A new 'Wizard of Oz' could make its way down the Hollywood road

[Roy Mustang]

A new 'Wizard of Oz' could make its way down the Hollywood road



[quote="LA Times"]EXCLUSIVE: Fresh off Disney's massive success with Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland," Warner Bros. wants to remake another childhood classic. Like, really classic.

The studio is examining two existing "Wizard of Oz" projects, with an eye toward giving one of them a modern gloss and moving it toward the screen.

One project, called "Oz," currently lives at Warner's New Line label. It's being produced by Temple Hill, which is behind a little franchise called "Twilight," and has a script written by Darren Lemke, a writer on the upcoming "Shrek Forever After."

A second "Wizard of Oz" project, set up at Warners proper, skews a little darker -- it's written by "A History of Violence" screenwriter Josh Olson and focuses on a granddaughter of Dorothy who returns to Oz to fight evil. "Clash of the Titans" producer Basil Iwanyk and his Thunder Road Pictures are behind that one. ("Spawn" creator Todd MacFarlane is potentially involved in a producerial capacity, to give you some idea of the tone.)

While the idea of a new "Wizard of Oz" movie is said to be in the development, let's-bat-this-around stage, it's been advanced seriously enough on the lot that representatives for some of the top directors around Hollywood have been briefed.

The Judy Garland-starring "The Wizard of Oz" from 1939 -- we could give you the refresher on witches, tin men, Dorothy and everyone else, but really, do we need to? -- has been given alternative treatments before. There was the 1978 black-themed film adaptation of the stage play "The Wiz." And of course about six years ago came the Broadway adaptation of Gregory Maguire's "Wicked," an alternative story of girls, witches and Emerald City politics. The property proved a huge stage hit, prompting a film version that's in development at Universal and "Wanted" producer Marc Platt.

Audiences are likely to respond to the idea of a new silver screen "Wizard of Oz" with gusto ("at least the first one was good," said one colleague we told) or with horror, precisely because the original is such a classic.

But for Warners, there's plenty of appeal in trying to take the story of Dorothy & Co. back to the big screen. For one, there's the bonkers $210 million global opening for "Alice," which shows that if you're trying to create a mega-blockbuster, one smart way to do it is to take a title people know and update it for the effects era. And there's a neat symmetry, since the Technicolor version of the classic film did for color in the movies what a lot of people say that "Avatar," "Alice" -- and now, perhaps, "Wizard" -- could do for 3-D in the movies.

With its Harry Potter series drawing to an end, Warners also likes the idea of a franchise, and "Wizard of Oz" and the many books L. Frank Baum wrote featuring many of the same characters (all of which are in the public domain) fit the bill nicely. And let's not forget the property's strong, young female protagonist, hugely in vogue now in the post -Twilight" and -"Alice" eras.

There could still be questions about the project's title (the book's "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" is in the public domain but the movie's "The Wizard of Oz" is not]


[color="Red"][font="Book Antiqua"]Col. Roy Mustang[/font][/color]

[ClosetOtaku]

Let's hope not.

[rocklobster]

Hey Disney did Oz right once. Remember Return to Oz? That was actually good. I'd like to see it closer to the book. There was some stuff the original left out, like a talking field mouse queen.

[ShiroiHikari]

I-- I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand, the MGM film is 70 years old. On the other hand, we have enough remakes, sequels, and retellings to last us a good long while. Can't Hollywood find something else to do?

Also, this made me laugh:

"And let's not forget the property's strong, young female protagonist, hugely in vogue now in the post -Twilight" and -"Alice" eras"

Bella, a strong female protagonist? HAHAHAHA. That's a good one.

Also, I liked Return of Oz well enough but they're talking about doing a story with Dorothy's granddaughter or somesuch, which I'd rather not see.

[Cognitive Gear]

A second "Wizard of Oz" project, set up at Warners proper, skews a little darker -- it's written by "A History of Violence" screenwriter Josh Olson and focuses on a granddaughter of Dorothy who returns to Oz to fight evil. "Clash of the Titans" producer Basil Iwanyk and his Thunder Road Pictures are behind that one. ("Spawn" creator Todd MacFarlane is potentially involved in a producerial capacity, to give you some idea of the tone.)

Edit: Why can't they just make the Wicked movie instead of this?

[Roy Mustang]

A second "Wizard of Oz" project, set up at Warners proper, skews a little darker -- it's written by "A History of Violence" screenwriter Josh Olson and focuses on a granddaughter of Dorothy who returns to Oz to fight evil. "Clash of the Titans" producer Basil Iwanyk and his Thunder Road Pictures are behind that one. ("Spawn" creator Todd MacFarlane is potentially involved in a producerial capacity, to give you some idea of the tone.)

Here comes Todd MacFarlane's Twisted Tales of OZ!

If they do make this movie and it has been plan for a few years, and they have MacFarlane using his story idea. I don't know how they be able to even make it a rated R movie.


[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]

[wildpurplechild]

Edit: Why can't they just make the Wicked movie instead of this?

I also would like to see this! Though I assume the rights and everything could be a bit expensive.

as for an Oz remake I think it'll either be a flop (from the makers of the too-long-Shrek saga and the Twilight movie?{love the book movie was fail} )
or it will be really great (Alice in wonder land looked good).

[Radical Dreamer]

That being said, I am very down for a Wicked movie starring Kristin Chenoweth and Idina Menzel. I've heard about that being in the works for a while; I'm ready to see how they're progressing on it!

[ShiroiHikari]

Off-topic: Nice one, Corrie. XD

[bigsleepj]

I really like the overall idea of a Wizard of Oz remake because I always wanted a movie that was closer to the book. But somehow, with the current climate in Hollywood, I can't see them as doing it right.

[Roy Mustang]

The number of two OZ remakes have gone up to four.

Hollywood considers at least four 'Wizard of Oz' remakes

With the 3-D film Alice in Wonderland booming at the box office, Hollywood apparently thinks the time is right for remakes of the 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Tuesday, the Times reported on Warner Bros. plans, which include one project that "skews a little darker" and focuses on a granddaughter of Dorothy who returns to Oz to fight evil.

The Times, in today's exclusive, says Universal and Disney have their own Oz-related projects.

Universal has Wicked, the Broadway musical that is a prequel to events in the film and the children's books by L. Frank Baum, while Disney's project tackles how the wizard came to sit behind the curtain in the first place.

"Some critics may bray, but if it's done well, the movie could be kind of brilliant, a deepening of the mythology that started with The Wiz and continued with Wicked," say Times reporters Steven Zeitchik and Claudia Eller.

(Posted by Doug Stanglin)

[color="Red"][font="Book Antiqua"]Col. Roy Mustang[/font][/color]

[Etoh*the*Greato]

I could swear they're already working on this... I saw pictures of Christopher Lloyd dressed as the Wizard a few weeks back...

Edit: Ah! I was right. Here, it is call "Witches of Oz."
http://m.newstimes.com/danbury/db_16211/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=1F27BC61DFBC9A17C0475A59651B02A4?contentguid=rRnpGpJQ&detailindex=1&pn=0&ps=4&full=true

[creed4]

I want to see close adaptation of the book, not a remake, so far no one has done the journey to the good witch of the south. I'd love to see the valley of living china doll, and more of those adventures on film

[Radical Dreamer]

]Looks as if this movie is already finished ..so everyone is trying to jump on the band wagon.....Check it

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1592287/

Christopher Lloyd as the Wizard!!!! Love him!!

Also I found this

http://www.followtheyellowbrickroad.com

...Honestly, this looks pretty ridiculous. XD Repressed childhood memories? The Wicked Witch of the West in New York City? I think I'll pass. XD

[Nate]

I think the time is right for a darker, action-packed version of David the Gnome where the forest has been taken over by guerrillas and Swift the Fox and David the Gnome must slaughter them all.

And include a scene of David's wife topless.

[Bobtheduck]

I want to see close adaptation of the book, not a remake, so far no one has done the journey to the good witch of the south. I'd love to see the valley of living china doll, and more of those adventures on film

Yes! I've said that for a long time. The '39 musical was a really poor adaptation of the book. I'd love to see a more accurate adaptation. And for goodness sakes, make them silver slippers instead of Ruby! Color in film is no longer impressive.

[GhostontheNet]

I really like the overall idea of a Wizard of Oz remake because I always wanted a movie that was closer to the book. But somehow, with the current climate in Hollywood, I can't see them as doing it right.

It's hard to say whether the current climate in Hollywood and the culture is right or wrong right now. If I was working on this, I would focus on the "man behind the curtain" angle, with the Emerald City functioning as a dual metaphor for the media and economic machine. You could play head games with the audience to break the spell of suspension of disbelief while immersing them in brilliant special effects. I would cast a gay icon in the role of Dorothy, and draw attention to the fact that her companions are androgynous males trying to work out their gender issues. I would develop Dorothy into a more active and outspoken heroine, with a no-nonsense attitude about anyone messing with her and her friends (rather like the original novels, apparently). I would blur the lines as to whether it is the wicked witches or the Wizard of Oz that are the real villain, and whose is the real black magic. And I would highlight the conflict between Dorothy's stifling protestant agrarian environment, and the colorful, passion-affirming land of Oz.

[Nate]

her companions are androgynous males trying to work out their gender issues

The Cowardly Lion has a mane and only male lions have manes. So um that is pretty much the opposite of "androgynous."

I would blur the lines as to whether it is the wicked witches or the Wizard of Oz that are the real villain

The witch tried to set the Scarecrow on fire and the Wizard gave him some free stuff so I think it is pretty clear who the villain is unless setting people on fire is considered common courtesy these days. If so I would like you to act as my defense lawyer in the near future.

[Mr. Hat'n'Clogs]

[Nate]

Ha ha good jokes.

Wait that is a joke...isn't it?

Now I don't know.

[chibiphonebooth]

It's hard to say whether the current climate in Hollywood and the culture is right or wrong right now. If I was working on this, I would focus on the "man behind the curtain" angle, with the Emerald City functioning as a dual metaphor for the media and economic machine. You could play head games with the audience to break the spell of suspension of disbelief while immersing them in brilliant special effects. I would cast a gay icon in the role of Dorothy, and draw attention to the fact that her companions are androgynous males trying to work out their gender issues. I would develop Dorothy into a more active and outspoken heroine, with a no-nonsense attitude about anyone messing with her and her friends (rather like the original novels, apparently). I would blur the lines as to whether it is the wicked witches or the Wizard of Oz that are the real villain, and whose is the real black magic. And I would highlight the conflict between Dorothy's stifling protestant agrarian environment, and the colorful, passion-affirming land of Oz.

[GhostontheNet]

Thank you, but no

You might not like my creative decisions, but the first rule of any Wizard of Oz remake is that if it doesn't pay its dues to the legacy of Judy Garland, it's dead in the water. The Wizard of Oz was a film released against the backdrop of a decade of The Great Depression, amidst times of great social instability, rather like our own. In this respect, the original film can either be viewed as an escapist fantasy on the eve of World War II, or as a political allegory about the economic institutions that constituted this state of affairs. As the former interpretation is quite common, the film has been widely lampooned. This is made all too clear by the runaway success of Wicked, which deconstructs the film by enabling identification with its villain's subjective point of view. As one of the first color films that reminds viewers to pay heed to "the man behind the curtain", a film that has left quite a cultural legacy, any new Wizard of Oz film will be as much about the art of filmmaking and Hollywood, the other magic city, as it is about the plot. Let's face it, people don't take this on the surface level like they used to, so the film will have to establish its credibility against a new cultural backdrop.

The Cowardly Lion has a mane and only male lions have manes. So um that is pretty much the opposite of "androgynous."

The simple fact that the lion is cowardly, and that his manes are curled and tied with ribbons cue the audience in that this is no ordinary lion. If he is to become a king of the lions, then he will become a glamour king. Remember, "androgynous" means possessing characteristics associated with both masculinity and femininity, and The Cowardly Lion is no typical male lion.

The witch tried to set the Scarecrow on fire and the Wizard gave him some free stuff so I think it is pretty clear who the villain is unless setting people on fire is considered common courtesy these days. If so I would like you to act as my defense lawyer in the near future.

Dorothy begins by dropping a house on the other wicked witch, which in political terms send as clear a signal as the assassination of an allied leader. If the wicked witch is cruel to Dorothy and her friends, it is in no small part because they pose a personal threat to her and her dominion. The Wizard, meanwhile, does not so much give away free stuff as strike a bargain that he says he will honor in the event of Dorothy's elimination of his political rival. Once the deal is done, he tries to weasel out of honoring his part of it by hiding behind a menacing illusion, and only in the event of the exposure of his personal vulnerability does he stick to his side of the bargain. The mere fact that he has already prepared and hides behind such a menacing illusion hints that he has a far less than benevolent relationship with his subjects, who are terrified by the threat of the "great and powerful Oz". In short, the Wizard's rule is one of terror and deception. And what indeed would become of Dorothy and her friends if she neither destroyed, nor intended to destroy either of the wicked witches? My guess is that they would be in for a much less warm reception...

[Davidizer13]

The simple fact that the lion is cowardly, and that his manes are curled and tied with ribbons cue the audience in that this is no ordinary lion. If he is to become a king of the lions, then he will become a glamour king. Remember, "androgynous" means possessing characteristics associated with both masculinity and femininity, and The Cowardly Lion is no typical male lion.

That sound you heard was the sound of a thousand childhoods shattering simultaneously.

[Nate]

The simple fact that the lion is cowardly, and that his manes are curled and tied with ribbons cue the audience in that this is no ordinary lion. If he is to become a king of the lions, then he will become a glamour king.

This logic doesn't quite make sense. He wears ribbons therefore feminine? Except, dudes can wear ribbons without trying to be feminine. I myself tied my hair in a ponytail with a ribbon when my hair was long, and I wasn't trying to be feminine.

Also he didn't become a "glamour king." He became the Princess's royal bodyguard.

Remember, "androgynous" means possessing characteristics associated with both masculinity and femininity, and The Cowardly Lion is no typical male lion.

He's not a typical male lion but that doesn't make him feminine or androgynous. There are OTHER options in the world besides that, y'know! If he was trying to be feminine he would have removed his mane somehow, since, as I said earlier, only male lions have manes. Unless you're saying that being cowardly is a feminine trait in which case I have nothing more to say to you.

Dorothy begins by dropping a house on the other wicked witch, which in political terms send as clear a signal as the assassination of an allied leader.

Way to twist the facts into suiting your theory. No, Dorothy does not drop a house on the Wicked Witch of the East. The tornado dropped her house onto the witch. Dorothy had absolutely nothing to do with where the house landed. The tornado is a force of nature and thus exempt from having any sort of motivation. So no, it is not a clear signal of assassination.

This is akin to the President visiting California and having an earthquake happen with him getting crushed under the rubble. It wouldn't be an assassination attempt by Arnold to kill off the President, it'd be an accident caused by a force of nature.

If the wicked witch is cruel to Dorothy and her friends, it is in no small part because they pose a personal threat to her and her dominion.

Her dominion? No. The Wicked Witch of the West wanted the East Witch's magical shoes. So when Dorothy was given the shoes by the North Witch, the West Witch said "Darn! She got those magic shoes I was going to totally steal now that the other witch is dead! I'll just have to kill that girl to get those shoes since I want them!"

This doesn't even remotely fit into "Oh I'm just trying to defend myself and my property!"

The Wizard, meanwhile, does not so much give away free stuff as strike a bargain that he says he will honor in the event of Dorothy's elimination of his political rival.

He was AFRAID of the Witch because she was wicked and evil. You do know how the Tin Woodsman became a Tin Woodsman right? He isn't some sort of automaton built by someone, he was a regular dude who got a CURSED AXE from a witch that chopped off his own body parts.

Because giving someone a cursed axe that causes them harm is totally what a poor innocent victim would do, right? And anyone who is afraid of that person because hey she might do the same to me to try to kill me, oh they're just overreacting! No, it's totally politics that's at the heart of it.

Once the deal is done, he tries to weasel out of honoring his part of it by hiding behind a menacing illusion, and only in the event of the exposure of his personal vulnerability does he stick to his side of the bargain.

Okay I won't argue with this one because you're basically completely right about this part.

The mere fact that he has already prepared and hides behind such a menacing illusion hints that he has a far less than benevolent relationship with his subjects, who are terrified by the threat of the "great and powerful Oz".

Um from what I remember everyone in the Emerald City seemed pretty happy and whimsical and that is not the sign of a tyrannical dictator. You telling me that people in North Korea are dancing in the streets and cheerfully singing to everyone who strolls through? Um, no. The Wizard clearly has a decent relationship with his subjects. He may not treat them as equals or anything but he certainly doesn't bring down his iron fist on them.

And what indeed would become of Dorothy and her friends if she neither destroyed, nor intended to destroy either of the wicked witches? My guess is that they would be in for a much less warm reception...

This is kind of a silly point to make. North Witch told Dorothy "Hey, the Wizard can help you get home!" For her to NOT agree to kill the West Witch would basically be akin to saying "Nah, I don't feel like going home!" Plus, the house falling on East Witch wasn't Dorothy's fault, and so even if she didn't agree to help the Wizard, the West Witch would still want to kill Dorothy to get the magic shoes. So probably Dorothy would be killed by the West Witch because North Witch wouldn't be protecting her anymore? But that isn't the Wizard's fault!

[Etoh*the*Greato]

[Mr. Hat'n'Clogs]

Ha ha good jokes.

Wait that is a joke...isn't it?

Now I don't know.

I found the picture long before I'd heard of this, so I would assume so.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Ghost's posts are always too long for me to read @_@

I dunno, if they do it right, it could be really cool. I had no idea it was a book.

[Nate]

It's not just a book, it's an entire series of books.

Though not all of them are written by Frank Baum himself. He wrote 14 of the Oz books, and there are from what Wiki says 26 other books that are considered official books, 19 of those written by Ruth Thompson, and another 7 written by various others.

That's not even counting all the other Oz books that aren't considered official.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Wow. I had no idea.