DVDizzy Forum

So.... Sam Raimi's directing this movie. Any chance Bruce Campbell will make a cameo in this movie? I do know that he cameoed in all three Spider-Man movies, which Raimi directed.

Sotiris wrote:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/19 ... 50x550.jpg

Neal wrote:The 'z' within the 'o' has been used for many Oz films - both on marketing materials and in the actual film. To me, it's a familiar layout.

It's not surprising Disney having the Z in the O or other oddly placed title names on Cover Art or logo.....a few examples are below...

SWillie! wrote:Stupid. People will read that as "Z: The Great and Powerful"

Some people may, but it has been done time, and time again, as Neal said, that it now seems as Ozian as the original books themselves. One thing the idea is not, and that is "stupid". It's clever and classic. Just because some stupid people won't get the logo does not mean the logo itself is stupid!

Disney Duster wrote:

SWillie! wrote:Stupid. People will read that as "Z: The Great and Powerful"

Some people may, but it has been done time, and time again, as Neal said, that it now seems as Ozian as the original books themselves. One thing the idea is not, and that is "stupid". It's clever and classic. Just because some stupid people won't get the logo does not mean the logo itself is stupid!

Gotta disagree with you there. Regardless of how people read it, I think the logo is very unprofessional. For example, look at the logos for Tron: Legacy, for Pirates of Caribbean, or even for Alice in Wonderland or the Sorceror's Apprentice. Comparing those to this Oz logo (which I'm guessing probably won't be the final logo for the movie anyways)... Oz sticks out like a sore thumb that is was done quickly and without much thought. I mean, I know there is only so much you can do with the word "Oz"... but I just hope they come up with something better.

(too big to post):

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs48/f/2009/ ... Cor104.jpg

I like the second one you posted best. And yes, I understand the Z inside the O has been done before plenty of times. But, as showcased, it has been done BETTER. The new logo, overall, including font, style, color, design, all of it... looks CHEAP.

SWillie! wrote:I like the second one you posted best.

I was just about to say the same thing.

Not that it really adds to the discussion, but I still love this key: http://theashwee.com/thehumblehistorian ... items.html

Wasn't being a proponent for one logo or the other, just a few quick examples from Google images. I do believe all of Baum's Oz books used the same Oz - both capital letters with the Z over-exceeding the O.

Well, another thing about Oz is...a lot of illustrators seem to use that kind of...art neauveau style (that the logo has) in their illustrations. I have no idea way, but that, too, seems Ozian. The logo just...fits so well for me.

Swillie!, I got to be honest, I think what's bugging you is you aren't seeing the logo in all it's finished, polished, high-res glory.

Also, in the second poster, the Z has to be much bigger than the O for that to work, and...I don't know, I think it looks good, actually, just not as much as the Z in the O. The way the Z hangs...doesn't seem as clean, it wouldn't look good vertically, etc.

Neal, where did you get the 5th image with the green witch hand at the ruby shoes from?

Link to that logo:

http://juniortheatre.com/shows/2008-200 ... /index.htm

Also, click here and you can see the covers for the original 14 'canon' Oz books by Baum. Indeed they all appear to be art nouveau inspired, which makes sense as they were published between 1900 and 1920 while the art nouveau style was most popular between the 1890s and 1905.

Disney & Warner Bros. Fight Over 'Wizard of Oz' Trademarks
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-es ... ros-289305

This really doesn't make much sense. I can see if a movie/whatever were to be named The Wizard of Oz, but especially because the source material is from the public domain, just like there can be numerous versions of Cinderella or Hansel and Gretel, for example, just because someone comes out with a movie or product with characters or settings from the Wizard of Oz story doesn't mean that it has anything to do with the MGM movie.

And Disney has held rights to the books since Walt bought them! I mean, doesn't that protect Disney at all?

I wonder why this hasn't been posted yet?

First Look! A Flying Monkey From Oz: The Great & Powerful!



Link - http://perezhilton.com/2012-02-04-first ... zqL_MX868A


I have too say - It looks pretty Impressive!

Perez wrote:UPDATE: We've been informed that this photo was taken at Oz special makeup effects artist Howard Berger's Halloween party - not on the film set.

I'm pretty underwhelmed with that...it looks like something out of Land of the Lost...So maybe it was just someone's Halloween costume. I mean, if not and it is from the film, surely the CGI effects would make it look extra good...

Umm.....

http://news.moviefone.com/2012/02/13/wi ... d=webmail5

Really, just because Warner Bros. has had distributing rights or something for The Wizard of Oz since the late 90s shouldn't mean that they hold the rights to anything and everything that has the name 'Oz' in the title. Heck, Wizard of Oz wasn't even THEIR movie until they digitally restored it; it was MGM's.

But slight venting aside, I really hope this doesn't end up ruining Disney's chances at releasing their Oz-related movie. And honestly, while it's wishful thinking, I want to see Disney do an adaptation of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (a different take on the first story, BTW, but with the Disney spin put on it) with classic Disney characters in the roles of the Oz characters.

DisneyJedi wrote: But slight venting aside, I really hope this doesn't end up ruining Disney's chances at releasing their Oz-related movie.

I think Sam Raimi has already began filming it, so I doubt it.

On the other hand, Watchmen was almost never released after a lawsuit from 20th Century Fox. But like Warner Brothers didn't, I doubt Disney will let one of their big-budget productions sit in the vault without getting released.

Oooh! I think this one should be better than John Carter On Mars.

Didn't Disney created, "Return to Oz," and, "Muppets of Oz?" Since Disney did those, then there should be no problem doing, "Oz, the Great and Powerful." Warner Bros. did not get enough time to hold the rights of it. Disney beat them to it.

Well, either way, from what I understand, Warner Bros. claims that they own the rights to the Oz series as a whole when I really don't think they do. And besides, the 1939 film technically wasn't theirs from the start.

Didn't Walt Disney (the man), buy the rights to all the other books (now also in the public domain), to avoid missing out on making his own Oz movies? Because he wanted to do the Wizard of Oz, but missed out on buying the rights.

Anyway, Warner Brothers are just being greedy, they're probably afraid that Disney is going to make a better movie series (if they continue with the saga after the first).