Oz: The Great and Powerful Review Thread (Use Spoiler Tags!)

[Sean B.]

Originally Posted by cricepng

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.

[Mason_Ireton]

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/

[Sean B.]

Originally Posted by Mason_Ireton

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 ?

[cricepng]

Originally Posted by Mason_Ireton

[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.

[NikeElite317]

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!!!