Oz the Great and the Powerful (Wizard of Oz prequel)

JP Liz V1

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/05/03/rachel-weisz-oz-great-and-powerful/

Would you believe Rachel Weisz and Mila Kunis as sisters? You know, the broom-riding, flying-monkey commanding, perhaps green-skin-hued kind of sisters.
Weisz is the latest big name in talks for Disney’s upcoming Wizard of Oz prequel, Oz, the Great and Powerful – produced by Joe Roth (Alice in Wonderland) and directed by Sam Raimi (Spider-Man) — potentially joining Kunis as one of the film’s evil witches. In the story, which takes place before the classic L. Frank Baum tale, the witches war with James Franco’s titular wizard, who starts out not so great and powerful, but rather as a snake-oil huckster whisked away to the magical land.
The deal with Weisz is not yet locked, however, according to sources close to the production. Robert Downey, Jr. was expected to play the wizard at one point, but the negotiations fell through. The title is attracting interest from major talent, however, partly because of the runaway success of Wonderland, which earned more than $1 billion worldwide.
Oz, the Great and the Powerful is expected in 2013.

krudler

thankfully its not Tim Burton directing it is all I have to say.

JP Liz V1

"I. Am. In. Oz," Campbell wrote on his Twitter page. "Sam Raimi refuses to tell me what character I will portray. Just know that the role is PIVOTAL."

Bruce Campbell is in

Mickeroo

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Bruce Campbell is in

When he says Pivotal he probably means in the same way as the Spider-Man cameos. Still, fingers crossed he's the Lion....

Cicero

krudler wrote: »

thankfully its not Tim Burton directing it is all I have to say.

yea...but it's "Disney"...so it could be very sickly sweet..

paddy kerins

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Bruce Campbell is in

goose2005

Ugh. How many more sequels prequels remakes reboots reimaginings midquels parallelquels will we have to endure? Casablanca: The Paris Years? Citizen Kane: The Animated Series?

Miguel_Sanchez

goose2005 wrote: »

Ugh. How many more sequels prequels remakes reboots reimaginings midquels parallelquels will we have to endure? Casablanca: The Paris Years? Citizen Kane: The Animated Series?

Well to be fair Wizard of Oz is based on a book and the celebrated version wasn't the first adaptation of the source material at all whereas Casablanca and Citizen Kane were both written for the screen.

In fact there's been over 100 adaptations of Frank Baum's Oz novels as far as I can see and there were 17 Oz books that he's credited with.

[edit] I take it back - Casablanca was based on a play. Damn it. [/edit]

emeraldstar

So, like Wicked but not?

JP Liz V1

Oz is just not the same without male rape.

Mickeroo

Nice poster, wonder will he be able to work the Oldsmobile into this one.

Goldstein

"The visionary director of the 'Spider-man' trilogy?"

Really?

johnny_ultimate

I hate the adjective 'visionary' in marketing materials. Genuinely deplore it. "From the visionary director of 300" still fills me with rage.

It's especially objectionable in cases like this, where the director's least impressive work is cited. Damn you mass market!

And this producer of Alice in Wonderland seems to be getting around... Was Alice in Wonderland really so well received by the general public that it's a worthy comparison? Money talks, I suppose.

Mickeroo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

And this producer of Alice in Wonderland seems to be getting around... Was Alice in Wonderland really so well received by the general public that it's a worthy comparison? Money talks, I suppose.

Bizarrely, its one of the top ten grossing films of all time.

Sad Professor

I actually rather enjoyed Alice in Wonderland until the third act with the boring CGI battle, at which point I just wanted it to end. I've a soft spot for Burton's work, or any film for that matter with a visual imagination. It's just unfortunate that these visual geniuses like Burton and Tarsem Singh don't seem to know one end of a script from the other.

As for Raimi being a "visionary", in fairness he was something of a fanboy darling until Spider-Man 3. Now days he's considered a second-rate hack. I fear for Nolan should TDKR fail to live up to expectations.

johnny_ultimate

Sam Raimi's filmography is a little... inconsistent but I still very much enjoy a lot of his films. Drag Me to Hell pretty much made amends for Spiderman 3 in my eyes. I still think it's one of the best American genre films in years.

krudler

Mickeroo wrote: »

Bizarrely, its one of the top ten grossing films of all time.

That absolutely baffles me, its one of the dullest blockbusters I've ever seen. Burton on autopilot as always these days. I thought Sweeney Todd was ok but his last decent film was Big Fish. he's made some classics like Edward Scissorhands and Batman but every since the Apes reboot his movies have gotten worse and worse.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

I actually rather enjoyed Alice in Wonderland until the third act with the boring CGI battle, at which point I just wanted it to end. I've a soft spot for Burton's work, or any film for that matter with a visual imagination. It's just unfortunate that these visual geniuses like Burton and Tarsem Singh don't seem to know one end of a script from the other.

As for Raimi being a "visionary", in fairness he was something of a fanboy darling until Spider-Man 3. Now days he's considered a second-rate hack. I fear for Nolan should TDKR fail to live up to expectations.

but, but.. fish eye lenses and crash zooms!

Zubeneschamali

Mickeroo wrote: »

Bizarrely, its one of the top ten grossing films of all time.

Mostly due to inflation. In the adjusted domestic list, it's at #142.

But yes, it's one of the bigger hits of recent summers, for no obvious reason.

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

I actually rather enjoyed Alice in Wonderland until the third act with the boring CGI battle, at which point I just wanted it to end. I've a soft spot for Burton's work, or any film for that matter with a visual imagination. It's just unfortunate that these visual geniuses like Burton and Tarsem Singh don't seem to know one end of a script from the other.

As for Raimi being a "visionary", in fairness he was something of a fanboy darling until Spider-Man 3. Now days he's considered a second-rate hack. I fear for Nolan should TDKR fail to live up to expectations.

I wouldn't call Raimi a hack at all, Spiderman 3 wasn't the first dud he made. He's still a favourite of mine, Drag Me to Hell was brilliant, I'm actually looking forward to Oz.

Raekwon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyywumlnhdw

ThunderApple

I've just watched the trailer. Looks like a nice entertainment but has nothing to do with the books and so.. But I'm going to watch it anyway.

speedboatchase

krudler wrote: »

That absolutely baffles me, its one of the dullest blockbusters I've ever seen. Burton on autopilot as always these days. I thought Sweeney Todd was ok but his last decent film was Big Fish. he's made some classics like Edward Scissorhands and Batman but every since the Apes reboot his movies have gotten worse and worse.

It was the first 3D film released after success of Avatar and so got sucked into the 3D hype at the time.

johnny_ultimate

New extended trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NdeuYgRoTI

The visuals are definitely the CGI-heavy, inspired-by-Burton type of excess Not won over by the trailer, and Franco's lines as he's getting sucked up into the tornado are cringey.

On the plus side: Michelle Williams, Mila Kunis and Rachel Weisz.

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Nice poster, wonder will he be able to work the Oldsmobile into this one.

I believe the question will be HOW will he be able to work the Oldsmobile into it.

Marty McFly

I dont know I actually kinda like the look of it, yeh some of it looks cringe inducing, but also fun, like Sad Professor I'm usually just a sucker for any film showing true visual imagination.

johnny_ultimate

Marty McFly wrote: »

I dont know I actually kinda like the look of it, yeh some of it looks cringe inducing, but also fun, like Sad Professor I'm usually just a sucker for any film showing true visual imagination.

My problem is that a lot of films of this type have a fairly similar style of visual imagination. There's certainly a few nice touches in the trailer - the widening from 4:3 to 2.35:1, the water flooding in and that creepy porcelain doll. It's hard to describe, but overall it has that same hugely artificial, over-rendered look a lot of contemporary blockbusters are guilty of. The Wizard of Oz is still a stunningly designed film these days, using a range of practical effects and good old fashioned cinematography. Perhaps it's never going to happen in a production of this scale, but I'd have much preferred something that tried to recapture that very particular sense of awe. I suppose The Fall is the closest thing we've gotten to that in recent years, or indeed something like Samsara. The spectacular trailers for both films assured me I had to see them on a big screen ASAP, an effect the above trailer couldn't emulate. Such films still prove that images can still be absolutely breathtaking without the need for hyperactive computer work.

Roar

that looks absolutely terrible and James Franco's cheshire cat smug grin annoys the sh!te out of me.

Mickeroo

I kind of like the look of it in some places but in others it reminds me too much of Burton's Alice in Wonderland which I didn't like at all. Raimi's films always have a certain fake look to them I feel though, so I guess we'll see. Hadn't realised this is the story of how

"The Wizard of OZ" comes into power

or at least that's what I'm getting from the trailer anyway?

constitutionus

TBH im not a fan of this series but i really like the look of this one.

ill definetly give it a shot (though please god not in 3d !) .

the second trailer went in a direction i wasnt expecting at all for this film.

WoollyRedHat

Goldstein wrote: »

"The visionary director of the 'Spider-man' trilogy?"

Really?

Yeah sure, didn't Ramii revoultionize cinema when he choreographed Spider Man kissing Mary-Jane upside down. One of the great cinema moments up there with the shower scene I'd say.

Galvasean

Hmm, not looking great so far. I'll keep an eye on it anyhow.

Thwip!

I'm up for this, looks good in my book and I love Franco

MisterAnarchy

The whole film looks like it was shot on blue screen .
Why dont film makers realise less is more and cgi should look real and not obviously fake ?
Studios seem to be spending more and more on cgi yet the films look worse and worse.

Sarxos

Disney unveiled a new TV spot during the Superbowl. It's not bad.

Thwip!

Oh now i have to see this

Thrawn

I'll be following the yellow brick road to see it anyway. It looks pretty cool.

old hippy

I hope it's as good as the original

Zombienosh

that was a sequel....

Thrawn

old hippy wrote: »

I hope it's as good as the original

This is one is about how the wizard got to OZ I believe.

McLoughlin

This isn't a reboot\remake is a new film.

You think with the sucess of LOTR and Harry Potter that soemone would do a Oz series of films

BabysCoffee

I was at the preview of this. It's amazing!!!

Opening the 8th of March. The 3d is superb.

Icarus Wings

The CGI debate aside, I think this'll be a good bit of fun. I think the Oz world has far more potential beyond what we've seen on screen in previous years. Some imaginative and unique character design will do me nicely!

Tar.Aldarion

Off to this tonight, not expecting too much tbh, could be an ok light entertainment.

Bullseye1

Apart from lovely visuals this was god awe full. Probably the worst miscasting I've seen in years. Not one good performance. 3D was good in places.

Zombienosh

Just back from this.
Thought it was ok. It came close to being good it really did. James franco really annoyed me as did his character. It felt rushed too.

Mark Hamill

I thought it was ok. The bits I thought would be terrible (

figured the CG would be awful, Glenda would be a complete airhead and it would stick too much to the old film

), weren't but there wasn't anything especially spectacular in it.

Its weird though, between some of the casting and acting (Weisz hamming it up; Franco, Braff and the black dwarf Nook in general) and some of the CG (there's a scene were Franco and Kunis are walking towards the camera with a CG background and it just does not work at all, its like they are marching in place) it's almost like this was originally a comedy parody, but then was changed and given a bigger budget.

I thought Mila Kunis was really good as the WWotW, even though her shouty voice did revert to Meg from Family Guy at times.

Mitch Connor

How does the world of Oz actually work - based on the original movie and this prequel? Anyone able to shed any light on it?

If i remember correctly the original has a 'did it actually happen' ending to it , with people from Kansas making up the cast of characters from Oz - the stable hand being the scarecrow, "You were there, and you were there....". It is similar in this movie, Oz doesn't wake up, but china girl is the girl in the wheelchair, Glenda is your one getting married etc. Why are the people of Oz tied to the people of Kansas, and specifically tied to the people who surround the main protagonist? Is it explained in the books, or does it not happen this way in the books?

phil1nj

Seen this on Saturday morning with my 9 year old daughter. She really enjoyed it, I thought it was just ok, a tad overlong and a bit flat in places, some of the visuals were impressive though. We went to the 3D showing and there were some nice uses of 3D scattered throughout the film but I couldn't shake the feeling that having James Franco in the lead was a bit of a mis-step. Don't get me wrong, I think he's an ok actor (was good in Rise of the Planet of the Apes and his cameo in The Green Hornet was very funny) but he just didn't win me over.

Also, and this may have worked against me, while I've seen "Return to Oz" as a kid, I've never actually seen the original "Wizard of Oz' , don't judge me people, it's on my list

Zubeneschamali

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Is it explained in the books, or does it not happen this way in the books?

I've only read the first book, in which Dorothy and Toto actually go to Oz, a land surrounded by a desert on all sides. There is no connection of characters to people in Kansas, and it was not all a dream.