Todd McFarlane Does Wizard of OZ

[Lord Dalek]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117970616.html?categoryId=13&cs=1

Why God Why?

[DarkAngel]

Why God Why?
Why not? I still don't understand why people get so worked up about remakes or reimagings or new takes on stuff. If it turns out bad, then fine, and we move on with our lives.

I've been hoping to see a new Wizard of Oz or an adaptation of the other books for a long time, so I'm incredibly excited. My hope is to see something that's not a musical, that's truer to the books, and which brings out the darkness more.

This upcoming movie actually won't have much involvement from McFarlane, who'll be producer I think. Josh Olsen's writing it and has described it as more of a sequel. Much of the plot will be created by him, but the character's utilized will be from Baum. I'm sure Wizard (probably the book more than the film) will greatly influence it, but its sounding more like something original. And why not? Baum wrote many Oz books with many characters beyond those seen in the 1939 movie. It'll be great to see something that draws from more of Baum's books rather than just the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

I'd love to see his 14-book series more fully mined. Why should we only get the 1939 movie (and 1985's Return to Oz) and nothing else? With all hope, the movie will turn out great and we'll see more Oz stuff after that. I'm very, very excited.

[GregX]

Has he apologized to Neil Gaiman yet?

[Joe]

At least there is some sort of creative vision behind this film, and it certainly doesn't seem like the cash-in based on a familiar franchise that many would usually associate to this project. It will be interesting to see where they go with this, since there is very much potential in something like this.

[Bakasama]

Does anyone have any idea on how many Oz characters there? There's alot more characters than shown on the Wizard of Oz. Characters like Tik-Tok, Polychrome, Shaggy Man, Patchwork Girl, and Princess Ozma are well known to book fans but to fans of just the movie don't have a clue who they are.

Movies based on Volkov’s Tales of the Magic Land (Russia's version of Oz) might make interesting movies too.

[Movie06]

Now that movie, I want to see.

[Michael24]

As much as I love the original Wizard of Oz, I wanted to see a McFarlane version the minute I saw his Twisted Oz figures a few years ago, especially if it maintains the Dorothy figure's costume. :D

[Moto Pete]

Highly anticipated


Here are the Figures
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.iconusa4.com/online/Images/Spawn/Twisted-OZ/T-OZ_Banner.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.iconusa4.com/online/Twisted-Oz_Index.htm&h=93&w=300&sz=27&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=CEQlJY-1FlW3gM:&tbnh=42&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtwisted%2Boz%2Bdorothy%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dcom.google:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

[Blackstar]

At least Olsen and McFarlane are doing their own unique take on Oz and not just remaking the original film. I personally think that a darker, edgier take on the story might be interesting to see. I would only say it was a bad idea if the movie were to suck.

[SirLemming]

There is actually a lot of potential here, which should be most obvious to anyone who's seen Return to Oz. As with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I think a remake is called for when there's a source material that has only been used to make a musical and the new movie is not going to be a musical. Technically it's not really a remake, just another movie based on the book. Just like Return to Oz technically wasn't a sequel.

Naturally, though, with a movie as beloved as The Wizard of Oz, they do have a lot to live up to, whether that's fair or not. Personally, I think there's plenty of cheesy stuff in the old movie that could be wisely sidestepped, especially if they're not actually trying to do it in the same style. But will they be able to top the way the old movie transitioned from the real world to the colorful world of Oz? Not likely, but let's see how the rest of it turns out.

[RedKnight]

You know, I like a lot of the stuff McFarlane has done, but this particular project doesn't interest me in any way. I might be in for a surprise, but based on the McFarlane-designed Oz figures I've seen, I'm not getting my hopes up. McFalane's style is usually dark, gritty, gross. I like that -- sometimes. I don't see myself enjoying such a twisted version of Oz, though.

[Hades]

Now this might be an interesting movie. I have never liked the WoOz, never understood teh appeal, but I would so go see this. Of course, this is McFarlane we are talking about, the guy has claimed there would be a new Spawn animated series, a conclusion to the HBO series, and another live action movie for years. I don't believe a word he says anymore until I actually see the product before my face.

[Bird Boy]

Now this might be an interesting movie. I have never liked the WoOz, never understood teh appeal, but I would so go see this. Of course, this is McFarlane we are talking about, the guy has claimed there would be a new Spawn animated series, a conclusion to the HBO series, and another live action movie for years. I don't believe a word he says anymore until I actually see the product before my face.

His track record has been fine for the non-Spawn things he's told us about. It's just that he owns Spawn and would have to likely fund the projects himself.

-BB

[GregX]

Now this might be an interesting movie. I have never liked the WoOz, never understood teh appeal, but I would so go see this. Of course, this is McFarlane we are talking about, the guy has claimed there would be a new Spawn animated series, a conclusion to the HBO series, and another live action movie for years. I don't believe a word he says anymore until I actually see the product before my face.

I don't believe a word he says because he's a lying scumbag.

[DarkAngel]

Guys, as I said in my post above (which apparantly no one read), McFarlane is not going to be nearly as involved as most are assuming. This is NOT based on McFarlane's figures. Josh Olsen is writing, and he has said it'll be "Harry Potter dark" as opposed to "Seven dark". So this is NOT going to be 'Twisted Land of Oz'.

This is Olsen's project more than it is McFarlane's. Here's a bit from an article (http://www.totalfilm.com/movie_news/josh_olson_headed_to_oz) in which Olsen discusses it:

But Olson claims he isn’t interested into totally revamping the character’s image: “I saw those toys, and Dorothy as some bondage queen isn’t something I want to do," he blabbed to Variety. "The appealing thing about the Baum books to me is how wildly imaginative they are. There are crazy characters from amazing places. I want this to be Harry Potter dark, not Seven dark. We still want to take advantage of the first film, which might be the most beloved of all time, and rely on its place in your cultural memory to bubble beneath the surface. A lot of the plot is mine, but the characters are all Baum."

[Hanshotfirst113]

Now this might be an interesting movie. I have never liked the WoOz, never understood the appeal.

You obviously do not live in America, and if you do, you should not, because you are a Communist :p.


I don't believe a word he says because he's a lying scumbag.

Well then...

[SirLemming]

This is NOT based on McFarlane's figures. Josh Olsen is writing, and he has said it'll be "Harry Potter dark" as opposed to "Seven dark". So this is NOT going to be 'Twisted Land of Oz'.

Makes sense. I doubt even McFarlane himself would be particularly interested in making a movie based on those figure designs. They strike me as more of a novelty project than a serious attempt at interpreting the story. Harry Potter darkness will be fine... or again, I would suggest looking at Return To Oz for an example of what would be a good fit for this.

[RedKnight]

This is NOT based on McFarlane's figures. Josh Olsen is writing, and he has said it'll be "Harry Potter dark" as opposed to "Seven dark". So this is NOT going to be 'Twisted Land of Oz'.

That's a relief. Still, I'm weary of this project... I knoe fantasy flicks are all the rage now, but I think a re-imaging of Oz is not really in order. Personally, I can't see it being re-made any more than Star Wars, LOTR, or even Harry Potter. The original movie left such a strong imprint on the collective cultural mind. I just can't see a re-make of any sort being viewed as anything but a novelty attraction

[Mike Spartz]

Cool, I get to see the action figures on the silver screen!

[Harlan_Phoenix]

Cool, I get to see the action figures on the silver screen!

Not quite. Read the topic.

[DarkAngel]

The original movie left such a strong imprint on the collective cultural mind. I just can't see a re-make of any sort being viewed as anything but a novelty attraction
And that's how I'm sure many will view it. But this isn't really an attempt to remake the movie, but rather to go to the source (the books) and create something that more closely resembles Baum's work. If most don't realize that and see this as trying to duplicate the '39 film, that'll be unfortunate. But such criticisms really wouldn't make much sense.


Cool, I get to see the action figures on the silver screen!
*bangs head against wall*

:)

[Bakasama]

remake? I'm all for an Oz movie that's closer to the original books. If they keep the origin of the Nick Chopper, then I'll know they're trying keep the spirit of the books.

[DarkAngel]

Harry Potter darkness will be fine... or again, I would suggest looking at Return To Oz for an example of what would be a good fit for this.
What's your opinion on Return to Oz overall and what elements from it would you want to see in a new movie (and, conversely, what would you want to see avoided)?

[Silly McGooses]

What I want is adaptations of the L. Frank Baum bookS. The sequels were usually just as good or better. I love the Judy Garland version but don't see why people are so offended by other takes on it--after all, it was just a new take on something that had been done many times before.

I also suppose I'm one of the few who loves Return to Oz.

[Michael24]

I love Return to Oz as well. Not as much as the first one, but I still love it and thought it was a good movie, though I haven't seen it in years.

[DarkAngel]

I also suppose I'm one of the few who loves Return to Oz.
No, I love it as well. They only area in which I felt the '39 film really outshone it was visually. Return looked too ordinary. And I understand that was partially the point, given the state of Oz since Dorothy had last been there. But it still needed something more. A bit more of a magical quality.

But that aside, I loved it. Far preferred Balk to Garland. Greatly enjoyed Tik-Tok and Jack Pumpkinhead. Liked the gloomier state of things: the conspicuous absence of the Munchkins, the yellow-brick road in disarray, the people of Emerald City turned to stone. The villainous presence was strong with the creepy wheelers, the Nome King (nicely animated via claymation), and Princess Mombi (who I just loved). The whole thing came across pretty well to me.

Now I'd like to see something like that done today by someone with a strong visual sense. I'd been hoping that someone like Tim Burton would deliver a new Oz. But hopefully Olsen's movie will capture what I'd like to see. So far, things sound promising.

[Bakasama]

I would like see a series of movies that's actually closer to the book. Heck, if you closely at the Oz books, you can see where George Lucas got many of his ideas for Star Wars from. Like, Princess Leia, she looks alot like Princess Ozma.

[Michael24]

I think Lucas even once said Luke and Han disguising themselves as Stormtroopers so they could sneak around was taken from Scarecrow, Tin-Man, and the Lion stealing the Wicked Witch's guards' costumes.

[Shawn Hopkins]

If it's not based on Twisted Land of OZ, which I consider akin to taking a dump on Baum's grave, by the way, then what's the point of McFarlane's involvement? As a comics reader I can tell you he's incredibly overrated and everything he touches that doesn't have points of articulation and lots of coats of paint on it turns to <censor substitute:excrement>. And he is, like some other have pointed out, a bit of a lying scumbag and a hypocrite. His involvement is enough to turn me off the project.

Seriously, what is the point of things like American McGee's Alice and Twisted Land of Oz? The only people who would feel the need to add dark and weird stuff to those works are the ones that can't see what's already there.

[Hades]

Oh, if it isn't Twisted Land of OZ, then I don't think I'm interested anymore.

[RedKnight]

And he is, like some other have pointed out, a bit of a lying scumbag and a hypocrite. His involvement is enough to turn me off the project.

Okay, not to derail this thread, but what is it with all the hate for ole Todd? I'm not a hardcore fan, so I wouldn't know. I like Venom and I think McFarlane has a very distinct style that fits certain projects like a glove, end of story. Why are some people so very opposed to him? What did he do?

[Hades]

I think the biggest reason is because earlier this year he was caught with tax fraud over the last 4 years.

[DarkAngel]

Okay, not to derail this thread, but what is it with all the hate for ole Todd? I'm not a hardcore fan, so I wouldn't know. I like Venom and I think McFarlane has a very distinct style that fits certain projects like a glove, end of story. Why are some people so very opposed to him? What did he do?
I'm not sure I want to know. As it is, this seems to almost be a "dump on McFarlane" thread. Justified or not, I wouldn't say this should be about him, but about the new Oz movie.

I think I'd prefer if the thread title was changed to "Josh Olson's Wizard of Oz" or something. Todd will be producer, and might have some input, but it sounds like this is Josh's project almost entirely.

From rottentomatoes.com (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1092277-wizard_of_oz/news/1665261/):

Project screenwriter Josh Olson made a comment on the Publisher's Weekly blog (which we've since confirmed to be authentic), clarifying his role and McFarlane's role for the movie:

"While it was Todd's idea to bring back Oz, and that idea sparked this whole process, I've never met him, never heard his take, and am not writing this script with anyone else. I love the Baum books, and leapt at the chance to bring those amazing stories and characters to a new audience.

So maybe all the McFarlane haters can just release a huge sigh of relief and, please, move on. I'd rather see some discussion regarding the new Oz and the guy that's actually writing it.

[RedKnight]

I think the biggest reason is because earlier this year he was caught with tax fraud over the last 4 years.

Well, that would make him a fraud, I guess... But why a hyprocrite? It sounded that there was something wrong with the way he does business.

[Bakasama]

I think Lucas even once said Luke and Han disguising themselves as Stormtroopers so they could sneak around was taken from Scarecrow, Tin-Man, and the Lion stealing the Wicked Witch's guards' costumes.

That's not exactly what I'm talking about. Lucas' inspiration from Oz goes beyond the movie. He was more of a book fan if the influence in Star Wars movies is any indication. For example, Princess Leia in Star Wars looks alot like Princess Ozma. The poppy flowers in Ozma's hair look like Leia's hair buns.

Look for a pic of Princess Ozma: LINK (http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2006/11/03/6565.aspx)

It also has sketches for other "obscure" Oz characters like Tik-Tok, Patchwork Girl, Jack Pumpkinhead, and Sawhorse. It's also an interesting read on Disney's attempts on Oz.

Another thing that Lucas took from Oz was the Ewoks. In one of the Oz books, Dorothy encounters a tribe of teddy bears. They look like and act like the Ewoks.

[Michael24]

Are all the Oz books still readily available? I've always been curious about them after hearing how they were actually somewhat darker than the film.

[MonkeyFunk]

Todd McFarlane is a whining cur who licks the hand that smites him. Neil Gaiman, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, is master of the American continent, and the best safety of pop culture will be secured by the total annihilation of Todd McFarlane.

[Bakasama]

Are all the Oz books still readily available? I've always been curious about them after hearing how they were actually somewhat darker than the film.

The first Oz book is easy to find in any bookstore or library, it's just the later Oz books more difficult to find.

If want to read most of them, you could just go to Project Gutenberg and read it. gutenberg.org (http://www.gutenberg.org/)

[Silly McGooses]

The sequels are available in many bookstores, I reccomend the Books of Wonder Hardcovers as they're the closest you can get to the original printings.

They're all in the public domain, too, which is why I'm always shocked about the lack of media adaptations. That Oz theme park they planned to build years back would have been particularly awesome...

[Bakasama]

They're all in the public domain, too, which is why I'm always shocked about the lack of media adaptations. That Oz theme park they planned to build years back would have been particularly awesome...

I really never understood the lack of adaptations myself. I would think the story of King Scarecrow being overthrown by General Jinjur's army would make for an interesting story.