would anybody care to venture an opinion on whether I'd enjoy this film?
Oh, and to be canonical about the first book (for those who haven't read it):
Dorothy never comes face to face with Glinda until the penultimate chapter.
When her house lands on the Wicked Witch of the East, she is met by the unnamed Good Witch of the North. The Good Witch of the North doesn't know how to get Dorothy back home, so she turns her hat into a slate, on which words magically appear, directing her to the Emerald City. When she is captured and enslaved by the Wicked Witch of the West, the Witch, in an attempt to steal the Silver Shoes, places an iron bar across a floor Dorothy is to mop, and renders it invisible. Dorothy trips over it, loses one shoe (which the Witch promptly snatches up), and (in a fit of unthinking rage) dashes the contents of the scrub-bucket over the Witch, who collapses into a puddle over the course of about a minute.
It's only after the Wizard's balloon breaks its mooring ropes, leaving Dorothy still marooned, that the Soldier with the Green Whiskers finally suggests asking Glinda for help.
Speaking as someone who has held (and read) a first edition copy of the Wonderful Wizard of Oz
, and curated a collection of first and early editions of all the original L. Frank Baum books (including, by the way, By The Candelabra's Glare
inscribed to his wife), as well as original Oz
artwork from Denslow and Neill ... canon is overrated and almost entirely irrelevant. So what if MGM changed the color of the slippers from silver to ruby to take advantage of technicolor, the change worked
. And so long as deviations from canon work within the context of the film, I'm all for it. If I want canon, I'll go back and re-read the original books and and enjoy the original artwork. And, for the most part, Oz the Great and Powerful
worked. I'm happy we got a film that honored and creatively told a story from the Land of Oz.