Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:38AM11 comments ›
Fri Nov 14, 2008 — by Robert Greenberger
Production Art from Boorman's 'Oz'
CGI Animated FIlm Well Under Way
Ain’t it Cool News reports that the just-announced John Boorman Wizard of Oz project has been in development for some time. It now is learned that Boorman has been fascinated with L Frank Baum’s creation for some time and production art has been polished as seen below.
The site notes, “The screenplay is reported to read very dark (by design) and they may even be voice casting. Expect Boorman to use his connections to bring in some strong voices.
“Look for a return to the book, Including the fact (from the book) that the Tinman is a Munchkin and shorter than Dorothy. Look for Dorothy to be a tomboy...a real Kansas farm girl. There is even some information on Dorothy's parents (Dorothy's mom is Aunt Emily's sister).
“The Emerald City was descried as sitting on a plateau over endless waterfalls sending up a witch proof veil of mist.”
Jump to comments (11) 
More News from ComicMix
- Review: 'Smallville Season 9'4 hours ago, 0 comments
- Review: 'Bone: Tall Tales"1 day ago, 1 comment
- The Point Radio: A DC History Lesson From Len Wein3 days ago, 0 comments
- Cleveland is Krypton-- The True Birthplace of Superman3 days ago, 0 comments
- What did Mark Waid REALLY say at the Harvey Awards? Listen for yourself!3 days ago, 0 comments
- Mark Waid's speech and the Napsterization of comics4 days ago, 6 comments
- The Snark Files: The Flash in a Marathon4 days ago, 1 comment
- Baltimore Comic-Con 2010 summed up in three pictures5 days ago, 1 comment
- Lost 'Dial M for Monkey' Cartoon Surfaces!5 days ago, 0 comments
- Review: 'Amulet Book Three: The Cloud Searchers'5 days ago, 0 comments
Comments (11)
Russ Rogers (11:03 AM on Fri Nov 14, 2008)
Wow.
mike weber (3:37 PM on Fri Nov 14, 2008)
I could stand it if Jack Chopper looked a little more like the original illustrations (as he did in Disney's almost-stillborn "Return to Oz"), and, given the time-setting (assuming they stay faithful to the book and not *ptui* the Judy Graland travesty), i find Dorothy's costume a tad unlikely, but overall it looks *good*.
And "dark" isn't all that bad, considering the tone of some of the original books - heck, considering the Tin Woodman's own story.
Russ Rogers (6:49 PM on Fri Nov 14, 2008)
Mike? "The Judy Garland travesty"? Judy Garland made "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" a transcendent song. For that song alone, the MGM movie would be a classic and Garland, a legend. And the movie has much more to offer than that one song.
You can have all the quibbles you want about how the MGM movie diverged from the original books. And the MGM movie isn't perfect. There are some silly and stupid scenes. "If I Were King of the Forest" usually has me running for the fast forward or channel surfing until it's over. But the MGM Wizard of Oz is, on the whole, a delicious bit of Candy Floss transfered to Technicolor Celluloid, a true classic!
mike weber (7:28 PM on Fri Nov 14, 2008)
You can take that and "It's a Wonderful Life" and burn every existing print, so far as i'm concerned. One is over-wrought Hollywood fake fantasy that trashes the original book and the other is Hollywood syrupy pseudo-sentimentality.
If i hadn't been more or less force fed both for years and years, maybe i'd merely have a distaste for them, rather than a full-blown loathing.
The worst aspect of the Garland film, as well, is that it poisoned the well for any *good* Oz films forevermore. For instance, have you ever seen the Disney "Return to Oz"?
Between Eisner and Iger dumping it out with no PR in limited release (it had been greenlighted by the previous admionistration) and people going "Duh, it ain't like thuh oh-rig-i-nal," and excellent film - and a *good* translation of the Oz books - pretty much died on the vne.
Russ Rogers (9:59 PM on Fri Nov 14, 2008)
I have seen "Return to Oz"! Once. A looooooong time ago. I vaguely remember the Wheelers and the Witch changing heads. I remember the Witch part creeped me out. But that's all I can recall of the film. I will have to search it out and watch it again.
Anonymous (12:46 PM on Wed Nov 19, 2008)
Everyone should see "Return to OZ" at least once. Being of a younger generation, I grew up on both that and the '39 musical "The Wizard of OZ". And which one do I have fonder memories of? "Return"!
renfield1969 (4:03 PM on Fri Nov 14, 2008)
They're going back to the books but they're making Dorothy a Tomboy? In every single book, Dorothy's DRESS was described in vivid detail. In her off time, when she wasn't doing chores or running for her life, she liked to knit. Why use some classic elements from the source material when they're just going to modernize others?
Russ Rogers (11:27 AM on Mon Nov 17, 2008)
I think it's the sexism of young boys. Young boys will go see a movie about a "kid" in a magical land, the perception is, they won't go see a movie about a "GIRL."
Karl (12:34 AM on Thu Nov 20, 2008)
and to think I just started reading the first OZ book today :)
But yes, Dorothy is described to be wearing a dress and is a bit girly. The scarecrow is supposed to be dressed as a Munchkin for he was created in Munchkinland.
I'm excited for the movie but I'd like to see atleast one OZ movie be just like the books without any alterations.
dave (10:06 AM on Wed Mar 4, 2009)
My whole thing on this, is this......I like the going back to the book idea, but come one! Dorothy has pigtails, she wore a blue checkered dress, she was innocent, second of all the scarecrow was dressed just like the munchkins, second of all i do not know what brainless idiot on this whole movie read in the book that the tin man is shorter than dorothy! Dorothy was the same height as the munchkins. And yes they do have it right that the tinman was a munchkin but there wasnt a single full grown munchkin taller than dorothy. I want a truely faithful adaptation of the book not ok lets go to the book but wait lets still change somethings around. Put me on at directing and character design and I would get it right definately! :)
jmw (1:36 PM on Mon Nov 16, 2009)
I'm not so sure about making Nick Chopper the size of a Munchkin. I could see the Scarecrow as being Munchkin size since he was made by Munchkins using Munchkin clothing etc.
But where exactly does it say in the Baum books that Nick Chopper was a munchkin? I know he lived in Munchkin Country and that his girlfriend was a Munchkin girl, but I don't know of any text that actually said the tin woodman was a Munchkin. His first description of himself is as being "the son of a woodman". Why not "the son of a Munchkin woodman"? He always describes Nimmie as his "Munchkin" girl or "Munchkin" maiden as if purposely separating her from being a "regular" girl. If Nick acutally was a Munchkin, I don't think Baum would have written it that way. Where has Nick described himself as being formally an actual munchkin man (unless it's from one of the latter books which i haven't read in years). Lots of characters live in certain lands of Oz, but are not actually the native "species" of that country (of course I'm laughing hysterically now as I realize I've spent the last five minutes writing about The Tin Woodman's ethnicity...). I'm sure this will all be part of the movie's upcoming media controversy to drive future ticket sales...!! (yes, my tongue is planted firmly in cheek)