Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Disney has actually owned the rights to all the Oz books except The Wizard of Oz for decades. In fact, I seem to recall reading something once about Walt Disney announcing a Disney produced Wizard of Oz film back in the 60s. Disney did eventually produce Return to Oz, which was something of a flop.<< Yes, yes and yes. A few more Trims 'n Ends... MGM hasn't owned the rights to the Judy Garland musical version in years. That was acquired by Ted Turner along with the entire MGM film library in 1986. Turner Broadcasting was in turn consumed by Time-Warner in 1996. That's how the rights to the Oz film ended up with Warner Brothers. Walt Disney did acquire the rights to most of the Oz sequels in 1954. Walt did, indeed, work on various treatments over the years, including an announcement of a new musical to star the Mouseketeers (The Rainbow Road to Oz) in 1957. In 1958 the DIsneyland Fourth Anniversary Show featured the Mouseketeers performing excerpts from this aborted production. Although Walt never did complete a film version, he did develop an attraction for Disneyland. Here's a published description: "...Emerald City in the Land of Oz, a metropolis inside a magic mountain, guarded by animated soldiers. This is in model from now; it will reach Disneyland in two or three years." That was from the National Geographic, October, 1962. (1962!) The Oz scene at the Disney-MGM Studios (1989) was negotiated not with MGM, but with Ted Turner. An amusing side note-- the scene was to last a specific length of time, and when the attraction was finished, it was... too long! Turner apparently expected a huge new contract, but Disney simply trimmed the scene by removing the tornado sequence that preceded the arrival in Munchkinland. How did they do this in a completed attraction? By awkwardly inserting footage of Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer's Apprentice. (Ever wondered where THAT came from?) Every couple of years there's a fresh rumor that the whole scene will be removed, but there it is still... As for the balloon ride from Discovery Bay, that was actually a transitional attraction between Discovery Bay and Dumbo's Circus. I've never heard anything about any part of that addition owing a debt to the Wizard of Oz. (More, much more, about Walt's efforts to make his own Oz film here: <a href="http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief1/b/jim_hill/archive/2006/11/03/6565.aspx" target="_blank">http://jimhillmedia.com/editor...565.aspx</a> )
Originally Posted By tashajilek "Or would you prefer a passive journey, watching characters from "insert film here" ... on about THEIR journey?" I dont think anyone prefers Lands based on Movies, but at this point we will take what we can get. I would rather see something OZ related which is well done opposed to never having anything new at all. I couldnt imagine Disneyland without Indiana jones and Startours.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 ""Few people know the secondary Oz stories either."> "Well, I was assuming a successful Disney franchise would change this." It could be tremendously successful, or it could do no better than Return to Oz. Even if the former, of couldn't possibly wipe away 75 years of collective memory of the MGM film, which is sort if in the national DNA now.
Originally Posted By u k fan Just because a land is based on a movie I don't think it has to have passive attractions. FaL is full of passive attractions and not based on a movie, yet in an Oz land you can have been transported to the Land of Oz to have your own adventures just as Dorothy et al did. I have read quite a few Oz books and I think there is scope there for a land, but I think I'd rather see a broader theme for a land that could incorporate Oz elements!!!
Originally Posted By mawnck >>No matter how good Carsland comes out ... I'm not exactly thrilled with Disney taking a turn for lands that are locked completely to ONE brand/franchise.<< +1.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I'm I the only person who appreciated that bit of trivia from Doug? I am such a Disney geek!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <>>No matter how good Carsland comes out ... I'm not exactly thrilled with Disney taking a turn for lands that are locked completely to ONE brand/franchise.<<> I've said this too. But at least CarsLand can "read" as "Route 66 Land" when you're not on an attraction and just ambling around the land. And WWOHP at IOA can read as "quaint English village" even if you know nothing about Harry Potter. An Oz land would by definition not look like anything in the real world, thus making it harder to relate to if you know nothing of the source material. IMO, a land (as opposed to an attraction) should be broad enough that anyone can walk around and feel like "ah... here I am in (name-your-place-and-time-here)" without having to know a particular story or set of stories.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That said, I wouldn't mind a well-done Oz attraction for FaL, as it clearly fits the fantasy theme. Perhaps if they move the princesses outside the castle walls as rumored, then the facade could be where the PFF is now, with the show building back in the ranch area or even backstage if they're able to reconfigure that.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA This new 'Oz' movie has a whole different flavor from the MGM musical version. It would be like creating an area of a theme park based on the new Robert Downey Jr. / Jude Law 'Sherlock Holmes' movies and wondering how they'll incorporate Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. It's an Oz re-do! Not that the 'fairy tales with a twist' isn't a rather tired concept right now anyway, but that's another topic...
Originally Posted By mawnck >>It would be like creating an area of a theme park based on the new Robert Downey Jr. / Jude Law 'Sherlock Holmes' movies and wondering how they'll incorporate Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. << Not hardly. Only people who are at least somewhat movie buffs know or care who Basil Rathbone is. Oz is a horse of a different color. There's really no such thing as an Oz redo. There's the REAL Oz (MGM), and then there's all them other movies (past and future). You don't make a movie about an early rock and roll singer named Elvis and expect he's going to replace that Presley kid in the national consciousness.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <There's really no such thing as an Oz redo.> Totally disagree. How do you account for the popularity of a show like 'Wicked'?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt <There's really no such thing as an Oz redo.> "Totally disagree." So do I. Just look at the huge box office and artistic success of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.
Originally Posted By berol The point was that remakes won't supplant the MGM version. I don't see Wicked making people forget about the MGM version like that did with the previous films.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <The point was that remakes won't supplant the MGM version. I don't see Wicked making people forget about the MGM version like that did with the previous films.> I'm certainly not suggesting people 'forget' about iconic movies. But remakes, re-ups and reinventions of iconic movies have been done -- and many have been done successfully. No reason that a new 'Oz' movie could be produced, done well, and turned into a new land at Disneyland.
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl <There's really no such thing as an Oz redo. There's the REAL Oz (MGM), and then there's all them other movies (past and future).> "REAL Oz" is a series of novels by Lyman Frank Baum, the first of which was written in 1900. As utterly disgusting as I find the revisionism of Maguire (and the earlier revisionism of Philip Jose Farmer), the 1939 MGM film is the worst by far, because it created a "tail wagging the dog" effect, with a disgustingly large number of people regarding it, rather than Baum's novels, as canonical. And "Yookeroo," how exactly does the change from the canonical Silver Shoes to MGM's ruby slippers NOT qualify as being spectacularly pointless? (BTW, there was never any reason in RtO to even refer to the footgear in question: the canonical magical apparel that Dorothy had to take from the Nome King was a magic BELT.) Just about every problem in RtO, by the way, was caused by either a departure from canon, or a nod to MGM, or by conflating the first and second books, or by conflating characters (e.g., the overtly evil Mombi, from The Land of Oz, with the merely vain and lazy Langwidere, from Ozma of Oz)
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt And "Yookeroo," how exactly does the change from the canonical Silver Shoes to MGM's ruby slippers NOT qualify as being spectacularly pointless?" The sparkly red shoes were a critical to the look of the film because the movie was one of the first films to take advantage of the Technicolor process. Silver slippers wouldn't have been as vivid.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "It could be tremendously successful, or it could do no better than Return to Oz. Even if the former, of couldn't possibly wipe away 75 years of collective memory of the MGM film, which is sort if in the national DNA now." I think there's room, at this point, for two interpretations of that universe. Especially if one is creatively dead. "I have read quite a few Oz books and I think there is scope there for a land," If you must do a land based on one franchise, Oz is one of the best choices because of the broad scope of the books. Better than Harry Potter or Cars. "An Oz land would by definition not look like anything in the real world," This is a feature, not a bug. "The point was that remakes won't supplant the MGM version." Why would it have to? "The sparkly red shoes were a critical to the look of the film because the movie was one of the first films to take advantage of the Technicolor process. Silver slippers wouldn't have been as vivid." Seriously. I can't believe this needed explaining. Movies are a visual medium.
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl "The sparkly red shoes were a critical to the look of the film because the movie was one of the first films to take advantage of the Technicolor process. Silver slippers wouldn't have been as vivid." As I said, spectacularly pointless. It made absolutely no difference in terms of storytelling. It simply created one more area of divergence from canon, in a fundamentally non-canonical film that an alarming number of people mistake for being canonical.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>"REAL Oz" is a series of novels by Lyman Frank Baum, the first of which was written in 1900.<< Not to Joe Sixpack and his family. They don't know who L. Frank Baum is. But they sure as heck know Judy Garland. The MGM film IS canonical to the vast majority of the population. And there's nothing you can do about it.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Yes, a lot of ducklings out there don't realize that Dorothy's ruby slippers were originally silver--unless they bother to read the original book. M-G-M didn't think it mattered all that much what color the shoes were and they may have been correct. It certainly didn't hurt the story in any way. ORWEN: And of course Walt Disney, himself, took liberty with all the fairy tales by adding or subtracting things about them which he thought made his movies better and we can all argue until the bats fly home about whether those changes were good or not. ORGOCH: But the most important point we wanna' make--right now--is I'm HUNGRY! Anybody got some extra frog legs they's willin' ta toss this way???
