Doug Walker (TGWTG, Nostalgia Critic, Bum Reviews, and other projects)

I just found his constant sneering at a female protagonist for, shock! horror!, not being like she was in the original cartoon to be extremely irritating. It's the first one of his videos I've ever stopped watching before the end.

Are you suggesting he only did it because she is a female? Because that is completely missing the point on that argument.

A character not being how they were in the source material isn't grounds for complaint? And he also made similar comments about the fairies. Are you gonna harp on him for that too?

And yeah, let's leave gender out of this, thank you.

edited 7th Mar '18 6:25:45 PM by kkhohoho

I couldn't give a damn about the other fairies. Given what he showed of them in the film I'd like them better in a scene that showed them served on a platter with some deep fried potatoes,some healthy veggies and a nice rosy red apple in their mouths. So that's a wash.

And I don't give a shit about the original fairy tale or the Disney cartoon either. I've seen and read that story too many times to be swayed by yet another step by step irritating as hell retread of the same boring stuff. (And the only Disney film of the last thirty years I like other than the first Lion K... oh, I mean, Kimba the White Lion 2.0, is Brave, which got so much undeserved stick because it wasn't the same old boring stuff and the reviewers of the film ignored that and said it was. Because reviewers are stupid.)

Something new with the characters? Yep. That could be worth a watch. Sorry to burst your bubbles, folks.

So in my opinion Doug had a decent point and just

sort of overly simplified it for the sake of a joke.

I watched the movie when it came out and... Maleficent isn't a character. She's got Angelina Jolie's charisma but...

she's kind of just a walking plot and emotion device to feel sad.

And yeah, in comparison to what we saw in the cartoon, that's a step down. Because even what they are going for is completely failed at. It's such a stale and safe character choice.

Well, I'll find out for myself once the Blu-Ray I'm buying as we speak comes and I've watched it. If it is shit, I'll say so. If it isn't, and I like it, I'm going to say so. I can't say fairer than that.

...

HA!

If that's your view on things, why are you even watching a review show?

edited 7th Mar '18 8:18:03 PM by kkhohoho

Because I like the Nostalgia Critic character, and that's enough to keep me interested. As a reviewer, I prefer Lindsay Ellis as herself to either NC or Doug Walker, or her as Nostalgia Chick.

kkhohoho: look I'm not saying she's like, oozing with charisma, but she does got some faces and posture she can pull off fairly well

tam: I feel like you think we care way more about what you think or why you think it than we do? We're just discussing it. Like you have an opinion, you state it and why. I have an opinion, I state it and why. That's just sort of the common back and forth.

edit.

Never mind. Not worth.

edited 7th Mar '18 9:01:36 PM by TamH70

I liked the original Sleeping Beauty cartoon just fine. Yes, the prince and Beauty were underdeveloped, but then again, the movie wasn't really about them, it was more about the fairies.

Why not do a live action remake closer to the original? What's wrong with an evil villain?

So I wasn't the only person who thought the person who played the big bad was a horrible actor.

Because Wicked made scads of money, and obviously Disney wanted some of that scratch.

Frozen, Oz The Great and Powerful, and Maleficent were all made because Disney was being a whiney sore loser from not getting the rights to Wicked.

edited 8th Mar '18 12:16:00 PM by kyun

And yet they made their own Wicked film eventually

So what's the deal with the rights to Wizard of Oz anyways?

edited 8th Mar '18 3:47:28 PM by GraymanofBelka

I think the original 14 books are public domain and everything beyond that is owned by different companies. Return to Oz had to get rights from MGM to make the slippers ruby instead of silver. (Also I just realized for that movie they combined the slippers with the Nome King's ruby belt!)

Though the reason for the change was that red slippers would show of the fancy new technocolor better. Also, MGM has a trade mark the specific shade of green used on the Wicked Witch of the West.

The dress the Witch wears too. It’s why Once Upon a Time and Oz the Great and Powerful use weird, shiny shades of green and change the dress a ton.

And, to some degree, I think Disney constantly making attempts at making an indispensable Oz movie is because they very clearly want control over the original movie. One of the few old “childhood classic” movies that Disney does not have control over. If MGM offered to sell off the rights to the movie, Disney would probably snap it up immediately.

The thing is that the Wizard of Oz is the sort of thing that you could make a remake out of that wouldn’t be completely superfluous. Because a chunk of the book was chopped out. Admittedly, that chunk is after the climax and is mostly a really long denuement, but the closest anyone’s gotten to adapting it (at least in Hollywood, the anime version adapted it) is having the China village show up in Oz the Great and Powerful. The problem is that several of the iconic elements were changes unique to the movie and are copywrited.

edited 9th Mar '18 7:10:22 AM by Zendervai

It's a pity that the rights are tied up, because I do think a mini series of exploring Oz with a more fairy tale esque atmosphere would do it well

You could totally do that, it would just need to use book elements rather than trademarked film elements, silver slippers rather than ruby slippers, different color for the witch, etc. I mean the reason you see so many Oz adaptations in the first place is because the books are in the public domain.

Personally, I'd like to see a film loosely based on The Marvelous Land of Oz, reworked to have Tip/Ozma as the focus character. I think there is a lot that could be done with that.

edited 9th Mar '18 2:04:40 PM by BigMadDraco

They already are the focus character. They're the protagonist. They're who the book's about. Isn't that enough?

And yeah, Disney could easily make their own (good) Oz film if they wanted to. Just base it more on the books. Hell, that could be a selling point. In a world where darker and edgier takes on fairy tales are a thing and where Return has become a Cult Classic, something with the spirit and tone of the original book could actually do pretty darn well.

The problem is that Disney really has a hard time doing something different from what is popular at the moment. So since dark and edgy remakes are popular right now, their version would probably be dark and edgy.

Which is what I said they should do. I'm not saying they should make it overly grimdark or anything, but the original book was a good deal darker and more serious than the film. What kept it from actually being grimdark was a cast of charming and colorful characters and a sense of whimsy at the center of it, but there was some fucked up stuff. As long as they hold true to that, you'd have a hell of a film.

Oh whoops, sorry, I misread.