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

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

There's no way this bombs. It's like you don't know the general movie going audience. These are the same people who made 'Alice' a billion dollar film.

During spring break, when they heard Tim Burton was directing it.
That's why they haven't been able to re-replicate an Alice since, if you've noticed.

As for not bombing, well, that was what we thought about John Carter--Aw, c'mon, it's big-budget and means well, what competition could there be; only teens are going to see that teen-novel movie!
Granted, all we have this spring for Teen Book-Franchise Fangrrl movies is "Mortal Elements: City of Bones", and that's.....nnnnnot quite Hunger Games. Anything can happen.

At this point, all we know is that whatever steamrollers any competition fool enough to stand against it this year, it ain't gonna be Jack the Giant Slayer.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by EricJ

During spring break, when they heard Tim Burton was directing it.
That's why they haven't been able to re-replicate an Alice since, if you've noticed.

As for not bombing, well, that was what we thought about John Carter--Aw, c'mon, what competition could there be, only teens are going to see that teen-novel movie!
Granted, all we have this spring for Teen Book-Franchise Fangrrl movies is "Mortal Elements: City of Bones", and that's.....nnnnnot quite Hunger Games. Anything can happen.

At this point, all we know is that whatever steamrollers any competition fool enough to stand against it this year, it ain't gonna be Jack the Giant Slayer.

John Carter? But like marketing and stuff...

[LordCrumb]

Originally Posted by Sean B.

It looks like Oz: the Great and Powerful's approximate running time has been revealed ! Here is a website that now has its approximate running time listed, already on the webpage that shows what its approximate running time is.....
> http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/oz-gr...owerful-2013-0

That's good news imo. I couldn't image it being a 90-100min film. Definitely needs atleast 2 hours.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by EricJ

During spring break, when they heard Tim Burton was directing it.
That's why they haven't been able to re-replicate an Alice since, if you've noticed.

I'd also say nothing had quite the name brand appeal that 'Alice' had...Until now. 'Oz' is about as big as they come in the fantasy genre, right up there with 'Alice', 'Harry Potter', and 'Lord of the Rings' in familiarity for people. That helps its chances. I'm not predicting it'll be a billion dollar film, but I think it'll easily be a hit and nowhere near a flop. Although, if you asked Hollywood, 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix' was a flop, so...Those accountants can be so sneaky.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

I'd also say nothing had quite the name brand appeal that 'Alice' had...Until now. 'Oz' is about as big as they come in the fantasy genre, right up there with 'Alice', 'Harry Potter', and 'Lord of the Rings' in familiarity for people. That helps its chances. I'm not predicting it'll be a billion dollar film, but I think it'll easily be a hit and nowhere near a flop. Although, if you asked Hollywood, 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix' was a flop, so...Those accountants can be so sneaky.

I've seen some studios putting out new Alice in Wonderland related disk titles, quote, "to cash in on the mania hype for Oz:tGaP"
Hubba-whaaa? Yes, every studio, not JUST Disney, seems to be treating the movie as if it had all but openly confessed it was Alice II (and TBA didn't exactly help the comparison by dragging in Oz subplots), and they're still laboring under the delusion that that's a good thing.
If Oz flops, expect that to finally put the last nail in Johnny Depp's coffin at Disney, and he wasn't even in it.

Tim's Alice making a billion dollars was so very, very, very Three Years Ago. As in, Dark Shadows and Frankenweenie ago.
I have faith in Raimi, but this movie is facing an uphill battle not to be Tim Burton's Alice, and the studios keep pushing it back downhill whenever it tries. Which unfortunately may work a little TOO well with an audience that has now come to their senses--If Disney wants this to be Alice that badly, they take the consequences.

[Spicoli]

It's like Franco is the stunt Depp.

My feeling is if you are going to do Oz, it better be super magical and DIFFERENT.

Not sure if this is in the movie but the trailer showed 4:3 in B&W for the beginning of the movie. Seriously?

Oddly enough I hated Alice and I was excited of that trailer.

Not feeling it. I hope I am wrong.

Another marketing question. "From The Director of 3 Spiderman Movies" Saw this on the trailer. He is so good you wont know his name!

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by Spicoli

It's like Franco is the stunt Depp.

My feeling is if you are going to do Oz, it better be super magical and DIFFERENT.

Not sure if this is in the movie but the trailer showed 4:3 in B&W for the beginning of the movie. Seriously?

Oddly enough I hated Alice and I was excited of that trailer.

Not feeling it. I hope I am wrong.

Another marketing question. "From The Director of 3 Spiderman Movies" Saw this on the trailer. He is so good you wont know his name!

Well, it's playing just like the original film that started in black and white and then went to color. It makes sense.

'Alice' did nothing for me, but I think the Oz universe is more exciting, and with Sam Raimi in the director's chair to bring us back, I think it has a good chance of being good.

Originally Posted by EricJ

I've seen some studios putting out new Alice in Wonderland related disk titles, quote, "to cash in on the mania hype for Oz:tGaP"
Hubba-whaaa? Yes, every studio, not JUST Disney, seems to be treating the movie as if it had all but openly confessed it was Alice II (and TBA didn't exactly help the comparison by dragging in Oz subplots), and they're still laboring under the delusion that that's a good thing.
If Oz flops, expect that to finally put the last nail in Johnny Depp's coffin at Disney, and he wasn't even in it.

Tim's Alice making a billion dollars was so very, very, very Three Years Ago. As in, Dark Shadows and Frankenweenie ago.
I have faith in Raimi, but this movie is facing an uphill battle not to be Tim Burton's Alice, and the studios keep pushing it back downhill whenever it tries. Which unfortunately may work a little TOO well with an audience that has now come to their senses--If Disney wants this to be Alice that badly, they take the consequences.

I agree. I really think that Disney is finally turning around under Horn though. He's not like Ross who has unrealistic expectations for films. 'Tron Legacy' was supposed to do 'Avatar' numbers, remember?

[Spicoli]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Well, it's playing just like the original film that started in black and white and then went to color. It makes sense.

'Alice' did nothing for me, but I think the Oz universe is more exciting, and with Sam Raimi in the director's chair to bring us back, I think it has a good chance of being good.

Great points. Maybe they are trying to capture younger people with the copying of the B&W to Color thing.

I'm not a Spider Man fan but I do like Raimi. They also left out Burtons name from the trailer...from the guy who brought you Alice...

Not sure what this is called but as I get older I lower my expectations more and inevitably I am disappointed less.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by Spicoli

Great points. Maybe they are trying to capture younger people with the copying of the B&W to Color thing.

I'm not a Spider Man fan but I do like Raimi. They also left out Burtons name from the trailer...from the guy who brought you Alice...

Not sure what this is called but as I get older I lower my expectations more and inevitably I am disappointed less.

The way I see it, is they're playing on the fact that fans of the Judy Garland film will always remember it starting in black and white, and then turning to breathtaking color. For this generation, they want to introduce the same thing, but take it a step further and give us the full black and white 4:3, just like the original, that turns into a full and breathtaking anamorphic color film. I actually think it's a really cool homage, while bringing something new to the table.

As for Spider-Man, those aren't the films I normally associate with Raimi. While the first two are good movies, I usually think more along the lines of his 'Evil Dead' trilogy, 'Darkman', and 'The Quick and the Dead'. Those are the Raimi films that I always really loved, and that's part of the reason I'm so excited for this. He's always had a sort of weird, but cool, style. Just look at the way those 'Evil Dead' films are. In a way, I see the world of Oz being something that could compliment him really nicely, and something he could have a lot of fun playing around in. That is something that could make this movie special, and make it work. I hope, I really do, that this movie pans out, because it has a chance to be a lot of fun, and a nice return to classic cinema in a new way. I don't want it to be as good as the original, I just want it to be a good companion piece to it.

I feel like just being open to films before I go in, with tempered expectations, has made me enjoy them a lot more lately. It definitely helps me.

[Spicoli]

Originally Posted by walts ghost

[Show spoiler]the way i see it, is they're playing on the fact that fans of the judy garland film will always remember it starting in black and white, and then turning to breathtaking color. For this generation, they want to introduce the same thing, but take it a step further and give us the full black and white 4:3, just like the original, that turns into a full and breathtaking anamorphic color film. I actually think it's a really cool homage, while bringing something new to the table.

as for spider-man, those aren't the films i normally associate with raimi. While the first two are good movies, i usually think more along the lines of his 'evil dead' trilogy, 'darkman', and 'the quick and the dead'. Those are the raimi films that i always really loved, and that's part of the reason i'm so excited for this. He's always had a sort of weird, but cool, style. Just look at the way those 'evil dead' films are. In a way, i see the world of oz being something that could compliment him really nicely, and something he could have a lot of fun playing around in. That is something that could make this movie special, and make it work. I hope, i really do, that this movie pans out, because it has a chance to be a lot of fun, and a nice return to classic cinema in a new way. I don't want it to be as good as the original, i just want it to be a good companion piece to it.

I feel like just being open to films before i go in,

with tempered expectations,

[Show spoiler]has made me enjoy them a lot more lately. It definitely helps me. :d

:d

[L-Rouge]

Again it looks visually stupendous, much like alice did (as mentioned), so hopefully we don't end up with similar mediocre outcome.

Gotta Say tornado effect pales to the original 1939 effect, that was brilliant!.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Spicoli

I'm not a Spider Man fan but I do like Raimi. They also left out Burtons name from the trailer...from the guy who brought you Alice...

That's probably because Burton had nothing whatsoever to do with it (and Danny Elfman music doesn't count)--
It was "the STUDIO that brought you Alice", but then, it was also the studio that brought you The Odd Life of Timothy Green, what's yer point?

The Point was to call it Alice without it actually being Alice, and that's about the worst thing you can do to this movie right about now.
Even so, pretty hard to keep his name out of it, ain't it? And you thought "Battleship" had enough trouble trying to convince people it wasn't a Michael Bay movie.

[cricepng]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

The way I see it, is they're playing on the fact that fans of the Judy Garland film will always remember it starting in black and white, and then turning to breathtaking color. For this generation, they want to introduce the same thing, but take it a step further and give us the full black and white 4:3, just like the original, that turns into a full and breathtaking anamorphic color film. I actually think it's a really cool homage, while bringing something new to the table.

I feel like just being open to films before I go in, with tempered expectations, has made me enjoy them a lot more lately. It definitely helps me.

I agree. About the only thing they could have done more to have the same 'wow' effect of the original WoO would be to go from BW/1.33/2D to color/widescreen/3D.

I got four tickets through Disney Movie Rewards so I'll be going with my son and some neighbors.

[chris_sc77]

130 mins says to me that this should be a heck of alot better than Burton's Alice in Wonderland. I see this making at least $850 million worldwide

[djgeneral]

Originally Posted by chris_sc77

130 mins says to me that this should be a heck of alot better than Burton's Alice in Wonderland. I see this making at least $850 million worldwide

Why would the running time have anything to do with it?

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by djgeneral

Why would the running time have anything to do with it?

Odds. I go by past experience. Its not the time it's the fact that I apparently like stories that take over two hours to tell because in my estimation they are told better if around or over 2 hrs.

[Sean B.]

Originally Posted by LordCrumb

That's good news imo. I couldn't image it being a 90-100min film. Definitely needs atleast 2 hours.

Yes, it certainly is good news. I am glad that its over 2 hours meaning 2 hours and 10 minutes long because then that way we get to see alot happen in the movie, with out leaving the theater unsatisfied feeling like it was too short or that we didn't see enough happen in the movie. I think it will even have an after credits scene, because this website in this link here > http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/oz-gr...owerful-2013-0 , says its 130 minutes and 20 seconds long, so i am thinking that the 20 seconds might be an after credits scene which would be cool to get to see ! .

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Then why bother with press embargoes? If people are gonna see what they want to see regardless of reviews, it seems pointless to "hide" bad reviews until a day or two before the movie opens. All that does is make people who do trust movie critics wary that Movie X doesn't have a single review on Rotten Tomatoes less than a week before it opens.

I never said they were consistent. They want to control the flow of information about a movie - they want the reviews published on premiere day. I realize that's inconsistent with hyping a movie long before its release, but it's the way the industry currently works, logical or not.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Spicoli

Great points. Maybe they are trying to capture younger people with the copying of the B&W to Color thing.

Frankly, I think it's quite the opposite. How many 20-somethings (the largest movie-going audience) have seen the 1939 version? The B&W to color thing is for fans of the original, who are largely older.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Frankly, I think it's quite the opposite. How many 20-somethings (the largest movie-going audience) have seen the 1939 version? The B&W to color thing is for fans of the original, who are largely older.

A tone of 20 somethings will have seen the original, it's a children's classic and considered pretty much timeless by all.