Maybe I am jumping to conclusions and if so I apologize. I don’t consider anything in the trailer to be a spoiler nor what is in Inner Stickler’s spoiler box in post #40.
Then it was to be Johnny Depp. Franco was a settle for.
Bienville put it in a spoiler so I assume, she at least considers it one.
edit: I’m totally unfamiliar with Franco as an actor. I don’t think I’ve seen a single thing he’s in but I’m already prepared to hate him due to his abysmal showing on the Colbert Report. (He challenged Colbert to a Tolkien-off and his super-hard question was for Colbert to name 2 Valar.)
There’s enough good material in Baum’s books that they could have made a great movie from that; I don’t see why they had to resort to extracanonical backstories.
I would assume because the material in Baum’s books didn’t support the kind of story they wanted to tell. Actually, I read a number of Baum’s books. There’s little if anything about the origins of the other witches, as I recall. If their point in making the movie was to develop the character of the witches, they were necessarily going to have to go outside the canon.
The Wicked Witch talk is revealed here: http://www.toofab.com/2013/03/04/wicked-witch-oz-the-great-and-powerful/
The cover of the latest Entertainment Weekly also has the WW on the cover. I think it looks like…
Weisz, but apparently it’s Kunis.
I caught him last week for the first and only time with Seth Rogan in Pineapple Express. He was out-stonered.
We have our tickets for the 6pm Friday showing, so we’re good to go.
Sorry about the spoiler, bienville, it never occurred to me that it was a spoiler given that it was a press junket and she’s giving (except for this one) predetermined answers to predetermined questions.
I was also curious why they don’t make movies out of some of the other Baum books. They’re in public domain after all, so they’re available.
Franco’s not a bad actor - I liked him in 127 Hours and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. But either Downey (smart-alecky) or Depp (eccentric) would have been better.
The thing is, though…isn’t that what fairy/folk tales have been doing since they were invented? Being retold and reshaped and reimagined according to their times, their audiences, their tellers?
It’s something that has continued into the genre of “novelized, retold fairy tales” (for example, Robin McKinley’s Beauty and Deerskin or Gail Carson Levine’s Ella Enchanted). This concept even has a TV Trope.
The difference is, this is just one more kind of storytelling (visual) that is used to re-invent these stories.
I actually LOVE “twice told tales”–it’s one of my favorite genres of literature. So I look forward to seeing this. (Of last year’s dueling Snow Whites, I liked Mirror Mirror much better–SWATH just wasn’t up to the sum of its parts. Plus I liked MM’s Prince Charming MUCH more. 
)
What the witchy chick said.
I really enjoy showing my kids how old tales can be retold in many ways; I think it’s a great lesson in perceiving essential themes versus storytelling details and techniques.
I saw it last night. I’d say for the most part it shouldn’t be too intense, though obviously every child varies. The flying monkeys are more realistic and that might be scary but they aren’t too focused on.
Some other more spoilery thoughts if you want:
[spoiler]
The tornado that takes Oz to Oz might be pretty intense but nothing violent in it.
The scenes in China Town might be emotional as there is a young very-well animated doll in physical and emotional duress.
There is a final battle against the bad witches and while it has a lot of noise and lights there’s no gory violence. Come to think of it I don’t think any living being is every seriously harmed other than the china girl who starts out that way and gets fixed.[/spoiler]
So I can see points that might be too much for a 6 year old but I think many would be fine with it.
That was refreshing. Thanks!
Positive review from AICN
Brian
Even though I probably won’t see it, I wish it well for some reason
Actually, neither of them would be best. In a just world the movie would have starred Bruce Campbell.
Wait, Wicked is a book, too? So I can finally “see” it! (as there’s no way a play is going to happen near this podunk town, and I don’t like long travel.)
BTW, there’s this really good retelling/continuation of the story in a more realistic way called A Barnstormer in Oz. It’s really good.
That review has made me rather excited to see it, if only for the visuals. Hopefully I’ll get the chance on Saturday.
Wicked was a book first. It’s by Gregory Maguire, and it’s a bit weird. Not very fantastical, and sets up things that aren’t really followed through with. I didn’t really like it much.
Just got back.
Short version: 6/10
Long version:
[spoiler]Good looking film, Franco was surprisingly good and believable, relatively faithful in many regards to the look and structure of the 1939 film.
But…
Dammit, does every movie have to have “lessons”? Can’t the story be told without getting all treacly/preachy?
Theodora’s transition from “good” to “evil” was so over the top, especially given the slight she thought had transpired, that you’re left thinking that the “good” character was probably not in the best of mental health. It’s like going to war against your own country because a new-found friend has other friends. WTF? Did I miss it, or did Oz boink her?
The climactic fight scene was very paint-by-numbers, up to and including the “Oh, the supposed good guy is showing his true colors by fleeing, now there’s no hope as I point my wand at you and AAAAAHHHHHHH - he’s returned at the very last second, and is kicking our ass!” cliche.
Did I mention how I can’t stand movies with life lessons in them? Does it matter that this one had one of the worst - don’t struggle to be great when you can settle for merely being “good.” :rolleyes: It still sucks. At least Franco didn’t have to learn to be a better dad by spending less time at the office and more time with his kids at the baseball game. 
Michelle Williams was quite hawt. So was Mila Kunis, until she went all green and Hulky. Rachel Weisz was merely there, and really didn’t bring much to the movie. Was there a need for her character, other than to show who Dorothy dropped in on?[/spoiler]
As it’s a Raimi film, Campbell actually IS in it. It’s a cameo and he’s heavily made up but he’s there.