Contemporary "Wizard of Oz" Series in Development From Gwen Stefani and Blake Shelton

[Nude Colonel Stuart]

OZ was also once a Marvel comic...shared with DC in a giant treasury edition, back when Deadpool was a tadpool.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

OZ was also once a Marvel comic...shared with DC in a giant treasury edition, back when Deadpool was a tadpool.

I remember that being advertised in the back of the Star Wars and Close Encounter treasury editions when I owned them.
The likeness looked pretty spot on.

 

[The Grinch Doctor]

So what y'all are telling is that I'm the only person here who enjoyed Tin Man?

 

[Ghost of Christmas Future]

The Wizard of Oz was published in 1900 right? So it's public domain now along with all the sequels that were written in following 2 decades? Not surprising there are more adaptions being made.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

So what y'all are telling is that I'm the only person here who enjoyed Tin Man?

I watched portions of it when CometTV did a marathon airing of it, I enjoyed it; and, I liked the cast. So, I have no objections to it.

 

[JD]

So what y'all are telling is that I'm the only person here who enjoyed Tin Man?

I really liked it, and I've been thinking about rewatching it now that I found it streaming. I'm a big fan of all 3 of Nick Willing's classic reimaginings, Tin Man, Alice, and Neverland.

 

[The Grinch Doctor]

I really liked it, and I've been thinking about rewatching it now that I found it streaming. I'm a big fan of all 3 of Nick Willing's classic reimaginings, Tin Man, Alice, and Neverland.

I don't I knew there were additional reimaginings. I might check them out whenever I get to my own rewatch of Tin Man.

 

[JD]

Here are the trailers for Nick Willing's other reimaginings
Alice

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

They're not mentioned in the fan trailer, but it also has Matt Frewer, who we saw in the trailer, Colm Meany as the King of Hearts, Tim Curry as Dodo, Henry Dean Stanton as Caterpillar, and Alessandro Juliani as 9 of Clubs.
Neverland

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

And yes, Bob Hoskins is playing Smee again in it.

 

[Nude Colonel Stuart]

So what y'all are telling is that I'm the only person here who enjoyed Tin Man?

Whether I enjoyed TIN MAN or not, which I did, I will not be grouped into a ''y'all.'' We are all individuals, except me.

 

[The Grinch Doctor]

Don't hate on y'all!

 

[Forbin]

One of these days they'll give Dorothy Gale a submachine gun in order to give her empowerment and additional agency. It's inevitable.

Guess what? There's a model kit:

DOTTY STORM MODEL KIT – DIGITAL PRINT – GKUS Creative

gkus.us

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Probably isn't any worse than any of the other revisionist-Oz there is out there. Could be the most faithful to the original since Return to Oz, not that Return is all that faithful (better than Wicked, or the 1939 MGM hatchet-job, though).

Pardon my asking, but why is the 1939 movie a 'hatchet job'?

Guess what? There's a model kit:

DOTTY STORM MODEL KIT – DIGITAL PRINT – GKUS Creative

gkus.us

That concept reminds me of mine about Dorothy learning martial arts:

In the future, I may do art of Dorothy sparring with the Wicked Witch of The West, but for now, this is it.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

1. The stakes in a genuine fairy tale are quite high; the stakes in a dream-fantasy are zero. Whether by design or otherwise, Baum, in the first book, left entirely open the question of whether Oz is an in-universe real place, or Dorothy's dream. The fact that Dorothy doesn't appear at all in the second book certainly leans strongly towards "in-universe real place," and the sixth book (in which Dorothy, Aunt Em, and Uncle Henry become permanent residents of Oz) is pretty conclusive about that. The 1939 movie, on the other hand, reduces it to dream-fantasy, and therefore lowers the stakes to zero.

2. The people who made the 1939 movie made all sorts of changes for no good storytelling reason. Some were for commercial reasons: the Silver Shoes became "ruby slippers" for no reason other than to show off Technicolor. Other changes were for no reason at all.

3. None of that would matter in the slightest, if it weren't for the fact that in popular culture, the 1939 movie (which Baum, being dead, had no control over) is treated as canon, rather than the book and the thirteen sequel novels that Baum wrote. In effect, it's a "tail wagging the dog" situation.

 

[Crisp Conditions]

The stakes in a genuine fairy tale are quite high; the stakes in a dream-fantasy are zero. Whether by design or otherwise, Baum, in the first book, left entirely open the question of whether Oz is an in-universe real place, or Dorothy's dream. The fact that Dorothy doesn't appear at all in the second book certainly leans strongly towards "in-universe real place," and the sixth book (in which Dorothy, Aunt Em, and Uncle Henry become permanent residents of Oz) is pretty conclusive about that. The 1939 movie, on the other hand, reduces it to dream-fantasy, and therefore lowers the stakes to zero.

You seem to have somehow overlooked the fact that the 1939 movie explicitly leaves the question of whether Oz is an in-universe real place or simply Dorothy's dream entirely open as well. It can't be literally left open without opposing viewpoints both being presented, as they were: Dorothy's relatives and associates being skeptical, while Dorothy herself insists it was a real place. The question is left unresolved at the end of the film.