Oz: The Great and Powerful

Well, I can't read that link, but I'm assuming the rumor is no Franco or Kunis in future movies (which could also be because their characters don't reappear that much in the series) and a Del Toro coming in as director?

Well... that's half a shame. I didn't really mind Franco as Oz at all (and in fact would've picked him over Downey Jr. myself) and thinks he does a decent job, but Kunis was bordering on terrible - especially post witchification.

And I'm... wary about Del Toro. The kind of fantasy and style he's known for isn't exactly the kind of that meshes well with Oz. He'd be way out of his comfort zone.

edited 19th Mar '13 8:28:38 AM by KnownUnknown

Not everyone thought Franco was a good fit for the role, and with Robert Downey Jr. having originally been in it, detractors now use that to support their side. Me, I thought he was fine. Not extraordinary.

... sequel?

I thought they already made a sequel. Think it was called "the Wizard of Oz".

BA-DUM CHING!!! ...no wait, that's not a joke.

A sequel is a movie that is released after the movie in question, not before.

Which means that every movie ever made is a sequel to Roundhay Garden Scene.

IF that is the movie in question.

Terminator 0: Roundhay Garden Scene. Star Wars: Episode 0, Roundhay Garden Scene. Okay, I'm done here.

edited 19th Mar '13 6:29:03 PM by Tuckerscreator

It's the oldest surviving film, so why not?

The Land Before Time 0: Roundhay Garden Scene

edited 19th Mar '13 6:31:10 PM by Mort08

... because it's not part of a series?

Because I saw the opportunity for a joke and seized it.

Actually, a sequel is defined as one in which the events take place after the events in the first film. It has nothing to do with which FILM was released first.

Oh, well. I still found it funny.

Just saw this and generally enjoyed it, though it's nothing hugely special. Thought Franco was fine as Oz, but could have been better (partially I think that Downey or Depp- the original choices for the part- do that kind of charming rogue much better, and partially because I can't see Franco in anything without thinking "Harry Osborn"). Liked Finley and China Girl quite a bit; Glinda was mostly decent but had some good moments to shine, particularly her climactic dual with Evanora; Evanora herself was a solid Big Bad and her flying monkeys were creepy (in true flying monkey tradition). Loved the scenery- it all felt incredibly detailed while still being appropriately whimsical rather than the more serious and grounded Lot R, which fit the tone of Oz well. Theodora was the weakest part of the movie for me- pre-wickedness she just felt flat, without any real personality beyond "naive idealist" and her Face–Heel Turn felt rushed; as the Wicked Witch she was some better, with her rather high levels of ham working because this is, after all, a character who's pretty much completely Drunk on the Dark Side. It didn't help that she was having to live up to the legacy of one of cinema's most iconic villains, either.

On the whole, I'd give it a positive review; a good movie even if, perhaps ironically, falling rather short of greatness.

ETA: There was one good Theodora moment, I thought- when Evanora offhand refers to her as "wicked" and she has a flair of temper that results in a fireball. It felt like this was something that could be expanded upon- perhaps, do to her power being inherently chaotic and destructive (because, well, fire), Theodora had always had to keep it tightly locked down under her normal nice-girl persona, because she legitimately wanted to be a force for good in Oz. Then the apple let the destructive side out so that it completely took her over. Unfortunately it wasn't really dwelt on or referenced again, because I think it would have added a deeper layer of tragic irony to her character beyond simply being bland, then evil.

edited 23rd Mar '13 3:53:30 PM by MasterGhandalf

So, the movie has brought in 455 million dollars now, double its budget. It's a big success, no question.

Actually, a film has to make double its budget in order to be considered to break even, due to the fact that marketing costs aren't considered part of the budget.

Sequel? Sequel.

It helps that there's so many options for a sequel, even if they don't just make something up again.

Attention, Disney: read the subsequent books for the basis of your sequel.

They tried that. It didn't work.

That was then. This is now.

The problem with making a sequel anyways is that it won't truly follow up on this movie. What happens next, everyone knows about already, so doing a movie about Dorothy would just be seen as a retread of older, more famous movies. And if they do skip past that, pretty much nobody from this movie would appear except Glinda; Theodora's dead, and Oscar ran back home.

So do a sequel that is set so much later that it doesn't even star the more iconic characters.

But then the masses wouldn't give a crap.

edited 12th Apr '13 1:47:31 PM by Mort08

The masses often balk at things anything but what they already know, until they know it.

Honestly, that very mentality has stopped most of Oz from getting adapted for a really long time - since everyone just sticks to the classic film - even this one could be seen as basically an offshoot of that film with a few elements from the books, rather than an adaptation of Oz. And that really needs to stop.

So you're saying that the world of Oz, that the viewers are aware of, was never expanded in cinemas beyond Return To Oz because the studios think they never give a crap?

All 7 Harry Potter books were made into film and the last one broke record sales. All 4 Twilight books were made into film and broke record sales.

edited 12th Apr '13 1:55:51 PM by kyun