HTF REVIEW: The Wizard Of Oz - Three-Disc Collector's Edition (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). - Page 14

Don't be so hard on Disney. It looks like they will be doing justice to the Narnia Chronicles. Disney execs aren't so dense that they haven't figured out that "dark" can sell.

-Lyle J.P.

well disney does seem to me taking steps to a turn around, but I still wont be holding my breath for a good "by the book" ox adaptation any time soon.

You never know ... perhaps Paul Bunyan is in the works.

[Fred Flintstone]Droll...very droll.[/Fred Flintstone]

What? How can Disney own the rights to these public domain books? According to The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz website:


Notice that it says all of the titles written by Baum are in the public domain, including the illustrations. Disney owns nothing. And since the books are in the public domain, Disney was free to make a film inspired by them using the Muppets (which they DO own, unfortunately). And so is anyone else, I'd imagine.

Or am I missing something?

Oz Books Copyright Info from Wizard Of Oz FAQ

I was under the impression that Disney owned the film rights somehow. perhaps i have bad information.

EDIT:

Upon further reflection, I am sure I have gotten myself completely confused.

Oh, yeah, the Oz books and all the Oz characters passed into public domain long ago... Which is why, if you go into the children's section of any large bookstore, you'll see about 10 different editions from different companies, and there have been many more than that. As is Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, the complete works of Dickens, etc., etc.

Pan is not PD in the UK - due to special legislation protecting the royalties that are traditionally paid to the Great Ormond's Children's Hospital.

That's why Disney dropped out as a co-producer of the recent live action version Universal eventually released on its own - the Mouse didn't want to pay royalties on any merchandising.

Even though the title is PD everywhere else in the world, producers are still encouraged to pay some kind of royalty to the hospital as a goodwill gesture. The UK special legislation was intended to nudge folks into doing the right thing outside of the country.

Disney held a few rights until they finally went into PD. "Return to Oz" was an attempt to try and cover some of those fees Walt had paid for rights many years earlier but never got around to using.

The original 1939 Wizard of Oz was based on only one of the books "...and Walt had owned the rights to the novels for a number of years, even embarking in the late 1950s on an aborted feature starring members of The Mickey Mouse Club." (excerpt from "The Disney Studio Story" by Richard Holliss & Brian Sibley)

I've read plenty in this thread about the video but was interested in more comments comparing the original mono track to the new 5.1 mix. What do people think of the new mix?

Just wondering if anyone else noticed this:

On Disc 1, In the "We Haven't Been Properly Introduced" segment for Terry (the dog that played Toto), it is revealed at the end the Terry was female.

However, when they show the clip of "Terry" from "Tortilla Flat", the dog that Frank Morgan holds up (the one that's supposed to be Terry) is OBVIOUSLY a male!