Oz: The Great and Powerful
- my chicken is infected
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:55 pm
- Contact:
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
I'm kinda tempted to do it, even tho I don't have a 3D player or TV at the moment. It'd be nice to already have some 3D discs to play in it once I have both. But meh. I'll be happy with the Blu-Ray/DVD/DC combo. (Although I guess I really need to upgrade my iTunes so I can then download the SD copies - the last two iTunes digital copies I've redeemed have defaulted to HD, which I cannot play on my computer or sync to my iPod.)
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
It's a good thing this thread was brought back up, I have a couple of things to say about Oz .
I saw the movie while flying to Orlando a week ago, and I liked it! Its flaws are unfortunately large, but it has enough great things about it that I was still able to enjoy it. First of all, I really love the visual design of the film. The character costumes, especial effects, the atmosphere, everything screamed Disney in a grand way. I loved the clever nods to the MGM film as well as the books, and how the story tried to add more layers to the original story by focusing on Oz being the clever, charming con man that he really is. Although, after having discussed this with a friend, it does make you wonder just where exactly does Great and Powerful fit in the MGM musical, since by the time Dorothy enters Oz, Oz is already an old man. Regardless, I liked the tributes to the MGM film.
I LOVED China Girl and Finley. It is rare for me to say that the comedic sidekicks were better than the human lead characters, but they were. Both characters were adorable, and had a lot of bring to the story, surprisingly. See, as much as I liked the film, I think the movie lacked some substance in terms of emotional performances. Despite being CG characters, Finley and China Girl brought a lot of that to the story, surprisingly.
And now for my gripes...
While I liked James Franco in the role enough, I think had they continues with Robert Downey Jr. as they originally planned, the character of Oz would have been far more likable, believable and yes, even more detestable. Downey just knows how to play the charming con man with a heart of gold trope right, and he could have brought a lot of emotional weight to the character. James Franco does decently enough in the role, but at times he seems to be breezing through the role rather than getting into it.
And then there's what everyone is talking about... Mila Kunis. Seriously, at first I thought people were overreacting to her character. But now... YIKES! First, girl can't act. Sorry, but as cute as she may be, she seems to lack the skills to bring genuine emotions to the character, and Theodora is a character that is very emotionally complex. She just seemed wooden and lifeless most of the time, even when confronting deep drama later in the story.
I don't know how many of you have seen the movie, but I will slap this as spoiler just in case...
Her transformation into the Wicked Witch of the West was contrived as all hell. This was an element that needed to be thought out more. As it stands, it seems to have happened without any real reason other than "girl got jealous of her man, so she became wicked because of it". The reason why I think this is because Theodora is with Oz for like a couple of scenes, and suddenly we are left to believe that she loved him dearly. I mean I can see that slightly since she seemed to be a genuine soul that had her hopes up about Oz being the savior, and I do see how Evanora used that to make sure she stayed in powerful and have a powerful ally by her side. Still, this needed first someone that could PULL THE ROLE OFF, and needed a tighter part in the script.
Despite those two big gripes of mine, I still liked the movie well enough. I would give it a 7 out of 10 since it has a lot to like about it. But those issues are too big to ignore in my book.
I saw the movie while flying to Orlando a week ago, and I liked it! Its flaws are unfortunately large, but it has enough great things about it that I was still able to enjoy it. First of all, I really love the visual design of the film. The character costumes, especial effects, the atmosphere, everything screamed Disney in a grand way. I loved the clever nods to the MGM film as well as the books, and how the story tried to add more layers to the original story by focusing on Oz being the clever, charming con man that he really is. Although, after having discussed this with a friend, it does make you wonder just where exactly does Great and Powerful fit in the MGM musical, since by the time Dorothy enters Oz, Oz is already an old man. Regardless, I liked the tributes to the MGM film.
I LOVED China Girl and Finley. It is rare for me to say that the comedic sidekicks were better than the human lead characters, but they were. Both characters were adorable, and had a lot of bring to the story, surprisingly. See, as much as I liked the film, I think the movie lacked some substance in terms of emotional performances. Despite being CG characters, Finley and China Girl brought a lot of that to the story, surprisingly.
And now for my gripes...
While I liked James Franco in the role enough, I think had they continues with Robert Downey Jr. as they originally planned, the character of Oz would have been far more likable, believable and yes, even more detestable. Downey just knows how to play the charming con man with a heart of gold trope right, and he could have brought a lot of emotional weight to the character. James Franco does decently enough in the role, but at times he seems to be breezing through the role rather than getting into it.
And then there's what everyone is talking about... Mila Kunis. Seriously, at first I thought people were overreacting to her character. But now... YIKES! First, girl can't act. Sorry, but as cute as she may be, she seems to lack the skills to bring genuine emotions to the character, and Theodora is a character that is very emotionally complex. She just seemed wooden and lifeless most of the time, even when confronting deep drama later in the story.
I don't know how many of you have seen the movie, but I will slap this as spoiler just in case...
Her transformation into the Wicked Witch of the West was contrived as all hell. This was an element that needed to be thought out more. As it stands, it seems to have happened without any real reason other than "girl got jealous of her man, so she became wicked because of it". The reason why I think this is because Theodora is with Oz for like a couple of scenes, and suddenly we are left to believe that she loved him dearly. I mean I can see that slightly since she seemed to be a genuine soul that had her hopes up about Oz being the savior, and I do see how Evanora used that to make sure she stayed in powerful and have a powerful ally by her side. Still, this needed first someone that could PULL THE ROLE OFF, and needed a tighter part in the script.
Despite those two big gripes of mine, I still liked the movie well enough. I would give it a 7 out of 10 since it has a lot to like about it. But those issues are too big to ignore in my book.
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
Mila Kunis can be a good actress when giving the right role. Black Swan is a great example as she gave a fantastic performance. In Oz, she was just a big miscast. There are just some actresses that can pull off anger and Mila isn't one of them. Everytime she yells or gets angry, it just sounds like Meg Griffin doing a temper tantrum.pap64 wrote:And then there's what everyone is talking about... Mila Kunis. Seriously, at first I thought people were overreacting to her character. But now... YIKES! First, girl can't act. Sorry, but as cute as she may be, she seems to lack the skills to bring genuine emotions to the character, and Theodora is a character that is very emotionally complex. She just seemed wooden and lifeless most of the time, even when confronting deep drama later in the story.
- Old Fish Tale
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1797
- Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:19 am
- Location: Portugal
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
That role was poorly written...
- Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 13327
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
She didn't get jealous, she got broken-hearted. And what did you mean she used that to make sure she stayed "in powerful" and this needed a "tighter" part in the script?pap64 wrote:As it stands, it seems to have happened without any real reason other than "girl got jealous of her man, so she became wicked because of it". The reason why I think this is because Theodora is with Oz for like a couple of scenes, and suddenly we are left to believe that she loved him dearly. I mean I can see that slightly since she seemed to be a genuine soul that had her hopes up about Oz being the savior, and I do see how Evanora used that to make sure she stayed in powerful and have a powerful ally by her side. Still, this needed first someone that could PULL THE ROLE OFF, and needed a tighter part in the script.
-
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5166
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
Mila was not good, but the role was laughable. Even Meryl Streep would have had a hard time pulling that silly crap off.
- Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 13327
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
I thought Mila was still a legitimately scary witch...though it could have been because of how the filmed and costumed and make-upped and special effected her.
- my chicken is infected
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:55 pm
- Contact:
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
The more I watch this film, the less I actually hear Meg Griffin after Theodora's transformation. It could be because I'm consciously trying to separate them, not sure. I do wish that her role had been better-written, though. She's not a terrible actress, but like someone else said, even Meryl Streep would have had a hard time with this.
As little character development as she gets, I really loved Michelle Williams as Glinda. Again, she wasn't given much to work with, but she does rise to the occasion.
The CGI in this film is distracting. There's not any photorealism to it, with the exception of the China Girl's dress, which actually looks like real cloth. Everything else is far too smooth and shiny and rendered in a way where it looks like CGI. They may have gone for a less photorealistic look to make Oz a fantastical environment, but they still could have done far better. I wouldn't call it piss-poor, as it'd look absolutely breathtaking in a Pixar or Disney animated film, but for a live-action fantasy film, it's subpar. Beautiful to look at, but subpar.
As little character development as she gets, I really loved Michelle Williams as Glinda. Again, she wasn't given much to work with, but she does rise to the occasion.
The CGI in this film is distracting. There's not any photorealism to it, with the exception of the China Girl's dress, which actually looks like real cloth. Everything else is far too smooth and shiny and rendered in a way where it looks like CGI. They may have gone for a less photorealistic look to make Oz a fantastical environment, but they still could have done far better. I wouldn't call it piss-poor, as it'd look absolutely breathtaking in a Pixar or Disney animated film, but for a live-action fantasy film, it's subpar. Beautiful to look at, but subpar.
- disneyboy20022
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6867
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:17 pm
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
It seems Warner Bros have filed a claim against Disney and their Oz the Great And Powerful
http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-oz- ... ark-66116/
http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-oz- ... ark-66116/
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
- Disney_freak
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:55 pm
- Location: United States
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
You're right some of the CGI is horrible especially those horses that are in the background when they're walking to Glinda's.my chicken is infected wrote:The more I watch this film, the less I actually hear Meg Griffin after Theodora's transformation. It could be because I'm consciously trying to separate them, not sure. I do wish that her role had been better-written, though. She's not a terrible actress, but like someone else said, even Meryl Streep would have had a hard time with this.
As little character development as she gets, I really loved Michelle Williams as Glinda. Again, she wasn't given much to work with, but she does rise to the occasion.
The CGI in this film is distracting. There's not any photorealism to it, with the exception of the China Girl's dress, which actually looks like real cloth. Everything else is far too smooth and shiny and rendered in a way where it looks like CGI. They may have gone for a less photorealistic look to make Oz a fantastical environment, but they still could have done far better. I wouldn't call it piss-poor, as it'd look absolutely breathtaking in a Pixar or Disney animated film, but for a live-action fantasy film, it's subpar. Beautiful to look at, but subpar.
I hope this doesn't effect the franchise continuing, I think that MGM is getting a bit picky if you ask me because they make it sound like only they can produce Oz films, but I agree with them on some points that Disney was infringing on them a bit.disneyboy20022 wrote:It seems Warner Bros have filed a claim against Disney and their Oz the Great And Powerful
http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-oz- ... ark-66116/
Blu-ray Collection: http://www.blu-ray.com/community/collec ... p?u=172356
-
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
What a bunch of morons, they should know L. Frank Baum's books are public domain
- DisneyJedi
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3633
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
Just because Warner Bros. owns the film version of the original Oz adventure that is most well-known doesn't mean they own the whole Oz series in general or have the power to run the rest of us.
-
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
Disney should win the case and tell them that Oz is a public domain thing and NEVER owned by Warner except the 1939 movie.
-
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:51 pm
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
Anything bad happens, I'm glad that I've got my Blu-ray copy of the film. ... wait, they're claiming this after HOW MANY MONTHS SINCE THEATER RELEASE?! Anyway, the '39 film was based upon the books, which were actually original.disneyboy20022 wrote:It seems Warner Bros have filed a claim against Disney and their Oz the Great And Powerful
http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-oz- ... ark-66116/
... TURNERRRRRRRR!
This is DisneyFTW1, a former Youtube account that was terminated by Disney themselves. My current Youtube Account is FilmFTW2 (FilmFTW1 was terminated). Youtube sucks when it comes to film uploads, and it sucks even more when major corporations are following your channels. But what can I do?
-
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Oz: The Great and Powerful discussion
I'ts similar to what happened to Peter Pan and The Pirates as Fox was sued by Disney as they think Disney owned Peter Pan but Fox won the case when they said Peter Pan is in the public domain.
Warner is stupid thinking they own Wizard of Oz
Warner is stupid thinking they own Wizard of Oz