Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return

[Sotiris]

The first trailer has been released.

[Atlantica]

A lovely voicecast, but looks like it has been executed terribly cheaply; almost too cheaply for the voice talent?

[Sotiris]

It's not just the voice cast, the crew behind this production is also top-notch. A lot of former Disney and DreamWorks alumni.

It's true that the animation is sub-par. It was outsourced to Prana Studios in India, the same studio that animates the 'Tinker Bell' and 'Planes' movies for DisneyToon Studios.

Clearly, the animation is not as good as those films which is odd. Perhaps they had a smaller budget for Dorothy of Oz?

[Atlantica]

Hmm, interesting it is from the same place as those movies as well ....

I was going to say, the animation for Tink outstrips this movie for me .... though maybe that is because the central characters aren't human? Though even the background and environments of Neverland are better than this as well.

Interesting to see though, thank you for posting!

[DisneyDude2010]

Question-
I thought the characters of Tin Man, Lion and The Scarecrow are copyrighted? I don't get that OTGAP can't use these characters and this movie can? Can somebody clarify for me ?

[Jules]

Wasn't this supposed to be released this year in the U.S.?

Also, the Summertime Logo is hideous.

[thedisneyspirit]

...I mean, I can't be the only person in the world who is rather optimist for this film?

Seems rather unfair how so many people are riled up against this movie considering it started off as an independent film.

I wonder if it'll have an international release? At least I hope it goes somewhere with the DVD...

Oi.

[estefan]

...I mean, I can't be the only person in the world who is rather optimist for this film?

I was looking forward to this movie, too. I don't understand this snobby attitude people have towards smaller animation studios trying to jump into the animation game. In my opinion, the more the merrier. And some genuinely talented people worked on Legends of Oz.

However, once I saw the whole thing, I found it annoying, awkwardly animated and with trite songs and a shoddy script. But, at least, I walked in with the intent to like it which is what I do with every movie, regardless of its production history or the people who worked on it. Contrary to what a lot of people think, filmmaking is not easy and a lot of folks collaborate and try and make the best film possible. Nobody sets out to make a bad film, so why do we put our noses up at upcoming movies we haven't seen yet? Even though I disliked Legends of Oz, I can still see the artists who worked on it put effort into it. It just didn't gel quite right when the final product was put together.

[thedisneyspirit]

I'll still see it, no matter what. It can't be a worse version of Oz than Wicked and Oz the Great and Powerful (which are just so much fanfiction material, even more than Legends of Oz, and yet people fawn over those two stories...)

[dvdjunkie]

This movie was a total bust at the box office. It was pulled from most theaters after just the first week.

Here in Wichita, it was relegated to the Second-Run house after just 10 days of first run showings.

My daughter took the two grandkids, aged 6 & 9, to see this and they went to the box office before the movie was 30 minutes old and received a pass to see another movie. She said the animation was Saturday-morning-style and the kids weren't even interested in it.

[thedisneyspirit]

I'm hoping at least it'll go somewhere with the DVD.

[ajmrowland]

ill rent this.

[feedmelinguini]

Question-
I thought the characters of Tin Man, Lion and The Scarecrow are copyrighted? I don't get that OTGAP can't use these characters and this movie can? Can somebody clarify for me ?

To clarify, the books are in the public domain. Anybody can create a film based upon the books. The MGM film is copyrighted. Elements of that film (but not from the book), such as the ruby slippers, cannot be used without securing the rights to them by way of the MGM film. Also, illustrations in the books are in the public domain, so film characters based on their appearance would be fine, but characters based upon their appearance in the MGM film would be problematic.

That is my understanding.
-Lon

[thedisneyspirit]

Question-
I thought the characters of Tin Man, Lion and The Scarecrow are copyrighted? I don't get that OTGAP can't use these characters and this movie can? Can somebody clarify for me ?

To clarify, the books are in the public domain. Anybody can create a film based upon the books. The MGM film is copyrighted. Elements of that film (but not from the book), such as the ruby slippers, cannot be used without securing the rights to them by way of the MGM film. Also, illustrations in the books are in the public domain, so film characters based on their appearance would be fine, but characters based upon their appearance in the MGM film would be problematic.

That is my understanding.
-Lon

Makes sense. Oz the Great and Powerful borrowed heavily visuals from the MGM film, as long as it wasn't copyright it was okay. That's why we had no scarecrow or tin man or ruby slippers (which is strange, won't they play a large part later on with the Witch of the East?), and the lion had a tiny cameo. And Glinda's design seemed more in tune with her looks in the books than her MGM version.