Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Warner Bros. to Turn All 15 Oz Books Into Movies

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the high-probability-of-sucking dept.

Sci-Fi 249

Lucas123 writes "After purchasing the rights to the Oz books from Ted Turner Warner Bros., along with Village Roadshow Pictures, will be taking Spawn creator Todd McFarlane's idea to produce movies based on the Oz books. They've obtained the rights to the 14 titles written by 'The Wizard of Oz' author L. Frank Baum, as well as the the fifteenth book ('The Royal Book of Oz'), written by Ruth Plumly Thompson. Screen Writer John Olson's 'vision is of a bit tamer PG movie and hopefully the two can find some middle ground of compromise that will please them both and not hurt the final product.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Public Domain (4, Interesting)

tidewaterblues (784797) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323477)

Correct me if I am wrong, but all 14 original Oz books and the MGM movie are all public domain. As long as you only base you canon on this material, you can make whatever movie you want, and you don't have to pay anyone a dime. Now, the characters name are another matter. Many of those are still trademarked by various corporations.

Re:Public Domain (2, Funny)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323553)

You mean like Mickey Mouse, created at least 30 years before hand is in the Public Domain...

Re:Public Domain (3, Insightful)

Erasmus (32516) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323645)

Mickey Mouse is a trademark. The character will never slide into the Public Domain so long as Disney is defending it.

Mickey Mouse cartoons, on the other hand, will never slide into the Public Domain so long as Disney keeps paying congress to extend the copyright length...

Re:Public Domain (2, Informative)

Shrubbman (3807) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323657)

Dude, the first OZ book was published in 1900. The 15th book they mention was published in 1921. There's actually some 40 books in total considered 'canon' along side a pile of either unauthorized or non-canonical novels set in Oz as well.

But will they play with Pink Floyd? (1)

patiodragon (920102) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324391)

Dark Side of the Oz or something?

Seems right... (4, Informative)

msauve (701917) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323603)

the Oz books were published between 1900 and 1920. Works published before 1923 [cornell.edu] are in the public domain. (Mickey was born circa 1928).

Here's my vote that they do Tik-Tok first. My mom had first editions of all the books when I was a kid, that was my favorite.

You Can Read Them Online, You Know ... (3, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323709)

That's correct, enjoy them at Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.org] or the Online Books Project at U Penn [upenn.edu] . Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the one by Plumly ...

Re:You Can Read Them Online, You Know ... (2, Informative)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323967)

Google Books [google.com] seems to have it. If the link doesn't work (haven't tried linking through it before), just search for the name.

This is actually the first of the 19 books she wrote to continue the story after Baum died. However it's a mix between fans whether they consider the books cannon or not. Some feel she took too much liberty with the characters and situations.

Most of her books, however, are still covered by copyright. It's only the very earliest that have passed back into the public domain.

Re:You Can Read Them Online, You Know ... (3, Informative)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324515)

Theres also a bunch of audio books on archive.org, some are read by my dad, Roy Trumbull......(had to plug !!!) He has made a hobby recording public domain works and posting them
on the internet.
oz on archive.org audio [archive.org]

Re:Public Domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323753)

The movie is not public domain. The "Oz" mentioned in the article is only the film, not the books. The writeup is inaccurate, but then this is slashdot, so don't anybody get too worked up.

Re:Public Domain (5, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324025)

It's yet another sloppy summary of TFA, which mentions two distinct facts:
  • Warner plans to adapt all 15 books.
         
  • Warner bought the rights to the 1939 movie from Ted Turner. (Actually, they bought Ted Turner's whole media operation, which happened to include his film library, which happened to include this movie. This happened over 10 years ago; it's connection with this announcement isn't clear.)

The writer of the TFA was a little sloppy, and the submitter was very sloppy, so of course the facts got a bit jumbled. Welcome to Slashdot.

Re:Public Domain (4, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324305)

All of the Oz books published before 1923 are public domain in the US, because every copyright from that period had expired before the Congress started rubber-stamping renewals. Everything L. Frank Baum wrote (at least by himself) has been in the public domain in the EU since the end of 1989 (70 years after he died). Likewise with the original character designs by illustrator W. W. Denslow, who died in 1915. However, the MGM movie (produced in 1939) and everything original that was introduced by it (e.g. "Somewhere....") is very much under copyright in the US and the EU (and probably everywhere else, since most countries follow one or the other model).

The only thing that could still be "owned" about the original books are the trademark rights, which could be maintained indefinitely if they're continually exercised. I'm pretty sure MGM has done its job in maintaining "The Wizard of Oz" and the distinctive likenesses of Judy Garland, Margaret Hamilton, Bolger, Haley, Lahr, etc. as trademarks, and they're powerful enough to get away with claiming just "Oz" as a trademark if they set their legal will to it.

The bottom line is that anyone could produce a bunch of movies based on the books without buying the rights from anyone... but they'd have a really dicey time marketing it without running into MGM's trademark enforcement suits.

Re:Public Domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20324475)

For MANY years (mainly before the internet, no surprise) the "International Wizard of Oz Club" has tried claiming total rights to virtually everything written by Baum and Thompson.

They may well be "real Oz fans", but the club is everything that we know to be liars, cons, patent trolls, etc. It's a total sham.

How many? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323479)

All 15 ounce books? I have no idea how many movies that would be?

Re:How many? (5, Funny)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323935)

Just the important ones.

Deep voice movie announcer guy

This summer...

WHOOSH

There is another word for EXCITEMENT!

Roget's Thesaurus: The Motion Picture

Re:How many? (1)

chimpo13 (471212) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324109)

I thought it was 15 Australian books and I couldn't figure out that the Aussies wrote 12 more after "The Road Warrior" trilogy.

Sorry, Ozzies, but I kid, I kid. If only we could get Little Creatures Pale Ale in the US.

Re:How many? (1)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324209)

All 15 ounce books? I have no idea how many movies that would be?

I don't know, how much does a dead horse weigh?

(This humor intended to complement the tag 'outofnewideas [slashdot.org] ')

What about the 1 pound books? (4, Funny)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323489)

Weight discrimination again!

Re:What about the 1 pound books? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323905)

These are 15 ounce books, the missing ounce goes towards prevention.

15oz. books? (2, Funny)

fatblunt (656719) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323495)

Why make books that weigh almost one pound into movies?

Re:15oz. books? (1)

jdigriz (676802) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323577)

It worked for War and Peace =)

Re:15oz. books? (3, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324005)

It worked for War and Peace
That movie sucked. The war part was cool, but the whole peace bit got a bit slow at the end.

So what you're telling me... (4, Informative)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323497)

Is that Hollywood is preparing to shit all over another part of my childhood? 13 times?

Great.

Man, Return to Oz was such a bastardization of "Marvelous Land" and "Ozma" - still, it had more Baum to it than the old MGM "all singing, all dancing" all vomiting wreck.

Re:So what you're telling me... (1)

Solder Fumes (797270) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323559)

Return to Oz was awesome. I saw it in the theater when I was six years old. Pretty heavy stuff at that age...the living bodyless heads were especially striking. My parents expected something entirely different.

Re:So what you're telling me... (3, Interesting)

K8Fan (37875) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323619)

"Return to Oz" was a very enjoyable film on it's own merits, but the movie critics of the time were unable to judge it on those merits - and could only see it as the film that didn't have Judy Garland in it.

Re:So what you're telling me... (2, Insightful)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323731)

I saw it in the theater when I was six years old. Pretty heavy stuff at that age...the living bodyless heads were especially striking. My parents expected something entirely different.

It might have been heavy stuff as compared the Wizard of Oz movie, but in the books Dorothy or Ozma were quite regularly in serious danger and dealing with bizarre perhaps horrific things. I don't really see why your parents were suprised. Then again if you made a movie based on most fairy tales from the Brothers Grimm it would have to be rated "R" for violence. But most parents just assume that stories for kids of 80 years ago are going to be just fine with their modern ideas of how to raise a child.

Re:So what you're telling me... (3, Interesting)

hguorbray (967940) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323987)

Actually there were 'scientific' slightly futuristic (for the story time frame) elements in Return to OZ -the primitive electrochock machine they were going to hook Dorothy up to in the asylum for instance. -and the Wheelers looked like some sort of skatepunks........

Having read all the Oz books as a kid I was thrilled to see a more accurate, darker picture of the land of Oz after the more saccharine MGM version. I guess I should check out 'Wicked' for the same reason

Also, Fairuza Balk, young Dorothy, went on to become quite the bad girl in movies such as 'the Craft', the disastrous remake of 'the island of Doctor Moreau and other uneven fare such as 'No FishFood in Heaven' which was notable for having stolen its plot from the Velevet Underground song 'The Gift' which was narrated by John Cale (It was now mid August and Waldo Jeffers had reached his limit....)

I'm just sayin'.....

Re:So what you're telling me... (1)

hazem (472289) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324211)

Having read all the Oz books as a kid I was thrilled to see a more accurate, darker picture of the land of Oz after the more saccharine MGM version. I guess I should check out 'Wicked' for the same reason

You might enjoy Snow White: A Tale of Terror http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119227/ [imdb.com] with Sigourney Weaver playing the evil stepmother. I felt it lived up to its name quite well.

Re:So what you're telling me... (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323831)

I saw Return to Oz as a teenager and I found it a bit unsettling. I did like it though, not sure if a little kid would like it, might be pretty scary.

Re:So what you're telling me... (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323909)

Given how faithful Baum himself was to the books, I don't fault MGM for the times they strayed. Read about the play Baum co-wrote based on the first book if you really want to see something off base from the original.

Re:So what you're telling me... (1)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323991)

Can't agree with that. By the time I saw Wizard I had read the first fifteen (one of those early-reading brats), and I was really up for it -- until I found they'd made a brainless, frothy musical out of it. That was where I learned what Hollywood does to literature.

Compared to that travesty, Return was fantastic. The critics, of course, murdered it for not being crap like Wizard.

rj

Re:So what you're telling me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20324269)

Music doesn't belong in an OZ film? Of course it does MGM did a remarkably good job, especially compared to the older versions (including Baum's low-budget version). But I pretty much agree with you otherwise. It was a miracle that Lord of the Rings didn't suck, but the truth is that it was far from perfect (the problem being the script).

Return to Oz was amazing. (1)

vistic (556838) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324301)

I loved Return to Oz as a kid.

And it still holds up today, I think, upon repeat viewing. One thing I like about it, is that it is a little bit dark and exciting. It's chilling when Mombie wakes up without her head. It's creepy at the beginning what Dorothy is about to get electro-shock treatment.

I really take issue with the screen writer here who wants to make something tame. It should be good enough to give kids chills where appropriate... that's what kept me watching it over again as a kid. If it was just a feel good movie, I doubt I'd have enjoyed it much at all.

Re:Return to Oz was amazing. (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324647)

My 7 year old just finished reading Ozma - and we rented Return, to watch. He thought it ok, but preferred the book, with Princess Langwidere, and all the Nome King's ornaments... Toc-Toc met with approval, 'tho.

I haven't given him Marvelous Land, yet. When I was 7, it was a bit hurtful and upsetting to have the Hero turned into a girl at the end... I think he can deal, but I'd rather he go to Dorothy and the Wizard, first.

Re:So what you're telling me... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324639)

I hereby challenge you to simply ignore them.

A tamer PG movie? (1)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323501)

A tamer PG movie? What? Am I the only one confused by these statements and modern movies?

Wow (0, Redundant)

What'sInAName (115383) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323507)


I'd hate to be the guy who has to weigh every book to figure out which ones are 15 ounces.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

Re:Wow (0, Redundant)

What'sInAName (115383) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324057)


Geez, you post something 15 seconds late and you get moded redundant.

Jerk.

wtf (3, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323511)

After purchasing the rights to the Oz books from Ted Turner Warner Bros., along with Village Roadshow Pictures, will be taking Spawn creator Todd McFarlane's idea to produce movies based on the Oz books.

Excellent! And perhaps they might even be able to get Uwe Boll to direct!

Aren't they in the public domain? (4, Informative)

cpghost (719344) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323525)

L. Frank Baum's [wikipedia.org] books have been in the public domain for quite some time now. They're available in Project Gutenberg, on Wikisource and everywhere.

Re:Aren't they in the public domain? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323533)

Hence, they have been published in Dover editions, since the 80's or so.

Re:Aren't they in the public domain? (4, Funny)

flu1d (664635) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323797)

Quiet man, I'm trying to sell them some more public domain stuff.

All 15 ounce books? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323531)

That's just ridiculous.

need caffeine (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323539)

Did anyone else read that headline and think to themselves "What the hell is a 15 ounce book?"

Math is hard (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323551)

If you're going to include Thompson, then there are more than 15. Here's wikipedia's list of the "famous forty"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oz_books [wikipedia.org]

Re:Math is hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323587)

Of course it is. Didn't you see the fortune cookie at the bottom of the page?

It reads, "It's when they say 2 + 2 = 5 that I begin to argue." -- Eric Pepke

~metlin

buying rights != making movies; uneven quality (4, Informative)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323579)

Just because they've bought the rights, that doesn't mean they'll actually make the movies. It's extremely common for a studio to buy rights to a book, then never make the movie.

The quality of the Oz books is very uneven. Some of the later ones have long, extremely tedious sections that serve no purpose except to bring back a long list of favorite characters like Jack Pumpkinhead. A lot of the plots revolve around lame puns.

Re:buying rights != making movies; uneven quality (1)

Mad Bad Rabbit (539142) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323669)

The quality of the Oz books is very uneven. Some of the later ones have long, extremely tedious sections that serve no purpose except to bring back a long list of favorite characters like Jack Pumpkinhead

Perhaps they could replace him with Stan Winston's Pumpkinhead [wikipedia.org]

("Bolted doors and windows barred, Guard dogs prowling in the yard, Won't protect you in your bed, Nothing will, from Pumpkinhead.)

Re:buying rights != making movies; uneven quality (1)

Soko (17987) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323691)

The quality of the Oz books is very uneven. Some of the later ones have long, extremely tedious sections that serve no purpose except to bring back a long list of favorite characters like Jack Pumpkinhead. A lot of the plots revolve around lame puns.

IOW, if you like the average Slashdot story and "discussion", you'll love the books?

Soko

Re:buying rights != making movies; uneven quality (1)

Lithdren (605362) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323721)

Wow....

Sounds like they'll fit right into the Hollywood landscape of movies then.

Re:buying rights != making movies; uneven quality (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323829)

> A lot of the plots revolve around lame puns.

Can't be any worse than Piers Anthony then.

Then again, I can't really think of much of anything that's worse than Piers Anthony's books. Except maybe Piers Anthony himself.

Re:buying rights != making movies; uneven quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323923)

I LIKE Piers Anthony books you insensitive clod!

Re:buying rights != making movies; uneven quality (1)

GPL Apostate (1138631) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324055)

I liked Pornucopia. I bought it in first edition when it first came out.

I'm not as enthusiastic about his kid's books, though.

Re:buying rights != making movies; uneven quality (1)

sjwest (948274) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324195)

As a european - i never knew that it was a series of books, theres that old film, and thats it from a european angle.

Internationally is sounds a hard sell

Oh, real tough getting the rights to all 15 books! (3, Informative)

thisissilly (676875) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323599)

...given that all 15 [wikipedia.org] are in the Public Domain [wikipedia.org] , having been published before 1923. In fact, I'm surprised they didn't claim 16, seeing as the 16th was published in 1922.

Everyone in the US has the right to make any of those books into a movie.

Re:Oh, real tough getting the rights to all 15 boo (1)

notamisfit (995619) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323693)

But do they have the right to title them as "Oz" movies? The copyrights may be expired, but trademarks *never* go away as long as defended.

Re:Oh, real tough getting (copyright/trademark) (2, Funny)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323783)

Given that the title includes the word Oz, that is unlikely to be much of a barrier.

They could always call it 0Z (chr(13)) instead and it would ... look like Oz, but would be more like the original typeface that more resembled a zero plus Z.

Re:Oh, real tough getting (copyright/trademark) (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323877)

Given that the title includes the word Oz, that is unlikely to be much of a barrier.

They could always call it 0Z (chr(13)) instead and it would ... look like Oz, but would be more like the original typeface that more resembled a zero plus Z.
They couldn't do that. If Oz is a valid trademark, then 0z wouldn't be available. It would be a violation of the trademark to use one which causes confusion. So while 0z wouldn't necessarily be problematic if one were naming a furniture brand, calling a movie 0z and basing it on a reality very similar to the ones in the books would.

That being said, I don't know if Oz was ever trademarked, and if so if the trademark is still valid. I suspect not, because it was based upon the abbreviation for ounce.

Re:Oh, real tough getting (copyright/trademark) (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323927)

Given that Oz is ounce and the word Oz has been in common use as a synonym for a foreign country (Australia) since I was a small child, I seriously doubt any trademark would stand up in court.

Even if I did trademark All Of The Above (tm) once.

Missing some of the review (5, Funny)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323605)

"McFarlane has a vision of Oz that is a dark, edgy and muscular PG-13, without a singing Munchkin in sight," wrote journalist Michael Fleming. "That was clear with a toy line he launched several years ago that featured a buxom Dorothy and Toto re-imagined as an over-sized snarling warthog.

Olson's vision is of a bit tamer PG movie and hopefully the two can find some middle ground of compromise that will please them both and not hurt the final product.
This was missing from the end:
McFarlane and Olson are also planning on releasing a new hip, edgy version of the Care Bears based mostly on Sin City. The "Care Bear Stare" will be reimagined as beam weapons mounted on the bears heads that melt off peoples faces. A sequel of "Milo and Otis" set twenty years later is also scheduled as the newest spin on "Pet Cemetary."

While nothing else is really complete, these two want to assure you that the plan to replace every warm, fuzzy childhood story with nightmarish tales so that you'll lose all sense of past and therefore be willing to watch anything is proceeding according to plan and scheduled to be complete by the year 2015.

Re:Missing some of the review (4, Funny)

Mad Bad Rabbit (539142) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323769)

Maybe McFarlane was influenced by the Marin Independent Journal's movie synopsis:

"Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman, then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again."

Missing some of the fantasy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323795)

"While nothing else is really complete, these two want to assure you that the plan to replace every warm, fuzzy childhood story with nightmarish tales so that you'll lose all sense of past and therefore be willing to watch anything is proceeding according to plan and scheduled to be complete by the year 2015."

There's a lot of "children's" tales that weren't originally warm and fuzzy. The Brother's Grimm for example. Plus there's a history of reinterpreting the classics. Alice for example.

Don't forget... (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323857)

the Smurfs. There's a pRon (=$$$) story to be told, with all those males and only one Smurfette.

Re:Missing some of the review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20324175)

Actually, Nelvana was way ahead of you. Back in the day in Toronto, the storyboard artist cubicles were well papered with Care Bear spinoffs - Care Bear Rambo, Care Bear Crucified, etc.

These were usually yanked down during any sort of official visit, but I've run into a few folks with very fond memories of spying them during school tours.

Re:Missing some of the review (1)

monopole (44023) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324181)

McFarlane has a vision of Oz that is a dark, edgy and muscular PG-13, without a singing Munchkin in sight," wrote journalist Michael Fleming. "That was clear with a toy line he launched several years ago that featured a buxom Dorothy and Toto re-imagined as an over-sized snarling warthog.

Olson's vision is of a bit tamer PG movie and hopefully the two can find some middle ground of compromise that will please them both and not hurt the final product.


Aww, I want an unrated version combining the best parts of 'Elle Dee in the Land of Woz' [deniskitchen.com] and Zardoz [wikipedia.org] !!!

Hollywood thinking (3, Insightful)

taustin (171655) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323609)

"... hopefully the two can ... compromise ... and not hurt the final product.'"

That they can even say this with a straight face is why movies suck.

I call weightism! (-1, Redundant)

PavementPizza (907876) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323667)

This is weightist against 1 lb books!

sci-fi is alive & well in real time for US (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323739)

just more of the same whoreabull life0cidal disregard for us that we're being encouraged to ignore/become accustomed to?

http://www.bariumblues.com/electromagnetic_%20ener gy.htm [bariumblues.com]

as far as we're concerned, the nazis make inferior 'clouds'.

what a surprise/secret?

previous post:
corepirate nazis now providing 'cloud' cover
(Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21, @09:48AM (#20303795)
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/06/13240.sht [indymedia.org] [indymedia.org] [indymedia.org] [indymedia.org] [indymedia.org] ml [indymedia.org]

we're watching right now (& again today, 8/22) as they spray phoney clouds over our city. yikes almighty. took some pictures of the ever spreading 'trail', & the 'lovely' 'rainbow' around the sun (again).

it must not be that good for US or the whoreabull corepirate nazi execrable would be bragging about it.

see you there?

The later Oz books... (1)

Glowing Fish (155236) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323745)

Get progressively sillier, more episodic and more random. Its like Piers Anthony, only possible worse.

Re:The later Oz books... (1)

Pancake Bandit (987571) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324619)

Worse than the later Xanth books? Oh God.

If we're talking the original Oz books (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323747)

I'm saying Woo Hoo!

Jack, we need you, Pumpkin Head!

Copyright issues aside.. Question (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323763)

That "return to oz" piece of shit film that Disney put out, was that canon, or pure disney sequelitis, -- a la Cinderella part 2.

Re:Copyright issues aside.. Question (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323869)

It was closer to books than the original Wizard of Oz!

More bad news for Kansas... (1)

ibn_khaldun (814417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323791)

For those of us who already put up with endless Dorothy and Toto jokes, be afraid, be very afraid...

Barnstormer in OZ?? (1)

MeanE (469971) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323807)

Please? [wikipedia.org]

Warner Bros Runs Out of Ideas... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323833)

starts scraping the bottom of the barrel, will remake all 8 Police Academy movies.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel? (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324433)

Nah, that was years ago. That sound you're hearing is the scraping of desperate fingernails on the bedrock far below where the barely-remembered barrel used to be.

Movies:DDL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323871)

Blown Harry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323875)

They say

I want this to be 'Harry Potter' dark, not 'Seven' dark."
Well WB has pretty much blown the Harry Potter story. I would not expect them to do this very well either. In most of the HP stories, they cut a number of good elements out; then they had to cut more from the subsequent story. Now, if you go to the movies without reading the books, the movies do not make sense.

Also, WB wants Harry and company to always be perfect angels; yet a lot of the character development is due to Harry being a brat some of the time. Harry being a brat makes him more real

Converting 13.125 pounds of books into movies. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323879)

how many movies per pound?

FTA (4, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323911)

"Dorothy as some bondage queen isn't something I want to do," Olson told Fleming.

He can speak for himself. Red thigh-high stiletto boots work magic for me!

Re:FTA (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20324155)

Strawberry Shortcake [collarpurple.com] for me, thank you very much.

Re:FTA (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324355)

no to red. black works better for knee high stiletto boots.

Tin Woodman of Oz (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323919)

There's a group Animation:Master [hash.com] users who have been working on a full-length, CGI production of The Tin Woodman of Oz [hash.com] . The entire project is taking place on-line. For example, here are links to the production journal [hash.com] and the image gallery [hash.com] . You can find much more additional information - clips, discussions, animatics, models - on the website.

I'd think the development of an "Open" movie - much like Blender's Elephant's Dream [elephantsdream.org] and Project Peach [blender.org] - only more ambitious, would be more interesting to Slashdot readers.

More Books for Harry Potter fans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323929)

This time 15 of them!

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28009 [theonion.com]

Slashdot is not real journalism, i suppose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323951)

I guess Slashdot isn't real journalism, and accuracy is not a concern, so I should just relax and not worry about the fact that the article claims a studio has bought the rights from Tedd Turner to a series of books that are already in the public domain? I guess I shouldn't expect a correction cause, you know, its not important?

Good Grief (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20323955)

Anyone who read the OZ books would realize that they could not be faithfully made into a PG-13 script. The OZ books were strange, whimsical, very silly, and occasionally mind-blowing, but they were not written to be "edgy". Any successful adaptation would have plenty of cool special effects, humor, slapstick, good characterizations, but wouldn't be as action packed as a Harry Potter film, much less the Matrix. Some of the best in the series are over a century old, pre-jazz age. If any of you ever happen to see the original illustrations by John R. Neill, you'll understand that bringing that to the cinema would take the right sort of production team. These yahoos don't sound like they'd fit the bill.

Wizard of Oz theory (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323963)

That Baum was writing about monetary reform etc. Oz being ounces, the yellow brick road being gold. Silver slippers etc. Then you have the tin man, scarecrow, munchkins etc representing various facets of society.
 

Re:details on Wizard of Oz theory (1)

ibn_khaldun (814417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324053)

Details on the above referenced theory are here [amphigory.com]

Re:Wizard of Oz theory (1)

junior.kun (987391) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324207)

OZ experts disagree with this theory, pointing to the fact that there was no contemporary discussion of any sort of political interpretation when the book came out, Baum himself denied any political intention with the piece, and other case by case facts, such as the fact that there really were yellow brick roads in America at the time he wrote the books, he didn't have to be using yellow bricks to symbolize anything.

Re:Wizard of Oz theory (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324449)

Or of course it might have nothing at all to do with the politics of the time.

 

Re:Wizard of Oz theory (2, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324219)

Except he never mentions that, ever. Most of that speculation comes from the style of drawing, say that they were the same style that appeared in political cartoons; however they fail to mention that the reason that style was used in political cartoons because it was there style at the time. almost any drawing from that periods will look similar.

really, it's a case of finding pattern because you are looking for a pattern. Just because you interpret a pattern doesn't mean that pattern was intentional.

Sooo.... (3, Funny)

qzulla (600807) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323975)

Do you think they can get Pink Floyd for the sound track?

qz

American McGee (2, Interesting)

Paralizer (792155) | more than 7 years ago | (#20323989)

American McGee is supposed to be doing a film version of his video game American McGee's Alice [wikipedia.org] .
There is some info about it here [imdb.com] .

How will these versions compare? American's was very dark and twisted, with Alice emotionally disturbed and borderline insane. Characters were murdered and gruesome experiments were performed on the inhabitants of Wonderland.

15 ounce books (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324097)

sheesh, that's not even a full pound of books.

15 Oz Books = 0.94 pounds dam there heavy. (1)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324255)

Sorry couldn't help myself, just read like "all 15 Oz books" like they were meaning book weighing 15 Ounces and not the Oz as content.

15 Oz (1)

azenpunk (1080949) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324315)

it's a shame they didn't go for the whole pound.

They'll either be unfaithful or uncinematic (5, Insightful)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 7 years ago | (#20324377)

The Oz books are not very cinematic.

The 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz was almost an original creation. It was a success, not because of L. Frank Baum's story, but because of its wonderful performers, wonderful music, wonderful art direction, and interesting script. At least half of the cherished elements of the movie have no parallels in the original.

OK, so they have the Oz books, but have they got a Harold Arlen and a Ray Bolger and a Judy Garland?

Great material doesn't guarantee a great movie. Don't forget, there was also a Ralph Bakshi Lord of the Rings.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?