Wizard of Oz

>>88961401
Nobody is allowed to remake the wizard of oz, nobody would dare do that.

At least there's Return to Oz.

>>88961401
*cough*1939 movie*cough*

>>88961517
>implying the term "remake" means that film doesn't exist

>>88961517
I like the 1939 film but I hate that it's basically stopped anyone from doing anything interesting with the OZ series. Return to Oz was fun at least.

What exactly makes the 1939 movie too sacred to remake when Hollywood has already literally remade everything else ever produced?

>>88961401

Oz films would be fairly expensive to do properly but are mostly death at the box office.

gotta pry the rights to the first film from MGM's cold dead hands first

File: the-wiz.jpg (232KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 960x1280px

>>88961590
>>88961605
>>88961797
Don't act like you've forgotten.

Here's the problem, mgm owns the rights to the visual style of the film.
The visual style of the film is basically as close as you could get to the wizard of Oz illustrations with real actors.

So if you want to be faithful to the books youd want to use the right style, but the style itself is copyrighted for all intents and purposes, you can't even use the wicked witch of the west's wart on the nose.

So you're basically forced to do your own different take on the Oz books.

But here's the other problem, most people haven't read the wizard of Oz so even if you take all the liberties, the sad fact is people just kind of don't give a shit, and don't have the original context of the original stories to understand a different take.

Most people who aren't elderly haven't even watched the movie.

>>88962134
Specifically, Dorothy would have to have silver slippers instead of ruby, for starters. Just like in OP's pic.

>>88962004

MGM doesn't own it or, for that matter, the rights to anything they made before 1986; Ted Turner kept the rights to their library when he sold the company back to Kerkorian.

>>88962086
Not enough Michael Jackson.

>>88961401
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeAexBEOEMc

Give this video a watch, James gives his thoughts on why they can't remake it, it's partly due to public domain and the fact that the original movie exists.

Doesn't it basically get remade all the time? The Wiz, Muppet Oz, grimdark scifi Oz ,etc.

>>88961401
Disney is scared to death of the Oz property because the most beloved and popular version is not owned by them (the MGM musical with Judy Garland). They have tried for years to "do their own spin" on Oz but it almost always fails. That being said, Return to Oz was terrifying (in a good way) and ambitious.

I could see them adapting the books in to an animated series but it would be Disney and kinda milquetoast.

In a perfect world, I could see them adapting the original L. Frank Baum series like how Warner Bros. adapts DC graphic novels. One out every year or so.

>>88962817
The comics Scottie Young did for Marvel are pretty good.

File: 9682a-slinkyozma.jpg (701KB, 559x800px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 559x800px

I've always found it interesting that the first sequel to The Wizard of Oz, The Land of Oz (1904) features a young male protagonist, Tip, turn out by the end of the book to be the secret princess of the king of Oz, changed at birth by a witch and chooses to return to "his" original form of Princess Ozma.

This was popular fiction for kids and nobody batted an eye. Over 100 years ago.

>>88963019
Another thing about the Oz stories, they're boring as shit when you just read them as prose. For all the fantastic animals and creatures and settings and magic, it reads like a technical manual. No character has their own voice, they just all sort of speak with the same bland vocabulary and style as the narration. I could imagine being completely underwhelmed by the vague theme of transexuality if it was described as lifelessly as Baum described it.