Best Blu-ray Deals

Best Blu-ray Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | Price drops  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Japan
RoboCop (Blu-ray)
$5.00
Ender's Game (Blu-ray)
$13.00
Gremlins (Blu-ray)
$4.99
Gravity 3D (Blu-ray)
$19.99
Gravity (Blu-ray)
$12.99
Mallrats (Blu-ray)
$9.96
Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (Blu-ray)
$12.99
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (Blu-ray)
$5.99
The Birds (Blu-ray)
$13.99
Reality Bites (Blu-ray)
$9.96
Weird Science (Blu-ray)
$6.96
The Goonies (Blu-ray)
$4.99
Diary of a Wimpy Kid Trilogy (Blu-ray)
$16.98
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Blu-ray)
$10.99
No Holds Barred (Blu-ray)
$7.99
Despicable Me 2 (Blu-ray)
$14.99
Pacific Rim 3D (Blu-ray)
$14.99
Beetlejuice (Blu-ray)
$4.99
Brother Bear / Brother Bear 2 (Blu-ray)
$13.99

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Movies

View Poll Results: Rate the movie (After You've Seen It!)
One Star 3 2.11%
Two Stars 9 6.34%
Three Stars 32 22.54%
Four Stars 74 52.11%
Five Stars 24 16.90%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-31-2013, 08:58 PM   #761
Sean B. Sean B. is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Sean B.'s Avatar
 
Oct 2010
Marietta, Ga
105
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cricepng View Post
I meant one trilogy. If the next two are bad, then the idea for a trilogy probably wasn't/isn't a good one. For example the Star Wars trilogy (original) was a good idea because the next two movies were good.

Even if it were to turn into a saga, what are some people afraid of? If they don't like the idea or it begins to produce bad results, don't see the movies.
Oh, i see. The only way though that i see that it would be necessary for two more movies, is if all the same cast and crew and the same director all return for them. If not then it just will not be a good idea what so ever. Also, as long as they have good scripts for them, that would be another plus like how Oz: The Great and Powerful's script was clearly a plus for it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 04:12 PM   #762
Mason_Ireton Mason_Ireton is offline
Senior Member
 
Mason_Ireton's Avatar
 
Sep 2012
Pacific City, Oregon
53
Send a message via Yahoo to Mason_Ireton Send a message via Skype™ to Mason_Ireton
Default

This was a fairly good film, Franco's acting could've been less toony/boastful, Mila was great as Thea,
[Show spoiler]could never tell she'd be the Wicked Witch
, Rachel Willaims was alright as Glinda, in my opinon it seemed she might've had 2nd thoughts bout the character in various spots.

Love the lil nods to MGM's OZ, though I was hopin to hear a small instrumental nod to "Over The Rainbow"





According to these articles, Disney was somewhat restricted bout using certain OZ aspects (I.E should Tin Man or Lion be hinted or will one of the Witches own the famous Ruby Slippers) but Warners served Disney with a "Follow the rules or we'll sue" slip.


I ask cause these articles mentions Disney was somewhat restricted on using certain OZ aspects


Here's a few examples from some of the articles


Los Angeles Times




For starters, there is no Dorothy, and very few songs. There are some references to Fleming's movie — Diggs calls an attacking lion a coward — but they are deployed sparingly. In fact, Kapner's initial version contained more references, and Disney executives also pushed for more. But Raimi and Roth pushed back, wanting the film to stand on its own. (Williams said Raimi instructed the cast to "stay away from anything that was conspicuously related" to the MGM film.)


http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,2458314.story



SlashFlim (35 Things We Learned On Oz Great and Powerful Set)


10 Legalities prevent some of the elements from the 1939 film from being used in this prequel story.

While the information, characters and descriptions in the original source material (L. Frank Baum’s books) is free for adaptation, judges have ruled that Warner Bros owns the rights to the characters and depictions from the original Wizard of Oz film.

Disney was not able to use the ruby slippers, as they are owned by Warner Bros. The slippers were originally silver in the books but were given a bright color to play with the technicolor innovation for the 1939 film adaptation.


They almost didn’t get to make the Wicked Witch a green color due to legalities, but fx makeup designer Berger was finally able to come up with a shade of green which satisfied Disney’s legal team. It was far enough away from the green shade of the Witch from the original Wizard of Oz film to somehow qualify as an original take. The green is called theostein, because the color is close to the color of the original Frankenstein monster. One thing they were not able to get around was the signature mole on the chin, an iconic piece of the first Wizard of Oz film adaptation.

Sam Raimi didnt want to reimagine Certain elements like the yellow brick road and Emerald City. Raimi says that he wanted to tell a different story on the yellow brick road and in Emerald City, using the comparison that he didnt want to tell a new story set in a reimagined New York City, he wanted to tell a new story set in NYC. However the legal issues required them to make changes to even those elements. In the end, they should feel tonally the same.


http://www.slashfilm.com/35-things-w...nd-powerful/2/
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 03:24 PM   #763
Sean B. Sean B. is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Sean B.'s Avatar
 
Oct 2010
Marietta, Ga
105
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason_Ireton View Post
This was a fairly good film, Franco's acting could've been less toony/boastful, Mila was great as Thea,
[Show spoiler]could never tell she'd be the Wicked Witch
, Rachel Willaims was alright as Glinda, in my opinon it seemed she might've had 2nd thoughts bout the character in various spots.

Love the lil nods to MGM's OZ, though I was hopin to hear a small instrumental nod to "Over The Rainbow"





According to these articles, Disney was somewhat restricted bout using certain OZ aspects (I.E should Tin Man or Lion be hinted or will one of the Witches own the famous Ruby Slippers) but Warners served Disney with a "Follow the rules or we'll sue" slip.


I ask cause these articles mentions Disney was somewhat restricted on using certain OZ aspects


Here's a few examples from some of the articles


Los Angeles Times




For starters, there is no Dorothy, and very few songs. There are some references to Fleming's movie — Diggs calls an attacking lion a coward — but they are deployed sparingly. In fact, Kapner's initial version contained more references, and Disney executives also pushed for more. But Raimi and Roth pushed back, wanting the film to stand on its own. (Williams said Raimi instructed the cast to "stay away from anything that was conspicuously related" to the MGM film.)


http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar...rd-oz-20130303



SlashFlim (35 Things We Learned On Oz Great and Powerful Set)


10 Legalities prevent some of the elements from the 1939 film from being used in this prequel story.

While the information, characters and descriptions in the original source material (L. Frank Baum’s books) is free for adaptation, judges have ruled that Warner Bros owns the rights to the characters and depictions from the original Wizard of Oz film.

Disney was not able to use the ruby slippers, as they are owned by Warner Bros. The slippers were originally silver in the books but were given a bright color to play with the technicolor innovation for the 1939 film adaptation.


They almost didn’t get to make the Wicked Witch a green color due to legalities, but fx makeup designer Berger was finally able to come up with a shade of green which satisfied Disney’s legal team. It was far enough away from the green shade of the Witch from the original Wizard of Oz film to somehow qualify as an original take. The green is called theostein, because the color is close to the color of the original Frankenstein monster. One thing they were not able to get around was the signature mole on the chin, an iconic piece of the first Wizard of Oz film adaptation.

Sam Raimi didnt want to reimagine Certain elements like the yellow brick road and Emerald City. Raimi says that he wanted to tell a different story on the yellow brick road and in Emerald City, using the comparison that he didnt want to tell a new story set in a reimagined New York City, he wanted to tell a new story set in NYC. However the legal issues required them to make changes to even those elements. In the end, they should feel tonally the same.


http://www.slashfilm.com/35-things-w...nd-powerful/2/
You mean Michelle Williams ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2013, 03:44 PM   #764
cricepng cricepng is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
cricepng's Avatar
 
Jan 2013
Papua New Guinea
7
458
249
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason_Ireton View Post
[Show spoiler]This was a fairly good film, Franco's acting could've been less toony/boastful, Mila was great as Thea,
[Show spoiler]could never tell she'd be the Wicked Witch
, Rachel Willaims was alright as Glinda, in my opinon it seemed she might've had 2nd thoughts bout the character in various spots.

Love the lil nods to MGM's OZ, though I was hopin to hear a small instrumental nod to "Over The Rainbow"





According to these articles, Disney was somewhat restricted bout using certain OZ aspects (I.E should Tin Man or Lion be hinted or will one of the Witches own the famous Ruby Slippers) but Warners served Disney with a "Follow the rules or we'll sue" slip.


I ask cause these articles mentions Disney was somewhat restricted on using certain OZ aspects


Here's a few examples from some of the articles


Los Angeles Times




For starters, there is no Dorothy, and very few songs.
[Show spoiler]There are some references to Fleming's movie — Diggs calls an attacking lion a coward — but they are deployed sparingly. In fact, Kapner's initial version contained more references, and Disney executives also pushed for more. But Raimi and Roth pushed back, wanting the film to stand on its own. (Williams said Raimi instructed the cast to "stay away from anything that was conspicuously related" to the MGM film.)


http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar...rd-oz-20130303



SlashFlim (35 Things We Learned On Oz Great and Powerful Set)


10 Legalities prevent some of the elements from the 1939 film from being used in this prequel story.

While the information, characters and descriptions in the original source material (L. Frank Baum’s books) is free for adaptation, judges have ruled that Warner Bros owns the rights to the characters and depictions from the original Wizard of Oz film.

Disney was not able to use the ruby slippers, as they are owned by Warner Bros. The slippers were originally silver in the books but were given a bright color to play with the technicolor innovation for the 1939 film adaptation.


They almost didn’t get to make the Wicked Witch a green color due to legalities, but fx makeup designer Berger was finally able to come up with a shade of green which satisfied Disney’s legal team. It was far enough away from the green shade of the Witch from the original Wizard of Oz film to somehow qualify as an original take. The green is called theostein, because the color is close to the color of the original Frankenstein monster. One thing they were not able to get around was the signature mole on the chin, an iconic piece of the first Wizard of Oz film adaptation.

Sam Raimi didnt want to reimagine Certain elements like the yellow brick road and Emerald City. Raimi says that he wanted to tell a different story on the yellow brick road and in Emerald City, using the comparison that he didnt want to tell a new story set in a reimagined New York City, he wanted to tell a new story set in NYC. However the legal issues required them to make changes to even those elements. In the end, they should feel tonally the same.


http://www.slashfilm.com/35-things-w...nd-powerful/2/
Why do people (including those who write articles) assume that because something wasn't included in OTG&P that it was because of legal issues? Warner does not own Dorothy as she was in some of the books. It's just that Disney decided to go in a different direction with this movie. What they cannot do is use the particular iconic blue gingham print dress that she wore in the original.
Living Room HT (In Papua New Guinea) Toshiba 40-inch 1080p (40L2200U); Sony BDP-S590 player (BDP-S5100 region free shipped); Yamaha RX-V373 5.1 receiver; Sony SS-B1000 fronts (Polk Monitor 45B's shipped); Polk RM8 center (Polk Monitor 15C shipped); Pyle 3" mini cube surrounds (Polk T15's shipped); Harmony 650 remote

My Other Living Room HT (in storage in the States) Panasonic DMP-BDT220 player; Onkyo HT-S5600 (with a HT-R592 receiver, HTP-591 7.1 HT speaker system)
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2013, 12:30 AM   #765
NikeElite317 NikeElite317 is offline
Member
 
Oct 2012
Default

I really enjoyed this movie. I am a fan of the original Wizard of Oz to this day also. I do wish they could've added a couple key things in from the original but even without doing so I still loved it and the story was good. I like how it ended too. Cant wait for a sequel!!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2014, 04:32 AM   #766
Rinzler Rinzler is offline
Power Member
 
Rinzler's Avatar
 
Sep 2009
331
123
3
Default

Nothing new lately about the sequel, Raimi doesn't want to be involved, I hope we'd at least get Weisz and Williams, and Franco as well. I would be fine without Dorothy/Tin Man/etc, I would like to see where they would take a sequel without them. I wonder what effect the upcoming animated Oz will have as well.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2014, 04:55 AM   #767
demonknight demonknight is online now
Blu-ray Samurai
 
Apr 2013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinzler View Post
Nothing new lately about the sequel, Raimi doesn't want to be involved, I hope we'd at least get Weisz and Williams, and Franco as well. I would be fine without Dorothy/Tin Man/etc, I would like to see where they would take a sequel without them. I wonder what effect the upcoming animated Oz will have as well.
Probably none. The new one looks awful.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Movies


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:30 PM.