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

[BluPat]

Trailer looks great.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Ray O. Blu

I, for one, am extremely happy that RDJ isn't in this. Iron Man was self-obsessed and loathesome to me. I can't stand extreme vanity.

That's who Tony Stark was in the story; Downey was just expressing that side of the character. It took a horrifying near-death experience to turn his life around.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Ray O. Blu

I, for one, am extremely happy that RDJ isn't in this. Iron Man was self-obsessed and loathesome to me. I can't stand extreme vanity.

Woah... how did I miss THIS comment?!?!?!?

You do understand the profession of "ACTING," do you not? In almost all cases, the actor in real life is not like the character on screen. Often, the nicest characters are portrayed by a-holes and the a-hole characters are portrayed by the nicest people.

Seriously by the narrow-minded.

[Hope1972]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

You do understand the profession of "ACTING," do you not? In almost all cases, the actor in real life is not like the character on screen. Often, the nicest characters are portrayed by a-holes and the a-hole characters are portrayed by the nicest people.

So true, except in this case RDJ put so much of himself into Tony Stark!
I saw the guy live, he is just the same as in his latest movies. Yes extremely charming and attractive. Not sure the term 'nice' would be correct one.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Hope1972

So true, except in this case RDJ put so much of himself into Tony Stark!
I saw the guy live, he is just the same as in his latest movies. Yes extremely charming and attractive. Not sure the term 'nice' would be correct one.

I've heard that he is an incredibly nice guy, but he's also very focused. Because of his past he tries to avoid distractions while working. So, many may perceive his concentration on the job at hand and lack of "interaction" a personal slight, he's just trying to do a great job. Can't blame him for that given his past. He certainly isn't a "self-obssessed narcissist who doesn't play well with others" in real life.

What he brought to Tony Stark was the revelation of dealing with a completely life altering scenario and the struggle of trying to reinvent oneself. Add his natural comedic timing and that's the amount of self imbedded within the character. The rest he may have drawn on his past in order to portray with conviction, but I guarantee that he doesn't go home at night thinking that he is better than everyone else like Tony Stark does. He was extremely humbled by the reignition of his career after such a public fallout with Hollywood.

[kristoffer]

Looks like a big cg mess. Disappointed.

[Ray O. Blu]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

You do understand the profession of "ACTING," do you not? In almost all cases, the actor in real life is not like the character on screen. Often, the nicest characters are portrayed by a-holes and the a-hole characters are portrayed by the nicest people.

Actually, I do understand "ACTING". Here are a few examples of transcendental "ACTING":

Billy Bob Thornton in Sling Blade
Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood & Gangs of New York
Charlize Theron in Monster

These actors went above and beyond to "become" each character they portrayed in these roles, whereas RDJ was chosen to star in Iron Man because he fit the mold of a Tony Stark-like character. The part about "a-hole characters are portrayed by the nicest people" doesn't quite apply here.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Ray O. Blu

Actually, I do understand "ACTING". Here are a few examples of transcendental "ACTING":

Billy Bob Thornton in Sling Blade
Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood & Gangs of New York
Charlize Theron in Monster

These actors went above and beyond to "become" each character they portrayed in these roles, whereas RDJ was chosen to star in Iron Man because he fit the mold of a Tony Stark-like character. The part about "a-hole characters are portrayed by the nicest people" doesn't quite apply here.

Actually, those are just examples of method acting, but there are more ways of acting. Just because RDJ didn't change his looks or accent, doesn't mean he didn't do a great job playing Tony Stark.

I hope that this trailer is simply misrepresenting the movie as a Burton's Alice in Wonderland clone, because it looks like another boring CG mess. I do have to give Raimi kudos for starting in black and white (though sepia would've been better) and in 1.33:1.

[csdot]

if this wasnt Sam Raimi i wouldnt care, but since it is im hoping for the best. if anyone could make something like this work its him, but theres no guarantee.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

I've heard that he is an incredibly nice guy, but he's also very focused. Because of his past he tries to avoid distractions while working. So, many may perceive his concentration on the job at hand and lack of "interaction" a personal slight, he's just trying to do a great job. Can't blame him for that given his past. He certainly isn't a "self-obssessed narcissist who doesn't play well with others" in real life.

RDJ certainly wasn't in Tropic Thunder, or in the Sherlock Holm...well, maybe, but he wasn't Tony Snark in those.

[Jennifer Lawrence Fan]

Everytime I think of Mila Kunis, I can't help but say "Shut up Meg"

[Show spoiler]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgHdKDnqrj0

[TokyoLee]

The trailer looks really good.

[Sean B.]

Originally Posted by TokyoLee

The trailer looks really good.

Yes, it certainly does look really good ! .

[smail.nathan]

holy thread reviving....

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by smail.nathan

holy thread reviving....

Managed to catch the new trailer this week (did they show it with Frankenweenie? If not, it'll show up with Wreck-It Ralph):

And definitely seems to look more book-Oz than Tim Burton's Alice. Those afraid it'll be "Sam Raimi's Alice" can stand down--somewhat--but not saying that Disney isn't going to try their darndest anyway.
There's more emphasis on conflict between Glinda and W3 (which suggests a little bit of Wicked found its way into the pre-script), but we get more John Carter-like shots of Emerald City spectacle and some action scenes of the Wizard using his "powers".

Meanwhile, Disney's bound and determined to market the Little Toothy Critter front and center, for all its worth--Which, I have just now learned from marketing surveys, is Raimi's concept of a Flying Monkey. Name of Finley, in fact.
.....OHHHHhhhh! Gee, nice of you to tell us that, Diz, if you're going to push him in our faces. (Literally, in the case of 3-D.)

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by EricJ

[Show spoiler]Managed to catch the new trailer this week (did they show it with Frankenweenie? If not, it'll show up with Wreck-It Ralph):

And definitely seems to look more book-Oz than Tim Burton's Alice. Those afraid it'll be "Sam Raimi's Alice" can stand down--somewhat--but not saying that Disney isn't going to try their darndest anyway.
There's more emphasis on conflict between Glinda and W3 (which suggests a little bit of Wicked found its way into the pre-script), but we get more John Carter-like shots of Emerald City spectacle and some action scenes of the Wizard using his "powers".

Meanwhile, Disney's bound and determined to market the Little Toothy Critter front and center, for all its worth--Which, I have just now learned from marketing surveys, is Raimi's concept of a Flying Monkey. Name of Finley, in fact.
.....OHHHHhhhh! Gee, nice of you to tell us that, Diz, if you're going to push him in our faces. (Literally, in the case of 3-D.

)

Surely Disney have learnt from their mistakes with Burton's Alice in Wonderland, though? It wasn't a TERRIBLE film, and definitely had elements that I enjoyed, but it's not something that they'd want to re-create with another film this soon after...mind you, this is Disney...

Hopefully it'll look more Raimi-esque than Disneyfied. At least the trailer looks decent.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

Surely Disney have learnt from their mistakes with Burton's Alice in Wonderland, though? It wasn't a TERRIBLE film, and definitely had elements that I enjoyed, but it's not something that they'd want to re-create with another film this soon after...mind you, this is Disney...

Um, Alice made over a BILLION DOLLARS worldwide. You bet your ASS Disney wants to make this as Aliceesque as possible. In Hollywood, bad reviews mean nothing compared to a billion-dollar return.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Um, Alice made over a BILLION DOLLARS worldwide. You bet your ASS Disney wants to make this as Aliceesque as possible. In Hollywood, bad reviews mean nothing compared to a billion-dollar return.

That doesn't necessarily mean all those people loved what they saw - from what I understand, audience reaction was pretty poor towards the film overall. As soon as they've paid and got in the cinema, Disney don't care -- they've got their money after all, -- but it would be a hell of a gamble to make a film like that again...people might wise up and realise what has happened. Mind you, this is Hollywood as you say, and they've been stupid enough to stick to formulaic and commercialised crap over and over again before.

[Monterey Jack]

No one liked any of the Pirates Of The Caribbean sequels (not really...they might think they do, but they really don't), yet Disney keeps cranking 'em out, because each one is another easy billion in the studio coffers.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

No one liked any of the Pirates Of The Caribbean sequels (not really...they might think they do, but they really don't), yet Disney keeps cranking 'em out, because each one is another easy billion in the studio coffers.

But some people do really like the sequels - for some, a regular PotC release has become the highlight of the cinematic year, and you can't use the excuse that people think they like them but don't really against that because you don't know how people feel. I don't really like them, but I have nothing against them as films - even the third one, as pretentious and bloated as it was, had some decent moments in it. A LOT of people were annoyed at Alice because they expected this huge, perfect film - Tim Burton's Gothic and quirky fantasy meets a beloved children's classic, what could go wrong? - and found something much more watered down and shallow than even their lowest expectations.

Regardless of what Disney does with this, I'm just saying that they'd be stupid to throw-away the talent involved - Raimi and Franco especially - to try and re-create a critical flop they had a couple of years ago. Audiences weren't happy, and they must have sensed that.