Oz the Great and Powerful - Grading & Discussion

I think the restrictions on referencing the 1939 film were not so much artistic as legal, since this was not released by the same studio. That's why there are still some homages, if it seemed like it could get past the legal department.

 

Just wondering, if the Ruby Slippers were not included due to legal reasons, why were they able to be included in Return to Oz, which was also Disney, and not MGM? And they were a major plot device in that movie, as well.

I'm not saying they should have been in there, since I think the movie worked just fine with out them. I'm just wondering.

 

I later admitted that he was speaking politically, in so that what he said was not the truth, but palatable and truthish.

I admit that the real truth is that they didn't want to (or couldn't) pay MGM because they're cheap.

I just believe that Rami could have built better lies to cover up his cheapness.

Do we really believe that if he could have gotten the ruby slipppers, free of charge that he still would have declined the opportunity to use them? What sort of maniac turns down free shit?

But Disney might not have even approached MGM because either they're wussies or defeatists, daunted by the prohibitive costs.

I've mentioned Wicked a couple times. They seem to have "stage show rights" to use Ruby slippers which would not translate into "film rights" and thereafter Wicked would have to then use "silver" shoes or someone hands over money to MGM to process the transition to film.

Disney has done it before and they could have done it again, but they wussed out.

Was Return to Oz a bomb?

Once bitten, twice shy?

I showed Return of Oz to my nephew recently and he LOVED it.

 

Return to Oz is like Tron, a movie that was not a financial success, either. Tron was so creative it should be considered an artistic success. And Return to Oz was also a movie to be proud of.

 

Return to Oz's problem was that it was faithful to the original books, and didn't advertise this. Kids went to see it thinking it would be all bright and cheery like the MGM movie, and got some freaky cool stuff in return.

Released nowadays, it'd be better reviewed.

 

I hate to be that guy, but in the books they're silver shoes, not slippers.

I saw the movie and at no time did any of that enter my mind. A wand is similar to a light saber....how? One is a deadly weapon about three feet long, glows and has a distinctive sound. The other is a stick about a foot long. Not even close to being the same.

This is what a rip off might look like:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnOL8Fx3Tvc[/yt]

Oh, right...it's an homage!

The new movie was enjoyable, much more so than the recent Alice In Wonderland movie. It certainly had more heart. While Return To Oz did the best in terms of faithful portrayals of the various characters, I think this movie did best in giving us the world itself. Oz was larger and more expansive, not to mention better realized than previous movies.

I hoped Disney would've gone for a more faithful to the books approach, and that they would've tried to build a franchise out of it as well. I guess we'll see where they go next, if at all.

 

An unadmiring Jezebel review goes all Inception-y:

In L. Frank Baum's book, Oz is a real place, not a dream populated by characters from Dorothy's home life, but this film steals that conceit. A carnival-magician huckster named Oscar Diggs (played by James Franco) is swept into a tornado in Kansas, and suddenly the world's black-and-white turns widescreen 3-D color, with his assistant, ex-girlfriend and audience members as the slightly altered real-life denizens of Oz. This sort of had my brain spinning. So, this is Oscar's dream, and then Dorothy is having a dream within that dream? Were they both taken away by the same tornado? When Dorothy wakes up and returns to Kansas, does she cease to exist? Did she ever exist? What if we're all just insignificant specks in this grand universe?
​

BWWWWWWAAAAAAAMMMMMM!

 

Oz knocks up Dorothys mum and because they have nearly identical congenital tumours they both suffered from nearly identical psychosises.

 

That... makes a frightening amount of sense.

 

Return to Oz did the same thing, so at least Disney is consistent. Everything in Dorothy's life was paralleled in Oz. It's true that Aunt Em thought Dorothy was mentally ill, but the movie made it plain that both Kansas and Oz were real.
Unless someon thinks that the feelgood ending was just a deception and Dorothy seeing Ozma in the mirror was really horror movie ending?

Again, the idea that you can do anything if you believe, a prominent part of Oz the Great and Powerful, makes the reality of Oz simultaneous with the reality of Kansas. Would it make people feel better to mumble "parallel realities," or would that feel too science fictiony, not fantasyish enough?

The movie really does contradict one aspect of the musical, which is, James Franco is something of a bad man, but a good wizard (i.e., kicks ass.)

 

A-

My whole family and I enjoyed it. Good fun and may be worth watching it again at home one day.

 

No storm chasers? Bummer.

I loved this old "TV listing" of Wizard-

Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first person she meets and then teams up with three strangers to kill again.

 

Saw it today, in 3D. I usually don't care for 3D, as it's often poorly done and just a silly gimmick, but I liked it here. I loved the physical look and feel of OZ. Technically, I thought the film was very well made, but I didn't care for Franco much in the role; the china doll had more charisma, frankly. Some of the characters fell a bit flat, seemed disconnected somehow. However, it was fun, bits of it were charming and the evolution of the witches was somewhat interesting.

I gave it a solid B. I think the grade school crowd and their parents will really enjoy it, but the very young will be scared witless by the flying monkeys and cackling witches.

 

Glad to see this succeeding so well. I didn't expect that.

In Wicked they're both silver shoes and ruby slippers.

No.

"Plagiarism" is a word that actually means something, BTW.

 

Just watched this tonight in 3D. Got to be one of the most beautiful movies ive seen in a very long time. Colors and backgrounds were sharp and 3 witches were hot. Very good movie, just wished Oz would of actually had some magic.

 

Michelle has always seemed too awkward to be hot, there were al these slowmotion far away shots on Dawson's Creek where she waddled like a bow legged duck... Mila painted herself with Jackie from that 70s show for 3/4's of a decade so well that I can't see any decency in the woman at all... But Rachel has it going on from every angle... Even the upnose mini-cam capturing cilia candids.

If Oz had magic, then that would mean he would be lying to Dorothy in the final movie.

 

Michelle's awkwardness contributes to her hotness.

 

Also I'm annoyed about her contribution to the continued poor health of Oz. The character, not the actress, but it bleeds back over into my feelings for Michelle... Glinda didn't need the Wizard and hadn't needed the Wizard for years since their father had been usurped and her name had been ruined as a wicked Witch by Evanora's masterfully laid propaganda.

"She had the power inside her all along"

The difference between Dorothy and Glinda is that Glinda is perfectly aware about how a bitchfight between she and Evanora would go down, there was no doubt or denial or ignorance... There is no earthly reason, I mean, Ozly reason for she to allow Evanora's despotic rule to continue if this Good Witch knew that she had a 50/50 chance of winning out the final battle.

Only the Sith believe in Absolutes.

Of course if Glinda just sucked up to Theodora, victory would have been certain, but no, Blondy decided to wait for the prophecy of a Wizard to come to fruition and save them all at zero risk to her safety no matter who Theodora zapped into cinders.

Prophecies are balls.