Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Just leave it be...


Sepiatone
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was watching THE WIZARD OF OZ on TBS last night and recalled a conversation I had with a nephew some years back about it.

 

He suggested they should do a remake of it.  But THIS time, "Get a better looking Dorothy, and update those dusty sounding old tunes. More "Hip-Hop like.  And they could make the Tin Man, Scarecrow and Lion look more realistic with CGI and "darken" their journey a bit more by adding scenes of the Tin Man chopping up a few flying monkeys with his ax and stuff."

 

I should add that he's a BIG fan of those "Transformer" type movies.

 

But, I feel if it's remade at all, just leave most of it "as is" and the only suggestion of his I was OK with was a slight "update" on some of the music.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Sepitone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh....I thought this was a thread about "Leave It to Beaver".

Now, that could use some updates.

 

Oh, I see! "On'a count'a" the title of Sepia's thread kind'a sound like that sitcom's, huh.

 

(...get it, MissW?...The Beave and Wally and all the kids on that sitcom always say "on'a count'a"...ever notice that?)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching THE WIZARD OF OZ on TBS last night and recalled a conversation I had with a nephew some years back about it.

 

He suggested they should do a remake of it.  But THIS time, "Get a better looking Dorothy, and update those dusty sounding old tunes. More "Hip-Hop like.  And they could make the Tin Man, Scarecrow and Lion look more realistic with CGI and "darken" their journey a bit more by adding scenes of the Tin Man chopping up a few flying monkeys with his ax and stuff."

 

I should add that he's a BIG fan of those "Transformer" type movies.

 

But, I feel if it's remade at all, just leave most of it "as is" and the only suggestion of his I was OK with was a slight "update" on some of the music.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Sepitone.

 

I agree with your nephew;  If there is a remake it should be updated and more modern.  The 39 Oz is a gem so why try to copy that.

 

Just dust off the old book and make a much different version based on that.  This type of remake requires a lot more creativity. 

 

Oh,  and this has been done to a degree (see Dargo's comment on The Wiz).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make a movie out of one of Frank Baum's other 13 Oz books.

 

No one's harming the original, it will always be there for anyone who wants to watch it.

 

You have something here though. Make a new version as a movie franchise. That seems to be the rage today. 

 

The play "Wicked" was related to the Wizard of Oz but, a different story. And it was a huge hit. And didn't affect the original film at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, the original is on Youtube:

 

 

 

WAIT here, Fedya! What? You're expectin' maybe the kid in question is gonna like THIS one INSTEAD?!

 

Heck, at least the '39 version is in vivid Technicolor, well most of it anyway, and ya GOTTA know that those snotty-nosed brats out there, with all their Hip-Hop this and giant super-giantic CGI effects that, can't STAND movies made in black & white, doncha?!

 

(...let alone silent ones) ;)

 

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.  That "kid" was 36 at the time.  He's 42 now.

 

And he's seen THE WIZ and didn't like it. 

 

After some thought( and after posting this thread) I figured he may have some point in some "updating" of the "dream sequence"(Dorothy's adventures in OZ), but do the opening and closing sequences as a "period piece".

 

But don't go so far, as he suggested, to turning the adventures in OZ into a sort of "gothic horror/ action" type thing.

 

With CGI at least that "horse of different color" can change colors as we watch, and not be different horses dyed different colors and edited in.

 

I look at the remake of "classics" in movies the way some "purists" look at the constant re-staging of Shakespeare plays.  Most attemps to make them more contemporary rarely go anywhere. 

 

Sure, the PREMISE of "Romeo And Juliet" gets many "makeovers"( WEST SIDE STORY), but when the original play gets staged, it's left alone.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.  That "kid" was 36 at the time.  He's 42 now.

 

And he's seen THE WIZ and didn't like it. 

 

After some thought( and after posting this thread) I figured he may have some point in some "updating" of the "dream sequence"(Dorothy's adventures in OZ), but do the opening and closing sequences as a "period piece".

 

But don't go so far, as he suggested, to turning the adventures in OZ into a sort of "gothic horror/ action" type thing.

 

With CGI at least that "horse of different color" can change colors as we watch, and not be different horses dyed different colors and edited in.

 

I look at the remake of "classics" in movies the way some "purists" look at the constant re-staging of Shakespeare plays.  Most attemps to make them more contemporary rarely go anywhere. 

 

Sure, the PREMISE of "Romeo And Juliet" gets many "makeovers"( WEST SIDE STORY), but when the original play gets staged, it's left alone.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

Wouldn't an actual 'purist' want a film to be faithful to the book?    In this regard a remake shouldn't be faithful to prior FILM versions but more faithful to the book (and in most cases movies are NOT faithful to the book since movies are a different art form;  e.g. visual and with time constraints. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make a movie out of one of Frank Baum's other 13 Oz books.

Return to Oz sort of did this, combining elements of both The Land of Oz and Ozma of Oz. Not that a dramatization of each one separately wouldn't have been better.

 

They were many stage dramatizations of various Oz books or combinations of Oz books or vaguely inspired by Oz books in the early years of the century. Baum was involved in some of them himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't an actual 'purist' want a film to be faithful to the book?    In this regard a remake shouldn't be faithful to prior FILM versions but more faithful to the book (and in most cases movies are NOT faithful to the book since movies are a different art form;  e.g. visual and with time constraints. 

 

That's true in ONE sense, but mainly, I used the term "purist" as in relation to the original MOVIE.  And in relation to the Bard as it relates to how his plays were written, and subsequently re-staged.

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.  That "kid" was 36 at the time.  He's 42 now.

 

 

Sorry, Sepia. The way you made it sound, I thought your nephew was just a kid.

 

Saaay, WAIT a second here! What am I doin' apologizin' here?!

 

The "kid" is a Gen-Xer, RIGHT?! Well, to this Boomer here, that IS STILL a freakin' "kid"!!!

 

(...so I take all this back, dude!)

 

;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he's seen THE WIZ and didn't like it. 

 

Well, who DID?   :rolleyes:

 

(Btw, that live-TV version didn't seem to bear any resemblance to the Lumet movie that I could remember...Does anyone who's seen the original musical know which version is "correct"?)

 

kingrat

Return to Oz sort of did this, combining elements of both The Land of Oz and Ozma of Oz. Not that a dramatization of each one separately wouldn't have been better.

 

I remember seeing Return to Oz in theaters, and "Psychotic" is one word I do not throw around lightly, unless richly earned (y'know, like "Robert Zemeckis' 'A Christmas Carol'" psychotic).

But does sort of aversion-therapy "Be careful what you wish for..." when the fans also get on the "Every great movie I remember from my childhood was SCARY, that's why I liked them!" wishful-nostalgia train.

When the movie came out on Disney Club Blu-ray, some new-generation kid (younger than thirty) saw the scene where Dorothy walks through the room of severed heads, and actually thought the movie was supposed to be some Tim Burton/Alice-style "dark horror-deconstruction" of the story.  

Um, no, that was just Walter Murch destroying his directorial career at Disney.  (The script was actually rather faithful to the two books, before they let the lunatic loose on it.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Sepia. The way you made it sound, I thought your nephew was just a kid.

 

Saaay, WAIT a second here! What am I doin' apologizin' here?!

 

The "kid" is a Gen-Xer, RIGHT?! Well, to this Boomer here, that IS STILL a freakin' "kid"!!!

 

(...so I take all this back, dude!)

 

;)

 

Well, he IS young enough to be my son( as he's the same age as one of my daughters) but at that age one might consider him to be an adult and NOT a "kid".  Athough I'm sure there are times his WIFE might think so.  ;)

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true in ONE sense, but mainly, I used the term "purist" as in relation to the original MOVIE.  And in relation to the Bard as it relates to how his plays were written, and subsequently re-staged.

 

Sepiatone

 

When a film is an adaptation of a book or play,  to me it makes no sense to be faithful to the a prior adaptation (film).

 

But hey I'm coming from the POV of a jazz musician.   We don't try to play a song based on how others have played it (e.g. prior released recordings).  Instead we look at the written music and use that as the basis to create our own interpretation.

 

Now,  I was in a rock band and yea,  I was always told I wasn't playing a  song like the most famous recording.   I was doing this on purpose (since to play a cover 'as is' is soooo boring),  but of course the goal of playing covers is too sound as close to the recording as possible.   I did this for a few years but since it wasn't creative gave up (well really after having a fling with the lead singer which was the only reason I joined the band in the first place, ha ha!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a film is an adaptation of a book or play,  to me it makes no sense to be faithful to the a prior adaptation (film).

 

But hey I'm coming from the POV of a jazz musician.   We don't try to play a song based on how others have played it (e.g. prior released recordings).  Instead we look at the written music and use that as the basis to create our own interpretation.

 

Now,  I was in a rock band and yea,  I was always told I wasn't playing a  song like the most famous recording.   I was doing this on purpose (since to play a cover 'as is' is soooo boring),  but of course the goal of playing covers is too sound as close to the recording as possible.   I did this for a few years but since it wasn't creative gave up (well really after having a fling with the lead singer which was the only reason I joined the band in the first place, ha ha!).

 

I belong to a guitar player forum in which most of the members THERE are also on your side of the "like the record" issue.  They hate it too.

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sepiatone said: With CGI at least that "horse of different color" can change colors as we watch, and not be different horses dyed different colors and edited in.

 

Right, because real live effects & action is just so sub-standard.  :( 

 

JJG said: In this regard a remake shouldn't be faithful to prior FILM versions but more faithful to the book 

 

Exactly.

 

JJG also said: We don't try to play a song based on how others have played it 

 

Ugh I just heard a new version of MOCKINGBIRD and was amazed it was an exact copy of the innovative James Taylor version. He should sue them for plagerism.

 

Back to the OP: I think just as stated RETURN TO OZ and THE WIZ were both updated versions that failed for different reasons. In the first case, you just didn't care about Dorothy (weak leading actor)  and in the WIZ's case, it would have benefitted from better editing, it was a unique production, just kind of meandering. But I really like how it's "dated" in the 70's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if they DID make a new film of the story that WAS "faithful to the book", then it WOULDN'T be a "remake", would it?!

 

AND actually, using CGI for the "horse of a different color" makes sense because the driver DID say "HORSE of a diffeent color", and not HORSES"!  ;)

 

And of course, we all know that when a Hollywood film, in the opening credits says the movie is "based on" some book, it means they use the TITLE, and the character's NAMES fom the book, with a SLIGHT REFERRENCE to the book's premise.

 

And not always the title, since CLINT EASTWOOD's THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES was "based on" a book titled GONE TO TEXAS. 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, seein' as how some of you here seem intent on turning Sepia's thread into a little political discussion, I now have an idea which I think is better than ANY of yours so far.

 

Now, put your little thinking caps on here, guys....

 

Would NOT the TITLE character in some new imaged reworking of this tale be best revived by our own new President-Elect?

 

(...I mean the NYC blowhard IS pretty much a charlatan and just like the way Frank Morgan played the part back in '39, RIGHT?!)

 

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...