DVDizzy Forum

That's not Boorman's version. It's an animated Return to Oz-type sequel based on a book written by Baum's grandson. I didn't find out about this project till a few months ago, but what little news I found out about it was really old. I just figured the project got shelved. Here's the official website:

http://www.dorothyofozthemovie.com/

Boorman's Wonderful Wizard of Oz is due next year while Dorothy of Oz is scheduled for 2012. Separating them a year apart allows them to breathe and even makes for some nice continuity in that we get the original story in 2011, a sequel in 2012, and a prequel (Disney's Oz: The Great and Powerful, if they're lucky) in 2013. I guess thanks to all this, though, we won't see Wicked till 2014 at the earliest.

Thanks, Disneykid! Wow all this Oz craze is hard to keep track with. Just for my own future references, here's the release order in list form-

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz- 2011
Dorothy of Oz- 2012
Oz: The Great and Powerful- ?2013?
Wicked- ?2014?

and of course, although it's not directly related, Maleficent, which will probably be Disney's answer to Wicked, will be released in the following years, too.

Yup, you got it. On top of those four, WB's been working on a live-action film for a few years. First they had Seth McFarlane come up with a dark and twisted retelling of the original story. Then they abandoned that approach and had Josh Olsen write a sequel sounding very much like Return to Oz and Dorothy of Oz which was true to Baum's world (and supposedly incorporated elements from the book sequels). They supposedly didn't care for that, either, and went back to McFarlane. Now it looks like they've (re)rejected that and are working on something called Surrender Dorothy in which Drew Barrymore is attached to direct. Whether or not this has any relevance to Josh Olsen's screenplay is unknown, but I would say not since Dorothy was the main character of his. In Barrymore's, Dorothy's granddaughter is the one who ends up in Oz.

For now, though, I think only the two animated films are a lock, with Disney's prequel coming really close once they nab a director (Guillermo Del Toro?). Wicked technically is a lock, but no one knows for when. I don't think the WB project is going to get off the ground unless the Disney one crashes and burns. Disney seems to know what they want; WB doesn't.

Concept art for Dorothy of Oz-

http://io9.com/5613630/dorothy-of-oz-co ... /gallery/2

Such a shame this is going to be CGI. Those sketches have so much life to them, but those CGI backgrounds look awful. Could have made a great 2-D movie.

I think that concept art looks gorgeous, actually. I do agree that the character sketches have a lot of life to them that'll probably get lost when translated to CGI. Oh, well. As long as the other elements are strong (vocal work, songs, script), I won't complain too loudly about sterile animation.

UmbrellaFish, what, I actually thought the first background of the Emerald City was a painting, like are in 2-D films! The others fit the style as well!

Like Disneykid said those backgrounds for Dorothy of Oz are GORGEOUS! The Emerald City looks like an even cooler more beautiful version than the MGM original! Well, at least in a way, you know, *wink*.

The only thing I don't like is the swirliness going on which...doesn't feel Oz to me. I don't see what that really has to do with Oz.

They are even doing the China Country, though, wow!

Pictures 11 and 12 are the only ones that are CGI. Picture 10 definitely isn't CGI and I'm pretty sure pictures 13 and 14 aren't either. Notice how much more life those concept pieces have over the others. TThe CGI almost looks like something out of Happily N'ever After.

Are you sure? 11 and 12 look just as organic and painted as the other pieces of artwork. Even if they ARE CG, I find that pretty dang impressive. I see nothing even vaguely Happily N'Ever Afterish about them.

Disneykid wrote:Are you sure? 11 and 12 look just as organic and painted as the other pieces of artwork. Even if they ARE CG, I find that pretty dang impressive. I see nothing even vaguely Happily N'Ever Afterish about them.

Really? You think so? Because to me they look very plastic and fake, not up to par with any other excellent CGI animation. Especially number 11.

But perhaps I'm judging too quickly... Regardless, it just looks bad to me.

Isn't the Emerald City...supposed to look...hard and metallic, not organic? So...I don't see the problem in that! I love the fire, smoke, and Wizard's face (?) in picture 11!

Actually, in piece number 11, that's not the face of the Wizard, but of a new character named The Jester, who is the villain in the book Dorothy of OZ, on which the movie is based.

Martin Short will be playing the part of the Jester.

The backgrounds were done by Seth Engstrom, who also did the art design for Avatar and Alice in Wonderland. I think this movie looks amazing and I can't wait to see it in 2012.

AMAZING short fil called Heartless: The Story of the Tin Man

http://www.whitestonemotionpictures.com ... heartless/

Okay, that video was amazing by the end, enough to give me chills even, but...the acting...not so much.

I'm also pretty sure they got the story wrong, the girl the woodman loved was a servant to an old woman, and the old woman asked the Witch of the East to help her so as not to lose her servant to her marrying someone.

But I guess they were being creative. Dorothy's shoes should have also been silver, as in the book that this story comes from, and the end credits were a little weird kind of focusing on everyone in Oz instead of just the Tin Woodman, ending with Dorothy going home. Would have been nice to see live pictures of this version's characters giving the Tin Woodman a heart and all, but...

Also, if he only cared about work, why did he then go asking for a heart? Being stopped from work made him realize what he needed? I guess...

And was he crying while he was frozen? How can you cry over love if you don't have a heart...? Maybe it's all metaphorical, like...

...I now wonder if the MGM movie was saying a soul gives you all the heart and courage and brains you need, you don't need the physical things...or maybe it just means it's inside you and nothing external can give it to you. Still...in the book, the Tin Man and Scarecrow have debates over which is better to have, a brain or a heart, which is, only now I realize, a debate over which is more important, intellect or emotions. Oz is deep!

Warner Bros Wants Zemeckis For 'Wizard Of Oz' Remake Based On Original MGM Script
https://deadline.com/2010/11/warner-bro ... ipt-84593/

These Wizard of Oz remakes/sequels/re-imaginings are really annoying.

"Look Alice in Wonderland in 3D made a billion dollars...."

Just fill in the rest.

So, we currently have:

Oz: The Great and Powerful

Dorothy of Oz

Surrender Dorothy

Zemeckis' Oz Remake

Any others?

Sotiris wrote:So, we currently have:

Oz: The Great and Powerful

Brick (is this still happening?)

Aren't these the same thing?

Anyway, about this remake, I can't believe it. You cannot remake The Wizard of Oz. Re-imagine it all the way to Wonderland, but you cannot remake the 1939 classic!

If this goes through (and I'm not sure it will), it will have a huge backlash.

Patrick basically got the nail on the head with the race for Oz films. I always wanted Disney to produce an animated film based on the first book (either with traditional animation, or perhaps with stop motion), one that was entertaining and light but overall darker and more fantastical than the MGM classic, but I think we can declare that that hope is now being laid to rest for the foreseeable future. I just really hope that, if Zemeckis' film does win the race, it isn't a mocap film. Of course, mocap would be fine for rendering some of the fantastical creatures. But having mocap for general human characters always looks stupid, as there is basically no justifiable reason for them being artificial, almost rubber-like replications of actors when they have the actor there already. there's a good reason why the Na'vi in Avatar or Davy Jones in the Pirates of the Caribbean films worked, whereas the otherwise simply human characters in The Polar Express, A Christmas Carol etc didn't.

Sotiris wrote:So, we currently have:
<snip>
Brick (is this still happening?)
<snip>
Any others?

There's always constant talk of a film version of Wicked, whether based on the actual book or the more famous musical. And Brick was just the working title of Disney's Oz: The Great and Powerful, wasn't it?

How many Oz sequels are there? I mean there's too much!

TheValentineBros wrote:How many Oz sequels are there? I mean there's too much!

A lot!