Oz the Great and Powerful- Page 3

[chinto1984]

Posted: 3/20/13 at 2:10pm

I saw this last night and was bored out of my mine. I felt the movie was constantly stuck in start mode. The movie had horrible dialogue with one of the worst actors carrying the film--James Franco. Combine everything (bad story, script, and acting) and one gets a dishonest movie. It looks cool and happy and seems like a set up for a new section for Disney theme parks, it was horrid storytelling.
I love and enjoy the MGM version, but I'm not a purist. I actually enjoy Return to OZ the best. People say it's too spooky and dark, but kids actually enjoy that. It terms of a film, it was well made, acted, and told story. OZ felt real and palpable, not imaginative. It comes down to good storytelling. The MGM had good storytelling. Return to OZ had good storytelling. OZ the Great and Powerful had Mila Kunis's hats.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 3/28/13 at 9:23pm

The end of this video is very funny.




A Hollywood Vulture EXCLUSIVE: Mila Kunis As The Wicked Witch In The Original Oz Updated On: 3/28/13 at 09:23 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/28/13 at 9:40pm

I saw it today and besides the last 30 minutes and some impressive CGI, I wasn't impressed at all.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 10:14am

For what its worth I loved it. I can't stand Mila Kunis but thought everyone else was fine. China Girl and Findlay were both wonderful.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 10:17am

It was the script that was the problem. It was just so non eventful and BORING for the majority of it. I saw it in a full theater with a lot of kids who were well behaved but getting very restless throughout it. Kind of like most things Disney puts on stage - Way too long and BORING except for a few wow moments.

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 11:29am

I don't remember if I posted this here already, but I'll post it again. (I know a simple looksee would work, but oh well.)

I hated the first twenty minutes or so. Nice set up, but every one was so bored. Even the chase scene in the beginning was boring. I walked out and got my money back.

(I saw it in 3D. My friend was at box office and charged me the kids price. TWELVE DOLLARS?! Are you kidding?)

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 11:35am

I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.

I hated Mila and James. No matter what they do, they sound like they are doing valley girl impersonations. I was waiting for them to start screaming "DUDE!" At each other.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 11:41am

I didn't mind Franco partly because I think he's adorable and partly because the Wizard should seem like he's from a different world (and he did).

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 1:10pm

I really hated it.


If James was from a different world, why-oh-why did nothing suprise him?

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 1:48pm

He's adorable, yes, but everything about him was off. I didn't buy any of it. It was obvious nothing was first choice about anyone.

And I still hate Zack Braff.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 2:16pm

Zach Braff sounded like Richard Kind in this movie.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 2:33pm

I hated the monkey entirely -- don't know if it had anything to do with braff.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 7:17pm

I wasn't too keen on the monkey, I think partly because the CGI on it just wasn't good enough to really bring it to life for me, and I've never been a huge fan of Braff either. I was always aware that I was watching something that wasn't really there. This is in contrast to the China Girl, which, for me at least, definitely felt better done and more there. I know a lot of that has to do with the fact that the China Girl was a lot easier to animate, being a non-flesh object and not having to worry about skin and hair textures.

I'll also reiterate that for me the dialogue just didn't feel like it fit any of the characters. It just seemed oddly contemporary, though it did avoid at least avoid dropping actual contemporary references in. I think this was also compounded by the casting, a lot of the actors didn't seem willing or able to embrace the fantasy of the piece. I think Rachel Weisz was the most successful. Mila Kunis should have been good, we've seen better from her, but she just wasn't there, and the same with Michelle Williams. As for Mr. Franco, he gave exactly the performance we've all come to expect from him. I just assume that Oz was just smoking his special herbage off screen, since they definitely wouldn't be able to show that in a Disney branded film.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 9:42pm

The rumour around Hollywood is that this was a FU from Disney to the producers of WICKED. Disney had approached them shortly after the show opened about getting the film rights, and the producers politely but pointedly showed them the door. They tried again a few more times until it was painfully obvious they werent gonna get the rights, no matter how much money they offered.

So they went home and said, "Fine! We'll make our own WICKED! So there!"

And this is what we got.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 10:21pm

Disney never had a shot at Wicked.

The stage show was originally developed and produced by Marc Platt and Universal Studios. It was going to be a film first before they decided to do it on stage. But Universal owns the rights to the musical version and always has.

As for Oz the Great and Powerful, it was Disney's shot at beating Universal to the screen with their own prequel to the story.

Disney actually used to own the rights to the Baum Oz books before they all passed into public domain. They sat on them for so long the copyrights eventually expired. So it's a "better late than never" scenario.

And while it's easy to see how they have tried to trump Wicked, it isn't "sour grapes" over losing the film rights to the musical. They were never up for grabs.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 10:30pm

True, but consider that had this been a real hit as Disney hoped, filming WICKED would have been set back a couple of years at least because of market saturation. It still may factor into it, since every time we hear about a film version, something happens and it disappears.

Frankly, it wouldnt surprise me that this is sour grapes, b12b. Today's Disney is a very, very mean-spirited place to work, and they dont take well to being told no about anything.

Ah well. I saw this. Wasnt really impressed with anything beyond the production design, which was a CG artist's idea of heaven.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 10:37pm

There's no doubt that the reason this film went into production was directly due to "Wicked."

It was Disney's last massive shot at "owning Oz." And by that, I mean this whole movie plays like a theme park ride with cute collectible characters and toys. Look at the incredible marketing and merchandising already out there.

And Disney's strategy has clearly paid off. They've already announced plans for a sequel.

I would look for a ride at a Disney park soon, or perhaps even a whole mini-Oz section.

They already own Wonderland, so they went after Oz ... and got it before Universal "defied gravity" with their own franchise plans.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 10:44pm

I dunno, I see it as much more benign myself. Disney had a hit with Wonderland--Oz is the next logical step for them to go with and do a similar film about. Narnia is tied up with rights (partly owned I believe, by Disney) and what similar place could they go? I don't see people rushing to do a Water-Babies prequel.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 10:45pm

(Although I would kill for a really good Five Children and It and its sequels franchise--the last attempt was pretty awful.)

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 10:51pm

The timing is what takes the "benign" out of it. Disney was in a now-or-never scenario. They tried once before with "Return to Oz" and failed (at least failed in "owning Oz" because the movie tanked).

So it was either try to do a huge Oz movie ASAP and parlay it into their next franchise, or watch Universal do Wicked and run away with it.

Updated On: 3/29/13 at 10:51 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 10:53pm

OK, I agree there. I guess my point (which I think was one of your points anyway) is this would not have happened without Alice's huge success.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/29/13 at 11:01pm

I agree, Eric. It showed them that there was a big audience right now for this type of movie.

They could have announced an Alice sequel, but instead they went after Oz before Universal got there.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 3/30/13 at 1:12am

Unfortunately for Disney, with Wicked's fan base, it is a losing battle. There will be three new Wicked productions opening soon. A touring company in the UK. One in South Korea, and one in Mexico. If they are half as successful as the other productions worldwide, Universal can sit with thier fingers up their bums before they commit to a Wicked Film, which when it premieres will surely hold a box office record. You now have two generations of awkward teenage girls and their daughters who will be there opening screening.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 3/30/13 at 2:57am

I saw this a couple weeks ago. It was terrible. James Franco's face was the only good part.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 3/30/13 at 3:12am

"If James was from a different world, why-oh-why did nothing suprise him?"

Because he was stoned out of his mind.

Sort of off topic, but not really.... I just re watched RETURN TO OZ and was wondering how Disney got the rights to use the ruby slippers in that film. Considering they were only red in the MGM film, and not in the books, which the story was taken.

Anyone have the dirt on that?