MovieChat Forums > Oz the Great and Powerful (2013) Discussion > This contradicts the message of The Wiza...

This contradicts the message of The Wizard of Oz

posted 11 years ago by dknudtson1995
33 replies | jump to latest

In the first one, Dorothy goes to Oz after passing out with the twister. When she wakes up at the end, we realize it had all been a dream. She uses elements in her own world to directly effect the one in Oz, therefore Oz is nothing more than the symbolic interpretation of her own world.

While in Oz The Great and Powerful, he does the same thing. There's a twister which he gets sucked into and than lands in Oz. We can assume if we are going off the original movie, that this place is fake and the delusion of Oz's imagination, again using things from hi sown world, such as Zach Braff as the monkey.

So when we get to the end, and he doesn't go back to the real world, we can only assume that he is in a coma or dead after the twister and will never wake up.

I do acknowledge that in the books, Oz is a real place. However, the film does not follow any book and merely creates a back story off of the original film.

Any thoughts?

[–] Wildstyle26 11 years ago

You can't connect the 2 films.

This film is another adaptation of the books. In the books, Oz is a real place, just as it is here.

The 1939 film is based off books, but can't have a sequel or be connected because Oz was only a dream in that film.

This film is like Carrie 2013. It paid homage to the classic film, but it was different takes on novel series.

In the books, the witch is yellow, and is afraid of the dark. Oz is a real place. Ms. Gultch doesn't exist, there was no risk of losing Toto, and Glinda was the witch of the South, unlike 1939 where they blended 2 characters together, and made Glinda the witch of the North.

[–] Dave_44 11 years ago

Oz is real? Must have missed that part...When Oscar first finds China Doll she can't walk, so he's fixes he legs like couldn't in Kansas. And it's the same girl. Same with Frank...Zach Braff is his partner and a flying monkey (but a good one)...And Oscar's Finance was Gilda.

Everyone from Kansas ended up Oz, the same way. Seemed more like the same person having a similiar dream.

[–] lokis_angels 11 years ago

I am undecided to Oz being real or not. I do like the way this story is unfolding. I am not familiar with the book, so I am not sure what is actually from the book and what is director's choice. This film completely follows the trend of making prequels to classics. If we look at the ongoing story, I think things blend in nicely.

The wizard of Oz (Oscar, that is) is swept away by a tornado to deliver him to Oz. He meets the witches, one being wicked, one being good, one being not too wicked, but has emotional issues. So he sorts out the mess, gets to abandon the witches to their respective sides of Oz and live the good life. (Pop quiz: "It's good to be the king", who in what movie?)

Now some years later the daughter of his real/ previous world sweetheart (Dorothy Gale, offspring of Annie and John Gale) gets swooped up and put in Oz too. Coincidence or not, she sets off to Emerald City to find the Wizard in hopes of going home again. In the proces encounters some witches, taking care of that and finally meeting the Wizard, who now knows how to get back home, but just likes his life the way it is.

[–] Diablo-Helldemmon 11 years ago

I choose to believe that the land of OZ is real, and everything that happens there actually happens. Especially with the new movie. Oscar never goes home. He like Oz and Glinda to much, so he decides to stay there. Good choice, by the way.

Having said that... that quote must be said by Mel Brooks as Rabbi Tuckman in Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

Logan: I don't know!
Rogue: You don't know, or you don't care?
Logan: Pick one. X-Men

[–] mjwm44 11 years ago

Actually, he says it (several times) 12 years earlier, in the French Revolution part of History of the World, Part I

[–] reaseltbim 11 years ago

the fact that the girl cannot walk and the china doll legs are broken to me only means that Oz is like an alternate reality. (Same with the other characters)

Besides, the witches don't exist in the real world, so who would the two witches be based on in his real world?

[–] honky275 11 years ago

>>>Besides, the witches don't exist in the real world, so who would the two witches be based on in his real world? <<<

I thought this was rather obvious. Evanora was based on the new girl he hired for his stage act, the one who nearly spoiled his show, and who he would have tried to romance if he had the time.

And Theodora was based on the girl that was mentioned in the opening sequence, but never seen - Oz's previous assistant, the girl whose heart he broke. The implication was that she was so devastated that she couldn't function, and probably harbored a grudge, much like Theodora later did.

[–] aussievic0 11 years ago

Sorry, not sure to what you are inferring. It is known that there are people in our real world who claim to be witches. I don't know of anyone disproving their claims (as yet).

[–] reaseltbim 11 years ago

no I meant that the two witches don't have a real world counterpart.

Seems like everyone in Oz had a real world counterpart (Real world meaning the real world in the movie)

But the witches didn't have real world counterparts.

[–] aussievic0 11 years ago

Hah, thanks for clarification . . .

[–] paulizasoain 10 years ago

My interpretation is that he falls asleep or dies. What we see later is a new dreamed life in which he sees himself confronting with all his frustrations he had previously in his life, but this time he finds the way to solve them.
This frustrations I mean are the girl who has asked him to walk, the desires to be grateful, the woman that he cared about but he had let go, the fact of being a good man, being a friend of his helper (the monkey in the dream).And most importantly, the film shows us that the solution of everything is insight our own thoughts.

[–] Moviefan-Two-Kay-Four 10 years ago

The allusions to characters in Kansas was a deliberate nod to the 1939 film, but Raimi stressed that for the purposes of this tale, Oz was a very real place. This was also the position of author L. Frank Baum; the whole "dream angle" was invented for the Judy Garland version.

[–] JBRWocky 9 years ago

It is my impression that the 1939 film was heavily revised from the original books and the original books were much darker. You could also say that about the Disney version of Alice and Wonderland and all films of Gulliver's Travels with the exception of the Ted Danson version which depicts all of Swift's novel rather than the first couple of chapters.

[–] Moviefan-Two-Kay-Four 9 years ago

There were many changes between Baum's first "Oz" book and the 1939 film. In addition to the whole "dream" angle, Baum's version of the Emerald City was not actually green; people only saw it that way because of tinted glasses. The Wizard himself was a very short man on top of a large stool, and there were actually four witches in total (one for each direction). Baum had Glinda come from the South as in Raimi's film, but Victor Fleming combined her with the unnamed Witch of the North for his movie. Also, Dorothy's slippers in the novel were silver, but the movie changed them to red as a showcase for Technicolor, which was a then-new process. There's tons more, but those are the ones which come to mind at the moment.

[–] Keyser_Soze1000 10 years ago

Raimi and the producer confirmed it's an alternate reality, not a dream.

I'm telling you it's Keyser Soze!

[–] !!!deleted!!! (47421091) 11 years ago

As others have said, it's a different version than the film of '39.

But, I thought the way the characters in Kansas mirrored the ones in Oz (as the 39 film did), it would end up a dream. Perhaps it is, but the only way to make a sequel to this film is if it wasn't revealed to be a dream at the end.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (47421091) 11 years ago

The "reality" of Oz must be kept up in the air if any sequels are planned or even contemplated. If Frank woke up back in Kansas knowing it was a dream, how would they explain his return to Oz in a sequel? If they did a sequel, how would they explain that he wasn't aware that he was again in a dream?

[–] neil-476 11 years ago

Perhaps a bit of overthinking going on here. It's a film, chaps. They made it up.

[–] perrycoins 11 years ago

Has anyone actually read the books? The entire series is nothing but a psuedo socialist anthem.

http://www.b5tech.com/

[–] perrycoins 11 years ago

Has anyone actually read the books? The entire series is nothing but a psuedo socialist anthem.

http://www.b5tech.com/

[–] Keyser_Soze1000 10 years ago

Except that Raimi and the producer said that, just like in the books, this Oz world is real and not a dream.

I'm telling you it's Keyser Soze!

[–] stanleyhetz 11 years ago

In the first one, Dorothy goes to Oz after passing out with the twister.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrxQUxWDDXQ

[–] furrytaleinewyork 10 years ago

Please don't refer to the 1939 film as the 'original' - although it's by far the best known Oz film, it wasn't actually the first one to be made. There were several silent films before it

[–] Splarne 10 years ago

....and this is why there just won't be a widely accepted oz movie. the 800 lb pink gorilla with orange and purple polka dots is the reference everyone would like to use as "original".

its a real shame too. the oz storyline has been added to by several authors over time. the garland film could fit nicely along side these if it wasn't such a legal nightmare.

***

Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

[–] jon_combo 10 years ago

Dorothy still has the Ruby Slippers at the very end of the 1939 film, after she thinks it is all a dream.