"Oz: The Great and Powerful" Teaser poster

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

can be found here.

Looks like Raimi's using the original film's continuity for this "prequel." Why not? It was a perfect film.


But damn, Hollywood, come up with something new!

 

[Derishton]

I'll happily see that, but it'll be hard to top Wicked (the novel, not the musical - although I liked that, too).

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Unusual approach - not focusing on any visible characters. The most powerful image for any type of graphic design is a human (or at least animal) face, and it's rare to see anyone not take that advantage.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Looks like Raimi's using the original film's continuity for this "prequel." Why not? It was a perfect film.

But damn, Hollywood, come up with something new!

Which "original film"? The 1908 multimedia presentation, the 1910 film based on the 1902 stage play, the 1914 adaptation, the unfinished 1921 film, the popular 1925 film featuring Oliver Hardy, the 1932 film, the 1933 animated short, or the "original" film from 1939?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptations_of_The_Wizard_of_Oz#Film_adaptations

That looks to be about eight film adaptations of the source material just to get to the one you call the original and criticize Hollywood for being creatively bankrupt for filming a prequel to.

This comes up in almost every remake discussion here, so I'm surprised you've never heard it before.

 

[Derishton]

Unusual approach - not focusing on any visible characters. The most powerful image for any type of graphic design is a human (or at least animal) face, and it's rare to see anyone not take that advantage.

That balloon is so iconic, though.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Looks like Raimi's using the original film's continuity for this "prequel." Why not? It was a perfect film.

But damn, Hollywood, come up with something new!

Which "original film"? The 1908 multimedia presentation, the 1910 film based on the 1902 stage play, the 1914 adaptation, the unfinished 1921 film, the popular 1925 film featuring Oliver Hardy, the 1932 film, the 1933 animated short, or the "original" film from 1939?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptations_of_The_Wizard_of_Oz#Film_adaptations

That looks to be about eight film adaptations of the source material just to get to the one you call the original and criticize Hollywood for being creatively bankrupt for filming a prequel to.

This comes up in almost every remake discussion here, so I'm surprised you've never heard it before.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

so take a chill pill please and stop being so obtuse.

 

[Skywalker]

Nitpicking here, but I think The Great and Powerful Oz would sound better than Oz: The Great and Powerful. But whatever.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Looks like Raimi's using the original film's continuity for this "prequel." Why not? It was a perfect film.

But damn, Hollywood, come up with something new!

Which "original film"? The 1908 multimedia presentation, the 1910 film based on the 1902 stage play, the 1914 adaptation, the unfinished 1921 film, the popular 1925 film featuring Oliver Hardy, the 1932 film, the 1933 animated short, or the "original" film from 1939?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptations_of_The_Wizard_of_Oz#Film_adaptations

That looks to be about eight film adaptations of the source material just to get to the one you call the original and criticize Hollywood for being creatively bankrupt for filming a prequel to.

This comes up in almost every remake discussion here, so I'm surprised you've never heard it before.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

so take a chill pill please and stop being so obtuse.

Could you possibly say anything more devoid of content and meaning than that post?

 

[ToddKent]

Which "original film"? The 1908 multimedia presentation, the 1910 film based on the 1902 stage play, the 1914 adaptation, the unfinished 1921 film, the popular 1925 film featuring Oliver Hardy, the 1932 film, the 1933 animated short, or the "original" film from 1939?

He means the only one that anyone gives a shit about ('39). But you probably knew that already.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Nitpicking here, but I think The Great and Powerful Oz would sound better than Oz: The Great and Powerful. But whatever.

"Oz: The Great and Powerful" lends itself more to people just calling it "Oz".

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Which "original film"? The 1908 multimedia presentation, the 1910 film based on the 1902 stage play, the 1914 adaptation, the unfinished 1921 film, the popular 1925 film featuring Oliver Hardy, the 1932 film, the 1933 animated short, or the "original" film from 1939?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptations_of_The_Wizard_of_Oz#Film_adaptations

That looks to be about eight film adaptations of the source material just to get to the one you call the original and criticize Hollywood for being creatively bankrupt for filming a prequel to.

This comes up in almost every remake discussion here, so I'm surprised you've never heard it before.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

so take a chill pill please and stop being so obtuse.

Could you possibly say anything more devoid of content and meaning than that post?

So , you really want me to spell it out for you.
Fine. Geeez.
As the poster previous to this said so eloquently, the '39 film is the "only version anyone gives a shit about" Your post may be accurate, but you were clearly being obtuse. It seems fairly obvious, then, that this new film will be taking its cues from that film (particularly in a visual sense, from what we can see) and, even if the creators of the film say it isn't, people will invariably compare it to that film regardless.

So let me dissect my post for you. I guess on the level that they are making an Oz film, I am glad they are using the '39 film and that they are having some reverence for it. However, I will say that my optimism for these kind of connections to a previous film is held in check by my super-fuel anticipation which culminated in disappointment that came with Superman Returns, which was supposed to hold the original two films in a similar reverence. Returns never felt like its own film. The same could happen here.

As for my last comment.. why does every film that Hollywood pumps millions into have to be a prequel, sequel, reboot, retelling? I know the answer, of course, but I really think that if they came up with something truly original, people will watch it. So my last sentence was just me venting. I am allowed to do that occasionally!

There. Do you get it now? Because if you don't, I have a spoon handy!

 

[Gaith]

It was a perfect film.

Nah. If it were perfect, it would've ended with this note:

​

Nitpicking here, but I think The Great and Powerful Oz would sound better than Oz: The Great and Powerful. But whatever.

But this title allows them to produce multiple movies starting with "Oz: ---", of course.

As for my last comment.. why does every film that Hollywood pumps millions into have to be a prequel, sequel, reboot, retelling? I know the answer, of course, but I really think that if they came up with something truly original, people will watch it. So my last sentence was just me venting. I am allowed to do that occasionally!

Imagine there's no sequels
It's easy if you try
No follow-ups, no spin-offs
Just one story, then it dies
Imagine all the movies
Made solely for today...

Imagine there's no franchises
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to "re-imagine"
And not a one reboot
Imagine all the writers
Starting ever anew...

Yoo-hoo, oo-oo-oo

We may say FSM's a dreamer
But he's not the only one
He hope someday Hollywood'll join him
And each film will exist as one.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Which "original film"? The 1908 multimedia presentation, the 1910 film based on the 1902 stage play, the 1914 adaptation, the unfinished 1921 film, the popular 1925 film featuring Oliver Hardy, the 1932 film, the 1933 animated short, or the "original" film from 1939?

He means the only one that anyone gives a shit about ('39). But you probably knew that already.

Since I made it clear he was referring to the 1939 film as the original in my second paragraph which you omitted, and since the question above was quite obviously rhetorical and meant to show the flaw in his reasoning regarding remakes and prequels and the like, your sarcasm kind of falls flat.

If remakes (or prequels, etc.) are inherently bad from inception and not just based on the quality of the film or lack thereof, then by that rationale they should have never made the rightfully lauded 1939 version of Oz, or Ben Hur, A Fistful of Dollars, The Thing (the Carpenter version), Scarface, The Italian Job, Ocean's Eleven, and numerous other great films that were remakes. It's not the category of the film that should be judged, it's the quality.

In response to FSM, it's not obtuse, it's one of only two comments posted in your OP and it was based on an inherently flawed premise. If you don't want people commenting on what you post, then a discussion forum was probably the wrong venue.

 

[JD]

I saw the poster earlier today, and I really like it.QUOTE=Skywalker;6594469]Nitpicking here, but I think The Great and Powerful Oz would sound better than Oz: The Great and Powerful. But whatever.[/QUOTE]
Isn't "The Great and Powerful Oz" a quote from the '39 movie? I had assumed that was where the title came from.

 

[IndyJones]

SNIP

I live a couple of blocks away from Oz Park, so named because L. Frank Baum used to live in the area. You remember him? He's the guy who wrote the book that the "original" 1939 film is based off of.

If we can acknowledge that the 1939 film is pretty awesome, and that it's not an "original" anything, then why not spend our time advocating for quality entertainment rather than just pushing for some tortured version of originality.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

This movie sounds like it has potential and I think the teaser poster is appropriate at this stage and is a nice poster. I'm curious what the movie tone and style will be, I'd like to see some rich color but not treacly so.

Speaking of sequels I wish Sam had been able to give us another Evil Dead flick before moving on to Hollywood. Of course, guys like him and Romero had to really struggle to get their visions out there, no matter how influential those pictures were.

 

[Saga]

love the poster. really looking forward to the film.

 

[The Lensman]

why does every film that Hollywood pumps millions into have to be a prequel, sequel, reboot, retelling? I know the answer, of course,

As Locutus says, remakes are nothing new, and we can add "The Maltese Falcon" to his list, since the classic Bogie version was the third. The first came out, six years later the first remake, six years after that, the classic.

Remakes have been part of Hollywood since day one.

but I really think that if they came up with something truly original, people will watch it.

There's all kinds of original movies coming out all the time....they're called "Indie films" and most people don't go see them. That's why the stuido's keep churning out shit....because that's where the money is.




At any rate, love the poster, and wish they'd remake "The Wizard Of Oz" without the songs, but with today's FX. Yeah, I enjoy the '39 version well enough, but alot of the magic of that version wore off when I grew up and could watch it any time I wanted.

 

[Sindatur]

Imagine there's no sequels
It's easy if you try
No follow-ups, no spin-offs
Just one story, then it dies
Imagine all the movies
Made solely for today...

Imagine there's no franchises
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to "re-imagine"
And not a one reboot
Imagine all the writers
Starting ever anew...

Yoo-hoo, oo-oo-oo

We may say FSM's a dreamer
But he's not the only one
He hope someday Hollywood'll join him
And each film will exist as one.

Cool song, but, isn't that like a remake or something?

I actually thought this thread was going to be for the Wicked movie, I had no idea there was a Callis WoOz Prequel coming. I'm up for it.

@The Lensman Strip out the songs? Do you rave? I think we're gonna have to revoke your Winkie License

 

[Cutter John]

Guess I'm one of the few who never liked the '39 movie all that much. Way too sweet and 'foofy' for my taste. Closest comparison I can think is if PJ had put fairies and pixies in the LotR's movies.

Return to Oz was more my speed.