Oz movie is successful, Wicked movie unlikely- Page 2

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 11:42am

I saw the movie yesterday and it is SO FAR DIFFERENT from WICKED the musical or book that there is only a "green girl," a wizard and a blond witch named Glinda involved. The story in OZ even completly contradicts that Elphaba... er Theodora...Ugh, never mind LOL

They are totally different characters, storyline... EVERYTHING about it is different.

Updated On: 3/11/13 at 11:42 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 12:49pm

This is a theaternut-level thread title.

[jpbran]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 2:50pm

"And if you didn't notice, that stupid Oz movie got some of the most crappy reviews ever."

It has a 61% "fresh" rating on RottenTomatoes.com, not bad for a CGI-filled, big Hollywood movie. Hyperbole much?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 3:00pm

True, but if you look at "Top Critics" it plummets to 32 percent.

[jpbran]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 3:25pm

Still... "some of the most crappy reviews ever"? Only TWO of the current top 10 is even at 60% or above.

Just have a low tolerance for hysteria, I guess.

Updated On: 3/11/13 at 03:25 PM

[DEClarke]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 4:42pm

I don't see the success or failure of this movie affecting Universal's decision to film WICKED at all. I would even guess that Universal knew about Disney's little Oz epic before we did. I'm sure their is some transparency in the Baum estate as they will want to make money off of all Oz related products.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 4:46pm

I don't think there is a Baum estate. The book is in the public domain.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 4:48pm

I don't think there is a Baum estate, as such. I believe all 14 of his Oz books are in the public domain.

Warner, on the other hand, watches jealously over anything related to the MGM movie.









Updated On: 3/11/13 at 04:48 PM

[Tink2]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 4:51pm

I would think just the opposite of what this thread title suggests. I think a Wicked movie would be more unlikely if the Oz movie had not done well. Being successful shows that this is the type of movie the audience wants to see. I agree that Universal was well aware of OZ when they made their decision.

Posted: 3/11/13 at 5:17pm

Yes, When a movie makes tons of money, Hollywood immediately cancels all the other movies like that one.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 5:28pm

^ Dripping with sarcasm...lol

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 6:42pm

Things that are in the Baum books are fair game, but specific changes made for each version, whether it's the ruby shoes, or whatever, are owned by those specific parties. Rights can be purchased, of course, but that's specific and details usually aren't made public.

Now, when we're specifically talking about WICKED the musical, Maguire owns the rights to the things he changed/made up for that book and the other books. Universal owns the film rights.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 7:08pm

In regards to its Rotten Tomatoes score, I find Metacritic, which only uses major critics, a better gauge. It's currently at 43% positive there ( http://www.metacritic.com/movie/oz-the-great-and-powerful ) For comparison to a similar project, Burton's Alice in Wonderland scored a 53% in the end.

Regardless, it's already a big hit, despite costing over $200 mill. But I don't really see it getting in the way of Wicked.

There's a fairly high budget CGI all star cast musical Oz animated film that was meant to come out this Summer, Dorothy of Oz (being based on one of the books by Baum's grandson--I haven't read them but have heard they don't really follow Oz cannon, and this is more a Return of Oz thing with Dorothy returning after the first story--although it looks far less interesting.) It has an "all star cast" (Kelsey Grammer as the Lion, Lea Michele as Dorothy, Megan Hilty as a china doll--yes another one, though of course the idea of a china doll comes from the original novel.) I believe it was pushed back to an indefinite date due to Oz's release (why they didn't plan on doing this months ago, I have no idea.)

It's interesting that Disney released this film--given how they used to have a theme park deal with MGM to use their films at Disney MGM Studios--including all the film bits, including Oz, in the Great Movie Ride which I used to love but have heard has been neglected for a while. It seems like all of that is quietly dissolving, but...

[Sinfonia2001]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 8:11pm

Atleast wicked has an edge, the fact that we are seeing the witches when they were younger and even when Elphie was born. Thats an advantage, if they promote that well. The new Oz movie doesn't go back that far, unless the sequel will also try to show them as younger characters??

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 8:24pm

Not really sure how that gives it an edge, but yeah, they cover different material despite telling origin stories of some of the same characters. I dunno--Oz has had so many various prequels and sequels that rarely jibe together with the original Baum books anyway (and Baum himself was very inconsistant with details from book to book,) so I don't really feel it's gonna be that big of an issue.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 8:30pm

Walt Disney actually bought the rights to the Oz books but only made Return to Oz before they gave up the rights and it went into the public domain. Turners rights for the 1939 film means the Ruby Slippers and even Dorothy's dress are copyrighted and they require a hefty fee to be featured in other Oz related media, Disney paid Turner to use the Ruby slippers in Return of Oz, wonder if Universal will do the same for Wicked and keep them silver.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 8:41pm

I think there are many roadblocks ahead for a Wicked movie. We hear news of films entering development all the time- it's hardly etched in stone that they will actually occur.

I'm not entirely sure what the success of Oz the Great and Powerful portends for the property. Although studios are hardly opposed to running similar programming to their competition, I do feel like there will be a hesitation to having a sudden glut of Oz films. Oz the Great and Powerful will encourage even more big-budgeted CGI hackjobs of beloved stories, and a sequel would probably run along the same timeline of development as a Wicked film.

Wicked is not at all the same as Oz the Great and Powerful (or Alice in Wonderland, or the like), of course. It's not action-driven. But being a fantasy musical will make it a gamble- it will be very expensive to produce and despite Wicked's worldwide success, there is still a very good chance it won't catch on as a film.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 8:45pm

Jonwo, they're actually not copyrighted, but they are trademarked.

A copyright expires. Trademarks can be renewed indefinitely as long as it can be proven that the trademarked image is essential to the business. As long as Warner Bros. owns the trademarks (dozens of them on MGM's Oz alone), no one will ever be able to use the likenesses of Garland as Dorothy, Hamilton as the Witch, Bolger as the Scarecrow, the ruby slippers, the Emerald City depicted like upside-down green test tubes, etc.

Eventually, the rights to the MGM film will pass into public domain, but if Warners holds the trademarks, nobody will ever be able to sell the film (or aspects of it) without licensing the trademarked images. Good luck with that.

For another example, Mickey Mouse has already passed into public domain for Disney, but they have trademarked his image "for the business."

And what good is a public domain Mickey Mouse if you can't legally use his image?

The trademark can be renewed forever, never expiring.

Updated On: 3/11/13 at 08:45 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 9:01pm

I forgot that Disney owned the book rights for so long--I know they did a Mickey Mouse Club episode (I believe?) with some Oz elements--the Rainbow Road to Oz I think, but I've only seen stills in the Oz books I used to read obsessively as a kid.

Kad wrote:
"Oz the Great and Powerful will encourage even more big-budgeted CGI hackjobs of beloved stories, and a sequel would probably run along the same timeline of development as a Wicked film.

Wicked is not at all the same as Oz the Great and Powerful (or Alice in Wonderland, or the like), of course. It's not action-driven. "

I agree with your take on the movies, but in a way I think that opens up possibilities for films like Wicked to be made sooner. Alice was a massive blockbuster, and obviously led to this movie, but for all its success the actual movie seems to have already lost much of any serious audience impact it might have ever had. To me, that just means that more adaptations (I use that word loosely) of classic properties like this will get made, and as redundant as it seems, I suspect that will make studios more eager even for one based on the same source, although obviously they probably will wanna seperate the release date of a Wicked film far from an Oz sequel.

Best, thanks for explaining the trademark vs copyright thing--I never quite understood the difference before, or how things could be trademarked that had fallen out of copyright.

[best12bars]

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

Eric, here is "The Rainbow Road to Oz" episode, talking about his feature film plans from the Mickey Mouse Club.


The Rainbow Road to Oz

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 9:35pm

Ha, thanks for that. I've probably been curious to see it for 20 years or so--was it released on one of the Mickey Mouse Club vols of Disney's limited editions DVDs?

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 9:39pm

I have the Walt Disney Treasures Mickey Mouse Club set (in the tin), and it's not on that.

I'm not sure if this was ever commercially released or not.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 9:47pm

Would have been interesting to see an Oz film had Walt managed to make one although I imagine it would have been compared to the 1939 film, was it intended to be animated or live action?

I think Universal will make and release Wicked eventually but they can afford to wait as the various productions are doing good business, I do wonder if they'll go for a Summer release date or a Holiday/Christmas release date.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 10:09pm

Ah--it just looks like a really clean copy on youtube, and not taken from an old Disney Channel rerun. I only have a few of the limited edition tins (the two, great Silly Symphony sets, some of the silent cartoons, etc,) so thought maybe I just missed it.

Jon, I think Walt went back and forth about whether it would be animated or not--but at least at one time it was going to be.

[kieranbec]

Posted: 3/11/13 at 11:11pm

The animated Dorothy of Oz with Lea Michele and Megan Hilty voicing characters, will also be released, probably soon. I don't think any of this will have an effect on Wicked being made, since it hasn't even started casting yet and really the only thing that we know is that Universal owns the rights.