Oz the Great and Powerful - Grading & Discussion

BTW, my take on Return to Oz is this:

Everything right with it came from Baum.

Everything wrong with it, whether we're talking gratuitous horror shock scenes that aren't in any of Baum's books, or conflation of The Land of Oz with Ozma of Oz, or Langwidere with Mombi, or utterly unnecessary (and in the case of ruby slippers replacing the Nome King's magic belt, expensive) nods to the 1939 MGM Oz, came from screwing around with Baum.

 

Baum screwed around with Baum when he made the Oz silents as they don't follow the books precisely either. So the precedent starts there.

 

We used to have a guy at work who, whenever such things came up, would declare that the 1939 movie was the best adaptation of book-to-film ever. I'd say "Interesting. I've never read it - how were the musical numbers described in the book?"

 

"Baum screwed around with Baum" from one book to the next.

He had a right to do so: it was his own stuff. Not so with moviemakers screwing around with his stuff for no valid reason, in ways that were either utterly pointless, or detrimental to the story.

Just as Alan Dean Foster has been known to screw around with his own stuff (if I remember right, some of his Humanx Commonwealth books say that, at least until the Ulru-Ujurrians built the Teacher, and figured out a way, no KK-drive starship could even closely approach a planet, much less land on one, and yet other books say that certain small KK-drive vessels could indeed shut down their Caplis generators to make planetfall; likewise, there's at least one Commonwealth book that talks about the Thranx taking up body surfing, and even teaming up with a Human partner and acting as a living surfboard, while others characterize the Thranx as being deathly afraid of immersion in water, because their breathing spicules are along the sides of their bodies). For that matter, Tolkien screwed around with his own stuff, as well, but that doesn't mean I particularly cared for what Bakshi did with it (personally, I'm much happier with what Rankin and Bass did with Tolkien, and haven't yet gotten around to seeing more recent big screen treatments of Tolkien.)

Now, I will admit that the last time I saw the 1939 MGM Oz, Judy Garland was still living. But the heavily abridged Little Golden Book of Road, and the even more heavily abridged pop-up book of Wizard were far more faithful to both the letter and the spirit of the original material than any Oz movie I've seen.

 

And thank the Wizard for that being the case. I'm thrilled to have gotten a fun, entertaining (though flawed) interpretation of Oz on film. It's great too see it translated from page to screen. For the the strictest, purest, most faithful experience of Baum's Oz ... best to read it.

 

I know, right? The 1939 movie, while enjoyable in it's way, is probably one of the worst book to movie adaptations. It'd be like going to see the first Harry Potter movie but Harry is 25 and it's a musical. There's just so much that's different, but I'm not really sure how else they could've streamlined it for the screen.

And his stuff is now in the public domain for anyone to do what they please with as is their right.

 

I don't think he meant from a legal standpoint. I see this a lot that people interpret things that way, maybe it's an age gap thing?

 

And understand, I don't have a problem with moving beyond an established canon; if I did, I wouldn't love TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, and I wouldn't have read every bloody ST novel (except for a handful of children's novels) ever released.

I'll admit that where M*A*S*H is concerned (and yes, it looks like I'm veering off into left field here, but stay with me), I haven't read the book, or seen more than a few minutes of the movie (I have seen the stage play, however). But it seems to me that it was a case of the television series actually being the best incarnation of the idea, and actually improved as it evolved beyond the original material: stereotypical Henry Blake and Frank Burns being replaced with much more believable Sherman Potter and Charles Winchester, Houlihan and Klinger evolving out of their one-joke stereotypes, experimental episodes, Alda vetoing a Hawkeye gag that turned out to be a repeat of one he'd actually done and forgotten about in an earlier season, and so forth. But this was a case, like TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT (and maybe, maybe, the Abramsverse), of expanding on the established canon, not stomping on it.

I have no problem with an Oz movie expanding on what Baum wrote. Or even attempting to answer the questions raised by Baum's own inconsistencies (like the passages in Land, accusing the Wizard of collaborating with Mombi, to get Ozma out of the way, that are conveniently forgotten two novels later, in Dorothy and the Wizard). Just as long as they aren't stomping on Baum.

 

I strongly disagree that "Dreamland Fantasy" has Zero stakes. Very often, the characters are written to feel the Dreamland experience more profoundly than any experience in their life prior. Characters in their Dreamland Fantasies are profoundly changed.

I haven't read the Original Wizard of Oz books, but, I greatly enjoy the 1939 film, as well as Return to Oz and I also really enjoy the MacGuire Wicked Series.

I quite enjoyed this movie, gave it an A-, and if there is a Sequel, it will be most welcome in my eyes. As many have said already the Monkey and The China Girl were both awesome and the witches were great.

 

Mila is too damn cute to be a convincing wicked witch.
IMHO, of course.
Even with the nose and chin, all I see are those big beautiful eyes in that lovely round face.

 

Not sure why I watched this (stepdaughter wanted to see it I guess) but I thought it was mediocre to bad. Even the CGI was below average. Grade: D-

RAMA