DVDizzy Forum

SwordInTheStone777 wrote:I've seen of pictures of Mila and Rachel in there Witches outfits and Rachel's outfit has red in it, since she's The Wicked Witch of the East is she going to wearing the Ruby Slippers and will a certain house be falling on her in the film? Also I saw the Winkie Guards in another pic and they look exactly like the 1939 guards.

They can NOT use the ruby slippers without paying MGM and WB a huge fee (the ruby slippers are trademarked by the studio), which is what Disney did for Return of Oz (but not for this film). Raimi crafted it as a loving homage to The Wizard of Oz, and if he wanted to use the slippers, they would be silver (since the slippers were originally silver as in the book).

Raimi can do homages to the 1939 film (a la the b&w 1.33:1 opening and the transition to widescreen color), but he can not replicate the sets or use items exclusive to the film.

very excited for this! one of my friends actually worked on the trailer and spoiled who the Wicked Witch is for me lol i guess it's not toooo surprising but im def gna be watching for the signs when i see the movie now lol

azul017 wrote:They can NOT use the ruby slippers without paying MGM and WB a huge fee (the ruby slippers are trademarked by the studio), which is what Disney did for Return of Oz (but not for this film).

How do you know it wasn't done for this film?

Disney Duster wrote:

azul017 wrote:They can NOT use the ruby slippers without paying MGM and WB a huge fee (the ruby slippers are trademarked by the studio), which is what Disney did for Return of Oz (but not for this film).

How do you know it wasn't done for this film?

The Ruby Slippers and other topics are addressed and confirmed in this report from a set visit back in October 2011. Though beware of spoilers.

http://www.slashfilm.com/35-things-we-l ... -powerful/

MadasaHatter wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: How do you know it wasn't done for this film?

The Ruby Slippers and other topics are addressed and confirmed in this report from a set visit back in October 2011. Though beware of spoilers.

http://www.slashfilm.com/35-things-we-l ... -powerful/

10. Legalities prevent some of the elements from the 1939 film from being used in this prequel story.

While the information, characters and descriptions in the original source material (L. Frank Baum’s books) is free for adaptation, judges have ruled that Warner Bros owns the rights to the characters and depictions from the original Wizard of Oz film.

Disney was not able to use the ruby slippers, as they are owned by Warner Bros. The slippers were originally silver in the books but were given a bright color to play with the technicolor innovation for the 1939 film adaptation.

Above is the Excerpt from the article about Said Ruby Slippers

azul017 wrote:

SwordInTheStone777 wrote:I've seen of pictures of Mila and Rachel in there Witches outfits and Rachel's outfit has red in it, since she's The Wicked Witch of the East is she going to wearing the Ruby Slippers and will a certain house be falling on her in the film? Also I saw the Winkie Guards in another pic and they look exactly like the 1939 guards.

They can NOT use the ruby slippers without paying MGM and WB a huge fee (the ruby slippers are trademarked by the studio), which is what Disney did for Return of Oz (but not for this film). Raimi crafted it as a loving homage to The Wizard of Oz, and if he wanted to use the slippers, they would be silver (since the slippers were originally silver as in the book).

Raimi can do homages to the 1939 film (a la the b&w 1.33:1 opening and the transition to widescreen color), but he can not replicate the sets or use items exclusive to the film.

The silver shoes will appear instead of the ruby ones.

"Certain elements of the Fleming film are strictly off the table from a legal perspective, including the iconic red ruby slippers. Changed for the 1939 film to show off the technicolor of the day, Baum's original text instead includes a pair of silver shoes that are a focus in Raimi's film. Eagle-eyed viewers will also spot a number of other subtle homages."

Source: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=98939

Oz the Great and Powerful Vinylmation Figures Coming!

http://vinylmationworld.com/VMworldmob/ ... ation-sets

I'm surprised they can't use ruby slippers but they can use a green and black pointed-hat-wearing Wicked Witch of the West.

I find vinylmation to be incredibly hideous. Can't help it.

The Wicked Witch of The West Vinylmation looks very much like Margret Hamilton.

Disney Duster wrote:I'm surprised they can't use ruby slippers but they can use a green and black pointed-hat-wearing Wicked Witch of the West.

Slash Film's article addresses that too:

They almost didn’t get to make the Wicked Witch a green color due to legalities, but fx makeup designer Berger was finally able to come up with a shade of green which satisfied Disney’s legal team. It was far enough away from the green shade of the Witch from the original Wizard of Oz film to somehow qualify as an original take. The green is called theostein, because the color is close to the color of the original Frankenstein monster. One thing they were not able to get around was the signature mole on the chin, an iconic piece of the first Wizard of Oz film adaptation.

If they are trying to keep whoever turn green a secret, they aren't doing a good job of it lol ! Mila is nowhere to be seen on those figurines ...

Slightly altered character posters ....

http://www.impawards.com/2013/oz_the_gr ... ver12.html

Wow, Rachel Weisz is stunning!

I don't have anything to add, just that that picture is beautiful.

PatrickvD wrote:I find vinylmation to be incredibly hideous. Can't help it.

I agree. I understand that there are many people who collect them, but I think they're hideous personally.

you guys like my avatar?

PatrickvD wrote:I find vinylmation to be incredibly hideous. Can't help it.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I agree. I understand that there are many people who collect them, but I think they're hideous personally.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks that.

I haven't seen a trailer or, as they showed during the Super Bowl, an extended sequence that makes me want to see this film. It looks like a re-tooling of "The Wizard of Oz", and it really spoils the story that was told in the 1939 version of the film. The Wizard was just a dream, as was the whole Oz thing and now they are trying to depict him as a man who is sent through some 'time portal' and ends up in Oz which is supposed to be a real place, but really isn't.

I won't be seeing this film in the cinema, because I have better things to spend my money on, than a remake disguised as a new film.

dvdjunkie wrote:It looks like a re-tooling of "The Wizard of Oz", and it really spoils the story that was told in the 1939 version of the film.

If someone hasn't seen The Wizard of Oz by now they need to so he movie has been around long enough I think everyone has seen or at least knows the premise of the story by so don't understand how it spoils a film that was made in 1939. I think %99 percent of people seeing this trailer has seen the original by now.

Usually I'm on the other end of the debate

dvdjunkie wrote:I haven't seen a trailer or, as they showed during the Super Bowl, an extended sequence that makes me want to see this film. It looks like a re-tooling of "The Wizard of Oz", and it really spoils the story that was told in the 1939 version of the film. The Wizard was just a dream, as was the whole Oz thing and now they are trying to depict him as a man who is sent through some 'time portal' and ends up in Oz which is supposed to be a real place, but really isn't.

Or you could read the books on which the movies are based.