Oz the Great and Powerful — Page 4
#77
Posted: 3/30/13 at 7:04am
Didn't Elfman realize, that he used EXACTLY the same tune for the music box in "Oz" that he used in Corpse Bride?
I know his music has a very specific style and often sounds alike, but it drove me CRAZY that it seemed to be the exact same tune...
I know his music has a very specific style and often sounds alike, but it drove me CRAZY that it seemed to be the exact same tune...
In the real world the only people who burst into song are the hopelessly deranged...
#78
Posted: 3/30/13 at 8:34am
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?
Disney paid MGM a licensing fee to use the shoes back in 1985 (when they were still friendly over the subject). This was one year before the MGM catalogue (including Wizard of Oz) was owned by Ted Turner and ultimately controlled by Warner Bros.
But not long ago, Warners licensed the ruby slippers to Fox for one of the "Night at the Museum" movies.
Like most things in Hollywood, they can be had for a price.
However, Disney and Warners were recently in a battle (and a law suit) over several trademark infringements connected to Oz the Great and Powerful (including its title, which is directly taken from the MGM film. In the book, he is "Oz the Great and Terrible." --- they lost that one, by the way.) Still, there was no way in hell they were going to license the ruby slippers to Disney for this film, so poor Rachel Weisz had to wear "sensible shoes" instead.
Anyone have the dirt on that?
Disney paid MGM a licensing fee to use the shoes back in 1985 (when they were still friendly over the subject). This was one year before the MGM catalogue (including Wizard of Oz) was owned by Ted Turner and ultimately controlled by Warner Bros.
But not long ago, Warners licensed the ruby slippers to Fox for one of the "Night at the Museum" movies.
Like most things in Hollywood, they can be had for a price.
However, Disney and Warners were recently in a battle (and a law suit) over several trademark infringements connected to Oz the Great and Powerful (including its title, which is directly taken from the MGM film. In the book, he is "Oz the Great and Terrible." --- they lost that one, by the way.) Still, there was no way in hell they were going to license the ruby slippers to Disney for this film, so poor Rachel Weisz had to wear "sensible shoes" instead.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#79
Posted: 3/30/13 at 9:07am
>> I know his music has a very specific style
... "gently lifted" from Bernstein and Bartok, according to a composer friend of mine who's a big fan of both.
... "gently lifted" from Bernstein and Bartok, according to a composer friend of mine who's a big fan of both.
http://docandraider.com
#80
Posted: 3/30/13 at 3:13pm
Best--interesting. I assumed that they dropped "Great and Terrible" simply because they thought the word terrible would be catnip for reviewers...
Elfman owes a lot to Bernstein and especially Bartok--but I don't think that's the problem with how lazy his music has gotten. Jerry Goldsmith was, IMHO, one of the top film composers ever, and yet you could constantly hear Stravinsky's ballet work in nearly everything he did.
Elfman owes a lot to Bernstein and especially Bartok--but I don't think that's the problem with how lazy his music has gotten. Jerry Goldsmith was, IMHO, one of the top film composers ever, and yet you could constantly hear Stravinsky's ballet work in nearly everything he did.
#81
Posted: 3/30/13 at 6:54pm
I have always wondered how they got away with making the witch green,
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#82
Posted: 3/30/13 at 7:00pm
We debated that SNAFU when "Wicked' debuted on Broadway. How they (and Maguire) got away with it.
The answer is that witches were depicted as green before Margaret Hamilton "painted up" as the Wicked Witch of the West.
If she wasn't the first green witch, then it's not something that can be directly attributed to the MGM film.
Incidentally, the 1939 MGM film was not the first to show the Kansas scenes in black-and-white.
There was a cartoon in 1936 that beat them to the punch.
So that's not an inherently "MGM" trait either.
The answer is that witches were depicted as green before Margaret Hamilton "painted up" as the Wicked Witch of the West.
If she wasn't the first green witch, then it's not something that can be directly attributed to the MGM film.
Incidentally, the 1939 MGM film was not the first to show the Kansas scenes in black-and-white.
There was a cartoon in 1936 that beat them to the punch.
So that's not an inherently "MGM" trait either.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#83
Posted: 3/30/13 at 7:36pm
"Ever heard of google?"
Yes, ass hat. And the question was directed at anyone who did have insider information, not you, who seems to Google everything in hopes in make you look like a smarter person.
I know you like to Google everything, which is why I hate most of the stuff you post. Just because you google it, doesn't mean you know anything about it.
And thanks B12B for that answer. I noticed that even Eric learned something from it. Even though he, you know, assumes things....
Yes, ass hat. And the question was directed at anyone who did have insider information, not you, who seems to Google everything in hopes in make you look like a smarter person.
I know you like to Google everything, which is why I hate most of the stuff you post. Just because you google it, doesn't mean you know anything about it.
And thanks B12B for that answer. I noticed that even Eric learned something from it. Even though he, you know, assumes things....
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
Updated On: 3/30/13 at 07:36 PM
#84
Posted: 3/30/13 at 8:11pm
Best's posts are always filled with insight.
#85
Posted: 3/30/13 at 8:13pm
Yes, and you might actually learn something, if you didn't pretend to know everything in the first place.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#86
Posted: 3/30/13 at 8:18pm
I'm a inveterate lurker and newish poster, but Eric's posts have almost always been insightful, engaging, and continue a meaningful discussion. I wish I could say the same for yours.
#87
Posted: 3/30/13 at 8:25pm
No one asked for your opinion on this.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#89
Posted: 3/30/13 at 8:28pm
So eloquent...
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#91
Posted: 3/30/13 at 9:02pm
I love myself all the time, but that's neither here nor there.
I have nothing else to add.
I have nothing else to add.
#93
Posted: 3/30/13 at 9:47pm
I remember that discussion. However when we were working on desiging things for Wicked, we were told we could ONLY use images described in the original Oz books. Glinda travels by bubble in the movie but not in the book as well. So that image seemed to sneak through. In an early design for the Wicked Witch's castle there was a large crystal ball and hour glass. Both those images were removed because the appeared in the film and were not in Baum's work.
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#94
Posted: 3/30/13 at 10:25pm
I've been dressing Sheryl Lee Ralph for over 20 years.
Thanks for posting her beautiful face!
Thanks for posting her beautiful face!
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#95
Posted: 3/30/13 at 10:30pm
It does amaze me sometimes the kinds of visual restrictions that get put on these things. I did the set design for BEAUTY AND THE BEAST for Theatre Cedar Rapids, which was one of five regional theatres allowed to produce the show when it was put out in limited release. In the contract, it stated *very* specifically that Belle's yellow dress in particular was NOT to look like the one in the film. I found that a little odd, since the character roles like Lumiere would probably wind up looking like the movie design, but the only thing Disney Theatricals cared about what the Princess look.
http://docandraider.com
#96
Posted: 3/30/13 at 10:37pm
Isn't that the design of the dress they use in the Disney Theme Parks? Might very well be they want that dress in particular protected.
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#97
Posted: 3/30/13 at 10:40pm
You would think Disney would be adamant about Belle looking as she does in the parks. Not something different.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#98
Posted: 3/31/13 at 12:35am
Glinda "comes and goes" by bubble. She doesn't travel 
.
.
I don't WANT to live in what they call "a certain way." In the first place I'd be no good at it and besides that I don't want to be identified with any one class of people. I want to live every whichway, among all kinds---and know them---and understand them---and love them---THAT's what I want! - Philip Barry (Holiday)
#99
Posted: 3/31/13 at 12:41am
The whole thing with the Disney lawyers was very weird, actually. You would have thought they were making us privy to the Dead Sea Scrolls the way they officiated the pre-production work. As scenic designer, I got off pretty lucky, as I had no interest in (or budget for) recreating the sets used on Broadway or in the film. But the costumer and choreographer were pretty well put through the wringer to make sure TCR didnt look like some kind of sanctioned touring production. The whole experience was just bizarre, and I write it off as what was at the time Disney Theatrical's inept inexperience in handing their own materials. I think they've learned since then, because every production photo I've seen of regional BATBs since has used that damn yellow dress design.
http://docandraider.com
#100
Posted: 3/31/13 at 12:45am
I guess my biggest problem with the film was that it made no sense. Why did OZ need a great Wizard when Glinda could just use her magic and do everything they needed?
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $106
Tickets From $71
