MovieChat Forums > Tin Man (2007) Discussion > Was anyone else disappointed with Doroth...

Was anyone else disappointed with Dorothy's appearance?

posted 16 years ago by RubyRidingHood
17 replies | jump to latest

First of all, let me say that I loved this mini! And I realize that the original Wizard of Oz started and ended in black and white, but I was a little disappointed that when DG went to see Dorothy at the Great Gale, she had such a short appearance and the ruby slippers were in black and white also. I wish that everything BUT the ruby slippers were black and white and the shoes were in color. It looked a little stupid when DG said "Are those the...ruby slippers?" and when they showed them you couldn't even tell they were ruby colored! Did this piss anyone else off or was it just me?

R.I.P. Heath Ledger
(April 4, 1979 - January 22, 2008)

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] slip_fuhrer 15 years ago

yeah seriously, wtf is with that. her acting totally sucks

[–] oxxSevenxxo 15 years ago

Zooey D. in general pisses me off. Some people treat her as the second coming of Christ, but I have not enjoyed one performance from her. She's like a pretty zombie being paraded across the screen with that bizarre and vacant look in her eyes.

Agreed I loved the series as a whole but she was so monotone and drone like

"Ajax: Those lousy skin-headed fvcks"

[–] GiaJolie 16 years ago

No. I actually liked that part. And her slippers were "silver" in the original book. I think it made more homage to the book than the movie.

[–] RubyRidingHood 16 years ago

Really? I unfortunately have not had the chance to read the novel and I did not know her slippers were originally silver. If that's the case then it was a little weird for D.G. to say that the slippers were ruby. But whatever, if they were silver than that makes a little more sense.

R.I.P. Heath Ledger
(April 4, 1979 - January 22, 2008)

[–] sauronbaggins 16 years ago

On some advertisements for the miniseries here in the UK for Sci-Fi, the shoes are coloured red

[–] jad1986 16 years ago

It wasn't the slippers that bothered me: it was Dorothy. I've seen a lot of different takes on Oz where they totally mix stuff up, but it's not the same Oz in the books, or the one from the MGM movie, so you're like, "Okay, it's an alternate version of a fantasy world." This makes it so that it's not an alternate Oz, it's Oz.

Nothing like a nice lawsuit to ruin your day...

[–] MarthaJonesSmith 16 years ago

Yes, I was a little disappointed not to see actual Ruby Red Slippers and a really young washed out Dorothy, but I understand why they showed it in black and white...that was kind of cool. But, the slipper thing bothered me. I guess they mean that Dorothy Gale was an original 'slider', so therefore, she was the 'living ruby red slipper', since she accidently 'slipped' through to Oz (or the O.Z.) in the first place.

[–] WhistlePig 15 years ago

I was thinking they could have found a young actress who looked more like Judy Garland than a corn-fed farmgirl.

[–] slip_fuhrer 15 years ago

yeah but corn fed farm girls are sexy

and Judy garland just makes me think of a drug addict...

oh wait.

she was one.

Silly me. =D

[–] nickgp3 15 years ago

i dont think that bring an actor that looks like Judy would come to he point of the show of a "Different Version" on the Wizard on Oz. I do think that Judy did crap the movie up bacuse her acting bothered me so much... me as a director would have told her to stop talking like a child. I know in the book she was a little girl but in the movie they make her seen younger than she is. In my opinion i think that Dorothy's appearance in Tin Man was good.

But this is my opinion ..... Besides you cant please everyone

Forever_Charmed

[–] StargazerCat 15 years ago

I didn't notice that D.G. says "are those Ruby slippers" I must have missed that line. I do wish that Dorothy was a bit younger. I'm glad they didn't use someone who looked like Judy Garland, and you want to know why? Because that isn't the only look Dorothy can have. Judy was too old to play the part of dorothy to begin with. this isn't a movie based upon another movie, it's a movie based upon a book that is set YEARS after the events of the original book. This is made clear with D.G. being named after Dorothy Gale AND in the interview with the director. So making the character LOOK like the child does in the book is the key, not make her look like freakin Judy garland.

[–] Burning_Dawn 15 years ago

But if the director was following the book he should have went with the original silver slippers instead of reinforce the MGN's ruby, and he can't say that he wasn't paying a small bit of homage to the MGM's movie or else the black and white would not have used I suppose.

I have to tip my hat (figuratively) at the scene with Dorothy Gale, showing us how it all ties in with the original story. Overall I did enjoy the movie although D.G.'s listless and unemotional acting thanks to Zooey Deschanel was really off putting. But Kathleen Robertson's performance, I could watch her be evil and act on her own all evening.

The very ending I found cheesy and flat as a quick wrap up and an all is well without repercussions of what had happened before.

~~Funny, I get the impression you think I'm giving you a choice.

[–] buchichu 15 years ago

I agree with the above. I liked the appearance of Dorothy because it made the whole thing a little closer to my heart in the end; rather than a rehash of Oz, it's actually the same world we were in before, generations later (indicating that time flows differently there, as there didn't seem to be as much passage of time in DG's 'real world' life and Dorothy's) The time in between is up for interpretation for the viewer - the Gale bloodline was apparently passed down, the emerald city may have just been named for THE emerald, which changed after the jewl was lost to simply the great city, the yellow brick road, decrepit after many years, is just the old road now, etc.

Also, I wasn't impressed with the ending either - after all that, it would have been nice to see some loose ends tied up. At least do one of those "some time later..." scenes so we can see how things hae improved, see Cain and his son, see Glitch get the rest of his brain, see Raw...I dunno. Not much character development there to begin with so I didn't actually care about him.

Anywho, you get the point.

Join the Database Project: http://www.marveldatabase.com

[–] babyblue04002 14 years ago

Whistlepig thats exactly what i thought when i saw that part, the actress playing dorothy looked NOTHING like Judy Garland they could have done so much better with that part!

[–] RaeniJoy 14 years ago

I don't really remember that part very well... but that is kinda weird... I'll have to watch it again...

What irritated me about D.G. was 1. how old she was, and 2. what she wore. I'm not sure what it was, but something about her attire throughout the movie just didn't seem right...

[–] BadPuppy82 8 years ago

D.G. never references the shoes.

As for the shoes...

The original slippers in the books were silver. They were magical artifacts, yes, but they were silver.

MGM changed "the silver slippers" to "the ruby slippers" because it was thought that with the new Technicolor process, red would be much more striking. Therefore, MGM actually owns the rights to the ruby slippers.

The filmmakers may not have been able to get permission to use the ruby slippers.