A Sequel to The Wizard of OZ? AWESOME!!!!
If Bonne Radford, who made Curious George, is really making this I want my tickets now!!!
shareYeah, it's about time someone did another OZ movie.
shareI disagree. There are some classics that should be left alone - especially this long after the original was made.
share[deleted]
Many of you may not know this but all in all Baum wrote 14! Oz books:
01. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
02. The Marvelous Land of Oz
03. Ozma of Oz
04. Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz
05. The Road to Oz
06. The Emerald City of Oz
07. The Patchwork Girl of Oz
08. Tik-Tok of Oz
09. The Scarecrow of Oz
10. Rinkitink in Oz
11. The Lost Princess of Oz
12. The Tin Woodman of Oz
13. The Magic of Oz
14. Glinda of Oz
So the real question one should ask is, with all this source material, why are there so few Oz films and, for the same reason, why would they do original versions when there are so many books to choose from.
Judging by the title this movie could be a mixture of two or more books,
for example book 3+4.
Or it's just one of them but has a different title than in the original.
Or it is yet another story that doesn't exist. Which to me seems unlikely since, and I say it again, there is so much source material to draw from.
____________________________
The fear of kakao tends to create fear for the chocolate < > .. < >
OH wow....I had no idea about that! THanks for putting that up cause now I can go buy them! THis movie is going to awesome and I don't care what any body says.
"Who looks at a screwdriver and thinks 'Oooh, this could be a little more sonic'?"
At least the first fourteen are in the public domain, so you can find them online for free.
shareThe only place I could find them was on the e-reader network. I have a nook but they're only 99 cents for all of them so it's not a bad price.
Doesn't it give you like a shudder of electricity to be in the same room with me?
All together there are in fact forty canon Oz books; after Baum died, other authors took over the series. Ruth Plumly Thompson alone contributed nineteen new titles.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" is an absolute statement.
This is based on Roger S. Baum's book, which is supposed to take place at some point between Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz and The Emerald City of Oz.
shareIt's by L. Frank Baum, not Roger S. Baum.
"I'm a fool to do your dirty work, oh yea!
I don't wanna do your dirty work, no more!"
~Tony Soprano, singing Steely Dan
Actually it is.
Roger S. Baum ist L.Frank's great-grandson and author of "Dorothy of Oz"
No, the book this movie is based on, is the book by Roger S. Baum, L. Frank Baum's great grandson. L. Frank's book is Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz, whereas Roger S.'s book is Dorothy of Oz.
shareFor some reason I thought there were only 11.
I agree though, with all the source material, why are they making a sequel with the same name as L. Frank Baum's son's book? Unless it really is based on Frank's son's book. I've never read it and never heard of it until a few days ago.
I'm actually rereading all the books again and almost finished with the first and then on to The Marvelous Land of Oz and Ozma of Oz, both of which I've checked out from the library. These books are way cool and I'm a thirty year old man saying this. I read them when I was a kid. Most of them anyway. Patchwork Girl of Oz and Marvelous were my favorites and Tik-Tok of Oz, 'cos it had the map. Heh.
-----
Computer says, "No."
Actually there are over 40 books That are in the Wizard of Oz universe. Frank Baum wrote the first 14. One of the problems with the series is there are many inconstancy. Plus i this whole Lotr/Harry Potter thing of doing a whole series book after a book for years in fairly new. I'm not sure it will work in Dorthy's case, where for the most part she is suposed to b e a little girl.
I'm glad some people actually know the history of these books!
40 books contain the "canon" and the rest are even more all over the place.
Even within the first 14 there are many inconsistencies.
The best way they could do the series is a really good quirky animated style that is reminiscent of the original artwork designs. Return to Oz did a good job with this even in live-action. Honestly, despite combining the second and third books in odd ways, it's probably still one of the most faithful adaptations out there.
Thank god someone else remembers Return to Oz, most people I know forget about it for some reason. Maybe it was because it wasn't a musical like the first.
I love Return to Oz, that will always be part 2 to me (instead of the official animated sequel). It was the polar opposite of the first. A friend of mine watched it with his kids last year and they we're all hiding their eyes. Movie STILL has it. I miss 80's kids movies that gave us darker films that let us explore our imagination than being spoon fed fluffy garbage like kids get today.
Oz the Great and Powerful
The Wizard of Oz
Return to Oz
that's it for me...well I also love(d) the cartoon show too.
You Suck...now deal with it.
The only connection between MGM's "Wizard" and "RtO" is the Ruby Slippers, which "RtO" really should not have used.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" is an absolute statement.
There are only 40 canon Oz books, and the reason they are taken as canon is that they were all published by the same company.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" is an absolute statement.
This is actually based on a series by Roger S Baum. I want to say he's either the grandson or great-grandson of Frank L Baum. I was obsessed with the entire Wizard of Oz world when I was younger. My parents met Roger Baum and knowing I was a big fan bought me all of his books and had them signed for me. I've thought they would make a great movie for years now lol.
shareI am personally a huge fan of the 1939 Wizard of Oz film - and few people are aware that there is any other version but that one. The Return of Oz from the 1970s, was a sequel to the 1939 film, and wasn't actually that bad at all. It was just different, and while it wasn't a gem of it's own, I have seen much much worse.
That being said, I have been looking into all that I can on the film, so see if it's a worthy title or not, and from what I've seen, it certainly has the potential for a great film. The trailer has shown that, while the movie does take itself a bit seriously, it does include a healthy amount of humor. But I won't know for sure until I see more of the film.
As for the Source material, while it isn't one of the original 14 Oz novels, is in fact a more recent one from 1989 by Roger S. Baum, L. Frank Baum's grandson. It is in the family at the very least, and seems like an interesting story; A Jester finds the Wand of the Wicked Witch of the West, which also contains her ghost, and uses it's power to try and take over the Land of Oz. The involvement of the 1939 film's villain, the Wicked Witch of the West, in the story is honestly quite interesting to me, as it offers so much potential, especially in how she and Dorothy might interact, and for why the Witch is working with the Jester.
Overall, I think it will be a good film, as long as the film makers deal with the story with the greatest care... and considering the Directors are former Disney Artists, and the Writer was a Co-Producer for "The Real Ghostbusters" TV series... I dunno, I think they have the potential to do so, but I won't assume anything.
"The Return of Oz from the 1970s, was a sequel to the 1939 film, and wasn't actually that bad at all."
Return to Oz came out in the 1980s, not 70s.
He got the title wrong I think but the OFFICIAL sequel was the animated one with liza Minelli playing Dorothy. That's it.
Return to Oz (in 86 i think) was Disney's sequel to it - and they made Oz the great and powerful. Those three are IT for me personally. They have room for one more prequel set in between Oz and Wizard - giving the witches a full time to shine. Both Rachel Weisz(?)and Mila Kunis were fantastic. I think Kunis should get best supporting oscar for her performance - she was AMAZING as the wicked witch of the west.
EDIT:
As I was typing my praise for Kunis above, I was also watching 'The John Larroquette Show'... And as SOON as I hit the 'post reply' button on the page who walks into the bus station on the show as Mahalia's daughter? Lil' Mila Kunis!!! SOOOOOOOO F'N WEIRD MAN!!! LOL...
You Suck...now deal with it.
Perhaps he meant the animated "Journey Back to Oz" with Liza Minelli as the voice of Dorothy (and Margaret Hamilton as the voice of Aunt Em) as the 70s sequel?
There was also another short animated film called "Return to Oz" from the 60s culled from the "Wizard of Oz" series. Different than "Return to Oz" from the 80s completely. In the 60s animated version, the Wicked Witch's melted waxen body is reformed when a wind blows her back together. It (60's "Return...") was released on DVD briefly a few years back. I don't think the TV series was ever released though.
It's NOT an OZ story (combined or otherwise) by original writer L. Frank Baum or by one of the authorized writers who were allowed to continue the official books in the series. Instead it's based on a tale by Roger Baum, L. Frank's great-grandson who is writes the WORST books, clearly riding on the family name and ties. It would be better for everyone if his work were totally ignored and new, original films were created around the OZ characters if the original OZ tales are to be ignored. Truly. Try reading one of Roger Baum's books---it will take all of 10-15 minutes and you will want to pull your eyes out afterwards. They're THAT bad.
share"So the real question one should ask is, with all this source material, why are there so few Oz films and, for the same reason, why would they do original versions when there are so many books to choose from."
I have often asked the same question. The Patchwork Girl of Oz is way overdo for production (The original silent feature is excellent, but not everyone appreciates silent moves). And can you imagine The Tin Woodman of Oz directed by David Lynch? I'd pay hard cash to see that!
As near as I can figure though, Hollywood won't touch any of those books for no other reason than they're really, really, ya know, old and stuff! For Hollywood, its all about being fresh, being now, being new! That's why they rejected the older books and went with one from the mid 80's.
How'd that work for you Hollywood?
It was nice that the film made references to the original film.
shareThis isn't a sequel thought up by producers just to cash in on "The Wizard of Oz". This is based on a book by L. Frank Baum, who not only wrote "The Wizard of Oz", but many other Oz books, including "Dorothy of Oz".
shareThis one is actually based on Dorothy of Oz by Roger S Baum, L Frank Baum's great grandson
shareThere was already a sequel made to this in the 80's called "Return to Oz". Walmart has it for $10 on dvd. They are also making a prequel about the wizard slated for a 2013 release date.
share