Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORGOCH: Fer Pete's Dragon's sake! Why don'tcha just start singin' You Ain't Witch Enough ta Hex My Man!"
Originally Posted By Manfried <<I would say that Tim Burton's Alice was big improvement over the Walt Disney version.>> I would not call it an improvement, but I liked both versions. Different interpretations, just like Oz would be.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Says who? I'm guessing that the look of movie will be different than the 1939 MGM version." "I'm hoping it will be completely different." Me too. I'd imagine it's in their interest to come up with w completely new take on the stories. Otherwise, what's the point? "All they have to do is go to Baum's books for inspiration. I always thought that the Wizard of Oz was a brilliant film, but the wondeorus vision created in the books makes WofO look like an elaborate vaudaville stage play." Yeah. Love the original, but there's lots of room for different interpretations. Especially for something so fantastical. I'd say avoiding stepping on the toes of the original is really a non-issue. If it is an issue, Disney really screwed up the movie.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt The first trailer: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyywumlnhdw&feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...embedded</a>#!
Originally Posted By 9oldmen Looks good. Can WB "sue" them over the choice to change from B&W to color for the transition from Kansas to Oz? I don't think you can copyright something like that. I also noticed the change in aspect ratio.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Can WB "sue" them over the choice to change from B&W to color for the transition from Kansas to Oz?<< They can try, but they won't get very far. It was done in an Oz-themed cartoon a few years before the movie.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I'm imagining all the rights and regulations between Warner Bros. and Disney have been worked out. The look of the opening is pretty cool. I could see that part of it fitting in to the Frontierland / Big Thunder Ranch area in Disneyland. For the movie... Overall, it's a bit heavy on the CGI for me. I have the same gripe about Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" -- very tedious, I never thought for a minute I was anywhere else but on a sound stage with green screen backdrops. 'Oz' might be fun though..
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "The look of the opening is pretty cool. I could see that part of it fitting in to the Frontierland / Big Thunder Ranch area in Disneyland." An Oz themed subsection might make a nice transitional area between Frontierland and Fantasyland.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA It could be like 'Spillikin Corners' at Magic Mountain! Oh please???? That would be fun!
Originally Posted By DBitz2 There is a difference. The MGM Wizard of Oz black and white sequences are sepia tinted. The footage seen in the Oz trailer is traditional black and white. Personally, I'd rather see sepia or muted, monochromatic photography for the Kansas scenes rather than the contrasty black and white in the trailer, if movie is actually going to go from monochromatic Kansas to color Oz. The photographic look of a film, whether lush, saturated colors or muted and monochromatic, or switching from black and white to color would be artistic choices that wouldn't be copyrighted or trademarked. The MGM Wizard of Oz is not the only movie that used black and white and color. At any rate, the movie certainly looks visually rich. I hope the story is good! I'm not sure how I feel about an attraction based on this film in Disneyland. I love hot air balloons, though, so if the ride vehicle was a balloon, I think I could be down for it!
Originally Posted By DBitz2 >>It could be like 'Spillikin Corners' at Magic Mountain! Oh please???? That would be fun!<< That's going a ways back! I remember Spillikin Corners. That kind of thing was probably better suited for Knott's, but, it was a noble attempt to make MM more than just a collection of thrill rides. I always suspected that they got the idea from Silver Dollar City in Branson. Magic Mountain definitely was more enjoyable back then.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "An Oz themed subsection might make a nice transitional area between Frontierland and Fantasyland." Honestly, you LPers and your desire for movie related attractions! Is there no originality left in the world?! On a side note, I like James Franco. He's a good actor, really smart, and kinda cute. What's not to love?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA To clarify, I'm seeing the 'Oz' in Big Thunder Ranch as a temporary promotion kind of thing.. Similar to the "Hunchback of Notre Dame" show they had back there... Some new things to look at -- maybe a magic show as in the trailer -- some walk-around characters -- merchandise to buy -- a place to show the movie trailer. It lasts for 6 months and it's out.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "I'm imagining all the rights and regulations between Warner Bros. and Disney have been worked out." What would they need to work out?
Originally Posted By Manfried Actually, the black and white sequences of "The Wizard of Oz" were shot on black and white stock. They acquired any "sepia" or other tone when the scenes were incorporated into the printing negatives with all the color scenes.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <"I'm imagining all the rights and regulations between Warner Bros. and Disney have been worked out." <What would they need to work out?> Whatever law suits might be filed. I was simply answering a question that was posed re: Warner Bros. suing Disney over the use of black and white to show 'Kansas.'
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Actually, the black and white sequences of "The Wizard of Oz" were shot on black and white stock. They acquired any "sepia" or other tone when the scenes were incorporated into the printing negatives with all the color scenes.<< That's really interesting, but I guess it makes sense. So there was no specific goal to do it in sepia? I guess if they really wanted to ensure that it stayed B&W, they would have had the Kansas/Oz transition at one of the points where the projector switches film reels, but that might just take a little too much coordination (and the shot that starts in B&W/sepia and ends in color probably wouldn't work quite as well). I've learned something today! >>re: Warner Bros. suing Disney over the use of black and white to show 'Kansas.'<< Everybody knows that Kansas is still in black and white. They haven't received color yet. Disney would only be accurately portraying the state if they did it in color. : )
Originally Posted By Manfried B&W versus color is a creative choice that would be a waste of any lawyer's time. They only like to litigate over things that are in gray areas.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Actually, the black and white sequences of "The Wizard of Oz" were shot on black and white stock. They acquired any "sepia" or other tone when the scenes were incorporated into the printing negatives with all the color scenes.<< Source? Cause everything else I've ever seen or read about the movie says otherwise. Of course it was *shot* on black and white stock. You don't shoot on sepia stock. But they did *print* the first reel on it. The "switch-to-color" scene starts with a stand-in Dorothy in a sepia (not gray) dress.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance All this talk about Kansas is making me mad. I'm still angry over their ruling back in 1999 to stop teaching evolution.
