L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz - The Witch's Reveal

[barnyardstudios]

@AStarryKnight Heh, e-mail alerts so I still know what you said. Mean, guy...

[MrCaptainA]

Hey, PhaedrusNYC, if you don't like what the filmmakers have done with the story here, why don't you and they all just agree to disagree and leave it and that?

And if it really bothers you that the inhabitants of Oz are so small, maybe you could make your own version of this story in which they're of more average height.

(Personally, in the version of Oz that I see in my own head, I see only the Munchkins as being shorter than Dorothy. But that's just me.)

[PhaedrusNYC]

It never ceases to amaze me that people start a project insisting that they're doing it to be "more true to the book" and then immediately start making changes for "their vision."

[barnyardstudios]

@PhaedrusNYC I assume you refer to the design of the Witch. If so, any changes were carefully considered. While we intend to remain true to Baum's story, it's still a film for a 2012 audience. Most of which have no familiarity with the book. It won't matter to them that the Witch had an eye-patch in the book, what WILL matter is that eye-patches have been a villain cliche for decades now. That's just one example, but those are the kinds of things we have to take into account.

[PhaedrusNYC]

@barnyardstudios That and this concept of everybody in Oz being a little person. I have no problem with people doing their own thing- that's the nature of adaptation. But you can't simultaneously do your own thing and also tout your fidelity to the source material- you have to pick one. I'm also trying to figure out how an eyepatch is a villain cliche (I can think of pirates and...well, that's pretty much it) but a witch that basically looks like every Halloween decoration in existence is not.

[barnyardstudios]

@PhaedrusNYC Well there's also the fact that having her only eye be a magic eye isn't very cinematic. With the dead eye we can do an interesting visual reveal, rather than resort to narration or clunky exposition. And that's another reason for our few changes. Even Zach Snyder's Watchmen, considered by many to be faithful to a fault, changed a considerable amount of the source material. Books are not films, and you can't just port everything over and expect it to work.

[PhaedrusNYC]

@barnyardstudios "Books are not films, and you can't just port everything over and expect it to work." I acknowledged that- my point wasn't that there's something wrong with altering source material- it was that adapters should just say, "Yeah, we're changing things," rather than touting that the film is needed because "nobody's been true to the book before"- something about eating and having cake. Good luck on your project- I'm curious to see the result of your vision.

[KeyserSushi]

@PhaedrusNYC Dude - writer and producer Sean Gates here. Not trying to double-team you but I love a debate. Denslow drew Scarecrow and the Woodman maybe a little taller than Dorothy, but the Scarecrow is made out of Munchkin clothes, so he has to be Munchkin-sized, and Nick Chopper used to BE a Munchkin, so he too has to be Munchkin-sized. With that said we varied our heights some, but kept the average height in about Dorothy's range.

[PhaedrusNYC]

@KeyserSushi There is nothing in Baum's text that claims that Munchkins are uniformly little people- that's something that came from the movie. Throughout the series there are numerous depictions of Munchkins who are of average height (for the turn of the century). As you pointed out, the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman are both Munchkins and are routinely depicted as being normal height. (Same goes for Nimee Aimee, Ojo the Unlucky, and numerous other Munchkins). Likewise the rest of Oz.

[PhaedrusNYC]

@KeyserSushi As for Denslow's art, one of my major issues with him is that he had MAJOR problems with perspective, scale, and consistency, making it hard to judge his heights. But whenever Dorothy is on the same focal plane as the Woodman and Scarecrow, he consistently draws them as being a head taller than she is or more. Unfortunately, Youtube is not allowing me to post links to the examples, but I could write down page numbers if I thought you had the same edition that I do.

[barnyardstudios]

@PhaedrusNYC Based on group shots like the death of the Kalidahs, the poppy field, and Dorothy and the gang after she's visited the throne room, I get about half a head taller. Though there's room for debate, as he's not hugely consistent, I admit. For what it's worth, our Scarecrow is a bit shorter than Dorothy and our Woodman a bit taller (plus funnel hat). So we're not calling Dorothy's height the cap, just rather a general guideline.

[KeyserSushi]

@PhaedrusNYC I would also point out that everybody being Dorothy's size creates an interesting dynamic because if you notice, everybody in Oz treats her like an adult, and as a major theme of the book is the power of perception, I think there's a subtle hint for the reader (or viewer) in the fact that Dorothy finds everything in Oz to be mostly scaled to her. In Kansas she stands in sharp contrast to the barren wasteland - in Oz she is empowered, a force for good. And that's all Baum.

[PhaedrusNYC]

@KeyserSushi I don't disagree with you that it is an interesting dynamic and could very well turn out to be a great artistic choice that you made. My criticism all along has not been with the idea of filmmakers adapting works to suit their artistic and logistic needs- I simply have a problem with the insistence that this is coming from Baum himself. It adds an unearned legitimacy that isn't even necessary. Be proud enough of your work and choices to admit that that is what they are.

[barnyardstudios]

@PhaedrusNYC The thing is, we're not adapting the series, we're adapting the first book. And I think an Oz populated by little people is a perfectly valid interpretation of the first book, and indeed the first two, as no outsiders appear in Marvelous Land. It would seem odd to me to have the first three adult men Dorothy meets be of her height if that wasn't meant to be just a part of this land. Why wouldn't heights be mentioned again after this to ensure clarity?

[PhaedrusNYC]

@barnyardstudios Writers don't generally mention traits like that unless they're unusual. Dorothy met three short, elderly men, and then several other characters (including the soldier with the green whiskers and Glinda) illustrated as taller than she. Your choice is interesting- but it's a stretch to say that it's Baum's clear intention...

[KeyserSushi]

@PhaedrusNYC This is the second time you've started out with, essentially, "I'm an author and I know what authors do." Well, I'm an author too. So let me ask you, in what universe is "oh, they sent the short Munchkins to meet Dorothy for some reason" a better argument than, "the Munchkins are short"? Also, Baum never said they were elderly. He said they looked many years older than Dorothy. But she's a child! They could be 35 years old and be "many" years older than her...

[PhaedrusNYC]

@barnyardstudios .... You aren't adapting the series, but the fact remains that Baum wrote 14 books. Either he radically changed his own conception or it wasn't his conception in the first place. To me, the latter is more likely than the former.

[barnyardstudios]

@PhaedrusNYC I don't know, it's hard to say over one hundred years later. But Bilbo's ring was originally just a magical trinket. And Leia wasn't originally going to be Luke's sister, nor Vader his father. Things do change as a series progresses and stories demand different things, so I don't think it's fair to rule it out. It may not be Baum's CLEAR intention, but it's a valid interpretation of his writings. And our Glinda is of average adult female height, as the illustration.

[KeyserSushi]

@PhaedrusNYC I think it's perfectly clear that Baum did, indeed, retcon a number of things as the series progressed. I'm reasonably sure that he didn't write "Wonderful Wizard" with a series in mind, and only came back to Oz due to popular demand, and indeed bringing back the character Dorothy in book 3 because people wanted more of her. There are notes to this effect in the back of the Books of Wonder edition of Ozma. As my esteemed colleague pointed out...retcons happen.

[KeyserSushi]

@PhaedrusNYC I'm proud of my work. Why would you assume that I'm not? I take credit for the few alterations I chose to make when I wrote the script. I also give Clayton credit for the ideas that he brought to the revisions. But by the same token...the majority of what is in that script is straight from the book, and the changes, when they occur, are for the sake of the storytelling in the filmic medium. Unearned legitimacy? Robert Baum has given us his blessing, so...whatever.

[PhaedrusNYC]

@KeyserSushi I'm sensitive to this because A. As a writer, it pains me when people make up authorial intent that the author doesn't admit to and that isn't in the text and B. I just completed re-reading all of the Famous 40 (plus other Baum Nonestic books) in a row- it took nearly 2 months. I know as much about what Baum did and didn't write now as I'll ever remember- and for one thing, he didn't write that everyone in Oz is Dorothy's scale- that's Milne, not Baum.

[KeyserSushi]

@PhaedrusNYC Well, maybe you didn't take many English classes in college. Hell, maybe you didn't GO to college. But I learned a long time ago how to do a critical reading and there's a difference between putting words in someone's mouth, and having wit enough to understand the intended meaning of their words. Subtext and theme are real things that writers use. But I guess you'd know all about that, being a writer and all.

[jaredofmo]

@PhaedrusNYC Ease up on the guys. Their depiction of the characters is their decision, and frankly, I think we should judge the finished film instead of just this scene and what they plan. It's possible to remain true to Baum's spirit, story, and characterizations without being a slavish book-to-screen project. If they have their own way to do it, fine. No movie of Oz will ever be Baum's full intention since he can't approve it.

[barnyardstudios]

@PhaedrusNYC As for Oz being populated by little people, Baum calls Dorothy, "a well-grown child for her age," and the Munchkin men are around her height. After this, Baum does not describe character heights, and Denslow continues to draw new characters around the same height as Dorothy and the Scarecrow, with few exceptions.

[PhaedrusNYC]

@barnyardstudios My personal feeling is that Neill (who illustrated 39 Oz books (and wrote three)) probably deserves more credit than a guy who drew one book and a (not very good) comic, but I get that you're fans of WWD, and it's a matter of individual taste. That said, even WWD drew the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman as being taller than Dorothy, so I'm not sure that the idea that everyone in Oz (or even in Munchkinland) is the size of a nine-year-old girl was Baum's intention.

[barnyardstudios]

@PhaedrusNYC Sorry to break this into three messages, but Youtube has this obnoxious character count, and you raised so many good points. Our faithfulness comes from keeping Baum's story and characters intact, and most importantly trying to keep to the tone of his writing. Certain details have been changed, but we tried to keep our alterations to a minimum. If you don't like our Witch design, that's fair, you don't have to. And I could list some eye-patch villains, if you like.

[jayjayhibsybones]

interesting dialouge very creative and a nice twist

[nightmarecrazy08]

GREAT, great job! Much better than the WIP version. Can't wait to see it all come together.

[Elphadyre]

Thanks, Heather. :)

[ZenWildflower]

Oh Marie, you're SCARY!!!

[SamAM16]

Oh this is So GOOOOOOD . . . Now THIS is the type of "Wicked" I like, and that's saying something!

[rocketdave]

Ah, good old fashioned nightmare fuel.

[nicholasbarwick]

Wow that looks amazing