Oz: The Great and Powerful (3 Viewers)

[Adam Lenhardt]

The "Wizard of Oz" prequel from Sam Raimi. I'm not sure how the movie will be, but the poster's one of the best I've seen in years:

 

[Edwin-S]

It does look good. At least there is some actual artistry in the image; something that is sorely lacking in modern movie posters.

 

[SilverWook]

Interesting that Disney would even go near an Oz film again after "Return to Oz". (Not counting the Muppet version.)

 

[DaveF]

The "Wizard of Oz" prequel from Sam Raimi.

Isn't that "Wicked?"

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Isn't that "Wicked?"

Similar idea, different backstory. "Wicked" tells a prequel story from the Wicked Witch of the West's point of view. This movie tells a prequel story from the Wizard's point of view.

 

[DaveF]

Is it a Frank L Baum story? Or is it an alternative fiction a la Wicked (great show, lousy book IMO

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Disney is crediting The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum as the source material. The broad strokes of the Wizard's backstory hew closely to the original novel:

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Circus magician Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkel Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs journeys from Omaha, Nebraska to Oz in a hot air balloon. Upon arrival, he finds himself worshipped as wizard, and uses his parlor tricks to sustain the illusion.

Beyond that, how close the writers are sticking to the more elaborate backstory parceled out in the later Oz novels is anyone's guess.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Trailer is out:

(Apple HD)
There's certain things I don't like -- too many weird CG creatures being the main one -- but I absolutely love the look of the thing. The real world/OZ transition is brilliantly done.

 

[dpippel]

Looks like another CGI crapfest to me, complete with the requisite "circling virtual camera" shots. Meh.

 

[Steve_Tk]

Bleh.

 

[DaveF]

Preview suggests an interesting story. But it also looks like the over-CG'd Alice in Wonderland.

 

I think that's a baby flying monkey in the trailer. Also, I read that the film goes from 4:3 black and white in 2D to widescreen color in 3D at the same time!

 

[godcube]

does anyone know the song in the trailer?
As for the film the trailer seems like it could be good, but I guess you never know. But I don't understand why everyone just keep making prequels nowadays, personally I don't like them too much, it's like watching something you already know the ending to.
http://www.lordoftherant.com/2011/05/does-anyone-else-hate-prequels.html

 

[EricSchulz]

There's a suggestion of that in the trailer...in the first few seconds, the flamethrower fireball actually goes out of "frame".

 

[cineMANIAC]

It does look good. At least there is some actual artistry in the image; something that is sorely lacking in modern movie posters.

You just know they're not going to use that poster for the DVD. Look for a giant James Franco floating head cover.
Just saw the trailer and it looks like it might be good. Kind of like what Peter Jackson did with King Kong - take an old movie and reimagine it, but ramp up everything about the original times a thousand. Amazing visuals won't make this film good if the story stinks.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Am I the only one who heard her say "You're an ass." in the trailer, before I realized she was actually saying "You're in Oz"?

 

[Edwin-S]

Looks like another CGI crapfest to me, complete with the requisite "circling virtual camera" shots. Meh.

What? Would you think it is a better film if they shot it using 1930's quality special effects? How would you shoot this type of film, with today's high expectations vis a vis SFX, without the use of CGI? Dressing a few guys up in flying monkey suits and hanging them from wires is not going to cut it for this type of film any more.

Bleh.

Outstanding criticism. At least DPippel gave some reasoning for his "Meh".

You just know they're not going to use that poster for the DVD. Look for a giant James Franco floating head cover.
Just saw the trailer and it looks like it might be good. Kind of like what Peter Jackson did with King Kong - take an old movie and reimagine it, but ramp up everything about the original times a thousand. Amazing visuals won't make this film good if the story stinks.

Yeah, I doubt the movie poster will make it onto the cover for the Blu-ray/DVD releases. The one big downfall of DVD/Blu-ray is that the size of the formats does not allow for a lot of real estate for cover artists to work with, unlike vinyl LPs and Laserdiscs. BD and DVD covers are the film equivalent of modern comic strip panels: big enough for two heads, a bit of text and not much more. Although, the cover for the Twilight Time release of "Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines" actually isn't too bad.

 

[dpippel]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S /t/322007/oz-the-great-and-powerful#post_3949227
What? Would you think it is a better film if they shot it using 1930's quality special effects? How would you shoot this type of film, with today's high expectations vis a vis SFX, without the use of CGI? Dressing a few guys up in flying monkey suits and hanging them from wires is not going to cut it for this type of film any more.

Whoa, Tex. I didn't say that CGI shouldn't be used. I said it looks like crappy CGI. Run of the mill CGI. Shots that are framed and tracked like many other CGI shots in many other CGI-laden films. The swoopy camera. The circling camera. The plunging camera. Overusing the virtual camera to do shots that are physically impossible just because they can be done digitally, and then doing them over and over again. I'm tired of seeing this kind of filmmaking. It's too clean, glossy, and technically precise, and as a result has become boring and generic IMO.

There isn't a thing wrong with CGI when it serves the story and is done with some originality. This trailer doesn't show me me either and turns me almost completely off to the film. Still, it IS Sam Raimi and maybe (just maybe) the movie itself will play differently on the big screen.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I think it's a fair criticism. I loved the trailer because of all the visual homages to the 1939 film, from the sepia Academy ratio real world stuff to the more saturated than saturated Cinemascope ratio Oz stuff, but once they got to Oz you could definitely tell there was some shared behind-the-scenes DNA with Burton's Alice in Wonderland. My favorite shots were some of the simpler shots, like Oscar Diggs and Kunis's character walking over the hill on the yellow brick road to reveal the Emerald City on the horizon. That being said, there were a lot of shots in the mix that could have been accomplished just about as well in 1939, intercut with a lot of blatant, flimsy feeling CGI. I'm hoping it's a matter of cramming most of the money shots into the trailer, because I want the story to have some weight to it, and that doesn't require an overabundance of CGI.

 

[cineMANIAC]

It's too clean, glossy, and technically precise, and as a result has become boring and generic

I'm with you on this one. An example of the kind of visual effect you only see nowadays (and irritates me to no end): the train sequence in CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (and last year's PRIEST). I know it would've been cost-prohibitive and time-consuming to shoot these scenes on a real train. But they look so obviously fake, almost cartoony, that it takes me out of the film. CGI is a wonderful tool if used creatively AND sparingly, only when it's needed to serve the story. That being said, I was very impressed with the visuals on view in that OZ trailer. I've always wondered what a film like THE WIZARD OF OZ would look like if made today. While the original was a product of it's time (and certainly shows it, with everything obviously shot on soundstages), there's an opportunity here to expand on that world and recreate it using today's vastly superior technology. I think Raimi will pull this off fairly well.