My understanding is that Franco was basically higher than that hot air balloon during the entirety of production and never knew his lines. Disney didn't even want Franco, and Raimi had gone to bat for him after striking up a friendship during the Spider-Man films. But Franco was so incredibly unprofessional, that he and Raimi got into a massive, friendship-ending fight, which consequently killed Raimi's passion for the project. That's why you have him blithely stating that someone else could direct the sequel if they wanted to. That's not widely reported, though, because Raimi, unlike Franco, is a professional.
I mean, while all of this I’m sure is true, it is NOT the reason the movie failed even a little lol. I can tell you that. If the movie succeeded no one would’ve cared if the sequel had been by the same director. It’s actually the fact the 90% of this film was created and finished with MGM Oz Style visuals when Warner Bros was brought in to analyze everything in comparison to MGMs Oz, which they own and this is a spiritual prequel to. They wanted pretty much everything scrapped, even down to the specific shade of the Wicked Witches green skin. So once that happened, the entire project had to be vaguely restyled to not resemble MGM Oz so closely and THAT is what killed his passion for it, because Raimi WANTED to make an MGM Oz prequel and it no longer truly is that, and is more of a vaguely inspired prequel lol. While I’m sure the alleged Franco drama played a part in “someone else can direct the sequel”, it’s truly more studio meddling and the ruining of a vision that squashed his passion for it.
@MBG.426 that would certainly explain why so many visuals were unfinished, their being changed too close to the debut. But, as the video points out, the film didn't so much fail as it just wasn't a resounding success. It turned a modest profit. But as a whole. I think we could both say that it would have been more trouble than it was worth to try to keep going when the audience response was lukewarm, the legal trouble was too sharp, the director was uninterested, and the star was a liability
@@MBG.426"Hey, haven't I seen you before in some copyrighted movie?" "We resemble but are legally distinct from the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild, the Loll..."
@@TimeSyncS it should've been Robert Downey Jr. James Franco is no Frank Morgan. He's not even David Tomlinson in *Bedknobs and Broomsticks.* He's just ... there. When the best character in the movie was created entirely on a computer, that speaks volumes. It only makes me appreciate the puppetry on *Return to Oz* even more. Despite dozens and dozens of books, Oz has never proven to be viable as a film franchise, just standalone movies. *Wicked* has a mighty long yellow brick road to ease on down. EDIT: did not know the doll was a puppet pasted over entirely with CGI.
One of the biggest reasons for this movie's existence was the popularity of Wicked: The Musical. At this point, the musical was running for about 10 years. Disney misses out of the movie rights as they were already owned by Universal. So Disney decided to make their own since the character's are public domain. This also starts a trend of Disney trying to make their own version of Wicked. Oz, Maleficent, Frozen, Cruella. Hell, they even got the star of Wicked in Broadway, Idena Menzel, to be Elsa. Let It Go is basically Defying Gravity.
When this movie was announced, my first thought was, "Oh good - this must be the movie version of Wicked that they absolutely must be working on!" We're finally getting that adaptation more than 10 years later, but the trailers don't give me much hope that it'll be good. Given the quality of the source material, I'm really surprised there wasn't a great movie version of Wicked out by 2009.
This comment is spot on. I only vaguely knew that Wicked existed when I heard of this movie. Even I knew it was just a way to try to steal the prequel spotlight. Having since seen Wicked, the musical, wow, Oz can't even touch the story to the point where it's almost an embarrassing comparison.
Using CGI takes budget as well time and he probably didn’t want to be confined by limited space in the sets since he explored the vastness of Oz like Dorothy did… and you know studios are not in the business of spending money these days it only looks worse on modern day TVs with the pixels and then the colors and the designs of the world are so wonderful
It isn't supposed to look realistic. Like at all. Neither was the original movie from the 30's. They did everything they could to make it as fantastical as possible,
Funny story. When I went to see this in theaters and the movie started, a bunch of people began to protest because they thought the starting scenes in black and white were a mistake of the projection. They even went to call someone and they had to be told that this was deliberate. I felt embarrassed for them. How did they not figure out it was on purpose? Particularly with the aspect ratio being different as well.
Lol the opposite thing happened to me a few years ago when I watched The Suicide Squad. The color went out halfway through and I thought it was a stylistic choice but after 10 minutes I realized something was wrong
I went to see Pan's Labyrinth and instead they played Apocalypto. 😂😂😂 During the Spongebob Movie, the projector froze when Patrick was staring into the mirror, and we all thought it was a drawn out joke... 😂
@@theroguecybersoldier2629 no, I was just saying that it’s like a common sentiment with films that he talked about in the series. I liked it when I was younger but it’s been more than a decade since I watched it and during the review I remember scenes thinking oh I remember how strange that’s one scene was. etc
Oh god I was gonna say something about what do you mean as a kid this movie isn't that old, then I saw it's from 2013 lmao, I'm just old I guess, by 2013 I had already stopped being a teenager
Thank god Wicked (2024) has a director who realizes that they need to have physical sets instead of using green screen to make the Oz world feel so real.. bc the green screen choice for this movie is horrendous..
@@KeybladeMasterAndy director and producer. It can come to money management. I mean, if you look at the first Star Wars, they cut the first Jabba scene because they didn't have money or technology for the effects Lucas wanted, and the flying effects are created by smearing the camera lens with Vaseline. So it's possible someone said "no, real props and filming outside are too expensive." But I don't think that would be the case. Animating all that film is, I think, far more expensive because you have to alter frame after frame of footage. Meanwhile, practical effects are not only are cheaper, but they give the actor something to actually react to, so generally improve the performance.
@@jenniferhanses Excluding small independent productions, In most cases using green screen is indeed cheaper, going through the effort of creating a physical set is both way more financial and time consuming (and time is also literal money in this case, a day of filming is expensive) than filming the whole thing in a studio using green screen and hiring people to put it all on post production, not to mention practical effects and physical sets have way more room for error and accidents. Most big productions tend to use a mix of the two when creating a fantastical world like this, Wicked also uses green screen, but they use it when truly needed, not as a cheat code to make the movie less expensive.
@@jenniferhanses Unfortunately special (practical) effects are not cheaper, as they require time on set, and extensive planning time before, which is a luxury not many films have. On set, when you're doing special effects, you're paying 100's of people for every second they are there, regardless of department, and it's a massive expense. With VFX /animation it is usually a specific company just doing that one job, so there are far less of these overheads. For example, if a grip leaves a ladder on set, instead of having to halt filming, call over a production assistant, to call the grip (who's probably on a smoke break) to move it, it's cheaper to just leave it in the shot when you film, and then get one person to spend 3 days removing it digitally. On-set workers have strict unions and roles, in VFX there are few unions and restrictions on hours, and outsourcing, which makes it even cheaper. As well, it allows for flexibility when you shoot on greenscreen, you can change the locations, put actors together when they weren't, change the time of day, you're not bound by what was shot months back - before test audiences hated it - and you now have to change the whole third act, and if it's greenscreen then you don't have to do costly reshoots. Which is why we see so much of it now, where budgets are crazy and studios can now change their mind on a whim, without having to involve set crew. I'm not saying it's better, but it is cheaper. But I totally agree with them improving actors performances as well, and I hope that filmmakers will keep finding that balance between SFX and VFX, because they make the other better. Sorry for rambling on haha, but I've been in VFX for a long time and just wanted to explain a bit behind it!
The most memorable scene in this film for me is the Kansas magic show scene where Joey King's character says to Oz 'Make me walk!' Joey gives such a heartfelt performance in that brief moment, contrasted against Oz being a charlatan showman with some heart but unable to help her in any way. That scene just rang far more genuine in emotion for me than the rest of the film.
@@Attmay That seemed more like a corporate thing. The OG concepts changed WAY too much for it to be natural progression, imo. Plus Julia made it clear that Disney didn't really clue them in on what was going on when writing the songs; Jennifer even said "This Wish" was made before the script was written, explaining why it was vague.
He is a baffling actor. He is really good in some movies and really bad in some. I know this can happen to good actors but James Franco has an unusually high number of botches for an actor of his level.
I mean, that could work 1. Comic relief is expected to fill in for the main character 2. New protagonist is Initially flippant and continues shenanigans 3. Tragedy forces comic relief to recognize the severity and consequences of new role 4. After introspection, comic relief takes responsibility and acts more seriously 5. Use climactic confrontation against villain to demonstrate the effects of maturity 6. Story concludes, possibly including a gag in which the actual main character enters, only to be thrown out of the plot again
Bruce Campbell openly doesn't like acting and generally only does it as favors for his director friends, namely Raimi. He never really wanted to be an actor and never imagined he'd make a career out of being one. I will say it's true that studio execs overlooked him unfairly in the 90s, as he was the first choice to star in Darkman and as Dr Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park, but the studios felt he wasn't known enough.
@@wickedlateok1697Do you have a specific source or interview where Bruce Campbell says he doesn't like acting? Like, I know he does a lot of roles as favors, and he has talked about his discontempt for Hollywood and specifically big budget movies, but I've never heard anything to suggest he just hates being an actor?
He likes being an actor, but generally doesn't like big Hollywood productions, and only really does them when working with raimi, or at least that's the impression I've gotten from interviews.
This film had its moments, but I'm still incredibly salty at how the wicked witch was handled. It's one thing to take an iconic villain and make them a woman scorned cliche, but the fact that she was manipulated and didn't turn wicked on her own volition is just insulting. She didn't even change that much when she transformed, which is ironic for the director of the evil dead movies.
I was so excited for this film when it was released. I didn’t mind the aesthetic. What bothered me was all these powerful women just dropping their panties for this lame conman
it really wasnt like that in the original script like the romance is greatly tone down. He didnt end up with Glinda, never kiss Theodora (but he teach her how to dance), and he is more likable. Then they change the script and make the Oz character unlikable
As a massive Oz fan I have a lot of nostalgia for this movie, I remember I was so excited to go to see it when it came out. I’m really glad wicked is bringing us back to Oz in the cinema, because there’s so much to that world that hadn’t been explored. There’s 14 books!
I know, right? I keep wishing someone would do Marvelous Land of Oz. Like, the Queen of Oz is sort of a trans woman, but we're not going to talk about that. Captain Bill was always my favorite, and I loved the Scarecrow of Oz novel, but they've never gotten to that one.
@@isenhartproductions2677 Could you do "The Nutcracker and The Four Realms" (an adaptation of the classic Nutcracker story) next? It was also part of Disney's failed next big thing. It was kinda of a messy production from Lasse Hallstorm to direct the movie then came Joe Johnston to direct a month of reshoots with Tom McCarthy writing new pages for reshoots. Then both Hallstorm and Johnston agree to recieved a directing credit together (one of the most rare thing that's ever happen on a huge movie, often times reshoots director went uncredited due to DGA rules but not with Johnston this time) but McCarthy was uncredited as writer for some reason despite some of the trailers attached his name to the writing credit. It also had Keira Knightley in the most weirdest performance i could ever think of from her with a unintentionally hilarious voice. It failed at the box office, losing Disney over $65 million. I'd love to see you break down that failure of a movie given how huge and impactful the source material was but Disney really messed it up
@isenhartproductions2677 Ted Turner bought MGM only to have to sell it back to its old owner because of a cash flow problem, but he kept the MGM library, and then when his company merged with Time Warner in the 90s, that's how they got it. Meanwhile, CBS had the TV broadcast rights to both Oz and *Gone with the Wind* but relinquished the latter to Ted Turner and kept the former for themselves until the 90s.
I think they _have_ tried to forget they made Return to OZ. The production was a legendary nightmare, and it famously lost a lot of money. I personally love it. It's peak 80s dark fantasy. Adaptating the third book (Ozma of OZ, maybe the best of the books) by incorporating elements and characters from the second book (The Marvelous Land of OZ) was brilliant.
The replacement of the china girl reminds me of the The Thing remake, where all the effects were bad CGI, but later on it was revealed that they were originally all practical effects and models, and when footage of the original effects reached the public, they looked absolutely incredible compared to what we got.
I've spent my whole life wishing someone would adapt the entire Oz series. We have the technology for this now. Save us from yet another "reimagining!"
There was a cute little anime adaptation of 4 books of the series. It was called the wonderful wizard of oz and it used to air on THIS network. Highly recommend it if you want to see any kind of adaptation. Its a much older anime like from the 70s and has a really cute art style. Correction: 80s anime, not 70s
I am a big fan of the OZ books. I would love to see actual adaptations, but it is very difficult for anything to step out of the shadow of the 1939 film and Wicked. One other thing of note: When Oz lands in Oz, the aspect ratio changes, colour is added AND the 3D gets cranked up. That alone made it worth seeing in theatre.
Yeah I know what you mean I grew up reading the books so there’s so many characters we have been robbed from seeing most obviously Princess Ozma and Mombi and my personal favourite Tok-Tok
the thingn is if you saw the original script for this movie, itnwill feature a lot of things from the book especially from the Emerald City of Oz, theybsre going to be Growleywogs, Whimsies, and Nomes on evanora side. there were fuddles, mist maiden, miss cuttenclip and her paper people, and kitchen utensil from utensia. There are going to be a leaf that can let you cross rhe river from Valley pf Voe, Ripple Land, Hammer Heads, Land outside of Oz where Evanora came from (possibly Ev), the Winkie wearing yellow. We could get so many element from the book that never been adapated.
You all forget this film was supposed to be watched in stereoscopic 3D and checking interviews with Reimi, it is show he took it seriously and went to school to learn everything about 3D and how to implement it and that makes the blocking, framing, CGI and photography look weird when seen in 2D, 3D was an integral part of the film and watching it without it is like watching the original Wizard of Oz black and white from start to finish without that striking transition. (Watched the movie on 3D on the quest 3)
More 2010s big budget fantasy movies should have taken notes from Lord of the Rings (by using on-location shooting to build a believable fantasy world), but instead they all thought they could pull an Avatar if they put the actors in front of a blue or green screen (while ignoring that Avatar's environments only really look that good because James Cameron is a meticulous time hog who exists beyond the normal limits afforded to a typical VFX pipeline)
Fun fact, Disney infinity a toy comes to life game. Similar to Skylanders and Lego dimensions. Were originally attached to model characters for James Franco, and Mila Kunis, as Oz and the wicked witch. There were some concept arts of it, but it was never released to the public, but you can find some concert arts to what could’ve been.
I find it insane that despite being responsible for like 19 out of the Top 20 grossers of all time, Disney also produced enough stinkers to create this genre. It's also fascinating how the latter directly informs the former, they retreated to such safety with Star Wars, Marvel, and live action remakes
I have to say as a fan of the entire 14 book original oz series: the misogyny in this movie is really annoying to me. Baum was a supporter of early feminist movements of his time, and you can see that in how Oz is functionally a matriarchy, with the wizard being a usurper who deposed the rightful ruler (Ozma.) So to see this movie where the most powerful people in this world are fighting over and becoming war criminals for a man?!? It completely destroys the vision of Oz Baum was trying to create.
After this movie I started to think that Reimi is a hack, and it colored how I saw his other movies - or maybe opened my eyes. He's a good director, but when it comes to doing the story, he's unable to - when he was asked to do Warcraft movie, he also made an original script instead of adapting what's already there. It was so sad to see how he relied on primitive predictable narrative done in a dumb way that is built around a love story, a failed protagonist, and that idiotic fighting over him. Biggest yawn.
real like Baum's og female characters were meant to be strong in their own right and he didnt want to include romance because he felt it wouldnt interest kids. plus elphie and glinda are such a lovely female friendship. this is my main gripe with this movie too
Could you do "The Nutcracker and The Four Realms" (an adaptation of the classic Nutcracker story) next? It was also part of Disney's failed next big thing. It was kinda of a messy production from Lasse Hallstorm to direct the movie then came Joe Johnston to direct a month of reshoots with Tom McCarthy writing new pages for reshoots. Then both Hallstorm and Johnston agree to recieved a directing credit together (one of the most rare thing that's ever happen on a huge movie, often times reshoots director went uncredited due to DGA rules but not with Johnston this time) but McCarthy was uncredited as writer for some reason despite some of the trailers attached his name to the writing credit. It also had Keira Knightley in the most weirdest performance i could ever think of from her with a unintentionally hilarious voice. It failed at the box office, losing Disney over $65 million. I'd love to see you break down that failure of a movie given how huge and impactful the source material was but Disney really messed it up
@@tiamysticbasically it was a role reversal thing, the rat king was really an old woman who was misunderstood and the sugarplum fairy turned out to be a twist villain
Yes I would too! I remember being so excited for it because I’m a huge fan of the source material but felt like the film didn’t do it as much justice as I hoped in a lot of ways. It had so much potential- if only things behind the scenes and with the writing happened differently.
I worked at a movie theater when this came out and Disney threatened the theaters that if they didn’t dedicate a certain amount of space to advertising then they wouldn’t let the theater have Age of Ultron.
One of the most annoying things is its halfhearted aping of Wicked’s take on the Witch of the West. She’s in love with the Wizard at first and it adds nothing to this interpretation. She’s still just evil like the MGM film by the end, and Oz never has to come to terms with the consequences of his lies because everyone else just loves him anyway. It feels like such a cheap nod to another version.
Theodora (this movie) also has no agency in her transformation here - her sister just tricks her into it! Elphaba (Wicked) had agency in her transformation, as the Wicked Witch of the West should
12:00 onwards.. seeing this makes me so sad!! Not only did the puppeteer(s) put so much work and effort into this creation but the scenes which show the marrionete interactions without CGI actually look BETTER than the final project.. they could have done so much more with this character Otherwise i always remember liking this movie? It was a cool concept, i had heard of Wicked but didnt have the money or ability to find it so i was like 'This must be the same thing, minus the music' so i kinda inflated it cause now when i look back on it, there are some really good parts but the rest of it is like.. ugggrjaha
One of the DVD bonus features talked about the pitch meeting that led to the film. After several bad pitches, the guy was asked, "What are you reading to your kids right now?" "We're reading the Baum books. We're in the 4th one where it tells how the Wizard got to Oz." "Now THAT'S a movie I would like to see!" As someone who has READ the Oz books, the problem here is, that's NOT what the whole book is about. That's literally just from one chapter, just a page and a half! And yet, they still changed most of it! There is a fundamental problem with any adaptation of an Oz property. There are a lot of interesting characters and stories in the books, that would be great to see on screen, BUT the 1939 film is what the world knows as Oz. Not only does it create certain copyright issues (like Ruby Slippers), but areas where it differed from the book are considered canon to most people. Such as the idea that Oz was just a dream, or having "real world" characters represented as a parallel character in Oz. Not to mention, making the Wicked Witch of the West the primary villain. If a screen version doesn't include these elements, people think it isn't following the source material. This movie suffers from trying to build from the actual source material, but not much of it, and yet try to follow the 39 film, but not too closely, and also be it's own thing, yet part of a greater franchise. I agree, more practical effects, less CGI. Also, it came out when 3D was all the rage, so they spent WAY too much time throwing stuff at the camera to impress audiences. For what it was, I don't think it was that bad, but definitely not that great either. Like Oz himself, it didn't achieve greatness, but goodness.
I always wondered how James Franco got the part of the Wizard. Sure, he has the conman vibe, but not a successful one. Another comment mentioned Bruce Campbell, and I agree with them. He would have been PERFECT for the role. Sadly, he was overlooked AGAIN
This movie came out when i was 12-13 and i was obsessed with it. I had a massive crush on james franco and i thought the worldbuilding was way cooler than the original wizard of oz 😅
The movie lost me when it went “the witch is bad because a guy she was romantically interested in hurt her.” It can works when it’s done right, but honestly I’m having a hard time believing people wants the main character at all.
I’m sure Disney lost all interest in a sequel once Universal’s Wicked movie started going into effect. You can see how seriously Universal is taking their Oz film and Disney’s heart was never really in it which is a shame because it’s one of the few American Fairy Tales.
Wicked has a lot to do with why this movie was greenlit, and ironically enough, Wicked is probably also the reason this movie never got a sequel. The film version of Wicked was announced by Universal just two years after Oz came out, and Disney probably figured that they wouldn't be able to compete and abandoned ship on the sequel.
And they got the rights to some other Gregory Maguire boomer revisionist clap trap as a consolation prize while making that into a Disney Channel Original Movie IIRC.
Minus budget and marketing, the film only ended up grossing less than 40 million dollars of pure profit. Not the kinds of money Disney sees as franchise potential.
I had a new appreciation of the Wizard of Oz after watching this movie the first time. The thing that makes it stand out more than ever is all the little special effects they managed to do without CGI. They didn't CGI sparks coming out of her finger tips from trying to grab Ruby slippers, or a tornado ripping through a farm. That red smoke and flames were so real, it even caught Margaret Hamilton (Witch) on fire. The Wizard of Oz crew had actually work hard in order to get their effects, but not going to lie, some with huge risk. The only thing that's good about the CGI in this film is that it didn't hurt anyone. The only way this film would've been made with practical effects would be if Tim Burton directed it. He's the only person in the industry (that I can think of) that tries to use Claymation (for example) anytime he can still and other practical effects.
Crucify me, I liked this film on release, even though I wasn't a big fan of the Wizard of Oz. The fact that Sam Raim directed this film has only made this film more special and significant.
From an era where really EVERY American blockbuster looked EXACTLY the same bc studios were like: woooooow we can do ANYTHING digital! Isn’t that forward thinking? … But we didn’t care for a good writer
I remember the reveal of Mila Kunis as the witch had everyone laughing in the theater she looked so bad. This movie was very mid in every way, but the replacing of the marionette with a CGI one is just wrong. smh
I actually loved this film. Sure it will not win any Oscars and could have been so much better. But considering all the crappy movies that comes out these days , especially from Disney, this movie is quite good.
I remember watching this movie in my 4th Grade before Summer Break back in 2015. I still remember the witch transformation scene really getting to me as a kid.
I can't feel too sorry for Disney over their copyright woes since they're the reason the original WB film is still in Copyright. They're the ones who kept campaigning to extend copyright for a crazy amount of time so every time it comes back to bite them on the arse I just laugh.
This movie is a good example of when your villains and main characters don't really have a good goal. I enjoyed it the first time I watched it, but it gets so boring the more you watch. The best part for me was Zach Braff and Rachel Weisz's outfits.
Another good entry. You gotta do Pan next. That film looks bonkers, as though it were pulled in several directions by people who hated each other, the audience, and life itself
Oz The Great & Powerful was Disney trying to usurp Wicked because they couldn’t get the rights to it. Then they did Maleficent and Frozen which basically were Wicked rip offs. Disney be dirrrty.
This film wasn’t terrible, it just messed around with the source material a little too much for my liking. The cameos from The Evil Dead cast were a cool easter egg for me though.
Given the description of what the unmade sequel's synopsis (take it with a grain of salt, this is only just my speculative fan theory) would've been likely either Oz and Glinda's daughter would've been either an expy of Ozma or actually turning out to be Ozma and that the one behind the curse could be the Nome King
@@OneShot-nu6nj definitely as well I feel like it would probably have both Mombi and obviously other Oz related characters like Quox, Tik Tok, The Witch of the North (since in the Oz book canon Glinda and the Witch of the North were seperate characters in this film's continuity, Glinda IS the Witch of the South), The Tin Man and maybe the Scarecrow
I liked this film for what it was. The biggest problem for me was the lack of real sets. Personally I really liked Glinda's and Theodorea's characters.
Forgot to mention that Oz was a predator taking advantage of a naive young girl, then took advantage of her equally naive sister right in front of her. So you wonder why she couldn’t control emotions she had no understanding of? But she’s the bad guy and Oz is our apologetic hero. 🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼
I watched the movie, and while not super excited I found it well made and enjoyable. Why must every well made movie be expanded into an endless franchise? The movies which bore such expectations never got a sequel like Stardust from 2007, for example. I would have watched such a movie but it never came to be.
How you gonna hire Sam Raimi and tell him to "tone it down?" It's like hiring Tom Savini then telling him he can't make any gore. Which, I mean, we all already know how that went...
Alice in Wonderland (2010) works so well im term of Green Screen that Disney back on 2013 wanted to recapture that same feeling. Too bad it didn't worked. Wicked is much superior is SO SO MANY WAYS
I watched this movie in theaters… twice. Every single clip played in this video (except the fixing of China Girl’s leg) feels entirely new to me. I don’t recall a single one of these shots or story beats
The craziest part about the wicked witch in this is she has absolutely no agency. She didn't even become evil because her heart was broken by the guy she just met, no, her heart was broken by the guy she just met and then *her sister* gave her an apple that made her heartless. She didn't even choose to become a war criminal she was mislead into taking a potion that made her evil 😭
This movie really pisses me off cause the concept has SO MUCH potential!! Like the only thing we know canonically about the wizard is that he is from our world and doesn’t possess any actual power other than the political one. There’s so much to explore…. Also at this time wicked was already a worldwide success so trying to change the witches’s origin stories would not go well with the general public. It also looks like shit and i hate james franco. Sigh
11:42 That's how most movies handle "practical effects" wether its a porcelain puppet, Iron Man armor, Chappie robot, or Top Gun fighter jet. They use the real object as a reference for CGI artist to then recreate it in 3D software, and the real object get remove. That's also why some movies will skip the "practical effects" because removing real object from already shot footage takes time, money, and man power. That's usually where CG noticably look bad, because the CGI artist don't have references of the real thing.
$493,311,825 on a $215,000,000 budget is not a big hit. Also, movies filmed in sound studios can look great. The Battle of NY in the first Avengers movie looks incredible even today.
@@dani3po it's Disney that insists on cutting corners while spending mountains of money in the process. They have no sense of either physical or emotional realism, but they are more than willing to sacrifice the latter for whatever they think the former is.
I think I’m one of the few people who actually really enjoys this movie but I definitely agree with the criticism you gave. I hope one day Disney will tell more stories in this world
My understanding is that Franco was basically higher than that hot air balloon during the entirety of production and never knew his lines. Disney didn't even want Franco, and Raimi had gone to bat for him after striking up a friendship during the Spider-Man films. But Franco was so incredibly unprofessional, that he and Raimi got into a massive, friendship-ending fight, which consequently killed Raimi's passion for the project. That's why you have him blithely stating that someone else could direct the sequel if they wanted to.
That's not widely reported, though, because Raimi, unlike Franco, is a professional.
Yeah that totally checks out
I mean, while all of this I’m sure is true, it is NOT the reason the movie failed even a little lol. I can tell you that. If the movie succeeded no one would’ve cared if the sequel had been by the same director.
It’s actually the fact the 90% of this film was created and finished with MGM Oz Style visuals when Warner Bros was brought in to analyze everything in comparison to MGMs Oz, which they own and this is a spiritual prequel to.
They wanted pretty much everything scrapped, even down to the specific shade of the Wicked Witches green skin. So once that happened, the entire project had to be vaguely restyled to not resemble MGM Oz so closely and THAT is what killed his passion for it, because Raimi WANTED to make an MGM Oz prequel and it no longer truly is that, and is more of a vaguely inspired prequel lol.
While I’m sure the alleged Franco drama played a part in “someone else can direct the sequel”, it’s truly more studio meddling and the ruining of a vision that squashed his passion for it.
@MBG.426 that would certainly explain why so many visuals were unfinished, their being changed too close to the debut.
But, as the video points out, the film didn't so much fail as it just wasn't a resounding success. It turned a modest profit. But as a whole. I think we could both say that it would have been more trouble than it was worth to try to keep going when the audience response was lukewarm, the legal trouble was too sharp, the director was uninterested, and the star was a liability
@@MBG.426"Hey, haven't I seen you before in some copyrighted movie?"
"We resemble but are legally distinct from the Lollipop Guild, the Lollipop Guild, the Loll..."
@@TimeSyncS it should've been Robert Downey Jr. James Franco is no Frank Morgan. He's not even David Tomlinson in *Bedknobs and Broomsticks.* He's just ... there. When the best character in the movie was created entirely on a computer, that speaks volumes. It only makes me appreciate the puppetry on *Return to Oz* even more.
Despite dozens and dozens of books, Oz has never proven to be viable as a film franchise, just standalone movies. *Wicked* has a mighty long yellow brick road to ease on down.
EDIT: did not know the doll was a puppet pasted over entirely with CGI.
One of the biggest reasons for this movie's existence was the popularity of Wicked: The Musical. At this point, the musical was running for about 10 years. Disney misses out of the movie rights as they were already owned by Universal. So Disney decided to make their own since the character's are public domain.
This also starts a trend of Disney trying to make their own version of Wicked. Oz, Maleficent, Frozen, Cruella.
Hell, they even got the star of Wicked in Broadway, Idena Menzel, to be Elsa. Let It Go is basically Defying Gravity.
When this movie was announced, my first thought was, "Oh good - this must be the movie version of Wicked that they absolutely must be working on!" We're finally getting that adaptation more than 10 years later, but the trailers don't give me much hope that it'll be good. Given the quality of the source material, I'm really surprised there wasn't a great movie version of Wicked out by 2009.
Best comment EVER!❤
This comment is spot on. I only vaguely knew that Wicked existed when I heard of this movie. Even I knew it was just a way to try to steal the prequel spotlight.
Having since seen Wicked, the musical, wow, Oz can't even touch the story to the point where it's almost an embarrassing comparison.
@@OscarFowler they waited on purpose for the original Broadway leads to age out of the parts. And Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard? Seriously?
@@OscarFowler The mouse couldn't get the IP they actually wanted so they got one of the stars.
When a film from the 30s, filmed entirely on a sound stage, looks more realistic than your 2010's film... you've missed the mark, lol.
I like the original one for the story and 2 iy looks like it pushed the technology envelope forward
@@tylerdurden788----> .
@@tylerdurden788I think the theme here is how can you push something when the limit has already been reached
Using CGI takes budget as well time and he probably didn’t want to be confined by limited space in the sets since he explored the vastness of Oz like Dorothy did… and you know studios are not in the business of spending money these days it only looks worse on modern day TVs with the pixels and then the colors and the designs of the world are so wonderful
It isn't supposed to look realistic. Like at all. Neither was the original movie from the 30's. They did everything they could to make it as fantastical as possible,
Funny story. When I went to see this in theaters and the movie started, a bunch of people began to protest because they thought the starting scenes in black and white were a mistake of the projection. They even went to call someone and they had to be told that this was deliberate. I felt embarrassed for them. How did they not figure out it was on purpose? Particularly with the aspect ratio being different as well.
Lol the opposite thing happened to me a few years ago when I watched The Suicide Squad. The color went out halfway through and I thought it was a stylistic choice but after 10 minutes I realized something was wrong
This is why we can't have nice things.
I went to see Pan's Labyrinth and instead they played Apocalypto. 😂😂😂
During the Spongebob Movie, the projector froze when Patrick was staring into the mirror, and we all thought it was a drawn out joke... 😂
@@isenhartproductions2677😊goede😊kwaliteitk😊I 😊nl lllronln llkllbkl😅kkklnnnlbbjo billijk invul lnl nnlbl
That's so bizarre, have they never seen the og Wizard of Oz?
This film is one of those films where you enjoyed it as a kid but you haven’t re-watched it to see if it’s still holds up to your memory
I watched it a bunch when it came out, and still do. I like it and it's good enough for a prequel to the MGM classic
@@theroguecybersoldier2629 no, I was just saying that it’s like a common sentiment with films that he talked about in the series. I liked it when I was younger but it’s been more than a decade since I watched it and during the review I remember scenes thinking oh I remember how strange that’s one scene was. etc
Oh god I was gonna say something about what do you mean as a kid this movie isn't that old, then I saw it's from 2013 lmao, I'm just old I guess, by 2013 I had already stopped being a teenager
@@LilyApus well as we get older, a decade isn’t a lot, but when you’re younger, it’s a lot
@constructionproduction4965
Perhaps but I phrased that wrong, in 2013 I was already an adult lmao, so I didn't think of it as that long ago
"I want to go see 'Wicked.'"
"We have 'Wicked' at home."
_Wicked at home..._
You mean The Wiz 😂
Rather watch wicked at home
A bootleg of a Broadway production of Wicked is an an improvement over this
Thank god Wicked (2024) has a director who realizes that they need to have physical sets instead of using green screen to make the Oz world feel so real.. bc the green screen choice for this movie is horrendous..
The sets in Wicked are impressive, and the blue screen effects in OZ are pretty bad. But is that exclusively the director's decision?
@@KeybladeMasterAndy director and producer. It can come to money management.
I mean, if you look at the first Star Wars, they cut the first Jabba scene because they didn't have money or technology for the effects Lucas wanted, and the flying effects are created by smearing the camera lens with Vaseline.
So it's possible someone said "no, real props and filming outside are too expensive." But I don't think that would be the case. Animating all that film is, I think, far more expensive because you have to alter frame after frame of footage. Meanwhile, practical effects are not only are cheaper, but they give the actor something to actually react to, so generally improve the performance.
@@jenniferhanses Excluding small independent productions, In most cases using green screen is indeed cheaper, going through the effort of creating a physical set is both way more financial and time consuming (and time is also literal money in this case, a day of filming is expensive) than filming the whole thing in a studio using green screen and hiring people to put it all on post production, not to mention practical effects and physical sets have way more room for error and accidents. Most big productions tend to use a mix of the two when creating a fantastical world like this, Wicked also uses green screen, but they use it when truly needed, not as a cheat code to make the movie less expensive.
@@jenniferhanses Unfortunately special (practical) effects are not cheaper, as they require time on set, and extensive planning time before, which is a luxury not many films have. On set, when you're doing special effects, you're paying 100's of people for every second they are there, regardless of department, and it's a massive expense. With VFX /animation it is usually a specific company just doing that one job, so there are far less of these overheads. For example, if a grip leaves a ladder on set, instead of having to halt filming, call over a production assistant, to call the grip (who's probably on a smoke break) to move it, it's cheaper to just leave it in the shot when you film, and then get one person to spend 3 days removing it digitally. On-set workers have strict unions and roles, in VFX there are few unions and restrictions on hours, and outsourcing, which makes it even cheaper. As well, it allows for flexibility when you shoot on greenscreen, you can change the locations, put actors together when they weren't, change the time of day, you're not bound by what was shot months back - before test audiences hated it - and you now have to change the whole third act, and if it's greenscreen then you don't have to do costly reshoots. Which is why we see so much of it now, where budgets are crazy and studios can now change their mind on a whim, without having to involve set crew.
I'm not saying it's better, but it is cheaper. But I totally agree with them improving actors performances as well, and I hope that filmmakers will keep finding that balance between SFX and VFX, because they make the other better. Sorry for rambling on haha, but I've been in VFX for a long time and just wanted to explain a bit behind it!
Wicked was also shot on sound stages with blue screen though. Just looks like the sets may have been larger and the background effects were better.
The most memorable scene in this film for me is the Kansas magic show scene where Joey King's character says to Oz 'Make me walk!'
Joey gives such a heartfelt performance in that brief moment, contrasted against Oz being a charlatan showman with some heart but unable to help her in any way. That scene just rang far more genuine in emotion for me than the rest of the film.
Agreed, that was one of the few glimpses that showed how good this movie could have been.
Ngl I also think the porcelain girl is adorable
She was the best character in the movie.
@@marcusaaronliaogo9158Until she started yelling. That then ruined it a bit.
@@isenhartproductions2677 how would you make an OZ prequel? also excited for the wicked 2 part movie?
NGL, I put this in the "should've been an animated musical" pile for Disney.
That’s much all their reimaginings and Star Wars projects.
@@OpticalSorcerer they can't even do that right anymore if the wishy-washy *Wish* is any indication.
@@Attmay That seemed more like a corporate thing. The OG concepts changed WAY too much for it to be natural progression, imo. Plus Julia made it clear that Disney didn't really clue them in on what was going on when writing the songs; Jennifer even said "This Wish" was made before the script was written, explaining why it was vague.
Franco gives off conman’s sidekick energy rather than the leading man.
Yeah he wasn’t a good Oz
He is a baffling actor. He is really good in some movies and really bad in some. I know this can happen to good actors but James Franco has an unusually high number of botches for an actor of his level.
I mean, that could work
1. Comic relief is expected to fill in for the main character
2. New protagonist is Initially flippant and continues shenanigans
3. Tragedy forces comic relief to recognize the severity and consequences of new role
4. After introspection, comic relief takes responsibility and acts more seriously
5. Use climactic confrontation against villain to demonstrate the effects of maturity
6. Story concludes, possibly including a gag in which the actual main character enters, only to be thrown out of the plot again
It's sad that, Bruce Campbell plays such a great conman, and his age would be right for the story. But always gets overlooked by the studio execs.
He would have done great in the role
Bruce Campbell openly doesn't like acting and generally only does it as favors for his director friends, namely Raimi. He never really wanted to be an actor and never imagined he'd make a career out of being one. I will say it's true that studio execs overlooked him unfairly in the 90s, as he was the first choice to star in Darkman and as Dr Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park, but the studios felt he wasn't known enough.
@@wickedlateok1697Do you have a specific source or interview where Bruce Campbell says he doesn't like acting? Like, I know he does a lot of roles as favors, and he has talked about his discontempt for Hollywood and specifically big budget movies, but I've never heard anything to suggest he just hates being an actor?
He likes being an actor, but generally doesn't like big Hollywood productions, and only really does them when working with raimi, or at least that's the impression I've gotten from interviews.
Considering how closely the plot of OTGAP follows Raimi's Evil Dead Army of Darkness, it would've been too on the nose of a hackjob.
This film had its moments, but I'm still incredibly salty at how the wicked witch was handled. It's one thing to take an iconic villain and make them a woman scorned cliche, but the fact that she was manipulated and didn't turn wicked on her own volition is just insulting. She didn't even change that much when she transformed, which is ironic for the director of the evil dead movies.
yeah like it was always going to pale in comparison to Wicked's version of her backstory but even without that it's like cmon man
@lavernebennet7395they are both problematic.
@@Attmay oh yeah I'm hardly saying Wicked is perfect, just that the comparison is unavoidable and one is clearly better than the other
Mila just screamed her lines… was awful to watch… the whole thing was a mess
This is why i liked Wicked more than Oz the great and Powerflop😊🎉
The Temple Run tie-in game was the superior version ngl.
i was SO mad when they pulled it from the app store
I still have that on my phone
THIS IS RHE ONLY THING I REMEMBER ABOUT THIS MOVIE BECAUSE IVE NEVER SEEN IT
@@jackmanning1117You're so lucky lol
I was so excited for this film when it was released. I didn’t mind the aesthetic. What bothered me was all these powerful women just dropping their panties for this lame conman
@@cameronharms7109 fear of male sexuality permeates everything Disney has ever done outside the Howard Ashman era.
@@Attmayuhh
@Attmay fear of male sexuality? You mean like having the guys constantly take off their shirts in the Marvel films? Thor being completely naked?
it really wasnt like that in the original script like the romance is greatly tone down. He didnt end up with Glinda, never kiss Theodora (but he teach her how to dance), and he is more likable. Then they change the script and make the Oz character unlikable
What a bunch of feminist b.s.
As a massive Oz fan I have a lot of nostalgia for this movie, I remember I was so excited to go to see it when it came out. I’m really glad wicked is bringing us back to Oz in the cinema, because there’s so much to that world that hadn’t been explored. There’s 14 books!
I know, right?
I keep wishing someone would do Marvelous Land of Oz. Like, the Queen of Oz is sort of a trans woman, but we're not going to talk about that.
Captain Bill was always my favorite, and I loved the Scarecrow of Oz novel, but they've never gotten to that one.
I completely erased any memory of this film until now! What fun to revisit it with you
Right? It made half a billion dollars but has been pretty much forgotten about
@@isenhartproductions2677 Could you do "The Nutcracker and The Four Realms" (an adaptation of the classic Nutcracker story) next? It was also part of Disney's failed next big thing. It was kinda of a messy production from Lasse Hallstorm to direct the movie then came Joe Johnston to direct a month of reshoots with Tom McCarthy writing new pages for reshoots. Then both Hallstorm and Johnston agree to recieved a directing credit together (one of the most rare thing that's ever happen on a huge movie, often times reshoots director went uncredited due to DGA rules but not with Johnston this time) but McCarthy was uncredited as writer for some reason despite some of the trailers attached his name to the writing credit. It also had Keira Knightley in the most weirdest performance i could ever think of from her with a unintentionally hilarious voice. It failed at the box office, losing Disney over $65 million. I'd love to see you break down that failure of a movie given how huge and impactful the source material was but Disney really messed it up
@@isenhartproductions2677 Wasn't the Wizard of Oz film made by MGM???????
Als did you see Disney's Return to Oz???????
@orangeslash1667 yes MGM made wizard of Oz but Warner Brother’s bought the rights to a large portion of their movie catalog
@isenhartproductions2677 Ted Turner bought MGM only to have to sell it back to its old owner because of a cash flow problem, but he kept the MGM library, and then when his company merged with Time Warner in the 90s, that's how they got it.
Meanwhile, CBS had the TV broadcast rights to both Oz and *Gone with the Wind* but relinquished the latter to Ted Turner and kept the former for themselves until the 90s.
They thought this film was too dark for a PG film? Did Disney forget they also made Return to Oz decades earlier? 😅
I didn't. I was a fan of that ever since it was first on The Disney Channel shortly after it came out.
That film is disturbing.
Different executives and a different MPAA back then.
@anubusxnot compared to *Blank Check,* it isn't.
I think they _have_ tried to forget they made Return to OZ. The production was a legendary nightmare, and it famously lost a lot of money.
I personally love it. It's peak 80s dark fantasy. Adaptating the third book (Ozma of OZ, maybe the best of the books) by incorporating elements and characters from the second book (The Marvelous Land of OZ) was brilliant.
The replacement of the china girl reminds me of the The Thing remake, where all the effects were bad CGI, but later on it was revealed that they were originally all practical effects and models, and when footage of the original effects reached the public, they looked absolutely incredible compared to what we got.
I've spent my whole life wishing someone would adapt the entire Oz series. We have the technology for this now. Save us from yet another "reimagining!"
Then stop wishing cause it's not gonna happen
The only good "reimagining" is wicked
Warner Bros owns the movie rights, only them can.
There was a cute little anime adaptation of 4 books of the series. It was called the wonderful wizard of oz and it used to air on THIS network. Highly recommend it if you want to see any kind of adaptation. Its a much older anime like from the 70s and has a really cute art style.
Correction: 80s anime, not 70s
@@Jose04537isnt it a public domain franchise tho? Unless you're talking about specifically the MGM movie
I am a big fan of the OZ books. I would love to see actual adaptations, but it is very difficult for anything to step out of the shadow of the 1939 film and Wicked.
One other thing of note: When Oz lands in Oz, the aspect ratio changes, colour is added AND the 3D gets cranked up. That alone made it worth seeing in theatre.
Yeah I know what you mean I grew up reading the books so there’s so many characters we have been robbed from seeing most obviously Princess Ozma and Mombi and my personal favourite Tok-Tok
@jmann6130 I want to see pumpkin head and the saw horse!
the thingn is if you saw the original script for this movie, itnwill feature a lot of things from the book especially from the Emerald City of Oz, theybsre going to be Growleywogs, Whimsies, and Nomes on evanora side. there were fuddles, mist maiden, miss cuttenclip and her paper people, and kitchen utensil from utensia. There are going to be a leaf that can let you cross rhe river from Valley pf Voe, Ripple Land, Hammer Heads, Land outside of Oz where Evanora came from (possibly Ev), the Winkie wearing yellow. We could get so many element from the book that never been adapated.
You all forget this film was supposed to be watched in stereoscopic 3D and checking interviews with Reimi, it is show he took it seriously and went to school to learn everything about 3D and how to implement it and that makes the blocking, framing, CGI and photography look weird when seen in 2D, 3D was an integral part of the film and watching it without it is like watching the original Wizard of Oz black and white from start to finish without that striking transition.
(Watched the movie on 3D on the quest 3)
I saw it in 3d at the cinema when it came out. Made such a difference.
The 3d gimmick was so fucking annoying people were making entire movies where the only thing going for it was the novelty of 3d
As annoying as that digital 3D trend was , this movie looked really good in IMAX 3D.
More 2010s big budget fantasy movies should have taken notes from Lord of the Rings (by using on-location shooting to build a believable fantasy world), but instead they all thought they could pull an Avatar if they put the actors in front of a blue or green screen (while ignoring that Avatar's environments only really look that good because James Cameron is a meticulous time hog who exists beyond the normal limits afforded to a typical VFX pipeline)
Fun fact, Disney infinity a toy comes to life game. Similar to Skylanders and Lego dimensions. Were originally attached to model characters for James Franco, and Mila Kunis, as Oz and the wicked witch. There were some concept arts of it, but it was never released to the public, but you can find some concert arts to what could’ve been.
And you know what’s funny, Lego Dimensions has The Wizard of Oz in their game. >D
You know it was bad when they included The Lone Ranger but not this
I find it insane that despite being responsible for like 19 out of the Top 20 grossers of all time, Disney also produced enough stinkers to create this genre.
It's also fascinating how the latter directly informs the former, they retreated to such safety with Star Wars, Marvel, and live action remakes
Cultural inflation.
Personally, aside from the missing slippers, I don't see the need for a sequel to this prequel.
And besides we already got a sequel of sorts with The Legends of Oz: Dorothy Returns
@@untunedguitar45That movie is so boring lol it has nothing of what makes the wizard of oz magical.
I have to say as a fan of the entire 14 book original oz series: the misogyny in this movie is really annoying to me. Baum was a supporter of early feminist movements of his time, and you can see that in how Oz is functionally a matriarchy, with the wizard being a usurper who deposed the rightful ruler (Ozma.) So to see this movie where the most powerful people in this world are fighting over and becoming war criminals for a man?!? It completely destroys the vision of Oz Baum was trying to create.
this!!! i remember so little about this movie, but mila kunis's character was so infuriatingly "woman written by a man" i never forgot about it.
After this movie I started to think that Reimi is a hack, and it colored how I saw his other movies - or maybe opened my eyes. He's a good director, but when it comes to doing the story, he's unable to - when he was asked to do Warcraft movie, he also made an original script instead of adapting what's already there. It was so sad to see how he relied on primitive predictable narrative done in a dumb way that is built around a love story, a failed protagonist, and that idiotic fighting over him. Biggest yawn.
@@BeansKneez she hasn't exactly done other women favors in real life.
oz isn’t a matriarchy though…? it’s just a monarchy. Ozma is ruler because her dad was mysteriously “taken care of” and never heard from again lol.
real like Baum's og female characters were meant to be strong in their own right and he didnt want to include romance because he felt it wouldnt interest kids. plus elphie and glinda are such a lovely female friendship. this is my main gripe with this movie too
Could you do "The Nutcracker and The Four Realms" (an adaptation of the classic Nutcracker story) next? It was also part of Disney's failed next big thing. It was kinda of a messy production from Lasse Hallstorm to direct the movie then came Joe Johnston to direct a month of reshoots with Tom McCarthy writing new pages for reshoots. Then both Hallstorm and Johnston agree to recieved a directing credit together (one of the most rare thing that's ever happen on a huge movie, often times reshoots director went uncredited due to DGA rules but not with Johnston this time) but McCarthy was uncredited as writer for some reason despite some of the trailers attached his name to the writing credit. It also had Keira Knightley in the most weirdest performance i could ever think of from her with a unintentionally hilarious voice. It failed at the box office, losing Disney over $65 million. I'd love to see you break down that failure of a movie given how huge and impactful the source material was but Disney really messed it up
Oh yeah I forgot that existed. What was the story again…? Saw it once and forgot everything except the costumes
@@tiamysticbasically it was a role reversal thing, the rat king was really an old woman who was misunderstood and the sugarplum fairy turned out to be a twist villain
Yes I would too! I remember being so excited for it because I’m a huge fan of the source material but felt like the film didn’t do it as much justice as I hoped in a lot of ways. It had so much potential- if only things behind the scenes and with the writing happened differently.
Agreed except Keira Knightleys performance was fantastic. Loved her voice tbh.
@@Erasureeraser between this and *The Sorcerer's Apprentice,* how long before the dancing hippos got their own movie if those were hits?
I feel bad for everyone who worked on that practical puppet. Such a waste
I worked at a movie theater when this came out and Disney threatened the theaters that if they didn’t dedicate a certain amount of space to advertising then they wouldn’t let the theater have Age of Ultron.
One of the most annoying things is its halfhearted aping of Wicked’s take on the Witch of the West. She’s in love with the Wizard at first and it adds nothing to this interpretation. She’s still just evil like the MGM film by the end, and Oz never has to come to terms with the consequences of his lies because everyone else just loves him anyway. It feels like such a cheap nod to another version.
Theodora (this movie) also has no agency in her transformation here - her sister just tricks her into it! Elphaba (Wicked) had agency in her transformation, as the Wicked Witch of the West should
@@violetlavi2207 ikr you can see how elphie and glinda grow together and defying gravity is just so good
ok.
James Franco comes off as if he's stoned throughout this whole movie.
He probably was.
It's funny though because Franco has given a good performance before. Did he just not care about the idea of doing a Wizard of Oz prequel?
"The movie just wasn't very good," regardless of whether the statement is factually correct, has never stopped studios from making sequels before.
Sam Raimi is too good for Disney
He did a good job with Doctor Strange IMHO
@@TheHalloweenSpiritsame here
@@TheHalloweenSpirit Disagree, thought it was uneven and lazy, especially Scarlet Witch's part
Shut up @@nathanliteroy9835
@@nathanliteroy9835Yeah, i think Raimi's style and the MCU's style didn't mix well. I've always wanted him to consider doing a Batman movie.
12:00 onwards.. seeing this makes me so sad!! Not only did the puppeteer(s) put so much work and effort into this creation but the scenes which show the marrionete interactions without CGI actually look BETTER than the final project.. they could have done so much more with this character
Otherwise i always remember liking this movie? It was a cool concept, i had heard of Wicked but didnt have the money or ability to find it so i was like 'This must be the same thing, minus the music' so i kinda inflated it cause now when i look back on it, there are some really good parts but the rest of it is like.. ugggrjaha
I absolutely loved this film when I was a teen. When this came out the CGI was incredible.
You should talk about A Wrinkle In Time (2018) next
@@LightspeedA113 Disney screwed that up twice!
I saw this in theaters because my husband wanted to?? And it was... Well, I'm excited to watch this video about it lol
One of the DVD bonus features talked about the pitch meeting that led to the film. After several bad pitches, the guy was asked, "What are you reading to your kids right now?"
"We're reading the Baum books. We're in the 4th one where it tells how the Wizard got to Oz."
"Now THAT'S a movie I would like to see!"
As someone who has READ the Oz books, the problem here is, that's NOT what the whole book is about. That's literally just from one chapter, just a page and a half! And yet, they still changed most of it!
There is a fundamental problem with any adaptation of an Oz property. There are a lot of interesting characters and stories in the books, that would be great to see on screen, BUT the 1939 film is what the world knows as Oz. Not only does it create certain copyright issues (like Ruby Slippers), but areas where it differed from the book are considered canon to most people. Such as the idea that Oz was just a dream, or having "real world" characters represented as a parallel character in Oz. Not to mention, making the Wicked Witch of the West the primary villain. If a screen version doesn't include these elements, people think it isn't following the source material.
This movie suffers from trying to build from the actual source material, but not much of it, and yet try to follow the 39 film, but not too closely, and also be it's own thing, yet part of a greater franchise.
I agree, more practical effects, less CGI. Also, it came out when 3D was all the rage, so they spent WAY too much time throwing stuff at the camera to impress audiences. For what it was, I don't think it was that bad, but definitely not that great either. Like Oz himself, it didn't achieve greatness, but goodness.
14:45 "it's like watching a car crash, you can't look away" LMAOO that's a perfect definition for this movie 😭
I always wondered how James Franco got the part of the Wizard. Sure, he has the conman vibe, but not a successful one. Another comment mentioned Bruce Campbell, and I agree with them. He would have been PERFECT for the role. Sadly, he was overlooked AGAIN
2:21: "I'm ruined. There's nothing left for me now..except Disaster Artist."
This movie came out when i was 12-13 and i was obsessed with it. I had a massive crush on james franco and i thought the worldbuilding was way cooler than the original wizard of oz 😅
I remember watching this at eight years old and having no clue what was going on
The movie lost me when it went “the witch is bad because a guy she was romantically interested in hurt her.” It can works when it’s done right, but honestly I’m having a hard time believing people wants the main character at all.
this version of Oz is just not likable unlike the original intended script where his womanizing way is greatly toned down
I actually rewatched this film recently before seeing Wicked. I think it's underrated on a number of levels, and generally works as a redemption tale.
I’m sure Disney lost all interest in a sequel once Universal’s Wicked movie started going into effect. You can see how seriously Universal is taking their Oz film and Disney’s heart was never really in it which is a shame because it’s one of the few American Fairy Tales.
Shame because the wicked film cgi looks horrible.
@@schneejacques3502Trust me, in the actual movie, it looks WAY better.
Indeed @@schneejacques3502
My man took no heat off that swing at James Franco 😅😅😅
The film wasn't bad, I would put it to my kids, but is one you'll never remember or watch again. Forgettable is the killing word for this franchise.
Wicked has a lot to do with why this movie was greenlit, and ironically enough, Wicked is probably also the reason this movie never got a sequel. The film version of Wicked was announced by Universal just two years after Oz came out, and Disney probably figured that they wouldn't be able to compete and abandoned ship on the sequel.
And they got the rights to some other Gregory Maguire boomer revisionist clap trap as a consolation prize while making that into a Disney Channel Original Movie IIRC.
I enjoyed this film. It is a fun adventure that has several problems but they don’t bother me much.
Same
Minus budget and marketing, the film only ended up grossing less than 40 million dollars of pure profit.
Not the kinds of money Disney sees as franchise potential.
I had a new appreciation of the Wizard of Oz after watching this movie the first time. The thing that makes it stand out more than ever is all the little special effects they managed to do without CGI. They didn't CGI sparks coming out of her finger tips from trying to grab Ruby slippers, or a tornado ripping through a farm. That red smoke and flames were so real, it even caught Margaret Hamilton (Witch) on fire. The Wizard of Oz crew had actually work hard in order to get their effects, but not going to lie, some with huge risk. The only thing that's good about the CGI in this film is that it didn't hurt anyone. The only way this film would've been made with practical effects would be if Tim Burton directed it. He's the only person in the industry (that I can think of) that tries to use Claymation (for example) anytime he can still and other practical effects.
Crucify me, I liked this film on release, even though I wasn't a big fan of the Wizard of Oz. The fact that Sam Raim directed this film has only made this film more special and significant.
Same
Extremely underrated channel, I'm guessing alot of these failures are before alot of the average youtube viewer was born.
From an era where really EVERY American blockbuster looked EXACTLY the same bc studios were like: woooooow we can do ANYTHING digital! Isn’t that forward thinking? … But we didn’t care for a good writer
Just wanna say your videos are really funny and interesting keep doing what you’re doing!!!
I vaguely remember thinking it was OK, but haven’t thought about it since now
Same
I remember the reveal of Mila Kunis as the witch had everyone laughing in the theater she looked so bad.
This movie was very mid in every way, but the replacing of the marionette with a CGI one is just wrong. smh
This movie never needed a sequel, it was a fantastic, standalone thing. Plus, it could serve as a prequel to the original wizard of oz.
I saw this movie in the theaters and I remember enjoying it. I should definitely give it a rewatch, especially with Wicked coming out soon.
I actually loved this film. Sure it will not win any Oscars and could have been so much better. But considering all the crappy movies that comes out these days , especially from Disney, this movie is quite good.
I remember watching this movie in my 4th Grade before Summer Break back in 2015. I still remember the witch transformation scene really getting to me as a kid.
I love this series dude, thanks for the great videos!
I can't feel too sorry for Disney over their copyright woes since they're the reason the original WB film is still in Copyright. They're the ones who kept campaigning to extend copyright for a crazy amount of time so every time it comes back to bite them on the arse I just laugh.
It might have been better off merging 2D animation and real people like Mary Poppins and Roger Rabbitt
This movie is a good example of when your villains and main characters don't really have a good goal. I enjoyed it the first time I watched it, but it gets so boring the more you watch. The best part for me was Zach Braff and Rachel Weisz's outfits.
Sky High was supposed to be kickstart a franchise, but Disney didn’t make any action figures for it.
You would think a Kurt Russell action figure would have been higher on their list of priorities.
Also a big point is that the film wrapped up all possible arcs that could’ve been explored. Leaving literal scaps
How about Disney stop milking IPs and just... do one piece of every IP then move on
You know your character is flimsy and underdeveloped when even a 7 year old (me) thought something was wrong 😭
I remember going to the theater expecting this to be like Wicked. I was disappointed
Another good entry. You gotta do Pan next. That film looks bonkers, as though it were pulled in several directions by people who hated each other, the audience, and life itself
Oz The Great & Powerful was Disney trying to usurp Wicked because they couldn’t get the rights to it. Then they did Maleficent and Frozen which basically were Wicked rip offs. Disney be dirrrty.
This film wasn’t terrible, it just messed around with the source material a little too much for my liking. The cameos from The Evil Dead cast were a cool easter egg for me though.
I love this film and really hope they make a sequel. It's so beautiful.
I think they'll wait until 2039 for when Oz enters the public domain.
Given the description of what the unmade sequel's synopsis (take it with a grain of salt, this is only just my speculative fan theory) would've been likely either Oz and Glinda's daughter would've been either an expy of Ozma or actually turning out to be Ozma and that the one behind the curse could be the Nome King
honestly that would track.
@@OneShot-nu6nj definitely as well I feel like it would probably have both Mombi and obviously other Oz related characters like Quox, Tik Tok, The Witch of the North (since in the Oz book canon Glinda and the Witch of the North were seperate characters in this film's continuity, Glinda IS the Witch of the South), The Tin Man and maybe the Scarecrow
@@ToaAxiomMan ooh and thats true. interestign with these what ifs ans could have beens.
@@OneShot-nu6nj I feel like I tend to be creative with these Oz related ideas
@@ToaAxiomMan same here.
I have no idea why I loved this movie back in the 2010s. :/
Nothing ever compares to the OG Wizard of Oz ^_^
I liked this film for what it was. The biggest problem for me was the lack of real sets. Personally I really liked Glinda's and Theodorea's characters.
Forgot to mention that Oz was a predator taking advantage of a naive young girl, then took advantage of her equally naive sister right in front of her. So you wonder why she couldn’t control emotions she had no understanding of? But she’s the bad guy and Oz is our apologetic hero. 🖕🏼🖕🏼🖕🏼
She’s a woman, not a girl.
I watched the movie, and while not super excited I found it well made and enjoyable. Why must every well made movie be expanded into an endless franchise? The movies which bore such expectations never got a sequel like Stardust from 2007, for example. I would have watched such a movie but it never came to be.
I read the thumbnail and the first thing that came to mind was that one Megamind meme lol
A lot of wizard of oz properties will also come with the disadvantage of the original being just an amazing masterpiece of practical effects
Answer: it contradicted existing media people already liked/preferred
How you gonna hire Sam Raimi and tell him to "tone it down?" It's like hiring Tom Savini then telling him he can't make any gore. Which, I mean, we all already know how that went...
I remember when this came out because I thought it was going to be a Wicked knock off. I was so disappointed with it. 😅
Alice in Wonderland (2010) works so well im term of Green Screen that Disney back on 2013 wanted to recapture that same feeling. Too bad it didn't worked.
Wicked is much superior is SO SO MANY WAYS
It’s the disrespect to Oz book lore for me, I checked out when they made Glinda the daughter of the King. Just wiped away Ozma.
Loads of people are saying “this is kind of film that you enjoyed as a kid but have to rewatch it” … it’s made for kids! They did good
I watched this movie in theaters… twice. Every single clip played in this video (except the fixing of China Girl’s leg) feels entirely new to me. I don’t recall a single one of these shots or story beats
The craziest part about the wicked witch in this is she has absolutely no agency. She didn't even become evil because her heart was broken by the guy she just met, no, her heart was broken by the guy she just met and then *her sister* gave her an apple that made her heartless. She didn't even choose to become a war criminal she was mislead into taking a potion that made her evil 😭
This movie really pisses me off cause the concept has SO MUCH potential!! Like the only thing we know canonically about the wizard is that he is from our world and doesn’t possess any actual power other than the political one. There’s so much to explore…. Also at this time wicked was already a worldwide success so trying to change the witches’s origin stories would not go well with the general public. It also looks like shit and i hate james franco. Sigh
ngl i like this movie a lot. its just so vibrant and the MC is so adorable lol. and dresses - oh the costumes and looks of everything!
11:42 That's how most movies handle "practical effects" wether its a porcelain puppet, Iron Man armor, Chappie robot, or Top Gun fighter jet. They use the real object as a reference for CGI artist to then recreate it in 3D software, and the real object get remove. That's also why some movies will skip the "practical effects" because removing real object from already shot footage takes time, money, and man power. That's usually where CG noticably look bad, because the CGI artist don't have references of the real thing.
James Franco should just stick to being in late night comedy films with Seth Rogan 😂😂😂
The CG to make make it feel more like magical world
$493,311,825 on a $215,000,000 budget is not a big hit. Also, movies filmed in sound studios can look great. The Battle of NY in the first Avengers movie looks incredible even today.
@@dani3po it's Disney that insists on cutting corners while spending mountains of money in the process. They have no sense of either physical or emotional realism, but they are more than willing to sacrifice the latter for whatever they think the former is.
This movie was worth it for the cuteness of the monkey bellhop
I think I’m one of the few people who actually really enjoys this movie but I definitely agree with the criticism you gave. I hope one day Disney will tell more stories in this world
I was disappointed that Disney didn't make a sequel to Oz the Great and Powerful. It really was good enough to get one. Yet another shame on Disney.