Ok so, first of all, all of these movies are dramatically different. They are all based off of the L. Frank Baum book series; the first one being "The Wizard of Oz"
The Wizard of Oz (1939) was actually one of the closest depictions of the book a film has done. i.e. The Wizard of Oz (1910, 1914, 1925). But that doesn't mean much, unfortunately. The original book has its differences and similarities(i.e. Dorothy is actually a little girl, they literally transplant a brain into the Scarecrow, the Lion is an actual lion that talks etc).
Next came the "sequel" nobody seemed to understand: "Return to Oz." None of the favorite characters were there, it wasn't a musical, very very dark, and very little resemblance to the happy little film we've enjoyed for years. The reason behind this is because "Return to Oz" is an ALMOST page for page adaptation of the 3rd book in the series, "Ozma of Oz." The book was rather exciting and gripping but once the story came off the page and onto film, people realized how dark it was. A Queen who stole heads, an evil King turning her friends into Ornaments, the Wheelers, the Yellow Brick Road destroyed, everyone in the Emerald City being turned to stone...the list goes on.
But at the same time, the writer and director took some really great liberties by alluding to and using some of the same iconic imagery the first film did (People in her real life were people in Oz, the Sepia tone versus technicolor ETC).
And this new movie is somehow loosely based off the first movie and other OZ books. I can't even begin to explain it.
Unfortunately, as an OZ fan, these CANNOT be viewed together.
As a moviegoer, you can probably see this new one as a prequel to the Wizard of Oz (1939).
One last thing. I read this above:
"Also, Toto didn't talk, but Bilena did when she came to Oz."
Quick fact, all animals in OZ can talk. In the 5th book, they finally realized that they never heard Toto talk and when they brought it up to him, he responded, "I have nothing to say." And ran off to go play. Haha kind of a let down...but an interesting little tidbit.
My suggestion? Read the books. They are great fantasy. Fun reading. You'll like them better than the movies and respect "Return to Oz."
:)
reply
share
Cbc-MacDixy
12 years ago
In depth reply. Though I wonder how much the Return to Oz's director was pushed in one direction or the other by studio execs. Sure, R.T.O. was closer to the book ,then why bother to include elements from the MGM film? I also guess that the idea to make the movie far different in tone from the happy 1939 movie means they must have thought that people had short memories and basically forgot about the old movie. Big miscalculation there I think.
Overall, I liked the film and gave it a 7 rating. That's my "adult" rating however. If I had given it a rating in 1985 when I 12 yrs old I'm pretty sure I would have given it a lower score.
reply
share
maskedman66
11 years ago
The inclusion of the Ruby Slippers was the only mistake that film made. As for the "dark" tone, that was the whole point of the story; the Nome King had made things in Oz gloomy, and Dorothy put them to rights.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" is an absolute statement.
reply
share
DIguana
12 years ago
The reason behind this is because "Return to Oz" is an ALMOST page for page adaptation of the 3rd book in the series, "Ozma of Oz."
You've never read the book, have you?
A Queen who stole heads
Langwidere was a princess, and she wanted to trade heads with Dorothy, not steal.
an evil King turning her friends into Ornaments
That much is true
the Wheelers
Shown in the book to be all bark, no bite
the Yellow Brick Road destroyed
Didn't happen. In fact, barely any of "Ozma of Oz" even took place in Oz; the bulk of the action was in the Land of Ev, across the desert from Oz, and the characters only went back to Oz (which was completely intact and always had been) after the Nome King was dealt with
everyone in the Emerald City being turned to stone
Again, completely fabricated for the movie. The closest thing to this in the books was Mombi trying to turn Tip into a marble statue, but he escaped that fate.
--
Hulk want hug kitties
But they so easy to squish
Hulk live in cruel world
reply
share
maskedman66
11 years ago
"they literally transplant a brain into the Scarecrow"
Wrong! The Wizard mixes up some bran with pins and needles and packs it into the Scarecrow's head.
"the Lion is an actual lion that talks"
So what was Bert Lahr playing?
""Return to Oz" is an ALMOST page for page adaptation of the 3rd book in the series, "Ozma of Oz."
No, not nearly. What it is, is a seamless blending of elements from the second book, "The Marvelous Land of Oz," and the book you mention.
"People in her real life were people in Oz, the Sepia tone versus technicolor"
The Oz characters had their doubles, barring Ozma, who was herself, just stuck in the interstices between Oz and the outside world. Dr. Worley was the Nome King's human agent. There was no sepia tone, but Kansas did appear appropriately gray, as Baum described it.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" is an absolute statement.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4782)
5 months ago
"the Lion is an actual lion that talks"
So what was Bert Lahr playing?
An anthropomorphic lion. Actual lions aren't bipeds, don't have human body proportions and limb design, and don't have slightly modified human faces.
reply
share