A Wizard of Oz Remake? Boo!

[macbeth]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 7:36am

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Nicole-Kassell-Will-Direct-Remake-of-THE-WIZARD-OF-OZ-20210209

A friend told me a couple of weeks ago that I was prone to hyperbole... Fine, but this is still pointless sacrilege messing with perfection. There's been enough other properties - good ones like Wicked, and terrible ones like Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return that have further explored the world without besmirching the memory of a true classic and perfect film.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 7:42am

People always clutch pearls when anything Oz is made and they cry and scream about “sacrilege” and then it comes out and it’s forgotten and the original film is still there, same as it always was - untouched and unaffected by whatever remake or adaptation was attempted.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 7:45am

We mustn’t forget this one.

 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 8:00am

^ something something sacrilege

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 8:46am

I’ll never get the automatic hatred of remakes. Nobody is forcing you to watch it. It ain’t going to taint the original.

[Wee Thomas2]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 9:28am

Can't imagine how OP would feel about a remake of Macbeth!

[MysteriousLady]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 9:31am

Yeah it seems like a dumb idea, but the other poster is right, it'll probably come out and be quickly forgotten.

[BwayLB]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 10:05am

All I plan on doing is wait and see what happens

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 10:11am

1. You don't have to see it.

2. Heaven forbid someone gets introduced to a story in a different way than you did.

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 11:04am

It’s not a remake of the 1939 film. It’s another adaptation of the books.

[darquegk]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 11:08am

The movie is not a remake of the Judy Garland film, it's a new adaptation of the original book, but since it's produced by WB they can use copyrighted iconography like the ruby slippers.

Besides, the original film WAS a very less-than-faithful adaptation of the original Broadway "Wizard of Oz," keeping next to nothing. Imagine if the Wicked film comes out and they've cut all the songs and replaced them with a new score in "modern" trap style. Many of the characters are gone, it's just Elphaba, Galinda and the Wizard plus a bunch of new people. There's a five-second random shot of people disco dancing as the only shoutout to the Ozdust Ballroom in the original musical. That's how purists of the original Broadway Wizard of Oz would have felt about the classic film, which tossed out almost everything and then slipped in a random shot of some old-timey sailors as a nod to the "Baffin's Bay" sequence in the original musical.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 11:11am

Also, The Woodsman was magical.

[BwayLB]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 12:06pm

darquegk said: "The movie is not a remake of the Judy Garland film, it's a new adaptation of the original book, but since it's produced by WB they can use copyrighted iconography like the ruby slippers.

Besides, the original film WAS a very less-than-faithful adaptation of the original Broadway "Wizard of Oz," keeping next to nothing. Imagine if the Wicked film comes out and they've cut all the songs and replaced them with a new score in "modern" trap style. Many of the characters are gone, it's just Elphaba, Galinda and the Wizard plus a bunch of new people. There's a five-second random shot of people disco dancing as the only shoutout to the Ozdust Ballroom in the original musical. That's how purists of the original Broadway Wizard of Oz would have felt about the classic film, which tossed out almost everything and then slipped in a random shot of some old-timey sailors as a nod to the "Baffin's Bay" sequence in the original musical."

Marc Platt is co producing both projects

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 12:26pm

Complaining about a project that hasn't even come out yet? Cool. 

*checks website*

YES, I am in the right place! 

[jpbran]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 2:25pm

The 1939 classic was the ninth(!) movie made based on the Oz series, and the fourth based on the same story. Chill. 

[degrassifan]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 3:16pm

I really wish people would understand the difference between remake, reimagining, and re-adaptation. Not calling out anyone specifically, but people in general.  

[jlindsey865]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 4:14pm

I have and always will love the 1939 film, but the idea of a faithful adaptation to the original book really excites me. The novel is such rich source material. A film adaption could be incredibly magical.

[jlindsey865]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 4:17pm

Agreed.

The way the article is written makes it confusing. The title makes it sound like a remake of the 1939 film while the article itself presents the film as an adaptation of the novel.

[jpbran]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 5:29pm

jlindsey865 said: "Agreed.

The way the article is written makes it confusing. The title makes it sound like a remake of the 1939 film while the article itself presents the film as an adaptation of the novel."

It’s so weird... guess they’re going the click-bait route. Every article I’ve seen about it has a similar headline. 

[MichelleCraig]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 6:20pm

Deadline was a little clearer with their headline:

https://deadline.com/2021/02/watchmen-nicole-kassell-directs-the-wonderful-wizard-of-oz-new-line-l-frank-baum-novel-1234690490/

 

[joevitus]

Posted: 2/10/21 at 9:25pm

darquegk said: "The movie is not a remake of the Judy Garland film, it's a new adaptation of the original book, but since it's produced by WB they can use copyrighted iconography like the ruby slippers.

Besides, the original film WAS a very less-than-faithful adaptation of the original Broadway "Wizard of Oz," keeping next to nothing. Imagine if the Wicked film comes out and they've cut all the songs and replaced them with a new score in "modern" trap style. Many of the characters are gone, it's just Elphaba, Galinda and the Wizard plus a bunch of new people. There's a five-second random shot of people disco dancing as the only shoutout to the Ozdust Ballroom in the original musical. That's how purists of the original Broadway Wizard of Oz would have felt about the classic film, which tossed out almost everything and then slipped in a random shot of some old-timey sailors as a nod to the "Baffin's Bay" sequence in the original musical."

The 1939 film was not remotely an "adaptation" of the 1902 Chicago/1903 Broadway show. Yeah, they swiped Glinda making it snow to counteract the power of the poppies, but that project did not start with an idea of doing a film of the show, nor, to my knowledge were rights to that version ever purchased by MGM  (or any film company).