DVDizzy Forum

SwordInTheStone777 wrote:

disneyboy20022 wrote: This alone is worth the price of a 3D Admission. If I go see it again, I'll go see it in 3D during the week for $7. It was $19 for my dad and I to go see it on opening weekend on a Saturday Afternoon

Edit. It's now on YouTube

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsQE3FRoLE[/youtube]

Just going by the credits makes me not want to see this now, I don't call that a homage to the 1939 classic like MovieWeb reported yesterday. If they were going to do a homage right, they would had it in Speia and not Black and White and would of had the sky or at least clouds moving by like the MGM titles did.

Well they couldn't do that obviously because of the copyright issues.

The sky and moving clouds I can see being copyrighted, but Speia isn't it's a color.

One thing I noticed....The Wicked Witch has a ruby ring on her finger....is this like a homage towards the ruby slippers or something?

Wait, seeing the opening credits makes you NOT want to see it??! They're amazing! And as already noted, even more amazing in 3d. It's really a highlight of the whole movie.

SWillie! wrote:Wait, seeing the opening credits makes you NOT want to see it??! They're amazing! And as already noted, even more amazing in 3d. It's really a highlight of the whole movie.

Those credits don't scream Oz to me, they scream more Tim Burton. And that since I wear glasses 3-D doesn't really work for me.

I was disappointed by the opening title sequence. They should have done it as stop-motion/puppetry. It was very clearly digitally composited and just did not draw me into the time period to follow. I mean, Oscar even plays with a zoetrope in the film - a sort of wink towards Disney's animation history. Sometimes, traditional methods are best and trying to evoke/re-create a style with modern software just looks anachronistic and the magic is lost.

Neal wrote:I mean, Oscar even plays with a zoetrope in the film - a sort of wink towards Disney's animation history.

I'm pretty sure it was a praxinoscope and more a nod to film history, not just Disney history. Disney does not own moving images.

PatrickvD wrote:

Neal wrote:I mean, Oscar even plays with a zoetrope in the film - a sort of wink towards Disney's animation history.

I'm pretty sure it was a praxinoscope and more a nod to film history, not just Disney history. Disney does not own moving images.

Big word praxinoscope, that's a Spelling Bee word if ever.

I'm guessing that this is fan-made since it's too early for a sequel's poster, but man, this is so beautiful...

Yes, that picture is gorgeous! I'm glad I randomly looked in this thread.

The movie left me quite disappointed with the story and the direction it took, but god, did it look absolutely stunning. A pure feast for the eyes. And the 'Art of' book has even more of that visual goodness.

I think most of the blame lies with the script - it was really good at times, but then it often delved into the cheese-fest territory with the cliched lines we've all heard numerous times before and jokes for five-year-olds.

Casting was... meh. Like pretty much everyone said, Rachel Weisz was the only standout. James Franco was definitely miscast - he does look and act douchey at times, so I guess I can see what the casting people saw in him - but he was unconvincing most of the time; when the script called for him to be all cunning and a**hole-y, he looked like he tried too hard to be bad, and when he needed to be the good guy he still came out looking like a jerk. Total lose-lose situation. For her part, I think Mila Kunis did the best she could with what little she was given, it wasn't her fault the screenwriter-director-editor totally forgot to write-ignored-cut her character arc and motivation. The rest of the cast was either mildly or extremely annoying - especially polarizing was China Girl who one minute was a well-behaving kid only to turn into a screaming brat mere seconds later. I really liked Finley the Monkey though.

Can't say I'm much excited for a sequel - not that this movie even needs one now, because it pretty much locked itself in a corner with how close-ended the ending was that only the original Wizard of Oz would work as a sequel. And yes, I know about the film rights and all. But... we'll see how it goes.

SwordInTheStone777 wrote:

SWillie! wrote:Wait, seeing the opening credits makes you NOT want to see it??! They're amazing! And as already noted, even more amazing in 3d. It's really a highlight of the whole movie.

Those credits don't scream Oz to me, they scream more Tim Burton.

Agreed.

Mooky wrote:The movie left me quite disappointed with the story and the direction it took, but god, did it look absolutely stunning. A pure feast for the eyes. And the 'Art of' book has even more of that visual goodness.

I think most of the blame lies with the script - it was really good at times, but then it often delved into the cheese-fest territory with the cliched lines we've all heard numerous times before and jokes for five-year-olds.

Casting was... meh. Like pretty much everyone said, Rachel Weisz was the only standout. James Franco was definitely miscast - he does look and act douchey at times, so I guess I can see what the casting people saw in him - but he was unconvincing most of the time; when the script called for him to be all cunning and a**hole-y, he looked like he tried too hard to be bad, and when he needed to be the good guy he still came out looking like a jerk. Total lose-lose situation. For her part, I think Mila Kunis did the best she could with what little she was given, it wasn't her fault the screenwriter-director-editor totally forgot to write-ignored-cut her character arc and motivation. The rest of the cast was either mildly or extremely annoying - especially polarizing was China Girl who one minute was a well-behaving kid only to turn into a screaming brat mere seconds later. I really liked Finley the Monkey though.

Can't say I'm much excited for a sequel - not that this movie even needs one now, because it pretty much locked itself in a corner with how close-ended the ending was that only the original Wizard of Oz would work as a sequel. And yes, I know about the film rights and all. But... we'll see how it goes.

SwordInTheStone777 wrote: Those credits don't scream Oz to me, they scream more Tim Burton.

Agreed.

Add the fact that Danny Elfman did the music for the movie makes it feel eve more like a Tim Burton movie

disneyboy20022 wrote:
Add the fact that Danny Elfman did the music for the movie makes it feel even more like a Tim Burton movie

When I was watching the opening, I thought of Beetlejuice immediately, so we think alike.

Just change those ruby slippers to silver and that fan made poster will be more accurate for the next movie.

I haven't seen this film yet, and won't likely be able to until it's available to rent. I just watched the opening credits though, and the only thing about it that "screams" Tim Burton to me is Danny Elfman's music, but it's not as if Burton owns him.

Burton is typically inspired by German expressionism, and the credits are just very art nouveau. Other than the fact that it's black and white and is inspired from the same era, I don't see how people are confusing the two. Then again anytime we see a black and white image of something looking even slightly gothic people are likely to scream Burton. As for the zoetrope/praxinoscope (whichever it happens to be, once again I haven't seen the film), that doesn't seem like a specific nod to Disney at all; both the zoetrope and praxinoscope were invented long before Walt was even born, and are just as much tied to motion picture history as they are animation history. More than anything, they are symbolic of the type of "magical" technology that stood out in the early part of the last century.

I've been reading about the apparent miscasting and a poor script, but most accounts say the film itself is gorgeous (and from what I've seen so far, I'm inclined to agree). Seems a bit unfortunate but I still plan on checking it out.

I haven't been able to see Oz yet as I'm trying to get over this illness that has me coughing non stop for the last four weeks now, but if when I finally do get well enough and Oz is still playing I plan on seeing it. From all the word of mouth I've been hearing Disney wanted another Alice In Wonderland, but they didn't get it.

I'm suprrised that Danny Elfman didn't at least try to sneak in some undertones of the 1939 score, like he did with Dark Shadows.

You suppose the movie would be different if Robert Downey Jr. played Oz and John C. Reilly played Frank/Finley? The latter was considered for said role, by the way.

DisneyJedi wrote:You suppose the movie would be different if Robert Downey Jr. played Oz and John C. Reilly played Frank/Finley? The latter was considered for said role, by the way.

It would of been interesting I bet, though anyone playing Oz would be hard to do as The Wizard is such an iconic character.

I think Robert Downey Jr. has enough going on in franchise world with Iron Man/Avengers & Sherlock Holmes. I'm afraid he's in danger of burning out if he takes on any more fantasy characters in the next few years. Having said that, James Franco wasn't exactly a better choice for Oz.

Zach Braff I could care less about so his voice as the monkey didn't bother, but he felt out of place in the Kansas scenes. John C Reily would have been better in both roles imo. As for James Franco, I thought he was the weak link in the movie, which is bad b/c it rests on his shoulders. I do think this script was tailor-made for RDJ, and thought he would have pulled it off better than Franco.