The Wizard of Oz. What do you think of it?

[Tulin]

I don't remember that one but I DO remember the one with Carrie Fisher and all the horny little midgets.

Oh and ditto on "Wicked", the novel. Grim and boring, indeed.

 

[JustKate]

I love the movie (which I mentioned earlier) and the books (which I forgot to mention earlier). No, they aren't particularly well written, but I don't care. It's kind of like Agatha Christie, who got better as she went along but was never, let's face it, a truly good writer. With both Baum and Christie, you read for the plots and the characters, not the writing.

I like the later books better than the first one, though - maybe because then I don't have to compare them to a beloved movie? I only like the ones written by Baum, however. At least a couple of other writers wrote Oz books with the blessings of Baum's estate, and they just seem too too tooooooo derivative to me.

And as I also mentioned earlier, I truly disliked Wicked. A lot. I read it only because it was a gift from a child I'm pretty darn crazy about. I'll give the musical a chance if I have an opportunity, though, since I know other Oz fans who adore it.

 

[ToddKent]

I don't remember that one but I DO remember the one with Carrie Fisher and all the horny little midgets

"Under the Rainbow" or "Return of the Jedi"?

 

[23skidoo]

I once had to do some research into the history of The Wizard of Oz and found out several interesting facts, such as the 1939 film is not the "original" film. It was, in fact, the 3rd remake of the original film, wshich was created in 1910.

This is true. I guess the 1939 film being so epochal tends to drown out the silent films, even though they were HUGE back in the day. I forget the name of the guy who played the scarecrow, but he was the star and as I recall reading about these early films, the guy was as big as Jim Carrey (in fact the 1920s version had a sequel made focusing on the Scarecrow). They had an interesting look and I have a DVD I picked up for like $5 that had the films accompanied by a very weird-sounding musical score (different from the one in the box set).

There was also some animated version made in the 60s, I believe, and I've also seen photographs of a made-for-TV version in the 1950s starring a 30-something Shirley Temple as Dorothy. For my money, though, the sexiest Dorothy had to have been singer Jewel Kilcher, who played Dorothy for a live charity concert performance of the score from the 1939 film that made the rounds on PBS about 10 years ago.

Baum's books are pretty universally acknowledged to be poorly written. It's a bit of an overstatement to call them the Harry Potter of their time since Harry Potter is largely distinguished by its popularity and Baum's book languished in obscurity after being published in 1900 until the stage play adaptation in 1902 created a following, which sparked Baum to then write the 13 other Oz books. But they were never nearly as popular as the performed versions, and certainly were nothing like the phenomenon of the Harry Potter books.

I'm going to disagree with you there. I've read a number of books on the Oz franchise and while you're correct it was a slow burn, the books became huge and remained huge up to Baum's death, after which they hired a succession of authors to continue the tale. In terms of number of books written, I think they were rivalled only by Tarzan. And to the best of my knowledge Harry Potter wasn't an instant hit either; I work in the media and I never even heard of them until everyone started to go gaga over The Goblet of Fire, and I'm willing to bet most of the people who bought the (early) Potter books did so after the first movie.

Baum and Oz have been credited, however, with essentially creating the market for chldren's literature and entertainment aimed primarily at families, which did not exist prior to the stage play becoming wildly popular with that audience.

I agree. Oz was the one of the first examples of a true "franchise". You had books, stage and film adaptations, toys and other merchandise, music (I believe there were some Oz-related songs released back in the early days, ages before the Garland movie). Someone more familiar with, say, Sherlock Holmes is welcome to correct me, but I think it might have been the very first example of this (much of the Holmes franchising didn't happen until years after Doyle died, while Baum was around for much of the early marketing of his product, and IIRC the hiring of new writers to continue the books after his death began almost immediately, while there was some gap between Doyle's last Holmes book and new authors taking over). Tarzan comes close but that series didn't start until 1912, more than a decade after Oz. So you could say Oz established the pattern that is still followed today by the likes of Star Trek, Harry Potter and Doctor Who.

Alex

 

[barnaclelapse]

Years ago there was a biopic film that starred John Ritter as L. Frank Baum. I remember seeing it and liking it at the time but it's been so long I can't recall specifics. I think it showed how real life events (which I'm sure were just made up for the film) inspired him to create various Oz elements.

Does anyone else remember it?

I had no idea such a thing existed. It might be worth checking out. I could certainly see John Ritter playing that kind of guy, from what I've read about him.

 

[ToddKent]

Years ago there was a biopic film that starred John Ritter as L. Frank Baum. I remember seeing it and liking it at the time but it's been so long I can't recall specifics. I think it showed how real life events (which I'm sure were just made up for the film) inspired him to create various Oz elements.

Does anyone else remember it?

I had no idea such a thing existed. It might be worth checking out. I could certainly see John Ritter playing that kind of guy, from what I've read about him.

Just did a quick search:

The Dreamer of Oz (1990)

 

[GhostFaceSaint]

You know I would like to see Wicked come to the big screen, as either being based on the book or adapted from the play.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Baum's books are pretty universally acknowledged to be poorly written. It's a bit of an overstatement to call them the Harry Potter of their time since Harry Potter is largely distinguished by its popularity and Baum's book languished in obscurity after being published in 1900 until the stage play adaptation in 1902 created a following, which sparked Baum to then write the 13 other Oz books. But they were never nearly as popular as the performed versions, and certainly were nothing like the phenomenon of the Harry Potter books.

I'm going to disagree with you there. I've read a number of books on the Oz franchise and while you're correct it was a slow burn, the books became huge and remained huge up to Baum's death, after which they hired a succession of authors to continue the tale. In terms of number of books written, I think they were rivalled only by Tarzan. And to the best of my knowledge Harry Potter wasn't an instant hit either; I work in the media and I never even heard of them until everyone started to go gaga over The Goblet of Fire, and I'm willing to bet most of the people who bought the (early) Potter books did so after the first movie.

Actually, if I recall correctly, the media noticed Harry Potter around the time of Goblet of Fire because the phenomenon was well underway. It was the various release parties of that book which were drawing thousands of families for midnight lines that started to get coverage. Granted that seriously ramped up the phenomenon, but prior to that HP achieved remarkable success entirely through word of mouth - and long before there were any filmed versions of it.

But I distinguish HP because, from what I understand, there is simply no other literary phenomenon like it. Its sales currently stand at about 400 million copies all told. For comparison the next most popular piece of fiction is A Tale of Two Cities - at 200 million copies since its publication in 1859. For a more modern comparison - The Lord of the Rings, 150 million copies since 1955. The next most popular book series is Goosebumps with 62 books (to HP's 10 books, for its figures include the extra 3 compendium books), standing at 300 million copies sold.

I don't doubt that Oz was huge in its day. But there is no huge like Harry Potter huge. Its popularity is extraordinary - even more so for being published in such an electronic age with so many competing forms of entertainment vying for people's attention and dollars.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Years ago there was a biopic film that starred John Ritter as L. Frank Baum. I remember seeing it and liking it at the time but it's been so long I can't recall specifics. I think it showed how real life events (which I'm sure were just made up for the film) inspired him to create various Oz elements.

Does anyone else remember it?

I had no idea such a thing existed. It might be worth checking out. I could certainly see John Ritter playing that kind of guy, from what I've read about him.

Just did a quick search:

The Dreamer of Oz (1990)

Well, there you have it.

I'll have to see if Netflix carries it.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

W.O.Z. in cinemas - November 17 - one night only

The Wizard of Oz will be in the cinema next month:

The Wizard of Oz 70th Anniversary Encore Event
for only one night on Tuesday, November 17th at 6:30 p.m. (local time) at the cinema.
http://www.ncm.com/Fathom/Premiere/WizardofOz_Encore.aspx

a list of all participating theatres: (PDF File)
http://www.ncm.com/FathomContent/PDF/WOZ_Encore_Participating_Theatres.pdf

I saw a preview at a digital screening last night of "Michael Jackson's This Is It".
unlike the TOS "The Menagerie" in 2007 in cinemas for one night which was projected in 4:3 original aspect ratio pillarboxed on a 16:9 screen I believe just like the TOS season 1 Blu-ray.
What I saw in the 'The Wizard of Oz' preview though was 16:9 which is obviously cropped from its original theatrical aspect ratio of 4:3 (1.33:1).
Although Wizard of Oz has been released in cinemas in a tighter cropped widescreen twice:
1.85 : 1 (1998 re-release) (cropped)
1.85 : 1 (1955 re-release) (cropped)

The studio merely provides the sharpest, cleanest, most balanced, and best color-timed picture it can

If you are interested in the restoration work itself check out this article:
HDD Gets An In Depth Look at the Restoration of 'The Wizard of Oz' (UPDATED - Before and After Pics!)
Keep in mind the Blu-ray of The Wizard of Oz that just came out was made from the same:

scanning the original Technicolor negatives using 8K resolution. From there, a 4K "capture" master was created

So if you want to see it on the big screen it may be cropped but will probably look better than the first run in 1939.

 

[Joy]

YAAAAY! I was so mad that I missed the first showing of the 70th Anniversary WoO... And they're doing it again! I am SOOO going this time!

Joy

 

[Miss Chicken]

I can't say that I am very fond of the movie. I didn't see the movie until I was an adult.

For a start I don't like musicals mainly because my mother used to drag us to them when we were little.

Secondly I really love the book especially the version I grew up with, which was illustrated by Libico Maraja. This book formed my image of what Dorothy should look like and Judy Garland didn't match that image at all.

One of the pictures by Maraja

Maraja's Dorothy had blonde hair and was younger than Julie Garland's Dorothy.

 

[JustKate]

^ The Dorothy in the books I read as a child didn't look at all like Judy Garland, either - she was much younger but had (in the first book - illustrated by W.W. Denslow) long, light-brown pigtails. In later books (illustrated, at least part of the time, by John R. Neill), she was still younger than the Judy Garland character, and her hair was in a 1920s/30s bob. I'll try to find some images, if I get a little extra time today.

 

[Miss Chicken]

I plan to buy the Annotated Wizard of OZ that features the illustrations of W. W. Denslow. I already have an abridged 1950 edition of the book illustrated by Anton Loeb, a 1956 edition illutrated by Evelyn Copelman (these illustrations are adapted from Denslow's work) and of course I have the book illutrated by Maraja.

I actually hope to collect as many books as I can afford that are illustrated by Maraja. So far I have the Wizard of Oz, Alice Through the looking Glass, Gulliver's Travels, Around the World in 80 Days and The Splendour Book of Ballet.

 

[NileQT87]

These are the original Dorothy drawings:

Careful with the age thing, though. It's not completely cut and dry. Through the series, Neill's immortal (!) Ozma goes from a little girl like Dorothy to adult glamazon.

 

[Dream]

Like it or not Judy Garland's portrayal of Dorothy Gale has become iconic. Most people think of her when they think of what Dorothy looks like.

I think it worked out for the best that Dorothy in the movie is older than she is in the first book. Seeing a little girl slap a huge man dressed as a lion would have been too unbelievable.

 

[NileQT87]

I also prefer teenage Dorothy (Judy was 16).

I hate Denslow's drawings, and while I love Neill's, I do prefer Judy's look and the age change. Similarly, I kind of like glamazon-Ozma as much as the little white-dressed Tip-aged Ozma. As far as I'm concerned, as long as she is a dark brunette with the gigantic orange-red flowers on her head and the Oz headband, I'm happy. (Yeah, that's right! No blonde Ozmas, please!)

The age change, IMO, was an improvement. And I'm kind of glad that we got Judy Garland instead of Shirley Temple, even if I do like both. Funny thing, they actually went through production hell on the filming of the movie and the original director had Judy in a blonde wig and baby doll makeup to make her look like Neill's then-classic Dorothy. They still bound down her breasts, but not very well. She's a pretty obvious 16-year-old and it's always been an appeal. Even when I was a little girl I preferred stories that age up a bit.

Young Fairuza Balk certainly had the look, though. A slightly more Gothic and younger appearance, but very much keeping with Judy Garland's look.

I'd love if they made sort of a fantasy adaption series out of the entire 14 novels. Ozma's origin story as Tip with Mombi, Pumpkin Jack and the Sawhorse would actually make a great movie. She's kind of like the second main protagonist along with Dorothy in the books. They could go either way with Dorothy's appearance (brown braids or blonde bob) and age. Perhaps they could go for a happy medium between little girl and adultish teenager (12-14 or so). Or they could actually film all of them where Dorothy and Ozma age from kids to late teens with the actors. That would make fans of both happy. And have Dorothy go from braids to a bob between the first film and her next.

 

[Dream]

The age change, IMO, was an improvement. And I'm kind of glad that we got Judy Garland instead of Shirley Temple, even if I do like both. Funny thing, they actually went through production hell on the filming of the movie and the original director had Judy in a blonde wig and baby doll makeup to make her look like Neill's then-classic Dorothy. They still bound down her breasts, but not very well. She's a pretty obvious 16-year-old and it's always been an appeal. Even when I was a little girl I preferred stories that age up a bit.

Were there child actor labor laws back then? Maybe they picked Judy since she could work longer hours on the set?

Anyway what I find annoying was that they had to tape Judy down to make her look less sexy. The first time I heard that I thought that was so weird. They should have just had Dorothy as a teenager instead of trying to make her look like a kid. As least they didn't have her in the stupid wig that you mentioned that she was supposed to be in. Judy really had a lovely singing voice and I can't imagine any other actress as Dorothy after seeing the movie.

The Wizard of Oz is one of the few fims I consider to have perfect casting. Thank god that Hollywood hasn't done a remake of the movie!

 

[NileQT87]

Well, granted, they did the same thing to Carrie Fisher in Star Wars (but for a completely different reason--no bras in space--that dress was see-through and she was bouncing all over the place). It might have made Judy less busty (barely), but it didn't stop her from looking any different than her normal teenage self. She looked exactly the same.

She wasn't as constricted as people would make you think and it failed utterly if it was supposed to make her seem younger. It was basically a tape bra. She still clearly has the same size chest in the film. The dress isn't even terribly younger-looking than the stuff she was wearing in other movies at the time (just more farm girl-ish than most of the Andy Hardy/Babes in Arms-type wardrobe).