Idol Star to Grace Spielberg's Oz "Remake"? — Page 2

But why Mcphee? Because she sang "somewhere over the rainbow?" They would never remake the MUSICAL Wizard of Oz, so why cast her? and if they were doing a film based on the book - again why would they cast her? Dorothy is a young girl.



Like John Waters said in an interview: "It would be suicide to make the wizard of oz today, as we know from every remake and every broadway play they tried to do of it.
I dont know who I would cast today, all unknowns that would be the only possible way to ever do it.
I think it would be a cinematicaly incorrect idea to ever make it. The movies you should remake are the bad ones not the good ones. Its actually blasphemy to try and remake that movie and I would route for the failure of any production that would try to do it."

I concur.

---

Actually, "Return to Oz" was NOT closer in spirit to the Oz books. The Baum books were full of humor and whimsy and light in tone, even though they had dark, scary elements to them... great battles and adventures. They were NOT dreary, depressing, claustrophobic or sad in tone... the way "Return to Oz" was. That film is more authentic in appearance, setting and visual style than the MGM film, but the overall misguided tone killed the picture.

My guess is that Spielberg is toying with "Wicked" as a film, and as MB said, he has a long-standing powerful relationship with Universal Studios. He's not going to make a film that is in direct competition with one of their hottest properties right now. He's probably toying with the idea of directing the musical as a feature film.

EDIT: I should add that I DO like "Return to Oz," and I appreciate many things about the film. But I don't think its tone is in harmony even remotely with Baum's Oz books. I take it as a separate and valid artistic interpretation.

---

Updated On: 6/5/06 at 09:31 AM

Yes, Best12Bars--I compeletely agree about Return to Oz, and was about to write so when I read your post. I think Return to Oz does not follow the spirit of the Oz books or Baum by a long shot. Also, MGM's The Wizard of Oz is very close to the original plot of the book. If plot summaries of the MGM movie and the book were separately written, they would read almost identical. There are more small adventures in the book, but not of true consequense to a movie version, and were probably deleted due to time.

However, Return to Oz destroyed the plots of the Oz sequels it was based upon (Ozma of Oz and Land of Oz). The movie is a travesty, and captures nothing of what Baum presented in the books. It is a widely held myth (I don't know from where) that Return is just so much closer to the books. Not true.

They should never remake The Wizard of Oz. Bring on a remake of the sequel starting from scratch. Or a prequel.

Well if I had my druthers, I'd have Peter Jackson directing the "Wicked" film, with most of his LOTR creative team in tact.

Spielberg will aim it even MORE toward "the kids" if he does WICKED, and he'll probably try to turn it into a "chase picture" which is his forte and trademark... and suits his needs, but not the story's. I don't want to watch them chase Elphaba out of the Emerald City and into the skies.

That whole "hunt her, and kill her," etc. section will be blown WAY out of proportion.

Oh... And this "Idol" gossip has me a bit worried too.

---

I am a HUGE fan of the original 1939 movie. That said, I think a new version of The Wizard of Oz -- called "L Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" because that's what it WILL be called -- is a fantastic idea. The book is VERY different from the original movie (the Wizard appears as different forms to each of the four travellers, there's a land of china dolls, the witch sends wolves and bees after the four...) and, like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (which I think completely succeeded at capturing Dahl's book), a new version of TWOZ, while inevitably being compared to the original, could be an incredible movie.

Whether or not Spielberg is the right director, I don't know - but he's on the short list of directors who I think COULD do it justice.

---

Yes, MGM did condense the book, but of course they had to. I do think that all of the necessary plot points were intact from the original book to MGM's production. I still hold to my opinion that the MGM The Wizard of Oz is much closer to the book than most movies that are adapted from books.

I think that for a fully detailed movie version of the book to take place, it would have to be a mini-series and not a theatrical release. But I am against that anyway. The Wizard of Oz is a classic on the same playing field as Gone With the Wind, The Godfather, and Casablanca. None of those should ever be remade.

Peter Jackson would be amazing for Wicked. I am not unhappy if the choice is Speilberg however.

Didn't the same Spielberg rumor come out a few months ago? And wasn't it denied by the MAN HIMSELF?

Who's Grace Spielberg?

---

Threadjack, cause I think this is a foolish topic until contracts are signed:

Rath, how can you have the f-bomb in your sig, while I get threads deleted for much less, and my posts get asterisked? No fair!

---

Well, it was a post first, doodle. And the post still stands.

*back to thread*

---