Oz movie is successful, Wicked movie unlikely

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 5:54am

It's been estimated that Oz: The Great and Powerful has raked in $150 million over the weekend, making it the biggest opening weekend for a movie in 2013 and Disney has already confirmed a sequel. Surely this can only mean yet another delay with the Wicked movie? Surely the two studios won't want to make two films with similar characters?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 6:57am

Perhaps you are right. But I would anticipate this would have the opposite effect, making Wicked a hotter property.

Updated On: 3/11/13 at 06:57 AM

[all that jazz]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 6:58am

I have yet to see the film, although I must say it looks very promising. I sincerely wish this doesn't delay Wicked. From what I've seen it seems to have a different atmosphere to that of the musical. Have you seen the film, or has someone else seen it? Are the stories similar?

[NotYourMemories]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 6:59am

Sure, Hollywood would never even consider putting out a movie that was at all similar to another recent movie that had been successful.

If anything Wicked will accelerate their schedule in order to be released before five other Oz-themed movies come out.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 7:18am

Yes because Hollywood has never released two films with similar subject matter before. Please. One thing has nothing to do with the other. And if you didn't notice, that stupid Oz movie got some of the most crappy reviews ever.

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 7:20am

I was thinking about this the other day. Will the general movie going public be interested in yet another prequel to Oz when there will have already been one (with another on its way) that they are following with invested time in the characters and story etc. The witches also feature with different names. If these movies are seen as official prequels to Wizard of Oz im not sure what Joe Public will feel about a musical movie telling a different story.

The musical version might then only appeal to the musical fans, and im not sure that will be enough to get it greenlighted.

[TalkinLoud]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 7:28am

No way, Princeton. Wicked musical movie would appeal to WICKED fans, of which there are even more than "musical fans."

I agree with NotYourMemories, if anything this will get Wicked made soon.

[all that jazz]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 7:30am

Well, we did have two Snow Whites last year, with the second one far more superior than the first.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 7:59am

But Wicked has an Oscar-winning role for Anne Hathaway.

[disneybroadwayfan22]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 8:08am

I don't see why it would stop Wicked. These 2 are different stories, plus ONE of them is very anticipated than the other. And we all know which one it is.

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 8:40am

But with a sequel in the works, and let's just say Oz II and Wicked are released close to each other, surely having a sequel to a prequel to The Wizard of Oz as well as another prequel to The Wizard of Oz, it'll confuse the hell out of people. Both Snow White's appealed to different audiences but I can imagine Wicked being aimed at the same sort of audience as Oz:TGAP?
Also, like I said, Oz has had a huge intake over the weekend - reviews mean nothing. Twilight being a prime example of bad reviews but massive profits. Les Mis the original stage show being another.

Updated On: 3/11/13 at 08:40 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 9:12am

Could you change your stupid thread title.

[madbrian]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 9:20am

When is the musical of the HBO series Oz being made?

[actorgaedu]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 9:26am

I'm sorry, but Anne Hathaway can't sing either lead role the way they need to be sung. Sure, she is a good actress, but no "Wicked" one. IMO

[Marlothom]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 9:49am

i have to agree with this post - having seem the movie - which also explains some of the origins of the various things like the broom, Glinda's bubbles, the Lion, the scarecrow - in very different ways than Wicked. If I were a movie exec, I would think "someone beat me to the punch, need to move on". But that's just me.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 9:52am

If they can start the exact same Spider-Man story all over again a mere 10 years after a trilogy covering the tale began, the corporate entertainment industrial complex won't bat an eye at telling a similar tale to this one with a song that has been sung at school talent shows since it was unleashed upon an unsuspecting world.

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 10:23am

FindingNamo ... Can you change your stupid name? No? How about your stupid picture? No, again? Get a grip, if you're not going to contribute anything useful why waste your time posting?

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 10:23am

I think it can go either way. I haven't seen the Oz movie, but I think even if Wicked has the same source material, it can be very different.

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 10:27am

^^ I agree. I hope this doesn't stop them and if they do go forward with the Wicked movie, both the Oz sequel and Wicked will need to be careful of how they make the films and market them. I believe the success of the Oz movie will at least make Universal reconsider the Wicked film, at the end of the day - there's no rush for it.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 10:34am

Well...after sitting through that ridiculous SH*Tshow of a movie, I can say something I'd never thought I'd say:

I'm looking forward to the film of WICKED.

It'll be like CITIZEN KANE compared to this craptastic epic.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 10:43am

"FindingNamo ... Can you change your stupid name?"

Um, okay, Plannietink08.

[finebydesign]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 10:45am

I think the Spiderman reboot argument is is relevant here. You can have two the same in big budget Hollywood.

Even though the studio says it's on it's way, who knows how long they'll hold off to make this film.

The other deal here is the two roles, they are going to go to Oscar-baiters or pop singers.

[ARTc]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 10:53am

I saw Oz: The Great and Powerful, this past weekend. I thought it dull and a waste of my time. To be fair, there are some interesting aspects to the film, like the open credits, the witches and even the final "battle", but this accounts for a very small fraction of the film. I thought Mr. Franco was absolutely dreadful in the title role. I had absolutely no investment into his character.

I hope that Wicked is still on. I suspect that Disney will make more "Oz" movies based on the success of this one. I can only hope that they will be far more interesting than this one.

Updated On: 3/11/13 at 10:53 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 10:55am

Wicked is a far better prequel in all respects, but that doesn't mean that the timing isn't unfortunate for a film version.

Yes, there are obvious similarities in the subject, but also the specifics of it:

Witches are all younger, prettier, playing into an unrequited love scenario that drives a lot of their motivations.

The best thing a film version of Wicked can do is stay the hell away from the 1939 MGM film in all ways, other than the ones already written into its story, which are subtle by comparison to this current (mediocre) film homage---particularly with the visual look (art direction, costumes, and makeup).

I think if it's approached in a completely different way, people will be open to (what they will probably perceive anyway as) a "reboot" of the Oz prequel idea.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 11:36am

"FindingNamo ... Can you change your stupid name? No? How about your stupid picture? No, again? Get a grip, if you're not going to contribute anything useful why waste your time posting?"

In defense of FindingNamo, your thread title is misleading and implies that the Wicked movie is unlikely rather than a discussion of opinion.