Oz movie is successful, Wicked movie unlikely — Page 3

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

Yes, that's exactly what happens. Studios have stopped production on multiple films due to other similar films being released. The one that pops into my head is Pixar cancelled "Newt" because of "Rango"

---

"Studios have stopped production on multiple films due to other similar films being released. The one that pops into my head is Pixar cancelled "Newt" because of "Rango""

Pixar is one of the few in recent history that have done this. The vast majority of studios try to jump on the bandwagon of popularity and cash in. For instance, MGM's version of The Wizard of Oz was given the studio go ahead because Disney showed with Snow White that fantasy and fairy tales could be successful on the silver screen and MGM looked and said "how can we repeat that?"

Very true, AEA, but MGM didn't say, "How can we adapt Snow White?"

MGM's The Wizard of Oz (not MGM's Snow White) came out of the success of Disney's Snow White.

And while reboots of Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, and countless remakes have happened throughout film history, you rarely see two studios adapting the exact same story and characters simultaneously. Has it happened? Yes, a couple of times, but they do try to avoid it.

---

Updated On: 3/12/13 at 02:25 PM

Being addicted to Oz since I've been a toddler, I looked forward to this movie very much. It just fell flat. I actually liked James Franco unlike 100% of the reviews I read. I thought that Kunis was terrible, and as aforementioned in this thread just screamed all of her lines.

As far as falling into Oz myth canon, this movie actually falls more in line than Wicked. The Wicked Witches are really wicked (not just misunderstood or perceived as Wicked); Glinda is truly good; and the Wizard is just a bumbling humbug (as opposed to the true evil one in Wicked).

However, there is one thing that Wicked has that this movie does not, and that is heart. The one thing that The Wizard of Oz and Wicked have in common is a truly sympathetic character who is on a journey who people truly identify with in many different aspects: Dorothy in The Wizard, and Elphaba in Wicked. Since 1939, countless girls and boys have looked to up to Dorothy as a role model and wanted to BE her. No matter what one thinks of Wicked as a musical theater piece, the same is true of Elphaba over the past decade and really resonated with teenage and pre-teenagers.

The Wizard in the new movie offers none of this in his journey. The Wizard as portrayed by Franco is fine IF he there was a Dorothy/Elphaba character on the journey as well--and if he played second fiddle to her (I realize that's not the point of the movie and that it was trying to explain how the Wizard came to Oz).

Besides The Wicked Witch of the West being totally miscast in this by Kunis, the screenplay greatly hinders her character as well. Her motivation is that the Wizard broke her heart after they spent like a minute together? Ridiculous. And the apple? Ugh. And to repeat--all the SCREAMING.

Also, I get tired of movies trying to incorporate all these romantic love stories into Oz. Unless I'm wrong (Besty?), there is only one Love story in all of the Oz books (or the Baum Oz Books)--and that is the Tin Man.

Anyway, in spite of all the above, I actually kind of liked Oz Great and Powerful (if the script and actress problems had been addressed with Theodora, I would have REALLY liked it). I did think it was pretty visually spectacular.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts....

I pretty much agree with all of your thoughts, landryjames2. Well said.

As for your question about romance, it's been a long while since I've read all fourteen of the original Baum books, but I'm fairly sure you're right about the Tin Man's backstory being the only love story of note from the original books (at least involving one of the main characters), certainly the earlier books. I vaguely remember a love potion being created in a later Baum Oz book, but that's not a "real" romance.

Also the original reason why the flying monkeys became enslaved by the Golden Cap had to do with them pulling a practical joke on a princess who was about to be married. They picked her groom up in the air and dropped him in a river. She put a spell on them, making them bow to the owner of the cap for three commands. (Something like that, I'm really paraphrasing.)

Still, that's a peripheral romance at best, and I'm sure there are a couple of others in the original stories.

Since so many of the characters were either children, older adults (nearly all of whom were "single" except for Dorothy's aunt and uncle) or invented "creatures," there wasn't much romance in Oz.

I don't mind romance being added in at all, as long as the adaptations stay true to the characters in general. I don't even mind hidden motives or revealing something new about them. That's why Wicked (both the novel and the musical) work for me. They honored the source material in different ways without betraying it.

I think I mentioned this before, but when the three witches with all the "real" power in Oz have to wait for a man (and a phony, lackluster shyster at that) to come along and solve all their problems, that's just messed up.

Not only is it a disservice to Baum's original characters, it's a weak premise and a disservice to female characters in any realm.

---

Updated On: 3/12/13 at 05:33 PM

I think whoever has the Wicked film rights must be kicking themselves right now for letting Disney beat them to the box office.

It's Universal.

This is almost like "the battle for Oz" with the movie studios. Disney is staking their claim by saying there are already plans for a sequel to the current hit movie. And the film is designed to look and feel like a theme park ride (I thought about that several times while watching it). They will get as much of their plans into production now before the Wicked film even goes into production.

I wouldn't be surprised if you hear about a theme park attraction before the year is out.

As for Universal, I don't think this will scare them off, but they will definitely try to position the film's release around anything Disney has planned. I'm sure they wouldn't be happy to see their big-screen adaptation of the stage musical come out the same month (or season) as a sequel to the "Disney Oz franchise."

And I'm sure Disney will want exactly that, to try to kill the thunder.

And of course Warner Bros., who owns the 1939 MGM film, is preparing a 3D release next year for the 75th anniversary.

I'll bet Disney re-releases their current film into theaters to coincide with the MGM anniversary as well.

It's an Oz war.

---