought another 5 seconds or less Titanic clip could steal my heart away from this:
OMG that video i'm laughing so hard
bsiev1977
Well-Known Member
I thought the movie was very good. James Franco was better than I expected, but can he go more than five minutes in a movie without flashing that stupid looking grin?
Admittedly, if I looked like he did I'd probably be smiling all the time too!
Never saw three witches who looked so good!
Rachael Weisz still looks fantastic.
Michelle Williams looks so much better with long hair, at least I think so.
Mila Kunis can't help looking good. Even after she "changed" in the movie, she still looked good!
Admittedly, if I looked like he did I'd probably be smiling all the time too!
Never saw three witches who looked so good!
Rachael Weisz still looks fantastic.
Michelle Williams looks so much better with long hair, at least I think so.
Mila Kunis can't help looking good. Even after she "changed" in the movie, she still looked good!
Hedwig's Keeper
Active Member
It was better than the critics give it credit for but they all probably set the bar pretty high. I can see that they will have plenty of room for another one - just noticed some little details. You can read below if you don't mind a couple spoilers or if you have already seen the movie.
SPOILER ALERT: look away now if you don't want to know anything about the movie... seriously, stop reading this... why are you still reading this... ...last warning...... ok, I noticed that Theodora had a ruby ring on. With Evanora losing her power by Glinda destroying her emerald necklace, I can see Evanora returning to her sister for the ruby ring, for its power. But I would guess she wouldn't want to get her other "power" jewelry destroyed, so I could see Evanora taking the power of the ruby ring and placing it into something else... hmm, maybe something else that she can wear all the time... hmmm, what could that be, ruby... scarf! No... ruby... stockings! No.... anyway, I think that things are set up quite nicely for the next one, and isn't there something about art in the public domain for 75 years can no longer be copyrighted? Just saying since in 2014 will be the 75th anniversary of the original Wizard of Oz including all those little details that Disney wasn't aloud to use in this film, this time around
SPOILER ALERT: look away now if you don't want to know anything about the movie... seriously, stop reading this... why are you still reading this... ...last warning...... ok, I noticed that Theodora had a ruby ring on. With Evanora losing her power by Glinda destroying her emerald necklace, I can see Evanora returning to her sister for the ruby ring, for its power. But I would guess she wouldn't want to get her other "power" jewelry destroyed, so I could see Evanora taking the power of the ruby ring and placing it into something else... hmm, maybe something else that she can wear all the time... hmmm, what could that be, ruby... scarf! No... ruby... stockings! No.... anyway, I think that things are set up quite nicely for the next one, and isn't there something about art in the public domain for 75 years can no longer be copyrighted? Just saying since in 2014 will be the 75th anniversary of the original Wizard of Oz including all those little details that Disney wasn't aloud to use in this film, this time around
RonAnnArbor
Well-Known Member
You don't need to know anything about it to know they are going to do a follow-up...Their first day take was 25 Million in the US alone, with a weekend estimate of 85 million or higher for this weekend...with nothing major opening the next couple weeks, it will stay at the high-income rate for the next few weeks, setting it off on the "blockbuster" path, and a sure to follow sequel/i.e. prequel.
RonAnnArbor
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.