2 versions of Wizard of Oz?

[ActingAndy]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 1:12am

i know there has been some talk about this before... but I couldnt find a definate answer in the archives?
What are the two versions and what is the difference between them?
Updated On: 7/13/06 at 01:12 AM

[SallyBrown]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 1:14am

2 versions? As in The Wizard of Oz and The Wiz? Or just The Wizard of Oz?

[Funny Face]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 1:16am

Noty entirely sure, but I believe the ones you are talking about are the Broadway musical that opened in the early 1900's, and the one based on the 1939 movie. From what I've read, they're two completely different shows. Not much in common except name and source material.

[Parks]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 1:17am

In one of them, doesn't the scarecrow like...molest Dorothy, or is that just the pot smoking?

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 1:22am

"TWO VERSIONS OF OZ TO CHOOSE FROM Currently, there are two very different stage versions of "The Wizard of Oz" that are available for rental from Tams-Witmark (If you would like to stage a non-musical version of Baum's fairy tale, feel free to write it yourself, the original story is in public domain. However, you may need to fork out additional royalties to Tams if you use any songs and dialogue from the MGM film, as they are the exclusive rights holders to the staging of the film). They are the St. Louis Municipal Opera (MUNY) version, written in the early 1940's, and the 1987 Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) version. The comparisons between these two very different adaptations are the focus of this essay. Though the MUNY version is similar to the Baum book in plot, its similarities to the 1939 film are minimal, utilizing almost none of the MGM film dialogue while retaining a handful of the famous Harburg/Arlen songs. The RSC version is now the most widely used version across the country, with its strong connection with the MGM film script. Where the 1939 film uses the style of a staged musical production number, as in the "Munchkinland" and "Emerald City" sequences both the MUNY and RSC adaptations follow suit. When film and stage techniques are not compatible, each version finds a different solution. ."

http://www.beyondtherainbow2oz.com/stagethewizard.html (Click for the afformentioned essay and a whole lot of information about staging the show.)
Updated On: 7/13/06 at 01:22 AM

[ActingAndy]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 12:30pm

Thanks!
It is wierd cause I had heard some of this before and I think that the Muny (who put on he Wizard of Oz) used the RSC version and has before.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 12:42pm

The RSC is the one to get if you're putting on a show. The MUNY one is very mediocre - RSC is more like a full show with a better book and more songs.

[greeneyed_one]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 1:16pm

So the movie came before both stage show right?

[luvliza89]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 1:23pm

Yes.

The Wizard of Oz had a much earlier mounting on Broadway in the early 1900s. This of course had nothing to do with the MGM which came out in 1939. This production focused on the "spectacle" of theatre and strayed in a lot of places (Toto was replaced by a large cow named Imogene), but did have heart.

Oz On Stage Updated On: 7/13/06 at 01:23 PM

[Phantom487]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 1:41pm

The RSC version follows the movie almost word-for-word... with a few bad British jokes thrown in... But thats the version to get...

The MUNY version is just bad... the Witch doesn't even melt, and the Wizard takes off in a Space SH*T instead of a hot air balloon... the show is a mess... stay away from it...

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 2:55pm

Space SH*T instead of a hot air balloon...

A space what?


I've never seen the MUNY version, but the RSC one isn't TOO horrible.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 2:59pm

The Muny script is an "operetta." It was written before even OKLAHOMA! made it to Broadway, so it's just very, very dated. It is, however, less techincally difficult than the RSC version which costs big bucks to pull off.