Live Action Discussions: Return to Oz

[brownie]

Anyone else who loves it should check out "The Worst Witch," starring Fairuza Balk and Tim Curry, and "Witches," starring Angelica Huston!

I remember watching that movie when I was a kid, too! "Has anybody seen my tambourine?"

[ichabod]

Something I forgot to mention was the age difference. Something about Judy Garland never really convinced me in the original, I felt she was just too old. Whereas Fairuza Balk is a much better age to be a more convincing Dorothy.

[blackcauldron85]

I watched Return to Oz for the first time today. I absolutely, completely LOVED it!!! (Below are notes I took while watching the film.)

I watched the bonus features before I watched the movie. Were the TV spots just commercials? Why are there black & white clips with time stamps? I'm pleased that a title like this got any bonus features! The quality of the TV clips is pretty poor, but I am glad that they were included- I'd rather have a little something than nothing. (And, Luke, should you edit the UD review- the Fairuza Balk intro is there (there's even a thread mentioning that here)).

Is the story of how the Tin Man came to be made of tin in the original Oz stories, or did Disney create it? It's dark and kind of violent for Disney, but I like it! (In the beginning, when Dorothy tells the doctor about the Tin Man chopping himself...)

The Jack-O-Lantern that the girl brings Dorothy in the hospital foreshadows Jack.

Miss Wilson is pretty creepy!!! The whole hospital is pretty creepy- the tone of this film is very different from the original The Wizard of Oz.

Were there really similar machines in the late 19th/early 20th century like the one they were trying to use on Dorothy?

I like Billina- she's funny!

Are the red clay creatures the same as the rock creatures? Can they just transport themselves?

How ironic- yesterday I mentioned in the Ichabod & Mr. Toad thread that Disney would probably never make headless characters again (after the Headless Horseman), and here we have headless people who have been turned to stone!

The Wheelers are quite scary-looking...oh, wait- they have human faces- they fooled me! Were there Wheelers in any of the Oz books?

The Princess is headless- wow!!! And is it me, or did her first head look like Auntie Em a bit?

Does each head of the Princes contain a different personality? Obviously it was her who took the heads from the people they belong to, but is it her personality coming through when she puts on a new head, or the personality of the head's original owner?

"Would you please check my head for signs of spoiling?" has to be one of the greatest lines ever!

Jack mentioned how Princess Mombi didn't remember to make a pie out of him, since she probably hasn't worn head 22 since- does each head retain the brain/personality of its previous owner? I'm confused (still).

And Jack loses his head!

I think it's cute that Jack calls Dorothy "Mom".

How come during the "game", the Nome King became more lifelike? Was it because when he gets more angry, he changes?

How Dorothy cares for her friends is very touching- I like how the movie has some heart.

So that's why chickens aren't supposed to be in Oz- the eggs are poisionous to nomes! How clever!

I had a feeling that the girl who gave Dorothy the Jack-O-Lantern and helped Dorothy escape would show up in Oz! It's Ozma!

I'm surprised that Billina didn't go back to Kansas!

It made me cry when Dorothy was saying her goodbyes. She would miss her friends and they would miss her.

I thought that Miss Wilson looked like the Princess when we first saw the Princess, and that was the point, I guess- both evil women.

I loved this movie! It's misleading how the Tin Man is on the DVD cover.

It said in the credits that the film was based on the books "The Land of Oz" and "Ozma of Oz".


(end of notes taken during watching the movie)
*********

This thread mentions some things that I mentioned or that I'll be mentioning [about the Fairuza Balk intro and about a certain fansite], but I already typed what I'm going to say about what's mentioned here...does that even make sense?
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... ghlight=oz


These reviews are interesting (or at least I think they are), so I'll post some reviews from when the movie came out in full.

[Schickel, Richard. "Return to Oz." Time 125 (July 1, 1985): 63(1). General OneFile. Gale. Orange County Library System (FL). 15 Apr. 2009
<http://0-find.galegroup.com.iii.ocls.in ... rodId=ITOF>.]

"If this is Oz, Dorothy," says Billina, the talking chicken, "I'd rather take my chances back in Kansas." A wise bird. Any movie in which a Midwestern prairie actually looks more attractive and more interesting than the enchanted land over the rainbow is in big trouble.

The Emerald City as Dorothy (Fairuza Balk) rediscovers it is about as wondrous as East Berlin in a brownout. Seems that the Nome King, who is a talking rock (stonily played by Nicol Williamson), has trashed the place and turned its inhabitants into boulders for good measure. Presiding over the ruins is, of course, a wicked witch (Jean Marsh), who lacks a broomstick but has several dozen changes of head in her closet. Her transformations are certain to fill young children with puzzled horror rather than with the delicious mirth that Margaret Hamilton generated with her over-the-top parody of evil.

These characters are, alas, entirely typical of Director Walter Murch's gloomily recharted Oz. Even Billina, the feathered critic manque, is part of the problem. She is a substitute for Toto, Dorothy's beloved dog, unaccountably left behind this trip. But though she can talk, she has less animation, and character, than the mutt. The same lack of enchantment afflicts the new friends Dorothy makes on the journey. Instead of the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion of blessed memory, she encounters a pumpkin with stick limbs, a tin soldier and something called a Gump, which looks suspiciously like your basic moosehead. They are all mechanical marvels, not actors, which means they can do anything except win an audience's heart. Still, it would defy the gifts of an Olivier to find interesting, amusing life in a context as charmless and joyless (and songless) as the one Murch and his design team have concocted.

I don't agree- I don't think that the new characters were bad at all! I think that, maybe, it was more fun meeting the new characters, and the story wouldn't have been the same had the old characters been with Dorothy the whole time.

[Novak, Ralph. "Return to Oz." People Weekly 24 (July 8, 1985): 10(1). General OneFile. Gale. Orange County Library System (FL). 15 Apr. 2009
<http://0-find.galegroup.com.iii.ocls.in ... rodId=ITOF>.[/quote]

Making this sequel was at best an exercise in futility, along the lines of adding a domer to the Taj Mahal.

Few movies have had the vitality, color, wit or charm of 1939's The Wizard of Oz; few are so deservedly beloved. So this movie started out with four or five strikes against it, and it hardly needed one. It is a plodding, lack luster fantasy that picks up Dorothy's story six months after she returns from he cyclonic trip to Oz. She's propelled back there by another storm to find the Scarecrow imprisoned by a villain called the Nome King. Her partners in adventure this time are a talking chicken embodied by real-life chickens and some mechanical models (it's as lame an idea as it sounds), a roly-poly robot, a moose head and a pumpkin character. Fairuza Balk, the California-born daughter of Turkish-Dutch parents, plays Dorothy. It's hardly fair to compare her to Judy Garland.

Garland's was a rare, unique talent--when was there ever such a childhood combination of nalvete and sophistication? And in The Wizard of Oz she was surrounded by terrific music. (Balk doesn't sing) and a charismatic cast that generated tremendous onscreen camaraderie, however much they might have been griping about each other off the set. Balk has poise and she's very cute, but she can't carry this film. The only real impact is made by Jean (Upstairs, Downstairs) Marsho, who plays a wicked nurse in Kansas and a wicked witch in Oz. Nicol Williamson is a genteely mad scientist and the Nome King. Director Walter Murch is a longtime collaborator of Francis Coppola and George Lucas (he won a sound-design Oscar for Apocalypse Now), but he has never directed before. That may account for some of this film's lack of momentum. So might the dreary background music by David Shire. Children who aren't comparing this movie with the original might find it diverting enough for a couple of hours. Older folks, though, will wish they were back again on the yellow brick road. (PG)

So the doctor and the Nome King were the same actor! And I'm not surprised about the nurse and the Princess being the same actress. I think that Fairuza Balk did a great job, and she didn't need to carry the film herself- there were other characters to help with that!

[Maslin, Janet. "FILM: A NEW 'OZ' GIVES DOROTHY NEW FRIENDS.(Weekend Desk)(Movie review)." The New York Times (June 21, 1985): NA. General OneFile. Gale. Orange County Library System (FL). 15 Apr. 2009
<http://0-find.galegroup.com.iii.ocls.in ... rodId=ITOF>.]

''RETURN TO OZ,'' which opens today at Radio City Music Hall, is the work of ingenious technicians who seem either not to know what gave the original film its magic, or not to care. Instead of the ''Wizard of Oz'' sequel that its title suggests, ''Return to Oz,'' directed and co-written by Walter Murch, is more of a grim variation.

This time, in a story derived largely from L. Frank Baum's ''The Land of Oz'' and ''Ozma of Oz,'' a pint-sized Dorothy has been brought to the screen with a different set of sidekicks; for instance, instead of traveling to Oz with Toto, Dorothy is this time accompanied by a different Baum creation, Billina the Chicken. Once there, she meets a whole new set of friends, including the Gump, a moose-headed sofa; Tik Tok, a robot in the R2-D2 mold, and the spooky-looking Jack Pumpkinhead, who insists on thinking that the pint-sized Dorothy is his mother. But the inventiveness that has gone into this, and into turning Oz into a land of lavish special effects, will be lost on anyone with a fondness for the 1939 musical classic. That film will always enchant adults and children alike. This joyless new ''Return to Oz'' isn't likely to appeal to the former, and may give many of the latter a good scare.

Children are sure to be startled by the new film's bleakness. It begins when Dorothy (played in assiduously wide-eyed style by Fairuza Balk) is brought by her Aunt Em (Piper Laurie) for electroshock therapy (!) to cure the insomnia and supposed hallucinations brought on by her earlier Oz adventure. Just in the nick of time, a torrential storm carries the girl and her chicken away. Once in Oz, they discover that the yellow brick road is in disrepair, the Emerald City is a shambles, and the previous inhabitants have been turned to stone.

The Wizard and the munchkins are nowhere to be found; instead, the place is presided over by a Nome King (Nicol Williamson), an astonishing creature made of granite, and the Princess Mombi (Jean Marsh), who keeps 30 beautiful live heads in her boudoir and changes her physiognomy at will. Mr. Nicolson and Miss Marsh, also doubling as the doctor and nurse who plan to give Dorothy her shock treatments, make formidable villains and bring the film its only real vitality.

But as living creatures, they take a distinct back seat to the film's elaborately produced special effects, some of which are indeed wonderful. Claymation, a new stop-motion animation technique that allows rocks to speak, wink and develop faces whenever they feel like it, is used to remarkable effect here. So are the pneumatic devices that give Dorothy's companions their lifelike motion. Also outstanding are Raymond Hughes's costumes, even the one that makes Princess Mombi look as if she's just lost a bullfight, and the design of the Wheelers, who are this film's winged monkeys. The film also has its bizarrely incongruous touches, like the antique-laden gilt decor of the Princess's lair and the painfully cute likenesses of Dorothy's three old friends.

There's a great deal to be said about the contrasting quality of children's fantasies reflected in the 1939 film, with its dauntlessly optimistic attention to the characters' innermost frailties, and ''Return to Oz,'' a more outer-directed adventure that attempts a ''Star Wars'' spirit. This Dorothy, who has nothing like the spunk and resourcefulness Judy Garland brought to the role, is nonetheless cast as a conquering adventuress in an alien empire; since she never stops to marvel at the mysteries of this new place, neither can you. And the effervescent helpfulness that united Dorothy and her friends in the earlier film has now become the mere sense of a shared mission. Oz itself, formerly a never-neverland existing somewhere in Dorothy's and the audience's shared imagination, now resembles any old extraterrestrial setting. It couldn't be further away.

''Return to Oz'' is rated PG (''Parental Guidance Suggested''). It contains little explicit violence, but a great deal of it may scare small children. Oz and Ends RETURN TO OZ, directed by Walter Murch; screenplay by Mr. Murch and Gill Dennis, based on the books ''The Land of Oz'' and ''Ozma of Oz'' by L. Frank Baum; director of photography, David Watkin; edited by Leslie Hodgson; music by David Shire; produced by Paul Maslansky; a Walt Disney film distributed by Buena Vista Distribution Company Inc. At Radio City, Avenue of the Americas and 50th Street, and other theaters. Running time: 110 minutes.

This film is rated PG.

I really enjoyed the special effects, and they didn't feel dated at all. Sure, the Scarecrow, Cowardly Lion, and Tin Man look different from the 1939 The Wizard of Oz, but they didn't look "painfully cute" like the article said; they were cute, but not painfully so!

I don't think that "children are sure to be startled by the new film's bleakness"; if they're familiar with the 1939 film, then, sure, they'll notice how Oz sure looks different, but hopefully kids (and adults) will become involved in the story (I sure did), and not keep on comparing it to the older film.

And, as other articles mention (and I think Luke's review does, too), this film is closer in spirit to L. Frank Baum's Oz books, so maybe people should find fault with the 1939 version? (I very much enjoy the 1939 version, and people shouldn't find faults with it, but people should ease up on Return to Oz not being a clone of the other film.)

(I won't post the whole next review, just some of it.)

[:"Scruffy sequel to 'Wizard of Oz' is darker, more relatable than original." AZ Daily Star (Tucson, AZ) (May 19, 2006): NA. General OneFile. Gale. Orange County Library System (FL). 15 Apr. 2009
<http://0-find.galegroup.com.iii.ocls.in ... rodId=ITOF>.]

The populace of Oz has been turned to stone, Dorothy's friend the Scarecrow has been deposed, and the ragtag band is the realm's only hope. Throughout their humorous, exciting adventures, buttressed by excellent claymation effects, it's never exactly clear whether Dorothy's adventures are real or just the product of daydreams.

What's obvious, at least to adults, is that Dorothy is fighting to save not only Oz but her very childhood and imagination.

...

The movie was a box office failure, earning only $11.1 million domestically against a $25 million budget. Kids found it when it was released on VHS and played ad nauseum on TV, and many held onto it as a treasured memory.

The film is an imaginative respite from harsh realities and just the sort of stepping- stone people need to make their way across the Deadly Deserts in their own lives.

What a well-written review! Of course, this review is from 2006, so maybe the writer grew up with fond memories of the film, I don't know. I wasn't really sure "whether Dorothy's adventures are real or just the product of daydreams", and I thought that that was great, how it wasn't really clear. It made the film more interesting, I think.

*********

[Frank, Baum, L. Annotated Wizard of Oz the wonderful Wizard of Oz. New York: Norton, 2000.]
P. lxxix:

While the production contained some fine elements, particularly Fairuza Balk as Dorothy, the movie was lacking in humor. Unfortunately, Return to Oz opened during the major reshaping of the studio, so it was treated as just another mistake of a former regime. Also the public was expecting another fantasy musical like the famous Judy Garland picture, and Return to Oz failed at the box office.

I don't know how much the average person knew before going to the film when it came out, but if they knew that it wasn't based on the same book that the 1939 film was based on, then maybe they wouldn't have compared the two so much? I wonder if the film was better received by people who had read the Oz books and knew about the dark tone of the books and didn't mind (and maybe even were pleased by) the Disney film's dark tone.

[Gunden, Kenneth Von. Flights of Fancy The Great Fantasy Films. Boston: McFarland & Company, 2001.]

Critics charge that the film was all technical wizardry without any emotional wonder. Naysayers also note that the first 20 minutes of the film, where Dorothy is taken to a quack doctor specializing in "electrical cures," is dark, somber, and terrifying to young children...

Return to Oz, admittedly a dark and scary film, admittedly a non-musical, probably had no chance. The Judy Garland singing and dancing version, so established in our minds and hearts, is just too powerful an icon to tamper with. Given our sentimental attachment to Bolger's Scarecrow, Lahr's Lion, and Haley's Tin Man, the fact that Return's versions are truer to John R. Neill's character illustrations for the books is an empty accomplishment. I believe, however, that Return, despite its emotional hollowness, will grow in stature over the years, gaining grudging admission to its rightful place in the hierarchy of great fantasy films, just a rung or two below its celebrated forerunner.

Does anyone else think that the film was "emotionally hollow"?!? I definitely felt for the characters, both laughing and crying throughout different parts of the film. I cared about the characters, and was sad that Dorothy's friends were either in stone or missing, and didn't want them to be turned to ornaments, and didn't want Dorothy to have to leave her friends...I was very emotionally involved in the film!!!

The book "Who's Who in Animated Cartoons" [Lenburg, Jeff. Who's Who in Animated Cartoons An International Guide to Film and Television's Award-Winning and Legendary Animators. New York: Applause Books, 2006.] says that the film "received an Academy Award nomination for visual effects". That makes me happy; I really enjoyed the effects (as I said earlier), and I think they did a great job, with the Claymation and with the robotics.

Look at this ad for the movie, from Ebony magazine in its June 1985 issue. It says that the film is rated G, but it was rated PG. I wonder how many publications had the false rating, and if any parents took their kids to the film, thinking that it was rated G, based on the print ad!
http://books.google.com/books?id=CNkDAA ... Q#PPA89,M1

*********

Here's a great fansite for the movie:

http://www.waltdisneysreturntooz.com/

This article, on that website, is great, and if you're interested in the film, it's a must-read:

http://www.waltdisneysreturntooz.com/Story.htm

The film (as Murch and his production team had originally envisioned it) never quite recovered from all these budget cuts. Though much time & effort had already been devoted to creating authentic likenesses of favorite old characters like the Scarecrow.

Now there was no money left in the budget for the complicated electronics that would have brought his face to life. Which is why the Scarecrow mostly had a fixed expression in the finished film.

That's so interesting! I wonder how he would've looked had they had more money!

All the articles listed on that website are interesting, and this one is another great info-packed one:

http://www.waltdisneysreturntooz.com/Art_Chicago.htm

Then, six weeks before his start date, Wilhite`s replacement at the studio, Richard Berger, shut the production down. The budget, he realized, was closer to $27 million than the original estimate. Child-labor laws would allow Balk, who is in every sequence of the film, to work only 3 1/2 hours a day. And the script as a whole was considered too complicated and unwieldy. "It was let known to me," says Murch, ``that if the script was cut and if it was cut in a way to make it possible to shoot in 16 weeks, that they might consider making the film after all.``

Murch sliced 20 pages, and an inflexible 16-week schedule was established.

...

Berger fired him on March 28, 1984. By 3:30 the next morning, George Lucas was calling from Japan to say he`d be right over to check things out. Lucas looked at the footage already shot, and pronounced it ``wonderful.`` Then he went over the production schedule, and felt it ridiculously tight and should be expanded. Then, as Lucas played big brother to Murch, offering pointers and encouragement, he played politician with Berger, explaining that bringing in another director foreign to the project would only put the production further behind. After two days, Murch was reinstated, his confidence a bit shaken, but certainly on the mend.

A little bit down in my post, there is a link to some deleted scene descriptions!

Here's a great documentary that would've been perfect as a bonus feature on the DVD:

http://www.waltdisneysreturntooz.com/Behind_Doc.htm


Info on deleted and extended scenes (descriptions, pictures, and even videos!!!). I wish these were also included on the DVD- there is so much that could be included in a Special Edition:

http://www.waltdisneysreturntooz.com/Del.htm
I can see why the face painting scene was cut...it's strange...short, but strange.

*********

The stop motion Nome King and his henchman, seem slightly dated.

As I mentioned earlier, I didn't think that they looked dated at all. Maybe I was just "in the zone", really focused on the story to notice, I don't know. I thought that they looked great (although I was, and I think I am still, confused about if the rock people inside, talking with the Nome King, are the same exact ones as were outside, watching Dorothy and friends).

It's very "Mwah ha ha ha [insert villainous laugh]" if you get what I mean and it does distract, especially the whole quaking in fear at the very mention of chickens nonsense.

Again, I disagree. Again, maybe I was just too involved in the story, this being my first time watching the film and all, but I didn't notice any corny villany going on, and their fear of the chickens, although not explained until near the end, is a very real and understandable fear! Eggs kill them (or at least the nomes...)!

I feel the second half lets it down...it all just slows down and becomes slightly lackadaisical and after all the creativity and action we come to what is in effect an elaborate guessing game of who is hidden where.

I was just as interested in that part as I was throughout the whole film- there wasn't one part where I felt bored or uninterested.

I think if people watched it on its own and tried to keep the 39 version out of their minds while watching it, they might appreciate it more.

I completely agree. I think I thought of the 1939 version rarely while watching this film, since I was so engrossed in the story. The only time I can think of, though, is when we see the Tin Man, Cowardly Lion, and Scarecrow for the first time, since obviously they look different in this film, oh, and I was trying to think if the Auntie Em from 1939 was older than in this film. The Wheelers did remind me of the Flying Monkeys, though...and what I'm writing below I guess can count as thinking of the 1939 film, too...But, I wasn't constantly comparing the two or anything (I was paying attention to the story), and I liked the darker Oz- it's not like I was hoping for anything the 1939 film has that this one doesn't have.

Oz seams more realistic and allot bigger in this movie than the 1939 movie

I thought the same thing. Even in the beginning, when Dorothy first gets to Oz, I thought, wow, there were people to turn into stone; I haven't seen the original since 2006, I think, but I don't recall there being an abundance of people...maybe in the last scene, when Dorothy goes home (in the 1939 version) there are a lot of people, but I don't recall. I mean, I know of Dorothy's friends and the Munchkins and the Mayor (?), but that's all I could think of; we don't really see other Oz inhabitants in that film. We don't much in this film, either, except in their stone form, or until the end.

"Witches," starring Angelica Huston

I haven't seen that movie in YEARS, but I used to watch it every year around Halloween when Disney Channel would play it. Princess Mombi reminded me of Anjelica Houston's character in Witches...when I first saw Mombi, I thought of Witches. (I used to watch The Worst Witch, too, I'm pretty sure, but I just don't remember it. I don't remember much about Witches except for Anjelica Houston.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Everyone who hates Return to Oz because it's not like the 1939 original needs to get a copy of the book. Nostalgia can kill you sometimes.

The Tin Man's story is the same as the book and for once Disney actually stuck to the source material and got bashed instead (instead of the other way around).

Some elements from the 1939 movie remain (ruby slippers, actors playing people in the "real world" and Oz) but I'm glad Disney took a more original approach, because as the reviews for Return showed, you can't top something that's engraved in everybody's subconscious. What they pulled off was very enjoyable on it's own terms and at least USA Today (I think, whatever's on the VHS cover) with their 3.5/4 review got it.

It's a shame it didn't get/hasn't got more recognition. It got an Oscar nomination for visual effects and had a nifty float for the Main Street Electrical Parade based on it, but not much besides a quick scene in Storybookland at DLRP has been done for it since the initial release.

[PeterPanfan]

Yes, Return to Oz used to be one of my favorites, and still is one of my favorite live-action Disney titles. Like you said, Amy, it's based off of The Land of Oz, which is the second in the series, and Ozma in Oz, which is the third. I've read both of them. (I actually stopped there. I've been meaning to continue for quite some time.).

In the book...(Highlight in case some people plan on reading the book) it's two years after the events of "The Wizard of Oz," and a young boy, Tip, is under the guardianship of a witch named Mombi, who treats him like dirt. Tip makes a scarecrow, but since he has no materials, he uses a pumpkin for the head, and names it Jack Pumpkinhead. Mombi sprinkles her Powder of Life on Jack, and he magically comes to life. Tip and Jack escape that night with the Powder of Life Tip stole. They head to the Emerald City, and on the way they bring to life a sawhorse so Jack can ride him. The Scarecrow from the original novel is now the king of the Emerald City, and Tip, Jack, and the sawhorse meet a woman who is planning on overthrowing the Scarecrow. They go to the Tin Woodsman's house, who now rules the Winkie County, to ask for help, and the Tin Man gleefuly obliges. They then travel to see Glinda the Good Witch, who ultimately reveals that Tip himself is Ozma, and Mombi had transformed her into a young boy because she wanted revenge on the Emerald City.

Yes, there are Wheelers in the book, "Ozma of Oz." In "Ozma of Oz," there is no Mombi. The headless Princess is named Princess Langwidere.

That's pretty much the only major difference from the film. You should read the series, as they're really fun and a quick read!

[blackcauldron85]

Thanks for that, Dan! The week of Christmas, I made a list of books I want to read, and the Oz books are on my list.

It's interesting how Dorothy isn't involved in that book...I read somewhere today that she wasn't in it, too. Just like the ruby slippers, I guess Disney included Dorothy so people will have a connection to the Oz they know?

[PeterPanfan]

Well, Dorothy was in "Ozma of Oz" throughout, along with Billina, but she wasn't in "Land of Oz," only referenced.

[blackcauldron85]

I have become obsessed with this movie! I'm trying to find as much information as I can on it. Here's a 7-part documentary on the film (Part 1 only deals with the Disney version in the very beginning, but from 6:38 of Part 2 until the end, it deals with Disney):

http://www.youtube.com/user/MeatballsMarlowe

*edit*

Jim Hill wrote an article a few years ago about Disney's Oz related projects (including the Mouseketeer version!), and some of it is included in another website I was on (and I don't recall seeing Jim Hill's name anywhere, so I'm not sure if someone plagarized it...I believe it's the article that I linked to that mentions the Scarecrow not being as technological as they would have liked), but here's the article, with a lot of great pictures:

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... /6565.aspx

*edit*
Here's a 2-part documentary on Disney (and the Muppets) and Oz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ7S38tuIf0
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy0e13LLTJA

*edit*
(About the girl who played Ozma)
http://www.waltdisneysreturntooz.com/Emma.htm

Emma was from the United Kingdom and therefore had a British accent. But in the beginning scenes of Kansas when Ozma appears in the asylum she has no accent. This is because her voice was dubbed over by the Director’s daughter so that she sounded more like she was from Kansas.

[blackcauldron85]

If you've ever seen the movie, then you might find this website hilarous- I did!

http://warehouse.carlh.com/article_075/index.php

*edit*

And there were character costumes made for this Japanese ad! I wonder if there were walkaround characters at TDL, or if they were made just for this ad?!?!

http://www.waltdisneysreturntooz.com/Mar_Cross2.htm

[Simba3]

Ok, I watched this movie for the first time a couple months ago, and I have to say it is the WEIRDEST movie I have ever seen. The wheelers are just creepy and awful, and what is with that lady with the different heads?

[blackcauldron85]

The Wheelers totally creeped me out at first, but they became less creepy (still creepyish, though) once they showed their human faces. Those masks are SCARY!!! But, really, villains should be scary, right?!?

And I haven't read the Oz books, but Princess Mombi, as I think Dan pointed out earlier (and I read elsewhere) is a combination of two characters in the book(s). In the movie, though, I guess the heads act as motivation for Mombi to campture Dorothy- she wants Dorothy to stay and get older, so Mombi can have her head! It's like having different outfits to wear, I guess. I still don't know if each head has its own personality or not...I'm leaning more towards yes now, though.

[blackcauldron85]

what is with that lady with the different heads?

I found a real answer:

http://www.fast-rewind.com/trivia_returntooz.htm

In the book "Ozma of Oz" which is one of the books the movie is based on, Mombi was not a princess but an old ugly humpback witch. And she did not have 30 different heads. Disney mixed the character Mombi with a different character Princess Langwidere. She had 30 different heads. In the book Princess Langwidere has no affiliation with the Nome King. In fact Mombi is not ever really mentioned in "Ozma of Oz".

And some other interesting trivia, from the same website:

Interesting to note that, although this film is more true to the Baum books than the musical and subsequent movie it was adapted from (with Judy Garland), there are 3 features that were carried over from the musical/movie due to its familiarity with fans- Dorothy has brown hair (in the books, Dorothy is a blonde- Ozma is the brunette) and the talk is about Dorothy's ruby slippers- which were SILVER slippers in all the books. They were changed to ruby slippers in the play as it was believed that red could be seen from the seats further back better than silver. When they play script was transferred to the movie script- it wasn't corrected. Also, the tendency to have the characters in Oz be reflections of people that Dorothy knows in Kansas (or the 'real' world) was something started with the Musical and thus, transferred to the movie. It WASN'T a feature in the books.

If you notice the room number that Dorothy is in at the hospital, it is 31. It matches as the same number door that Mombi keeps her original head in. Pretty creepy!

[totallyminnie86]

If you've ever seen the movie, then you might find this website hilarous- I did!

http://warehouse.carlh.com/article_075/index.php

*edit*

And there were character costumes made for this Japanese ad! I wonder if there were walkaround characters at TDL, or if they were made just for this ad?!?!

http://www.waltdisneysreturntooz.com/Mar_Cross2.htm

Wow, that Japanese ad is so random and cool! lol. Yeah, I'm a big fan of this movie too. Its so forgotten and under the radar, but its different and unique and interesting. Like a lot of others, it scared the hell out of me when I was younger, if I'm not mistaken I saw it on the Disney Channel yeaaars ago. But, it always held the same kind of 'weird, bizarre, forgotten Disney' intrigue as the black cauldron for me.

I finally re-watched it in its entirety on the DVD a year or two ago, and I thought it was great! I'm always really into looking at the merchandising and advertising for movies that I find interesting, so I'm always curious to see what kind of random items are out there that were made for now forgotten movies. I don't really have a lot of Return to Oz stuff, I think maybe some comics and books. There was a surprisingly decent amount of stuff out there though. http://www.waltdisneysreturntooz.com/Mem.htm

I'd say the strangest piece of 80s fantasy movie memorabilia I have (ha, that implies that I'm nerdy enough to semi-collect it, I guess, lol!!) is a sealed package of napkins featuring the characters of Labyrinth printed on them.

[Flanger-Hanger]

The film actually was a hit in Japan so they could have used them at TDL. They certainly look neat.

[Calamity 23]

I remember when this film came out. Del Ray had recently begun re-publishing the Baum books and one Christmas I got the first seven titles. The remaining Baum books were re-printed in following years. I just loved them and still watch the MGM film every year. Dorothy's last name in the movie, "Gale", also came from an earlier production of the story. Puns were popular at the time and "Gale" was a play on words inspired by the twister. At least, that what I read in a book called Oz Before the Rainbow which was about the various stage shows and filmed versions made before the 1939 film. Some of them were very strange.

When Return to Oz was released, there were news stories about it being darker. While it did keep elements of the Baum books, it didn't have the same tone at all.

[blackcauldron85]

I just watched the movie again, and thought of something. You know towards the end, when Dorothy helps Ozma out of the mirror? Right before then, when Dorothy looks in the mirror, she sees Ozma's reflection instead of hers. Is Ozma supoosed to be a part of Dorothy? I guess that can go into the thinking of Oz being a dreamworld? It was just a thought I had.

[slave2moonlight]

Yeah, I think they were implying that Ozma and Dorothy were the same person somehow, like the way things in Oz have real world counterparts or inspirations. Though, the Ozma girl seemed to have one already, but then, I don't recall, did anyone but Dorothy ever see her in the real world?

Anyway, as this is a favorite film of mine (I've been very tempted to pop in my Anchor Bay DVD, still need to get the official Disney one, but I have been in the midst of a Star Wars marathon in my spare time this week), I did some searching on Ebay recently for merchandise, and I found some very interesting items. This guy in New York is making replica items and selling them on Ebay, like the Powder of Life and the two keys from the film. I must say, I would love to get these items myself, though the OZ key is made of resin rather than real metal. They are too pricey for me right now though, but well worth a look! A lot of detail to them!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... %26ps%3D54

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... %26ps%3D54

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... %26ps%3D54

And someone in England is selling replicas of a lion sculpture from the film! Apparently, this person had the original and sold it, but made a mold of it first and is now selling replicas. I don't think it's THE Cowardly Lion turned to stone (I forget how he looked), but a castle decorative sculpture. Says OZ on it though and looks really cool.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... %26ps%3D54

[blackcauldron85]

At the end of the film, Auntie Em mentions that she hopes they find the other little girl; so people at least knew that there was another girl.

I had seen those props on eBay, too (I've been looking there every couple days to see if there is any new movie merchandise), and they are expensive, but they're pretty cool, even if they're really not the props used in the movie.

I bought the novel and comic book, but I also bought 5 magazines that have articles on the film (and at least one also has TBC info in it, too- score!): Cinefantastique, Starburst, Fantastic Films, Movieland, and Cinefex. The first four are from the same seller, and since I bought 2 magazines through BuyItNow, I emailed the seller asking about a refund for the difference in shipping (since she combines shipping), and she wrote back saying that she has another magazine she could give me for free, since I paid extra on shipping, and I said that that would be great, that I had seen that magazine in her eBay store, and that I didn't have any spending money left, and she wrote back saying that that wasn't the other one she had listed, but I could have that one, too! I'm so excited- I love it when salespeople are amazing like that!

[MadasaHatter]

Not sure if this has been posted yet... but if not it NEEDS to be. Please Disney - give us a better release of this. PLEASE!!!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Return-to ... ..1&v=wall

[disneyboy20022]

Not sure if this has been posted yet... but if not it NEEDS to be. Please Disney - give us a better release of this. PLEASE!!!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Return-to ... ..1&v=wall

That might not be too far off.....read thsi thread...It's a brick of a discussion on this link on Oz and Disney

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... ight=brick