Dorothy of Oz

Even still, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Hollywood ripped off the breaks on its go-kart of insanity a long time ago, my friend.

What do you mean "A long time ago"? It's ALWAYS been a spicy cesspool of crime and villany.

I never said they should do so, I'm giving the reason they do so. It is the same reason there have been so many Tarzan, Peter Pan, and Alice in Wonderland adaptions.

And most of them not as good as the first. Tarzan from Disney is the most famous exception from this. Peter Pan, not so much.

Ozma was in Return to Oz :)

Let's not forget that exception. God, I'm so glad I finally saw that movie.

Wait she was? Sweet! Now if only Jellia Jamb had a cameo, I'd be happy. She doesn't appear often, but she's one of my favorite Oz characters.

Ozma was also in the pilot for Lost in Oz, though it was a minor role.

Do most of these spiritual sequels and spin-offs actually have anything to do with Baum's work besides the first film and its adaptation? I find it weird that so many people trying to cash in on the cultural phenomenon that is the Judy Garland film always just invent their own new additions to its universe rather than add anything from Baum's sequels to it. Why is this film, for instance, making up its own "magical, enchanting characters" rather than just pilfering the Oz books for unused ideas? I don't mean to sound like a bitching fanboy here (I haven't read the majority of the books, though I have a vague idea of what they entail from reading about Return to Oz 's adaptation process), but even from a lazy hack writer's perspective, wouldn't it be far easier and likelier to please audiences if they used Baum's un-adapted ideas and added them to the better known stuff?

Maybe they think their own ideas are better, or that not many people know/care about the book characters since the first book/movie ones are so iconic. Journey Back to Oz had some book characters, but it shoehorned in the Tin Man and Lion and made them really unlikable.

edited 20th Dec '13 6:26:19 PM by lalalei2001

Yeah I'll never understand why the plethora of characters and settings from the sequels were rarely, if ever used. The Gnome King, Ozma, Tick Tock, Trot and Cap'n Bill, Scraps, they all would have been great onscreen.

You know a CGI movie based on Baum's works makes a lot sense but the trailer looks so bland, no way I'm watching this.

I've wondered for awhile why no adaptation seems to go past the second book. Ever. There are thirty-eight other official Oz books in the Famous Forty, you know. And a lot of them do star Dorothy and the trio, so why not adapt them?

The suits want to keep ripping off the 1939 film because that's what they think people want to see.

But this film isn't just ripping off the 1939 film. It's introducing a "new team of heroes you will never forget", none of which were in the books as far as I know. That really just leaves me confused.

It's almost like no prospective studio executives even know Oz has any sequels. Man I can't help but wonder What Could Have Been if Disney's projects would have panned out. An animated version of Ozma and the other characters perhaps? Scraps and the horse would have been neat.

Yeah, no. If anything, it looks like what could happen if Vídeo Brinquedo decided to ride on the success of Oz the Great and Powerful and operated on a slightly bigger budget. But that's just my opinion.

The question's not if this will be a Box Office Bomb, but by how much. How much do you think this is gonna bomb, fellow tropers?

edited 9th Jan '14 7:41:10 PM by sanfranman91

Hugely, or at least we can hope so.

By the way, I heard this has a budget of $70 million. Ummm... doesn't look like it to me

Wasn't Winnie-The-Pooh made on a budget of only $30 million?!

Yes, but Pooh seemed to use every dollar on the screen as the animation was fantastic and colors were great. I know that the two films use different versions of animation and thus have different costs, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the animation for Legends of Oz looks sad.

Anyway, enough complaining from me. Just saying that there are better versions of Oz than this.

edited 9th Jan '14 9:35:27 PM by sanfranman91

For those of you who knew about it but didn't give a fuck anymore because why, it comes to the states on May 9. That gives us just enough time to find bridges between this and Oz The Great And Powerful.

The most recent TV spots actually make me WANT to see it more, for once. I'm still very sure I wont though.

This villain they apparently invented for this movie looks so... not intimidating. It's just some loony jester with an emphatic motley. Not exactly on the same level as the Wicked Witch or the Nome King there. I don't know if the fact that the Scarecrow apparently has to get the band back together just to fight one clown says more about this guy, or the Royal Army. Even from what I can see of this guy, he's just trying to leech off the Wicked Witch's infamy, using her castle, and her army of Flying Monkeys as minions. It really undermines what little threat he has that he has to use another villain's stuff just to be a threat.