Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl "mawnick," you've just described the very worst thing about the 1939 MGM musical: that its wanton revisionism, whether as pointless as ruby slippers for the sake of technicolor, or as actively destructive as turning the whole story into a dream-fantasy, has supplanted Baum's canon in popular culture. And "ORWEN," the vast majority of what Walt and his successors exercised poetic license with originated from folklore, filtered through Perrault, Andersen, The Brothers Grimm, et al., and as such, HAS NO CANON (and no continuity) to disrupt.
Originally Posted By Bellella One word for this idea of putting Oz into Disneyland. S. T. U. P. I. D.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "I think there's room, at this point, for two interpretations of that universe. Especially if one is creatively dead." Room, sure. There was an entire park, as someone linked to. But unless and until this new move lives for 75 years in the national psyche, it's divergence, some of which is unavoidable due to copyright, is going to seem "off" to scads of people, like it or not. <<"An Oz land would by definition not look like anything in the real world,">> "This is a feature, not a bug." I disagree. For an attraction, yes. For a land, that unlike CL or HP, can't be read as anything but belonging to that one property, it's not. It's a mistake to base any whole land on one property, IMO, but if it can be read as a whole as a time-and-place and the attractions get more specific, that's better. Otherwise, if you have no interest in the property, you have no interest in the whole land. For instance, I thought Cars were the weakest Pixar films, but I'm going to love hanging out in mid-century route 66 again. <<
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<One word for this idea of putting Oz into Disneyland.>> S-lipper T-heme U-nnaturally P-laced I-nside D-isneyland
Originally Posted By mawnck >>S-lipper T-heme U-nnaturally P-laced I-nside D-isneyland<< See also: Cinderella. ;-)
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl > See also: Cinderella. . . . whose distinctive footgear is, depending on who you talk to, either glass, gold, or white rabbit fur. And that's assuming you limit yourselves to the European versions of the story.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And "ORWEN," the vast majority of what Walt and his successors exercised poetic license with originated from folklore, filtered through Perrault, Andersen, The Brothers Grimm, et al., and as such, HAS NO CANON (and no continuity) to disrupt.> I'll be sure to tell the authors of Pinocchio, Mary Poppins, and The Little Mermaid (among others), who had their "canons" changed by Disney at least as much as Baum did by MGM. And Travers lived to see what they did with her work - and hated it. Me, I loved it. Yes, folklore itself morphs through oral re-telling, but those stories were actual books by actual authors.
Originally Posted By mawnck And Pinocchio is a good example of taking some pretty lousy source material and getting a fantastic movie out of it. I could argue that MGM improved on Baum's book, but I wouldn't want someone's head to explode. ;-)
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl Ah, but "ORWEN" was speaking specifically of fairy tales (eliminating Pinocchio and Mary Poppins) that Walt adapted (eliminating The Little Mermaid, the only Disney fairy tale film to date with a literary, rather than folkloric, origin) for film.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Most people consider Pinocchio a fairy tale. (It even HAS a fairy - Snow White, for one, does not.) And even if you only count LM, that's still a 1-to-1 tie for Disney vs. MGM. Come on, dude. The folkloric thing was a big enough stretch as it was. Disney adapts things all the time, in all genres. So do the other studios. It's the nature of the beast. To complain about movie studios departing from "canon" is like complaining about rain being so dang wet.
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl "I could argue that MGM improved on Baum's book" How, "mawnck" (sorry about misspelling your user-ID earlier; it wasn't intended), did they do THAT? By turning what is arguably the first American literary fairy tale into a dream-fantasy? (dream-fantasy is fine as a vehicle for absurdist political satire, as in Lewis Carroll's "Alice" books, but not for anything where the audience is expected to care about the characters: the minute more than a tiny fragment of a story becomes a dream, the "stakes" drop to zero.) By throwing to the winds the continuity of a series of novels that had been developed over a 20-year period, twenty years before the film was released?
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl From Wikipedia: "The Adventures of Pinocchio . . . is a novel for children by Italian author Carlo Collodi, written in Florence. The first half was originally a serial between 1881 and 1883, and then later completed as a book for children in February 1883. It is about the mischievous adventures of Pinocchio (pronounced [piˈnɔkkjo] in Italian), an animated marionette, and his poor father, a woodcarver named Geppetto. It is considered a classic of children's literature and has spawned many derivative works of art, such as Disney's 1940 animated movie of the same name, and commonplace ideas such as a liar's long nose." A novel is not a fairy tale.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Wikipedia is defining Pinocchio, not a fairy tale. A fairy tale is generally thought to be a children's story with magical elements (you know, like a puppet coming to life through the actions of... a fairy). Try again.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Most of the changes that have been made by Walt Disney have been for the better. Plus things that work well in a book don't always translate well to the motion picture screen. The popularity of the movies speak as to the success of these changes so it beomces a moot point, after all is said and done, to complain about such changes. ORWEN: The Wizard of Oz is a wonderful movie and the fact that it has become an American icon speaks for itself, too. I'm glad they changed the color of the silver shoes to ruby red. ORGOCH: Well, I'd sure like ta know when somebody's gonna' feed me some frog legs!!
Originally Posted By Yookeroo OK, OZ fanboys might be even nuttier than Disney fanboys. I now love the phrase "wanton revisionism".
Originally Posted By mawnck >>By turning what is arguably the first American literary fairy tale into a dream-fantasy?<< Yes. They also added some kick-ass production numbers. And took out all that tedious mucking about with the china doll people. >>not for anything where the audience is expected to care about the characters: the minute more than a tiny fragment of a story becomes a dream, the "stakes" drop to zero.<< Oh. So THAT explains why the MGM movie was such a flop. Nobody was interested in the characters because it was a dream. (Ow! I think I strained my sarcaserator.) >>OK, OZ fanboys might be even nuttier than Disney fanboys. I now love the phrase "wanton revisionism".<< Amazing how people can get so incensed by such silly little things as changing the color of the slippers. Now sticking Disney characters in iasw, on the other hand ... THAT is an outrage against the spirit of American art and creativity! (Ow.)
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: We're right there with you in what you're saying, mawnck, duckling. You go dear!
