Comments (10)

Add a CommentInappropriate or promotional comments may be removed.

Reply
Russ Rogers (11:03 AM on Fri Nov 14, 2008)

Wow.

Reply
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.

Reply
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!

Reply
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.

Reply
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.

Reply
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"!

Reply
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?

Reply
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."

Reply
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.

Reply
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! :)

Add a comment

Inappropriate or promotional comments may be removed. To create a clickable link, simply type the URL (including http://) and we will make a link for you. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags, but if you're into that kind of thing, you can use any of the following tags: b, i, strong, em, a (href only), p and br.

Click one of the three commenter types below. Member comments are added immediately once you confirm your email address. Anonymous comments are moderated by our editorial staff.

Email me

  

Comment Preview
Avatar
Anonymous (6:46 PM on Sat Nov 7, 2009)

Preview your comment here.

Read our comics -- for free!


ComicMix Features

Articles by contributor

ComicMix Podcasts

this gets replaced with a player
Κ ΚΚΚΚ ΚΚΚΚ