Pajiba reported on more new news from the supposed upcoming Wizard of Oz sequel, which was originally announced back in 2007. Todd McFarlan e was attached to this film a few times and rumors popped up that the film would be based off of his Twisted Land of Oz toy line which featured Dorothy in bondage. Most recently, Warner Brothers studios have released a synopsis of the new sequel in the works called "Oz: The Return to Emerald City"
It’s a modern-day sequel. The story centers on Dorothy Neil, a bright and ambitious young lawyer for a prestigious law firm in Chicago. Neil is the grand-daughter of Dorothy Gale, who is now an old woman living in Kansas and telling her tales about her time in the land of Oz to a new generation of kids. However, trouble is afoot in Oz, as a new witch is destroying the magic that keeps the entire place running. While babysitting her boss’ kid, the kid and Dorothy Neil are brought back to Oz and united with the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow and tasked with killing an evil witch and restoring order in Oz.
Is the new witches name "The Nothing?" I'm really feeling a mixture of The Neverending Story and Hook (The Robin Williams' film). This film was written by Josh Olson, which was a more family-friendly film than the one that Todd McFarlane wanted to make.
McFarlane's Dorothy McFarlane's Tinman
I want to create [an interpretation] that has a 2007 ‘wow’ factor. You’ve still got Dorothy trapped in an odd place, but she’s much closer to Ripley from Alien than a helpless, singing girl... [Dorothy is] up in the Antarctic, and there’s bad weather,” McFarlane said. “The point is that when you’re in bad weather in a s—tty place up north, it is completely gray. That would be our ‘black & white [sequence].’ Then she falls into her Shangri-La, called Oz, where suddenly everything’s in color... There’s still a thing called Toto, except its the biggest thing in the movie and not the smallest thing. [The beast called Toto] basically ate the first dog, and it’s this big thing that [the inhabitants of Oz] ride. They’ve given this generic word… so instead of horses, [people] ride Totos.”
Maybe making this film kid friendly, overall, is a better idea, especially if Warner wants to make some money on it. I've seen the toys in person before, and they look pretty cool, except for Dorothy, which I find a little creepy. I'd like to see McFarlane's vision of the movie, but I'd much rather see Olson's version. Hollywood hasn't made a really good adventure film (I haven't seen Where The Wild Things Are, so I'm not sure if it's good or not) in years. When I was growing up, I had all these epic adventure films to watch: Willow, Flight of the Navigator, Big Trouble in Little China, Goonies, Neverending Story, Tron, and many others. I don't feel like we get those as much anymore, and if we do, they fall flat. And all of those films I mentioned earlier, are still great to watch today, even thought I'm an adult. I'm personally hoping Josh Olson can not only create a great kids adventure movie, but also make a an adventure movie that adults can enjoy as well. The hard part for me though is that it's a sequel, and I'm always a little weary on sequels, especially when they are released decades apart from each other. What do you guys think? Is this a good idea? Would you rather see McFarlane's vision of the film or Olson's?
There was another sequal which was crazy! return to Oz i think it was called and it followed the books more. scarecrow was king and dorthy traveled on a flying bed. and she walked through the halls of the witches castle and she had display cases of heads ha ha
Sweet i just looked it up and found it:
This movie was F****d up as a kid, very creepy but sweet! ha ha
i guess so, it was on sci fi network, my buddy and are are conversating about it as we speak. "
Sorry, yes, that's the one! Good call xxCellPhoneGirlxx! I really tried to get into that series, but it was too dark & needlessly complex. It was also surrounding a descendent of Dorothy. I just couldn't get into it. Nice idea, but made wrong.
Because if it's a sequel then it should be... I know now not everybody is excited for Muscials (Basically becasue High School Musical came out and most adults hated it) but this being Oz I would expect for it to be a musical... @inferiorego: Can't they do both? The "Return to Oz" and the McFarlane version???
" There was another sequal which was crazy! return to Oz i think it was called and it followed the books more. scarecrow was king and dorthy traveled on a flying bed. and she walked through the halls of the witches castle and she had display cases of heads ha ha
Sweet i just looked it up and found it: This movie was F****d up as a kid, very creepy but sweet! ha ha "
I watched that just a few weeks ago. It's as mad now as when I first watched it when I was little! It takes a lot of elements from Marvelous Land of Oz & Ozma of Oz.
"What do you guys think? Is this a good idea? Would you rather see McFarlane's vision of the film or Olson's? "
Theirs already been sorta sequals .Would like to see mcfarlans version sorta but the ripley coment kinda threw that off.Sides Mcfarlane needs to be helping
Inferiorego, it warms my heart to hear someone else say Big Trouble in Little China, the Goonies and those other movies mentioned in the same sentence and with the same nostalgia by somebody else for a change. Thank you sir. As for the whole adventure film, you are right. It is rare that there is a movie that both children and overgrown children such as myself can enjoy (openly, that is). What about that Return to Oz sequel thingy, back in the 80's? Doesn't that count anymore? I remember liking it, but being told it was rubbish by my parents for whom the original was sacrosant. I will admit I did try to watch it on tv a few years ago and gave up
" There was another sequal which was crazy! return to Oz i think it was called and it followed the books more. scarecrow was king and dorthy traveled on a flying bed. and she walked through the halls of the witches castle and she had display cases of heads ha ha
Sweet i just looked it up and found it: This movie was F****d up as a kid, very creepy but sweet! ha ha "
Oh man I remember this one being really depressing, like everyone was stone and the lady with her switching heads. CRAZY
" There was another sequal which was crazy! return to Oz i think it was called and it followed the books more. scarecrow was king and dorthy traveled on a flying bed. and she walked through the halls of the witches castle and she had display cases of heads ha ha
Sweet i just looked it up and found it: This movie was F****d up as a kid, very creepy but sweet! ha ha "
Oh man I remember this one being really depressing, like everyone was stone and the lady with her switching heads. CRAZY "
I was thinking the same thing. That movie was seriously traumatic for a kid! Haha! :D Good times!
Twisted Land of Oz is the ONLY way you can follow up the original without it being awful. Some films/stories can't be followed up or remade unless the departure is so unique it becomes something entirely different (I'm not fond of The Wiz, but at least that has defined itself rather than being an afterthought).
All masculinity aside, the 39 film is one of the greatest cinematic feats Hollywood has ever produced. It's so classic and stands apart from Baum's original story that only something completely different in tone could ever compare (vaguely ironic phrasing, I know)
The child-like innocence of the Fleming film must be stripped away, or this film is doomed to be a hokey footnote of the original.
@Kid_Zombie:@xerox-kitty:@texasdeathmatch: Don't forget the talking chicken. And the flying bed was controlled by a talking moose head. And those creepy roller guys. I saw this maybe last year or so. I'm so glad I didn't see it when I was little, it would mess a kid up. I mean, seriously, they strapped her to that crazy bed to experiment on her? I absolutely hated this movie.
" Wasn't this already done in OZ the TV series? I have to admit, I'm not sure... I tried to watch it, but it was convoluted and... well, rubbish. "
I really liked the miniseries actually. Probably because I didn't tie it to the original Oz. I just saw it as a separate enterprise and to me it was a pretty imaginative and well acted flick.
" @Kid_Zombie:@xerox-kitty:@texasdeathmatch: Don't forget the talking chicken. And the flying bed was controlled by a talking moose head. And those creepy roller guys. I saw this maybe last year or so. I'm so glad I didn't see it when I was little, it would mess a kid up. I mean, seriously, they strapped her to that crazy bed to experiment on her? I absolutely hated this movie. I sure hope this new one is nothing like this. "
Belina was in the books. I don't know if the Gump (the moose head attached to the chaiselong with palm leaves for wings) was in the books. The roller guys were wheelers, and they came from the Nome King's lands outside of Oz :)
@AtPhantom said:
" @xerox-kitty said:
" Wasn't this already done in OZ the TV series? I have to admit, I'm not sure... I tried to watch it, but it was convoluted and... well, rubbish. "
I really liked the miniseries actually. Probably because I didn't tie it to the original Oz. I just saw it as a separate enterprise and to me it was a pretty imaginative and well acted flick. "
Sorry. No offence. I remember looking forward to watching it and being very disappointed.
" @Kid_Zombie:@xerox-kitty:@texasdeathmatch: Don't forget the talking chicken. And the flying bed was controlled by a talking moose head. And those creepy roller guys. I saw this maybe last year or so. I'm so glad I didn't see it when I was little, it would mess a kid up. I mean, seriously, they strapped her to that crazy bed to experiment on her? I absolutely hated this movie. I sure hope this new one is nothing like this. "
i guess so, it was on sci fi network, my buddy and are are conversating about it as we speak. "
Sorry, yes, that's the one! Good call xxCellPhoneGirlxx! I really tried to get into that series, but it was too dark & needlessly complex. It was also surrounding a descendent of Dorothy. I just couldn't get into it. Nice idea, but made wrong. "
Was it better than that show "Oz"? That was so different from the original movie. I don't even know who was supposed to be Dorothy.
i guess so, it was on sci fi network, my buddy and are are conversating about it as we speak. "
Sorry, yes, that's the one! Good call xxCellPhoneGirlxx! I really tried to get into that series, but it was too dark & needlessly complex. It was also surrounding a descendent of Dorothy. I just couldn't get into it. Nice idea, but made wrong. "
Was it better than that show "Oz"? That was so different from the original movie. I don't even know who was supposed to be Dorothy. "
I would honestly rather see McFarlane's version of Oz, because the first movie basically finished like it should have, there has not been or and never will be a need for a sequel. The idea of taking a concept that could be utterly disturbing because of parts that already were pretty disturbing in my opinion is a great way to do it, just look at American Mcgee's Alice, that was an amazing story and I can't wait for more. Oz has always reminded me of Alice in Wonderland, and I would rather see a different view on it than a trying to hash together a crappy sequel.
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment