Robert Downey Jr. Eyes 'Wizard of Oz' Prequel

Riding high from his success on 'Iron Man' and 'Sherlock Holmes,' it now appears that for his next role, Robert Downey Jr. may be off to see the wizard. And yes, we mean that wizard.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Downey Jr. is in serious talks with Disney to play the Wizard of Oz in a prequel that will tell the story of how a lowly Kansas charlatan became the all-powerful man behind the curtain. The screenplay, which was written by Mitchell Kapner ('The Whole Nine Yards'), is said to be notably darker in tone than the beloved 1939 classic 'The Wizard of Oz.'

That, in turn, would seem to be right up Downey Jr.'s alley, as he has made a career playing complex, larger-than-life characters. Just what tone the movie will take, though, may depend in large part on the choice of director: Currently, Sam Mendes ('American Beauty') and Adam Shankman ('Hairspray'), who have significantly different aesthetics, are both being considered.

Whichever director ends up getting the gig, though, chances are if Downey Jr. agrees to the role, the movie will be put on the fast track: The actor's notoriously full shooting schedule has a tailor-made opening next spring that would be perfect for the wonderful wizard.

Until then, Downey's on-screen magic can be seen next on May 7 when 'Iron Man 2' hits theaters.

Spoiler:

superdoug wrote:I feel like my head's about to explode, and not in a good way. This is probably the dumbest goddamned idea I've heard out of Hollywood since the Twilight saga.

The Wizard of Oz (and The Marvelous Land of Oz) tell the story pretty succinctly:

Spoiler:

I wish to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that people didn't feel the need to tell stories that don't need telling, or to darken up stories that aren't necessarily dark in and of themselves. Oz is not a scary place. It's a fairyland that happens to have a few truly scary things in it. But those goddamned flying monkeys gave enough kids nightmares after 1939 that I guess Baum's innocent child's garden has become a dense of jungle of the macabre.

kidspider2099 wrote:

i'm with doug I love wizard of and i don't want a twisted dark version.

superdoug wrote:What pisses me off is that this 'prequel' is going to be constructed almost entirely from whole cloth, because BAUM DIDN'T FEEL THE NEED TO TELL THE STORY FROM THE WIZARD'S POINT OF VIEW. There'll be very little of Baum in it, if at all. Which, to me, is the equivalent of digging up his corpse and buttfucking it with a rolled-up copy of Harry Potter.

Astro13Zombie wrote:

kidspider2099 wrote:

i'm with doug I love wizard of and i don't want a twisted dark version.

I......I do.

Gojiratoho wrote:Is that really important though? He only wrote about a third of all the OZ books out there anyway.

superdoug wrote:

Gojiratoho wrote:Is that really important though? He only wrote about a third of all the OZ books out there anyway.

That's a spurious argument. It's like saying that anyone could make a Bond prequel not based on Fleming's work or his characterizations. Or if anyone would like a prequel to Gone With The Wind. Or someone making a Narnia film that takes place sometime between Magician's Nephew and The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. The character is Baum's; therefore, any prequel is sort of an insult to the man's memory.

And, while he only wrote fourteen Oz books, those are considered the foundation for the rest of the 'Famous Forty'. I know Hollywood, and this story will not be about the Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkel Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs that we met in those novels, who hails from Omaha and has the best intentions. NO...what we'll get is a mix of the 1939 musical Kansas flim-flam man and the dark, morally questionable Wizard who appeared in the book WICKED. And I, for one, don't want to see it.

I would rather see Hollywood devote its energy to perhaps making a true franchise out of the novels as written by Baum, instead of creating all-new stories that DON'T NEED TO BE TOLD.

Silent K wrote:What about Wicked, Doug?

Silent K wrote:Nothing can be worse than Muppet Wizard of OZ.

superdoug wrote:And I think that's a travesty and an insult to the man's memory and the children's fairyland he created that everyone and their dog feels a need to take an emo shit in. Obviously, we disagree.


And the Oz books are not public domain. The rights are owned by the International Wizard of Oz Fan Club, who aren't all that sue-happy.

superdoug wrote:

Silent K wrote:Nothing can be worse than Muppet Wizard of OZ.

Fuck you. Seriously. Muppet Wizard of Oz was, perhaps, one of the more faithful adaptations, silly as it was. Any version that includes the Kalidahs and Tattypoo, the Good Witch of the North, is firing on ALL FUCKING CYLINDERS. And the use of Piggy as all four Witches was fucking inspired!

Silent K wrote:
Nothing can be worse than Muppet Wizard of OZ.