Is it time to remake the Wizard of Oz?

superdoug wrote:
Your local public library should have a number of the Baum books, as long as you don't mind going into the children's section to find them. They're also available in paperback on Amazon.

Please, read the Baum books before you read the Thompson books. While I love some of Thompson's stories, they lack most of the magic that permeates Baum's novels. The Nome King, Ruggedo, only appears in four of Baum's books. (Ozma of Oz, the Emerald City of Oz, Tik-Tok of Oz, and The Magic of Oz) He may or may not be the person who succeeded the Gnome King that appeared in Baum's The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus.

thank you

hrdwrkngXsoldier wrote:Was it about the guilded age then?... great now I have to research. There have been worse recessions in our nation than the great depression I know, but I always thought that the OZ-GD thing was true. Thats what I get for believing a highschool history book blurb.

The supposed allegory is about the removal of the "trust" system of money, and to bring the US to the Silver Standard.
Oz (ounces)
Yellow Brick Road ("Streets paved with gold")
Emerald City (Washington D.C. location of the Treasury; Green = Money, but really there wasn't any Green in the city, the Wizard just tricked the people of the city to believe it)
The Witches supposedly represented regions and political leanings of the time.
Dorothy supposedly represented the traditional values of the "everyman" in the middle, possibly politically representing William Jennings Bryan
Toto: Nickname for "Teetotalers" (prohibitionists, tied themselves to WJB)
Scarecrow: Stupid Agriculture/Farmers
Tin Man: Heartless Industry
Lion: Spineless Government

There are a lot of odd coincidences for the metaphor, but Baum himself stated that he was not a supporter of the Silver-Standard movement, so that does put a twist in the supposed allegory.


Also, Tim Burton just looks for ways to fit Helena Bonham Carter and Johnny Depp into movies that fat girls will buy t-shirts of.

Again, any allegory in the Oz books is complete speculation, as Baum himself stated that his books were intended solely for the purpose of entertaining children.

I can see where the correlations can be made, but I prefer to think of it as someone who decided that America needed a fairyland that was all its own, and created one.

Heytherejeffro wrote:
There are a lot of odd coincidences for the metaphor, but Baum himself stated that he was not a supporter of the Silver-Standard movement, so that does put a twist in the supposed allegory.

superdoug wrote:Again, any allegory in the Oz books is complete speculation, as Baum himself stated that his books were intended solely for the purpose of entertaining children.

I can see where the correlations can be made, but I prefer to think of it as someone who decided that America needed a fairyland that was all its own, and created one.

That's probably why I wrote what I wrote there.

Heytherejeffro wrote:

Heytherejeffro wrote:
There are a lot of odd coincidences for the metaphor, but Baum himself stated that he was not a supporter of the Silver-Standard movement, so that does put a twist in the supposed allegory.

superdoug wrote:Again, any allegory in the Oz books is complete speculation, as Baum himself stated that his books were intended solely for the purpose of entertaining children.

I can see where the correlations can be made, but I prefer to think of it as someone who decided that America needed a fairyland that was all its own, and created one.

That's probably why I wrote what I wrote there.

Is that emoticon picking its nose and wiping it on the reader? GROSS!

supervenom wrote:ever watch Tin Man Superdoug?

I tried watching it but it just was too long, the whole miniseries was like 10 hours long, too pretensious for my taste thanks.

just read the Wonderful Wizard of Oz comic trade. fan-freakin-tastic! loved it. If there is another live-action movie it should be based on this comic.

supervenom wrote:just read the Wonderful Wizard of Oz comic trade. fan-freakin-tastic! loved it. If there is another live-action movie it should be based on this comic.

VJ...the comic is a direct (and I mean DIRECT) adaptation of the novel. So, what you're saying is that yes, you would like a live-action version of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

superdoug wrote:

supervenom wrote:just read the Wonderful Wizard of Oz comic trade. fan-freakin-tastic! loved it. If there is another live-action movie it should be based on this comic.

VJ...the comic is a direct (and I mean DIRECT) adaptation of the novel. So, what you're saying is that yes, you would like a live-action version of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

ohhhhhh yeah!

You know, I would love to see another interpretation of Wizard of Oz... however, I can't imagine it ever happening.

The 1939 movie was so iconic and timeless, re-doing it, in my opinion, could never surpass the brilliance that the original displayed. Judy Garland cannot be out-sweetened, Margaret Hamilton cannot be out-witched, and no director can convey the story like Victor Fleming.

If they do, I'll for sure go see it, however I can't imagine it being better than the original.

superdoug wrote:

Off_White_Lantern wrote:They already made a Wizard of Oz for this generation its called Tin Man.

Tin Man was not a remake of the Wizard of Oz. It was a telling of a possible future of the Land of Oz. It bore only a passing resemblance to the stories of L. Frank Baum, and wasn't true to the source material in the least.

We're talking about a version that would be true to the original story, as written by Baum.

Joshua wrote:And it's terrible.

That, too.

Who exactly would the studios be making this remake for? I watched the Wizard of Oz loads of times growing up as millions of kids throughout the years have. My Grandma watched it when she was young, my parents saw it growing up and my nephew who is six is crazy about it now. The movie has come full circle many times and will continue to do so. why make another when obviously kids still like the real one?

Why spend millions of dollars to remake that movie and $9 for a ticket instead of going and renting it for a buck Studios only remake movies because they are too lazy to write anything new and know kids will run out and buy tickets to their shit remakes. I will guarantee those studio heads and writers are laughing their asses off that they made a shit ton of money off Willy Wonka and all the other horrid remakes.

Tin Man was an adult version that wasnt a whole lot like the original for a reason.

Off_White_Lantern wrote:Who exactly would the studios be making this remake for? I watched the Wizard of Oz loads of times growing up as millions of kids throughout the years have. My Grandma watched it when she was young, my parents saw it growing up and my nephew who is six is crazy about it now. The movie has come full circle many times and will continue to do so. why make another when obviously kids still like the real one?

Why spend millions of dollars to remake that movie and $9 for a ticket instead of going and renting it for a buck Studios only remake movies because they are too lazy to write anything new and know kids will run out and buy tickets to their shit remakes. I will guarantee those studio heads and writers are laughing their asses off that they made a shit ton of money off Willy Wonka and all the other horrid remakes.

Tin Man was an adult version that wasnt a whole lot like the original for a reason.

Your argument fails on a number of levels. First of all, we're not talking about a remake of the MGM musical, which held very little resemblance to the story that Baum wrote. I love that version, but as an Ozophile, I would like to see a big-screen version that holds as true as possible to Baum's written work. You know, kind of like how Lord of the Rings is a fairly faithful adaptation of Tolkien's work? Or do you consider those films to be a remake of the Bakshi film?

Secondly, there are millions of Ozophiles like myself in the world that would pay 9-15 dollars on a ticket to see a faithful adaptation. Much like I spent money to see the Narnia movies, and the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie (which was NOT A FUCKING REMAKE OF WILLY WONKA WITH GENE WILDER. AT ALL.)

Thirdly, Tin Man was not a retelling of the OZ story. It was a completely different story than any KNOWN OZ story, which used the 'O.Z.' as the setting. As I said before, it has as much relevance to The Wizard of Oz as David Lynch's Wild at Heart.

Finally, just because a well-loved version of a movie based on a century-old story already exists doesn't mean that the story can't be told again. Look at how many time Alice in Wonderland has been retold (and, again, the new one is NOT A REMAKE).

superdoug wrote:

Off_White_Lantern wrote:Who exactly would the studios be making this remake for? I watched the Wizard of Oz loads of times growing up as millions of kids throughout the years have. My Grandma watched it when she was young, my parents saw it growing up and my nephew who is six is crazy about it now. The movie has come full circle many times and will continue to do so. why make another when obviously kids still like the real one?

Why spend millions of dollars to remake that movie and $9 for a ticket instead of going and renting it for a buck Studios only remake movies because they are too lazy to write anything new and know kids will run out and buy tickets to their shit remakes. I will guarantee those studio heads and writers are laughing their asses off that they made a shit ton of money off Willy Wonka and all the other horrid remakes.

Tin Man was an adult version that wasnt a whole lot like the original for a reason.

Your argument fails on a number of levels. First of all, we're not talking about a remake of the MGM musical, which held very little resemblance to the story that Baum wrote. I love that version, but as an Ozophile, I would like to see a big-screen version that holds as true as possible to Baum's written work. You know, kind of like how Lord of the Rings is a fairly faithful adaptation of Tolkien's work? Or do you consider those films to be a remake of the Bakshi film?

Secondly, there are millions of Ozophiles like myself in the world that would pay 9-15 dollars on a ticket to see a faithful adaptation. Much like I spent money to see the Narnia movies, and the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie (which was NOT A FUCKING REMAKE OF WILLY WONKA WITH GENE WILDER. AT ALL.)

Thirdly, Tin Man was not a retelling of the OZ story. It was a completely different story than any KNOWN OZ story, which used the 'O.Z.' as the setting. As I said before, it has as much relevance to The Wizard of Oz as David Lynch's Wild at Heart.

Finally, just because a well-loved version of a movie based on a century-old story already exists doesn't mean that the story can't be told again. Look at how many time Alice in Wonderland has been retold (and, again, the new one is NOT A REMAKE).

lol ok I do totally agree with u. I loved Lord of the Rings and thought the movies were great. I am really only familiar with the musical Wizard of Oz and think it would be crazy to try remaking that version.

I also totally agree with your Willy Wonka comments. Its easy to agree since Gene Wilder is one of my fav actors and is what I picture when I think of Willy Wonka.

Im an Ozophile of the Garland movie (I cant help it that was one of the first movies I owned as a kid). I would have to revisit The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (been years and years) but Im sure I could watch a version more accurate to the book.