The Wizard of Oz Remake

[gumby17]

is this movie for real?

[Disneykid]

aww damn, if this "remake" goes through and it's nothing like it then I'd be madd upset.

Prepare for disappointment, then. The movie will be dark, and McFarlane is involved with the film, but he's already told IGN that the film will not be directly based off of his toyline.

[Someday...]

Id like if it wasn't known as a re-make, because in my opinion, it would be impossible to beat judy garland in that movie- as well as the fact its not a musical.
Im excited though, and I hope it takes on a more twisted form (glinda + wwotw anyone?)
but Im sure it will draw in quite some audience, as oz still remains popular.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

A bit more news:

http://www.filmstalker.co.uk/archives/2 ... emake.html
http://www.pastemagazine.com/action/art ... _the_works
http://entertainment.aol.co.uk/no-munch ... 2909990010
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1092277 ... s/1664946/

[Disneykid]

Thanks for that, TheSequelOfDisney. I don't like the fact that they cut out the Munchkins. In the book, they weren't the cutesy helium children from the MGM musical, so they couldn't have been cut due to a clash with the dark tone. Dorothy's arrival in Oz is going to be a lot less interesting if it's just her and the Good Witch of the North (and Toto, too). It also undermines the impact of her killing the Wicked Witch of the East. There's no gravitas for what Dorothy's (house has) done if we don't see the people oppressed by the person she/the house just killed. I was also hoping they'd follow Baum's color scheme for Oz (blue for Munchkinland, green for the Emerald City, yellow for the land of the Winkies, and red for Quadling Country), but with the Munchkins gone, I doubt they'll keep the scheme for the other set pieces other than Emerald City.

[Escapay]

Thanks for that, TheSequelOfDisney. I don't like the fact that they cut out the Munchkins.

Perhaps the idea of them being short singing-in-a-helium-tone people is cut, but there could still be a community of people oppressed by WWotE, and the house can still fall on her.

Scaps

[Poody]

As long as it isn't another horrid "Tin Man"....

[Disneykid]

Even though this (as far as I know) has nothing to do with the McFarlane version for WB, I figured this was an appropriate thread to post this in.

John Boorman (Deliverance, Excalibur) is directing a CG Wizard of Oz film scheduled for summer of 2010:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111799 ... id=13&cs=1

Boorman would seem like a really bizarre choice for me if it weren't for Excalibur. His other films (Deliverance, The Exorcist II, The Tailor of Panama) don't really scream classic fantasy. But Excalibur seems like a good indication of where he might go with Oz. That film took a very natural, matter-of-fact approach to the King Arthur legend, so I'm hoping that's the way he'll tackle this story.

I'm a bit worried about the animation itself, though. The film is budgeted at only $25 million, rather low for a CG film. Not only that, but they just started pre-production. Animated films on average take about four years to create. They're doing this one in a year and a half. I hope they come up with a very stylized look that's cheaper to animate without looking cheap.

On, the plus side, CG will help set this apart from the MGM musical, and as far as I know, this story has only been animated four times, none of which were full-length features released theatrically (in the U.S., anyway). No matter what approach they take, this new version will have a distinct flavor of its own.

And even though I think summer of 2010 is too soon, I still can't help but feel giddy since 2010 is housing films versions of my all-time favorite fantasy novels:

Alice in Wonderland
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One

Adding Wizard of Oz to this lineup is like nirvana for me. I'll be following this movie's progress very closely, to say the least.

[Disneykid]

I should probably start a new thread devoted to this, but I'll keep posting here and let the mods make a new one if they want.

So, I did some poking around, and it turns out AICN got a hold of concept art for the Boorman animated film. These got taken down per the studio's request but are still being hosted by the site. I'll link them instead of putting IMG tags on them since there are quite a few.

Dorothy Gale and Toto
Munchkinland
The Scarecrow
The Scarecrow 2
Dorothy and the Scarecrow
Nick Chopper, the Tin Man
Nick Chopper, the Tin Man 2
The Cowardly Lion
The Yellow Brick Road (and Poppy Field?)
The Emerald City
The Emerald City 2
The Castle of the Wicked Witch of the West

The official website for Action Synthese (the production company making the film) had the first actual photo from the film on its main page (it seems to be the scene where Dorothy first meets the Scarecrow):

http://www.actionsynthese.com/index.php

And another smaller one from the same scene here:

http://www.actionsynthese.com/index2.php

I'm generally very pleased by what I see. The environments look fantastic. Apparently the Emerald City will be surrounded by mists and waterfalls as a means to keep the Wicked Witch of the West out, an ingenious move since it's never really explained why she doesn't just invade and conquer that area. The Scarecrow and the Lion both look great so far. Dorothy took me a while to get used to, but I'm really liking the more Kansas farmgirl look for her. I have to admit, though, that she has more warmth in the concept image than in the finished film shots. I guess some sterilzation is to be expected with a small budget,

I don't know what to think about the Tin Man. Supposedly the reason for his design is because he was originally a Munchkin. I haven't read the Oz sequels, but at least in the first novel, it's never stated where from Oz Nick Chopper (the human the Tin Man used to be) was from. It's likely he was from Munchkinland since that's where the Wicked Witch of the East ruled, and she was the one who cused his axe. That said, it's just odd having a short and round Tin Man when even the W. W. Denslow illustrations Baum approved of show him tall and thin. Let's see how this works out.

Hopefully more final film images are released along with casting info. Boorman's intentions are what really make me believe this film can be something special:

http://www.actionsynthese.com/galerie_r ... hp?idgal=6

[Disney Duster]

Ooohhh, thank you so much Disneykid!

I'm pretty sure all that "news" about the dark McFarlane Warner Brothers Oz is actually pretty old. I read that a while back...like, years back I think, or at least a year.

But if the news is still true, I don't think the dark live-action Oz with McFarlane is going to be what I was thinking of, and wanted, which was simply a darker view of the original book, keeping the darkness already in and emphasizing and perhaps expanding it, with new atristic designs and styles within the descriptions the book gives. Getting rid of the munchkins makes it already clear that this won't be following the book close enough. Well, maybe someday I'll make my version. Todd McFarlane sounds like he just wants to make creepy for the sake of creepy, and 'cause he likes it so much. He doesn't even sound like he likes or repects the original book that much...the way it originally is.

By the way, are you saying he's getting rid of munchkins because it said, "without a singing munchkin in sight". That could just mean it won't be, well, a munchkin that sings. He may have munchkins that are just more adult, scary, and, well, dark, unlike the cutesy singing children in the film, like Disneykid said. Then maybe I could look forward to this dark live-action version.

But I'm looking much more forward to this CG animated version! So, it's by a French company with a French director and will premiere in France and will be in French? Oh well, I like Frenchness!
EDIT: Oh, it's just AICN that's French?

I, too, dislike Dorothy's design, and it did lose a little something in the final animation, too. I really don't like her hair, and she's not wearing what the book said she wore, which is already a big no no for me but whatever. What mainly concerns me is she looks modernized, and the book is supposed to take place at least in some kind of time in the past, like around the Great Depression when it was written?

As for the Emerald City waterfalls...hey, don't you remember, the Witch of the West was afraid of the Wizard, because she really thought, like everyone else, he was that powerful. I mean, he came with a balloon from another land. To be honest, I only think she was afraid of him in the book, but I can't check now...

Nick Chopper also bothers me, not just his kiddish appearence but alos his winged axe and what looks like kids sneakers. Hope that design changes. But Dorothy's winged slippers make perfect sense as to what they do, and look great!

I also love the environments! Hey, do you think the witch's castle and mountain are supposed to look like a arm and hand? I thought of an idea like that for something I drew recently...oh well!

The guy's intentions sound very nice, I like his views except I hate the idea of children "having to grow up"...but whatever. I hope that he tries to make the male characters fleshed out since he talked about how little they were compared to the females!

[pinkrenata]

I, too, dislike Dorothy's design, and it did lose a little something in the final animation, too. I really don't like her hair, and she's not wearing what the book said she wore, which is already a big no no for me but whatever. What mainly concerns me is she looks modernized, and the book is supposed to take place at least in some kind of time in the past, like around the Great Depression when it was written?

The book was published in 1900, so Dorothy definitely should not be wearing overalls! And she only sports a bob in illustrations from later books. I hate to be a purist, but is a time period change really necessary? That being said, I guess the Land of Oz itself is timeless.

Anyway, it will be nice to see a new interpretation of the book (assuming they stick with the story and don't go too overboard in the name of dark edgy-ness). I have finally learned to embrace the original <i>Wizard of Oz</i> for being a great film in its own right, but it strays so far from what L. Frank Baum first created.

[Disneykid]

Yeah, it does appear that the Kansas sequences will be modernized, but I doubt it's going to be something terribly steeped in the 21st century. They ARE on a farm, afterall. It's still possible for those scenes to be timeless; they just won't be decidedly turn-of-the-century To be honest, the MGM musical didn't really evoke that period, either. So while a short-haired Dorothy in overalls is a bit jarring to me, it's something I can accept and am already getting used to. Besides, if the filmmakers REALLY stick with the book, Dorothy should have a wardrobe change once she gets to the Emerald City, something the MGM movie only took as far as her hair.

I couldn't remember what the Witch's opinion of the Wizard was, so I looked it up, and it says this in chapter 12:

"Twice already the Wicked Witch had used the charm of the Cap. Once was when she had made the Winkies her slaves, and set herself to rule over their country. The Winged Monkeys had helped her to do this. The second time was when she had fought against the Great Oz himself, and driven him out of the land of the West. The Winged Monkeys had also helped her in doing this."

So this begs the question: what kind of fight was it, and just what exactly is stopping her from taking over the Emerald City? Each Witch is ruler over a different portion of Oz, all of which happen to nicely coincide with the points on a compass. The Wizard rules the center of this compass, Emerald City. If she managed to defeat him once and drive him to the very heart of Oz, why isn't she ambitious enough to try to take over Emerald City?

Also, we're to assume the Wizard landed in Winkie Country on his balloon. Should that be the case, why did the Emerald City citizens so readily make him their leader? They didn't witness his arrival the way the Winkies probably did. Of course, news seems to travel fast in Oz (Dorothy's story is proof of that), so perhaps the tale of the Wizard and his balloon had already spread by the time he reached Emerald City. Of course, then that also makes me wonder how much did these people know of the fight between him and the Witch.

Oh, and John Boorman is actually British. For some reason, the English version of the Action Synthese website is a filter, not a separate encoding, hence why the letter from Boorman is in French. Here's the actual English version:

Based upon the original work by Franck L. Baum, The Wizard of Oz is a literary and cinematographic milestone which animated cinema must approach with respect. Why should we make an animated version of this story at all? Given the technical limitations of the day, and the demands of live action, the iconic MGM film could only engage with a fraction of the novel. Animation will allow up to explore the magical fantasy of the book and bring the array of strange and frightening creatures to life.

Therefore my objective in recreating the universe of the land of Oz is to realise the glories of Franck Baum’s novel. The Wizard of Oz is first and foremost a fairytale telling the story of a young girl who has lost her parents and lives in the countryside with her aunt and her uncle but dreams of another reality, of escape, of finding friends who will compensate for the loss of her parents.

Dorothy’s journey through the land of Oz relates a child’s coming of age, the transition from childhood to adulthood. Dorothy learns that she must put away childsish things, take responsibility, and become an adult. She is the only child in the land of Oz, and she has to understand that adults live in an ambiguous world in which the border between the good and the bad is often blurred.

In the original work, the handling of the female characters has been subjected to tremendous care. All the strong and powerful characters are women: Dorothy, the Witch, Glinda. Whereas males are deficient: the Wizard of Oz, the Tin Man, the Lion, the Scarecrow.

Nature also plays a key role in this magical world. It possesses a soul and is inhabited by mysterious forces. This nature isn’t tamed like ours, it belongs to the witches and the wizards. Nature is accordingly handled in the script as a genuine character.

Eventually, the harmony of the film will rest on the atmosphere, for which light is crucial. Today’s animated films generally tend to be over lit. These delightful and touching characters, Dorothy’s companions, represent aspects of the human condition. I will set them in a magical landscape that contains deep shadows and dark mysterious places which reminds us of the hazards we all face as we make our way through the world.

Such a setting will allow Dorothy to remain this unique character who has been through a century of literature and cinema history and is still able to seduce generations of viewers.

[Disney Duster]

Nothin' about the witch mountain looking like an arm and hand?

Yea renata, omg combine pink and renata and get pinata. Maybe I should call you that. Anyway, Oz is timeless, and I can see how just being on a farm also looks timeless but I wish they didn't change the period. I wish this thing was actually really faithful, but it leaves me the ability to do that myself someday!

Thanks Disneykid for, well, a lot.

The MGM version wasn't done so far away from that time...but I guess you're right, it wasn't exactly 1900 but at least they gave her the right hair and dress as described in the book, right?

So the witch actually fought the wizard. Well, what if he landed in...what was Emerald City before he made it? Because didn't he create that himself? Anyway, he could have landed there and then tried to conquer the west, only to find the witch was not afraid of him and didn't think he was an all powerful wizard like everyone else...?

Since you have the full book (I have an abridged version with the best painted illustrations ever, and I kid you not on that one, I am not just exaggerating, done by Charles Santore) could you look up exactly where he landed and when and how the city dwellers made him the wizard...well, only if you want, don't do all that just for me!

Ah, he's British, and the British seem to like The Wizard of Oz a lot, thank goodness! And thanks for the English letter because...well, I translated the French and got some weird things! Fo instance, now I understand he wasn't saying the male characters have little depth or stories to them, but are literally, physically, mentally, and emotionally lesser.

[Mason_Ireton]

I recently saw Tin Man (part 1/2) and was surpised by certain plotpoints and the fairly dark side of OZ. Defintly enjoyed the recreation of the beloved character, especialy Raw and Tin Man (who's appearence stunned me). The title character himself comes off abit too Clint Eastwood, hardcore and headstron. So far I like the plot, hopefuly in part 2/3 D.G (the new Dorthey) will have more time to develop as a character along with Glitch (who I'm startin to warm up to)

Here's a trailer for Tin Man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fskDCVfNknM

[Disneykid]

Disney Duster, I meant to mention the Witch's castle, but I got too wrapped up in my own musings. There's definitely no question that her castle's supposed to look like an arm and a hand, which I really like. It can act as a sort of metaphorical symbolism in which, if you end up in her lair, she basically has you in the palm of her hand. Another thing I forgot to mention was that someone on AICN said in the film, as the Witch gets angrier, her castle grows in size. I have no idea what stage the concept art's depicting (perhaps our first view of it long before Dorothy arrives? I can see it becoming fuller than that.).

Your theory that the Wizard landed in what is now Emerald City and tried to expand to the west (Winkie Country) makes sense since is seems that's where he landed, afterall. This is how he tells his story:

Well, one day I went up in a balloon and the ropes got twisted, so that I couldn't come down again. It went way up above the clouds, so far that a current of air struck it and carried it many, many miles away. For a day and a night I traveled through the air, and on the morning of the second day I awoke and found the balloon floating over a strange and beautiful country.

"It came down gradually, and I was not hurt a bit. But I found myself in the midst of a strange people, who, seeing me come from the clouds, thought I was a great Wizard. Of course I let them think so, because they were afraid of me, and promised to do anything I wished them to.

"Just to amuse myself, and keep the good people busy, I ordered them to build this City, and my Palace; and they did it all willingly and well. Then I thought, as the country was so green and beautiful, I would call it the Emerald City; and to make the name fit better I put green spectacles on all the people, so that everything they saw was green."

Baum seems to completely forget about the supposed fight between the Witch and the Wizard, though...

"One of my greatest fears was the Witches, for while I had no magical powers at all, I soon found out that the Witches were really able to do wonderful things. There were four of them in this country, and they ruled the people who live in the North and South and East and West. Fortunately, the Witches of the North and South were good, and I knew they would do me no harm; but the Witches of the East and West were terribly wicked, and had they not thought I was more powerful than they themselves, they would surely have destroyed me. As it was, I lived in deadly fear of them for many years; so you can imagine how pleased I was when I heard your house had fallen on the Wicked Witch of the East. When you came to me, I was willing to promise anything if you would only do away with the other Witch; but, now that you have melted her, I am ashamed to say that I cannot keep my promises."

So while that explains why the Wicked Witch of the West never tried to take over Emerald City, Baum's own narration earlier when we're first introduced to the her complicates things. Why would she still fear the Wizard if she won a fight with him? You can't very far in a fight if one of the opponents isn't magically-equipped. A plausible explanation may be that the fight never happened and is simply the legend passed around by the citizens of Oz. The fact that Baum himself is telling us this, though, kind of dampers that idea.

I looked up Santore, and his Oz illustrations really are gorgeous. I have to admit, though, I'm partial to Greg Hildebrandt. I think I'd go into ecstasy if a live-action Oz movie were done in his style:

Dorothy in Munchkinland
Oiling the Tin Man
The Lion Sends the Scarecrow Flying
Off to See the Wizard
Killing the Kalidahs
The Emerald City
Dorothy and Friends Enter the Emerald City
The Great Oz
Oz as a Beautiful Woman
The Witch Sends Her Wolves
The Witch Sends the Flying Monkeys
The Flying Monkeys Take Dorothy to the Witch
Dorothy Melts the Witch
The Winkies Repair the Tin Man
The Wizard is Exposed
The Wizard Gives the Tin Man a Heart
The Balloon is Launched
The Army of Oz
The Scarecrow is Attacked by a Tree
The Hammerheads
Dorothy Meets a China Clown

These aren't all of Hildebrandt's Oz illustrations, but it's most of them. There's two more color ones (one of the poppy field and one of Glinda) that I haven't been able to find in good quality. There's also about 10 more that he did as sketches instead of paintings, including the cyclone, Oz appearing as a beast, and the Scarecrow fighting the Witch's crows. He's also done some fantastic work for Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, and Pinocchio, among other stories.

[Disney Duster]

Thanks for noticing the hand. I guess it would be like they were metaphorically in the witch's hand. I also think the castle would get bigger than that, unless her castle starts off rather small, less imposing at first. I like the growing idea on it's own, but not so much for a film meant to be closer to the original book, it sounds more Baba Yaga or Miyazaki than Oz, but this whole film seems to be a very creative, radical new take, and so it fits the rest of this vision and I'll have to go into this film aware that it's such a reimagining.

Ah, so I really did read that the Witch thought Oz was more powerful than her! You're right, it seems Baum forgot about the fight with her. I must admit it seems he messed up, but I like to think it's all a perfect work written as if it actually happened, so maybe the filmakers will find a way to fit it together. I like you're idea about it being a rumour.

I remember, I have seen some of Hildebrandt's illustrations before. Most of them are quite beautiful and impressive, most especially the Lion throwing the scarecrow, the Great Oz, and the melting of the witch, to me at least. I think the colors are partly what makes them so beautiful. I could possibly, possibly say the colors are more beautiful, or rather more stunning, than those of Santore's, but I sill think Santore's paintings are the best in everything else. I found Hildebrandt's poppy field, and would love to see Glinda and the black and white ones if you found them, too. You may have already found these Santore's, but I thought I would present them to you in case you didn't:

Dorothy Meets the Witch of the South and Munchkins
The Field of Poppies
Toto Knocks Down the Wizard's Screen

Comparing the poppy field scenes, maybe there is more to Hildebrandt's paintings than colors that makes them more beautiful, for I find something catching my eye more in his version. But compare the Dorothy in Munchkinland scenes or the wizard getting exposed scenes...I think it's almost undeniable that Santore wins, though I admit the Munchkinland thing is hard to judge as it's really two different scenes...

Okay, so both are so beautiful and good, perhaps we really can't compare. But I will say I would rather Santore's world come to life in a film than Hildebrandt's. His is still the best to me.

I said I would E-mail you...some of that depends on when my friend Tim (who's a member here!) gets me some books and info about Alice...but I don't think I would ever scan my precious Santore book, so I'll just say you need to see more of his illustrations. The cyclone (only he could make dull Kansas look fantastic!), Emerald City, the Great Oz, the Witch of the West (OMG every scene with her!!!) the monkeys, Glinda...I wish you could see those! I can't find them online, but maybe someday you'll see the book in person (I hope!).

Well I didn't mean to turn this into a debate over who's Oz illustrations are better...but I felt I had to say this to someone who would care at least a little!

[Disney Duster]

Aside from the wing-looking axe and sneaker-looking shoes, I realized what Nick Chopper needs changed.

He needs a prominent tin jaw like most Tin Woodman have. Strong chins are associated with men, and will identify him as a short man, a Munchkin, instead of a small child.

Also, it may give the impression of a beard, as many woodsmen, like lumber jacks, are associated with.

[Disneykid]

Wow, you're absolutely right. I hadn't even considered that, but it makes a lot of sense. Just a simple jaw line would make all the difference. Let's see if the designs revealed get tweaked by the time we see final film footage. Dorothy's did (though, admittedly, it was for the worse...), so it's plausible for the Tin Woodsman, as well.

[Disney Duster]

Oh, wow, thank you Disneykid! That made me feel really good. I'm glad you think that would work, too. I think I hope other things get changed like you do, like not being particularly modern and sticking closer to the book (having Dorothy wear the checkered blue dress, for instance). But if this is intending to be a modern Oz, and yet another less faithful interpretation, that's what they want, it's their art.

Someday I'll make a really faithful version!

And I really hope they have improved Dorithy since those CG images we saw...and the animation as a whole...

[Lazario]

In today's Hollywood, "Dark" just means "Loud."

Do they think Pirates of the Caribbean is "Dark"?