Why do all the comments say things like "FUCK OFF AND DIE IN AN INSANE ASYLUM!" I thought this was just an innocent little short about The Wizard of Oz?
It's just as well this was never made. It never would have had the longevity of MGM's The Wizard of Oz, and not just because that's such a classic, but because this is trite, trendy, and very forgetable. Now 50 years later, it would only be remembered by fans of the Mouseketeers in it, if even by them.
For the people who are lame enough to argue back & forth over youtube, your pathetic! Enjoy the video. who cares if you disagree with someones opinions. There will be many Oz adaptions in the future that Disney will be involved with one way or another.
@Firebrdsuite you FUCK OFF...........YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO EVER BE RIGHT...........REALLY!. type all the fucking bullshit that you want but EVERYONE else is always going to be right not you, also NOT your video so i'll do as i please
@PrimalWolf2006 I am right and will be! You sound like a dictator! This is really the last time i talk, you can say what you want! It doesn't matter! We'll see! Disney will buy everything back! and The Confederacy will never rise again!
@Firebrdsuite Disney CAN'T buy back what's NEVER been theirs in the first place, and the ONLY RACIST IS YOU, i don't remember telling you to speak on my behalf..............I am the only one who says what or who i am, not some PATHETIC, RETARD troll who belongs in a mental institution
"Btw, I think disney & tim burton should team up and do a version that's accurate to Baum's original book...that would be freaking awesome"
Warner Bros. OWNS the original book and the movie that it inspired. Disney OWNS all the rest, from The Marvelous Land of Oz onward (Return to Oz was a dark merger of The Marvelous Land of Oz & Ozma of Oz).
@MovificationByChan: Wrong. Warner OWNS the rights to any version based on the MGM canon. Ex: If a Wicked film were made, people involved would have to go by Warner (owner of the MGM film & subsequent DiC-produced cartoon from 1990 that inspired Wicked), McGuire (author), & Schwartz (musical director) for legal reasons, due to copyright ownership. In fact, Disney ONLY owns rights to the other Baum books after the original, since the rights to the original were granted to MGM for the film.
...I agree that if Disney wanted to make a film based off of the MGM classic, they would have to pay Warner... But Warner does not own rights the first book. It has been in the public domain since the 50's or 60's. They would only have to pay royalties to Warner if they used something created for the MGM film, such as the Ruby Slippers (which are not in the original book) or any of the songs from the film. All of the characters and story are free to be used by any group.
@Firebrdsuite: Uhhh...yes. Read ANY documentary about the films of Oz & you'll notice that all rights to the original go to Warner if it involves a MGM reference of any kind and subsequent to all later books go to Disney, as per Return to Oz (based on The Marvelous Land of Oz & Ozma of Oz).
@Firebrdsuite Yes. All you have to do is watch it to see it has a different plot than "Wonderful Wizard," and characters that didn't appear until later in the series, such as Ozma and Scraps.
@Firebrdsuite No, "Wonderful Wizard" was about Dorothy Gale's first trip to Oz and her first meeting with the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, Cowardly Lion, and the Wizard.
This show depicts Dorothy as returning to Oz to find the Cowardly Lion now a cruel tyrant who needs to be broken out of a spell.
@Firebrdsuite But this is not based on the book, as has already been made clear. The plot is different, mainly involving Dorothy coming BACK to Oz AFTER her first visit. And then there's the title: "The Rainbow Road to Oz." Not "The Wizard of Oz," but "The Rainbow Road to Oz."
I've read all of Baum's books; trust me, this isn't one of his plots.
@MaskedMan66 She is visiting Oz here, the original version of the Judy Garland film had this too! Well The Judy Garland film was very different too! The Woodman would be in here if it continues! Ozma and scraps, were in the original books! This is supposed to be the original! Really!
Wow, I wonder what this movie would of been like if Walt had go though with it. I guess will never know. BTW, am the I only one who thinks Scarecorw look a little bit like the Joker from the Drak Knight?
No you guys are wrong and this is really the last time i'm talking to you! I am right, i did all the things i said and i'll never believe what you believe dictator! GOODBYE!
For the record, this originally appeared on "DISNEYLAND" as a segment of its "Fourth Anniversary Show" on September 11, 1957. This WAS intended to be a "preview" of the film Disney wanted to produce...but never did. The Mouseketeers rarely appeared on the prime-time show (even with Kevin "Moochie" Corcoran as a "ringer"; he only appeared in the "MICKEY MOUSE CLUB" serials).
Their alternate worlds but, that dousn't make either less real or valid. It's the Many Wold Interpretation of Quantiam physics. Read the spanish short story "The Garden of Forking Paths" by Jorge Luis Borges, translated into English. Also, "His Dark Materials" famous for "The Golden Compass". In forking paths, a famous philosopher withdraws from his fame to create a labrynth no man can escape and a book that never ends. When he died no ne could find the maze, and the book was seeminly chaotic
contradictory and senseless. In the tird chapter the hero dies, in the fourth he is alive. Turns out, the book is the maze: a labrynth of symbols, of time. BEfore dying the man left a note "I leave to the vrious futures (not to all) my garden of forking paths". See, a man chooses to wear red socks, this eliminates all the possible futures which may have resulted from wearing blue or green socks, the idea is their are zillions of alternate universes in one the man pickes green socks, another blue
in another he's a woman, another he dousn't even exsist. In the short-sotry the mad-up philosopher supposedly was trying to capture this idea by hvaing a labrynth book of time, begining with one base chapter, then each subsequent chapter gives an alternate version of what could have happened next, then the chapters after that give branches from the orginal branches. A garden of forking paths. each branch exsists and is just as valid as the next one. Kinda like those Goosebumps, you choose books.
I don't get why poeple are always fighting over whether the Wicked Witch of the West is good or bad. IThere to different stories and truly, I don't think they should be compared. Personnally, I love Wicked, and the classic Oz stories by Baum. When I think about baum's stories I consider the WW of the W, a hiorrible, crual, b***hy old hag, when I think about Wicked I consider her a sweet, somewhat naive, fiery-tempered girl.
In the MGM movie, (maybe the Baum books too, it's been a few years since I read the books) Oz and Kansas are mirror-image counterparts, I consider the Oz of Wicked and Baum's Oz to be mirror-image counterparts. Both can exist seperatly in peace, wothout making one any more or less real or reasonable then the other. I love Elphie of one but I hate the Wicked Witch of the West of another. Oh, and I strongly dislike Miss Almira Gulch, the other-counterpart. :-)
Brilliant! Thats the best way I have ever heard it explained.
My brother can't understand how Wicked is valid as a canon, but I say "Its a response. Its a different interpretation.
and your mirror image comment makes all the sense in the world. I'm a huge Oz fan in general, but when I read and saw Wicked, wow. A new world was opened and it was still connected to my favorite thing in the world.
If Disney had only made this, then my two worlds would be joined, and I'd be ever contented.
Greg Maguire wasn't the first or the only one to do a darker take on Oz or just a general revision... I myself am working on a novel called "The Ozma Confessions" (title subject to change) which is more faithful to Baum then Maguire but still changes a bit.
There's room for Baum, Disney, MGM, Maguire, the Oz/Wonderland Chronicles, my own book and any dozen other interpretations part of what makes art so great is the ability to look back and examine things from different angles.
@Treemeadow "Wicked" isn't canon. Canon Oz comprises what is called the "Famous Forty," the books written by Baum, Thompson, Neill, Snow, Cosgrove, and the McGraw sisters. All other Oz and purportedly Oz books are outside the "real" continuity.
I never said it was part of the Famous Forty canon, why- the MGM film isn't even part of the canon. But as apart of the wider "Oz" Alternate Universe canons (of which there are many), I don't see why not. Remember, a canon doesn't mean just the original source material. It's any established set of guidelines/facts concerning it's source. In the canon of the Wider Oz, Wicked does have a place. Not as part of the Famous Forty or original continuity, but it has a place nonetheless.
@Treemeadow Actually, that's exactly what canon means. A quote from Wikipedia:
"In the context of a work of fiction, the term canon denotes the material accepted as 'official' in a fictional universe's fan base. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction, which are not considered canonical."
So "Wicked" does not have a place in Oz canon; it's off in its own world, as are the other things.
It's like "Doctor Who"; the two feature films are not canon.
@oldblackhat The "mirror-image" thing was strictly MGM. In the original story there were no farmhands, no Professor Marvel, and no Miss Gulch. Oz was something vastly different from Kansas, and after five trips to Oz, Dorothy Gale left Kansas behind and settled in Oz with her aunt, uncle, dog, and cat.
I like that Scraps is in the story but it's not very faithful to the first few books... and for some reason her eyes look scary whenever she's depicted visually. They need to change her face just a little from the original illustration.
It'd be interesting if this project actually got off the ground. I really love this story in all its forms, and although I don't think Disney's would be perfect, there was potential.
question, what happened to Glinda and Elphie? Oz just isn't Oz without an over bubbly Good Witch and an outwardly evil but secretly gentle and misunderstood Wicked Witch.
lol thats ok, but about the Wicked supporter part... well... lets just say don't go on my channel unless it's Halloween lol ;) I'm an all around Oz fan!!!!!! (Except for the patchwork girl... now SHE is CREEPY!!!!)
I don't ; I used to be fond of it - I've seen it twice. But being an avid Oz fan I have resented it for quite a time now. Everyone thinks WW is good, And Glinda is a preppy - totally not what Baum had in mind.
Of course I realize it's a book. But I'll stand by my comment, even if not meant as an answer to the film; it still gives false truths which people imply to the origin.
@WizardOfOzfan94: It shouldn't matter which witch is good or bad, because BOTH "Good Witch" Glinda and *Elphaba* (said to give her a name beyond her title) are BASED ON the SAME person, Matilda Gage, noted Women's Sufferagist.
Wicked is not a prequel. It is a Revisionary look at the land of Oz.Furthrmore, if you knew about it, you would realise that it is not ONLY about what happens before Dorothy, but what happens during and long after.You could say that Wicked was a portrayal of what McGuire thought Oz would be like in a darker more adult world. He is a VERY big fan of Oz.
Have you ever heard of revisionist literature? It is one of the most dificult to write, and in Wicked it was pulled off very well.
Ah, I really don't like the tone your using with me; but that's not important. It IS in fact a prequel, if you look at the making of the musical on youtube you will find one of the creators of it state that it is in face a prequel.
we aren't discussing the musical, which moves quite clearly in a different direction than the book. The musical was marketed to be the "other story" of Oz. I think this is what you are thinking of.
The book was marketed as a revisionist view of Oz, not a prequel. This is why I said above that the book is indeed quite different from the musical.
And I apologize if you don't like my tone, but really, thats the nature of discussion
The book and the musical are two very different things.
I am in fact talking about the musical, but I stand by my comment; even if the book was not written as an answer to the film - it still acts as one. I really don't like Wicked, or revisionist literature; it always ends up twisting a story. I don't think there's anything else to discuss. Good-Day.
I really can't take you seriously. " LOL!! " . is it that hard to be nice?? I mean really. And I understand the " POINT " of R.L. but me being an avid Oz ( film ) fan; I don't care for it to be changed. It's my own opinion and you shouldn't even be calling me out on it. And lastly your sarcasm fails to make me want to continue this convo. And your avatar doesn't help either. ;D
My avatar? you mean me and the dog? Or my name...Mmm, I love the taste of hypocracy in the morning, don't you?
I don't care what you're opinion is, but you were making unfounded/incorrect statements about Wicked "fan-fictionish prequel that gives false truths" based purely on having seen the musical-which doesn't represent the book well at all I was initially correcting you, but you took offense. I couldn't help but add a little snide into my remarks.
I think hypocracy would be making snide comments while trying to correct someone when you shouldn't be correcting an opinion. My opinion is in fact founded, as I have years of worship towards anything Oz, but I don't fancy a R.L. about the story. An opinion, just get over it. If I think the story should remain original that's my right. Now go and comment someone all day. I don't care for your "hypocracy" or your diminutive name.
Isn't it odd when we must resort to petty insults to get our points across? A crime of which we are both now guilty.
But really, to bring the insults down to names shows something- that you no longer have any basis in logic to argue with, meaning that by general rules of debate, I have won.
Years of idolising a book does not make your opinion anything more than an opinion, it does not make it founded. Just ask the thousands of fanatical Christians out there.
Well, actually - miss; considering you implied my thinking as against modern day logic - I consider I won a while back. You, brought the insult down to something I am not. If i were against modern day-greats, I wouldn't have a cellphone; you tube account or a my space. These people who have created such things are not authors - but yet very modern aren't they?
If I were to respond via text to you again I would consider myself a hypocrite. I'll let you finish.
@Treemeadow What about the billions of non-fanatical Christians?
Either the Bible comes straight from God or it doesn't. If it does (I'm asking you to keep an open mind here, as I reckon you fancy yourself as having one), then human opinion don't affect it none. You're free to reject it but then you put yourself in the position of a man who says, "In my opinion, gravity has no effect on me" and then jumps off a cliff.
I've never seen Gravity proven wrong. I have seen many reasons to doubt the existence of God, and at any rate- believing in God "just in case" is Pascal's Wager, and that is a foolish reason to believe in a supreme being anyway. Better to actually believe for a reason than "just in case".
Think of it this way- you're just as much an agnostic as I am. I am just doubtful of ONE god more than you are.
@Treemeadow Any number of people whose guilt in a crime has been "proven," only for the "proof" to be found erroneous. Something that science is supposed to have "proved" only for the "proof" to have really been pointing to another conclusion.
Don't obsess too much on gravity; I could just as well have used the example of a man who thinks a speeding train won't harm him, so he steps in front of it.
@Treemeadow I just hope your "reasons to doubt the existence of God" don't include Eusibius's "argument" in which he puts forth two scenarios involving God and evil, neither of which has anything to do with the God of Juedo-Christian belief. I'd so love to hear something original.
@Treemeadow Well, there's a switch. Usually it's the first thing the mockers trot out.
It's not a matter of "my" God; I have no influence over Him, He just is who He is, and would still be so even if I didn't believe. The only "version" (as you put it) of God I believe in is the one who revealed Himself to us; otherwise, we'd never have known Him. Certainly no human would ever make up a God like Him; that is, a God who is better than we are.
No one human made him up, but thousands over thousands of years. Why, there is evidence to suggest hat even though Christ was an historical figure, the miracles and mythology associated with him did not appear till nearly 100 years or more later- when religions began to merge and combine with growing trade and population shifting.
Just so you know, when discussing Gods in a framework such as this, it's probably best not to talk in absolutes- it tends to turn people away faster than anything.
@Treemeadow No humans made Him up at all; again, why would they?
You state a tired old cliche. The miracles of Jesus were told during His lifetime, inspiring trumped-up charges of consorting with demons which formed part of the "evidence" against Him at His trial. They were mentioned in the letters of His apostles, who of course didn't make it to old age, let along 100 years after the events.
The miracle of the Resurrection was the basis of Christianity, which began within weeks of the event itself, not hundreds of years later, and was recorded by Luke, who was alive at the time and heard the reports from people who were there. You also hear of the miracles of Christ in historians of the time. So bang goes the whole "100 years later" lark.
"it's probably best not to talk in absolutes" is an absolute statement.
Sorry, look, I just don't agree. I've seen and studied this all before, I attended Seminary School and can read in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
I don't agree, and the 100 years later stuff is real- why, even Theologians agree that the books weren't written until, in some cases, up to 70 Years later, and many of the books were compiled not by one man,but by several.
But it's not worth discussing, because you're attached to your belief, so I'll let you be.
Sorry, look, I just don't agree. I've seen and studied this all before, I attended Seminary School and can read in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
I don't agree, and the 100 years later stuff is real- why, even Theologians agree that the books weren't written until, in some cases, up to 70 Years later, and many of the books were compiled not by one man,but by several.
But it's not worth discussing, because you're attached to your belief, so I'll let you be.
@MaskedMan66 Sorry, look, I just don't agree. I've seen and studied this all before, I attended Seminary School and can read in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
I don't agree, and the 100 years later stuff is real- why, even Theologians agree that the books weren't written until, in some cases, up to 70 Years later, and many of the books were compiled not by one man,but by several.
But it's not worth discussing, because you're attached to your belief, so I'll let you be.
@lizziemagic Okay, it's like this: the original Wicked Witch of the West was not your dear "Elphie," and she never had any dealings with Glinda. The one-eyed old hag appeared in one chapter in the middle of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" and then expired.
As for Glinda herself, she is not bubbly, but serene and majestic, and appears in most of the Oz books by Baum and several of the ones by the other Oz authors.
@polotottie Rubbish. It's ridiculous that ONE adaptation of ONE book in a series should have a choke hold on people who want to do something else with the stories and concepts which were around long before that "classic" was ever made.
Remember: the REAL original, the REAL classic, was a book published in 1900... 39 years before that movie.
@polotottie It may interest you to hear that when MGM first announced their movie, people were upset to learn it would not include any of the songs from the 1902 Broadway smash "The Wizard of Oz," and a lot of folks then thought MGM shouldn't try to "top the original" or "compete with a classic."
Besides, this movie wasn't even based on the same story, so they'd have been quite in the clear.
@1WILLIAMSLEDDFANN I take it that by "the original" you mean the 1900 book "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz?" The best adaptation of that book I've ever seen was a musical created in 2000 which I saw in Toronto in 2002.
In any case, this was not based on the original, nor any of Baum's other 13 books; it was a brand-new story.
@hd1987 No, this was a story concocted for the screen, while "Return to Oz" seamlessly blended elements from "The Marvelous Land of Oz" and "Ozma of Oz," the second and third books in the Oz series.
"Well, we figure that in an artistic production such as this, money is of secondary importance, right?"
And all the economists in the world sigh with disdain.
BrokenTourniquet 3 weeks ago
Let's one wondering why they never got around to making it.
MtnDewFan 1 month ago
Why do all the comments say things like "FUCK OFF AND DIE IN AN INSANE ASYLUM!" I thought this was just an innocent little short about The Wizard of Oz?
MySushiBear 2 months ago
It's just as well this was never made. It never would have had the longevity of MGM's The Wizard of Oz, and not just because that's such a classic, but because this is trite, trendy, and very forgetable. Now 50 years later, it would only be remembered by fans of the Mouseketeers in it, if even by them.
papaknowsbest16 3 months ago
For the people who are lame enough to argue back & forth over youtube, your pathetic! Enjoy the video. who cares if you disagree with someones opinions. There will be many Oz adaptions in the future that Disney will be involved with one way or another.
RockMegaBarbie 4 months ago
woah! whats with all the hostilities in the comments?
me323 5 months ago
@Treemeadow uh No!
Firebrdsuite 6 months ago
@Firebrdsuite Uh YES
PrimalWolf2006 5 months ago
@PrimalWolf2006 No!
Firebrdsuite 5 months ago
@Firebrdsuite Yes, EVERYONE is RIGHT, not you
PrimalWolf2006 5 months ago
@PrimalWolf2006 Fuck Off and go to An insane asylum! I am right and you're wrong and that's that!
Firebrdsuite 5 months ago
@Firebrdsuite you FUCK OFF...........YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO EVER BE RIGHT...........REALLY!. type all the fucking bullshit that you want but EVERYONE else is always going to be right not you, also NOT your video so i'll do as i please
PrimalWolf2006 5 months ago
@PrimalWolf2006 I am right and will be! You sound like a dictator! This is really the last time i talk, you can say what you want! It doesn't matter! We'll see! Disney will buy everything back! and The Confederacy will never rise again!
Firebrdsuite 5 months ago
@Firebrdsuite Disney CAN'T buy back what's NEVER been theirs in the first place, and the ONLY RACIST IS YOU, i don't remember telling you to speak on my behalf..............I am the only one who says what or who i am, not some PATHETIC, RETARD troll who belongs in a mental institution
PrimalWolf2006 5 months ago
@PrimalWolf2006 FU, for the really really last time!
Firebrdsuite 3 months ago
@Firebrdsuite listen FAGGTARDSHITE.............NOBODY cares about your ignorant lying, we all know the TRUTH.
PrimalWolf2006 3 months ago
@PrimalWolf2006 blahhh
Firebrdsuite 3 months ago
Warner Bros. owns the rights to the 1939 MGM classic The Wizard of Oz!
heine71 6 months ago
The Patchwork Girl has come to cinch the deal...
BlackMoonLilith 7 months ago
Wow, I have NEVER seen this! :) I knew Uncle Walt had the rights to the Wizard of Oz but this is a gem to find. :) Thank you so much for posting! :)
PrinceMarc22 8 months ago
"Btw, I think disney & tim burton should team up and do a version that's accurate to Baum's original book...that would be freaking awesome"
Warner Bros. OWNS the original book and the movie that it inspired. Disney OWNS all the rest, from The Marvelous Land of Oz onward (Return to Oz was a dark merger of The Marvelous Land of Oz & Ozma of Oz).
TherealRNO 8 months ago
@TherealRNO
Nope, you're wrong. All 14 OZ books are in the public domain and owned by no particular group.
MovificationByChan 6 months ago
@MovificationByChan: Wrong. Warner OWNS the rights to any version based on the MGM canon. Ex: If a Wicked film were made, people involved would have to go by Warner (owner of the MGM film & subsequent DiC-produced cartoon from 1990 that inspired Wicked), McGuire (author), & Schwartz (musical director) for legal reasons, due to copyright ownership. In fact, Disney ONLY owns rights to the other Baum books after the original, since the rights to the original were granted to MGM for the film.
TherealRNO 6 months ago
@TherealRNO
...I agree that if Disney wanted to make a film based off of the MGM classic, they would have to pay Warner... But Warner does not own rights the first book. It has been in the public domain since the 50's or 60's. They would only have to pay royalties to Warner if they used something created for the MGM film, such as the Ruby Slippers (which are not in the original book) or any of the songs from the film. All of the characters and story are free to be used by any group.
MovificationByChan 6 months ago
@TherealRNO No!
Firebrdsuite 6 months ago
@Firebrdsuite: Uhhh...yes. Read ANY documentary about the films of Oz & you'll notice that all rights to the original go to Warner if it involves a MGM reference of any kind and subsequent to all later books go to Disney, as per Return to Oz (based on The Marvelous Land of Oz & Ozma of Oz).
TherealRNO 6 months ago
@TherealRNO Disney owns the original and part of others as well!
Firebrdsuite 6 months ago
@TherealRNO The books are in the public domain.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
@TherealRNO disney owns more than that!
Firebrdsuite 6 months ago
that scarecrow is fucking terrifying.
BojanMadzarov 8 months ago
Way to lie to the kids there, Walt!
bigstereo 9 months ago
i love the way Darlene talks :)
wesnaw722 9 months ago
@josephmlong She is from the OZ books, though.
LauraSeabrook 10 months ago
@josephmlong It's the "Frankenstein" effect, I expect. And Scraps is definitely a gal who can at least surprise you at the most random moments.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
This video is mistitled, as it was not an adaptation of "Wizard," but an original story idea.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
@MaskedMan66 no!
Firebrdsuite 6 months ago
@Firebrdsuite Yes. All you have to do is watch it to see it has a different plot than "Wonderful Wizard," and characters that didn't appear until later in the series, such as Ozma and Scraps.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
@MaskedMan66 No it follows The original plot, and the early draft of The Judy Garland one!
Firebrdsuite 6 months ago
@Firebrdsuite No, "Wonderful Wizard" was about Dorothy Gale's first trip to Oz and her first meeting with the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, Cowardly Lion, and the Wizard.
This show depicts Dorothy as returning to Oz to find the Cowardly Lion now a cruel tyrant who needs to be broken out of a spell.
Bit of a difference there.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
@Firebrdsuite Besides, how could this be considered "The Wizard of Oz"... when the Wizard isn't even in it?
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
@MaskedMan66 He would be, if this goes into Development!
Firebrdsuite 6 months ago
@Firebrdsuite I take it you've seen the full script, then.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
@MaskedMan66 No, but Walt would remain faithful to the book and would include the Wizard!
Firebrdsuite 6 months ago
@Firebrdsuite But this is not based on the book, as has already been made clear. The plot is different, mainly involving Dorothy coming BACK to Oz AFTER her first visit. And then there's the title: "The Rainbow Road to Oz." Not "The Wizard of Oz," but "The Rainbow Road to Oz."
I've read all of Baum's books; trust me, this isn't one of his plots.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
@MaskedMan66 No It follows The Original and the early draft of The MGM one!
Firebrdsuite 6 months ago
@Firebrdsuite The original book had Dorothy visiting Oz for the first time. This has Dorothy coming back to Oz.
The original book had the Lion as his regular lovable self all through. This has him under a spell which has made him mean and cruel.
The original book featured a chap called the Tin Woodman. He's nowhere in sight here.
Ozma, Scraps, Zeb, Button-Bright, and Polychrome were not in the original book. They are in this non-Baum sequel.
(continued)
MaskedMan66 5 months ago
@MaskedMan66 She is visiting Oz here, the original version of the Judy Garland film had this too! Well The Judy Garland film was very different too! The Woodman would be in here if it continues! Ozma and scraps, were in the original books! This is supposed to be the original! Really!
Firebrdsuite 5 months ago
@Firebrdsuite Please pay attention; when I spell things in all caps, I'm not yelling, I'm merely emphasizing points you seem to have missed.
I said, the original BOOK had Dorothy visiting Oz FOR THE FIRST TIME. This production has her COMING BACK TO OZ.
NO draft of MGM's "Wizard" had the Lion magicked into being a tyrant. That was Disney's plot.
Ozma and the others were in later Oz books, NOT IN THE ORIGINAL "WONDERFUL WIZARD," upon which this show was not based.
MaskedMan66 5 months ago
awww this is soooo cute and adorable
mistermorality 1 year ago
I wonder now at the balance of doing an animated film as opposed to using actors now. cgi? things have changed. will disney ever do it?
rewolf71 1 year ago
Wow, I wonder what this movie would of been like if Walt had go though with it. I guess will never know. BTW, am the I only one who thinks Scarecorw look a little bit like the Joker from the Drak Knight?
Seeker4TheUnknown 1 year ago
@Seeker4TheUnknown it would have been much like the movie he did make...babes in toyland, which was a remake of the hal roach film of the same name
brabon1 1 year ago
@Seeker4TheUnknown Yes, you are.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
@Seeker4TheUnknown No!
Firebrdsuite 6 months ago
*Bart Simpson impersonation* Can't sleep. Scraps will eat me. Can't sleep. Scraps will eat me.
SuperWolsey 1 year ago 6
@SuperWolsey I have to admit, Patches is creepy as heck even her voice is creepy
SarahJareth 7 months ago
@SuperWolsey Shut Up!
Firebrdsuite 5 months ago in playlist The Land of OZ
@Firebrdsuite Noooope
SuperWolsey 5 months ago
@SuperWolsey Yessssss!
Firebrdsuite 5 months ago
@Firebrdsuite Trolling wont do you any favors
SuperWolsey 5 months ago
@SuperWolsey I'm not trolling you are! Don't insult Disney!
Firebrdsuite 5 months ago
@Firebrdsuite Try telling Seth McFarlane that
SuperWolsey 5 months ago
@SuperWolsey i will, but stewie did not say that about this!
Firebrdsuite 5 months ago
@SuperWolsey i will!
Firebrdsuite 5 months ago
@Firebrdsuite you shut up and quit this"Everyone is wrong, i'm right" crap when you are ALWAYS wrong
PrimalWolf2006 5 months ago
@PrimalWolf2006 No you guys are wrong! And i'm not gonna talk to you anymore!
Firebrdsuite 5 months ago
@Firebrdsuite No we are RIGHT, you're wrong and always will be in the REAL world
PrimalWolf2006 5 months ago
No you guys are wrong and this is really the last time i'm talking to you! I am right, i did all the things i said and i'll never believe what you believe dictator! GOODBYE!
Firebrdsuite 5 months ago
@Firebrdsuite No YOU ARE WRONG, always will be no matter what you type..............everyone else IS stating the FACTS
PrimalWolf2006 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PrimalWolf2006 No You Are! I am stating the facts!
Firebrdsuite 5 months ago
What is the symbol on Walts tie? It looks like a chinese character or something
roxsteadyrik 1 year ago
Isn't dangerous for Scarecrow to be holding, let alone be near, a sparkler?
p.s. Anyone else slighted creeped out by Mickey's "I've been here all the time"?
Lulubellwilley 1 year ago
Sadly Disney never DID make a 50's Wizard of Oz film :( But at least this has the best songs ever!
thebradybunchlover 1 year ago
The Patcher Work Girl sorta creeps me out . . .
TheKittyMeowMeow 1 year ago 9
That was the lowest Mickey Mouse voice I've ever heard!
SSlovebird 1 year ago
I"ve been wanting to see this for years!
Junior113872005 1 year ago
Dorothy sounds more Texan than Kansas XD
josephmlong 1 year ago
Comment removed
josephmlong 1 year ago
I love the Patchwork Girl! She is so beyond awesome and creepiness. I want to make a doll that looks exactly like that
CIGARPIGSKIN6 1 year ago
Conspicuous in their absence from this segment are Tommy Cole and Sharon Baird, who for obvious reasons, would probably have made a great munchkin.
IDLERACER 1 year ago
For the record, this originally appeared on "DISNEYLAND" as a segment of its "Fourth Anniversary Show" on September 11, 1957. This WAS intended to be a "preview" of the film Disney wanted to produce...but never did. The Mouseketeers rarely appeared on the prime-time show (even with Kevin "Moochie" Corcoran as a "ringer"; he only appeared in the "MICKEY MOUSE CLUB" serials).
fromthesidelines 1 year ago
Wow: my dad was born the very next day.
brwhizz 2 years ago
I'd love to see what Tim Burton would do to the patchwork girl!
tzkelley 2 years ago
@tzkelley He sort of did. Sally (from the Nightmare Before Christmas is the only thing close to us ever seeing his take on Scraps.
SuperWolsey 1 year ago
is that bjork?
PumpkinWeirdo 2 years ago
@PumpkinWeirdo Is what Bjork? She hadn't been born yet.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
Comment removed
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
I think there's a full movie out there somewhere!
Treyskywalker77 2 years ago
princess ozmas outfit is so beautiful
cookidoh093 2 years ago
are all these comments so long? october 25, 2009
glossdropleft 2 years ago
I saw this on the WD Treasures disc and found it to be simultaneously sweet and creepy. So glad to hear I'm not alone on this.
ickysan 2 years ago
which disney treasure disc was it? I can't get enough of the patchwork girl
lmddrs 2 years ago
at 4.45 that lion is from bedknobs and broom stick as if.....
briosexual 2 years ago
Odd how they went for Babes in Toyland instead.
enigmawing 2 years ago
God that patch work girl is creppy!
NiceGreenGirl 2 years ago 4
hahaah yeah
crayonmorado 2 years ago
Good to know I'm not the only one who was weirded out by the Patchwork Girl!
SablesOwner 2 years ago 3
why are all these comments so long?
PinkyBehr 2 years ago
i know wtf?
colorfulforlife 2 years ago
great archive material :-) patchwork girl looks creepy though!! :-S
pollekesol 2 years ago
Their alternate worlds but, that dousn't make either less real or valid. It's the Many Wold Interpretation of Quantiam physics. Read the spanish short story "The Garden of Forking Paths" by Jorge Luis Borges, translated into English. Also, "His Dark Materials" famous for "The Golden Compass". In forking paths, a famous philosopher withdraws from his fame to create a labrynth no man can escape and a book that never ends. When he died no ne could find the maze, and the book was seeminly chaotic
oldblackhat 2 years ago
contradictory and senseless. In the tird chapter the hero dies, in the fourth he is alive. Turns out, the book is the maze: a labrynth of symbols, of time. BEfore dying the man left a note "I leave to the vrious futures (not to all) my garden of forking paths". See, a man chooses to wear red socks, this eliminates all the possible futures which may have resulted from wearing blue or green socks, the idea is their are zillions of alternate universes in one the man pickes green socks, another blue
oldblackhat 2 years ago
in another he's a woman, another he dousn't even exsist. In the short-sotry the mad-up philosopher supposedly was trying to capture this idea by hvaing a labrynth book of time, begining with one base chapter, then each subsequent chapter gives an alternate version of what could have happened next, then the chapters after that give branches from the orginal branches. A garden of forking paths. each branch exsists and is just as valid as the next one. Kinda like those Goosebumps, you choose books.
oldblackhat 2 years ago
Comment removed
oldblackhat 2 years ago
I don't get why poeple are always fighting over whether the Wicked Witch of the West is good or bad. IThere to different stories and truly, I don't think they should be compared. Personnally, I love Wicked, and the classic Oz stories by Baum. When I think about baum's stories I consider the WW of the W, a hiorrible, crual, b***hy old hag, when I think about Wicked I consider her a sweet, somewhat naive, fiery-tempered girl.
oldblackhat 2 years ago
In the MGM movie, (maybe the Baum books too, it's been a few years since I read the books) Oz and Kansas are mirror-image counterparts, I consider the Oz of Wicked and Baum's Oz to be mirror-image counterparts. Both can exist seperatly in peace, wothout making one any more or less real or reasonable then the other. I love Elphie of one but I hate the Wicked Witch of the West of another. Oh, and I strongly dislike Miss Almira Gulch, the other-counterpart. :-)
oldblackhat 2 years ago
Many Wold Interpretation of Quantiam physics
oldblackhat 2 years ago
Brilliant! Thats the best way I have ever heard it explained.
My brother can't understand how Wicked is valid as a canon, but I say "Its a response. Its a different interpretation.
and your mirror image comment makes all the sense in the world. I'm a huge Oz fan in general, but when I read and saw Wicked, wow. A new world was opened and it was still connected to my favorite thing in the world.
If Disney had only made this, then my two worlds would be joined, and I'd be ever contented.
Treemeadow 2 years ago
Greg Maguire wasn't the first or the only one to do a darker take on Oz or just a general revision... I myself am working on a novel called "The Ozma Confessions" (title subject to change) which is more faithful to Baum then Maguire but still changes a bit.
There's room for Baum, Disney, MGM, Maguire, the Oz/Wonderland Chronicles, my own book and any dozen other interpretations part of what makes art so great is the ability to look back and examine things from different angles.
princerei 2 years ago
@princerei
I can't wait to read your book! I am a HUGE "Oz" fan!
RETROGEMS 1 year ago
@Treemeadow "Wicked" isn't canon. Canon Oz comprises what is called the "Famous Forty," the books written by Baum, Thompson, Neill, Snow, Cosgrove, and the McGraw sisters. All other Oz and purportedly Oz books are outside the "real" continuity.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
I never said it was part of the Famous Forty canon, why- the MGM film isn't even part of the canon. But as apart of the wider "Oz" Alternate Universe canons (of which there are many), I don't see why not. Remember, a canon doesn't mean just the original source material. It's any established set of guidelines/facts concerning it's source. In the canon of the Wider Oz, Wicked does have a place. Not as part of the Famous Forty or original continuity, but it has a place nonetheless.
Treemeadow 6 months ago
Comment removed
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Treemeadow Actually, that's exactly what canon means. A quote from Wikipedia:
"In the context of a work of fiction, the term canon denotes the material accepted as 'official' in a fictional universe's fan base. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction, which are not considered canonical."
So "Wicked" does not have a place in Oz canon; it's off in its own world, as are the other things.
It's like "Doctor Who"; the two feature films are not canon.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
@oldblackhat The "mirror-image" thing was strictly MGM. In the original story there were no farmhands, no Professor Marvel, and no Miss Gulch. Oz was something vastly different from Kansas, and after five trips to Oz, Dorothy Gale left Kansas behind and settled in Oz with her aunt, uncle, dog, and cat.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
I love Karen one of the yougest Mousketeers says we're not getting any younger
OsmondFan08 2 years ago
I like that Scraps is in the story but it's not very faithful to the first few books... and for some reason her eyes look scary whenever she's depicted visually. They need to change her face just a little from the original illustration.
wickedfeylady 2 years ago
It'd be interesting if this project actually got off the ground. I really love this story in all its forms, and although I don't think Disney's would be perfect, there was potential.
wickedfeylady 2 years ago
Just scary. Looks like saw's giant sister/cousin - really,.
WizardOfOzfan94 2 years ago
question, what happened to Glinda and Elphie? Oz just isn't Oz without an over bubbly Good Witch and an outwardly evil but secretly gentle and misunderstood Wicked Witch.
lizziemagic 2 years ago
This is about The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum, Not a prequel that gives false truths to its readers ( Wicked ) .
WizardOfOzfan94 2 years ago
I realize that, but even in the Oz books they are in it. That's why asked.
lizziemagic 2 years ago
I didn't see the question part, sorry , I thought you were one of those creepy Wicked supporters.
WizardOfOzfan94 2 years ago
lol thats ok, but about the Wicked supporter part... well... lets just say don't go on my channel unless it's Halloween lol ;) I'm an all around Oz fan!!!!!! (Except for the patchwork girl... now SHE is CREEPY!!!!)
lizziemagic 2 years ago
hah. Ill mark the calendar. Im an avid oz fan too , i think you can tell if you look above. hah. well , it's been fun chatting.
Best,
WizardOfOzfan94
WizardOfOzfan94 2 years ago
Same to you!!!! Bye!!! :D
lizziemagic 2 years ago
What do you have against wicked?
Jdog12131415 2 years ago
I don't ; I used to be fond of it - I've seen it twice. But being an avid Oz fan I have resented it for quite a time now. Everyone thinks WW is good, And Glinda is a preppy - totally not what Baum had in mind.
WizardOfOzfan94 2 years ago
Seen it? But you realise it was a book first- it is the book that really made an impression on me. Not the musical.
It acts as its own seperate canon. A response to one, but not connected to it.
Treemeadow 2 years ago
Of course I realize it's a book. But I'll stand by my comment, even if not meant as an answer to the film; it still gives false truths which people imply to the origin.
WizardOfOzfan94 2 years ago
Well, it is hardly the book's fault for that. That is the mistake of those who misinterperet it.
It gives no false truths. You can't have a false truth in fiction. It gives its own truth, quite seperate to that of the other.
Treemeadow 2 years ago
@WizardOfOzfan94: It shouldn't matter which witch is good or bad, because BOTH "Good Witch" Glinda and *Elphaba* (said to give her a name beyond her title) are BASED ON the SAME person, Matilda Gage, noted Women's Sufferagist.
TherealRNO 8 months ago
Wicked is not a prequel. It is a Revisionary look at the land of Oz.Furthrmore, if you knew about it, you would realise that it is not ONLY about what happens before Dorothy, but what happens during and long after.You could say that Wicked was a portrayal of what McGuire thought Oz would be like in a darker more adult world. He is a VERY big fan of Oz.
Have you ever heard of revisionist literature? It is one of the most dificult to write, and in Wicked it was pulled off very well.
Treemeadow 2 years ago
Ah, I really don't like the tone your using with me; but that's not important. It IS in fact a prequel, if you look at the making of the musical on youtube you will find one of the creators of it state that it is in face a prequel.
WizardOfOzfan94 2 years ago
we aren't discussing the musical, which moves quite clearly in a different direction than the book. The musical was marketed to be the "other story" of Oz. I think this is what you are thinking of.
The book was marketed as a revisionist view of Oz, not a prequel. This is why I said above that the book is indeed quite different from the musical.
And I apologize if you don't like my tone, but really, thats the nature of discussion
The book and the musical are two very different things.
Treemeadow 2 years ago
I am in fact talking about the musical, but I stand by my comment; even if the book was not written as an answer to the film - it still acts as one. I really don't like Wicked, or revisionist literature; it always ends up twisting a story. I don't think there's anything else to discuss. Good-Day.
WizardOfOzfan94 2 years ago
LOL!! You realising that twisting perception of a story is the POINT of revisionist literature? Its highly regarded by literary figures all around.
And McGuire did incorporate elements of the film into the book, but that was as a mirror reversal. You see, he wanted ppl to respond like you have.
You have your tatses, but your tastes are more or less against the thinking of the modern-day greats.
Good-day to you.
Treemeadow 2 years ago
I really can't take you seriously. " LOL!! " . is it that hard to be nice?? I mean really. And I understand the " POINT " of R.L. but me being an avid Oz ( film ) fan; I don't care for it to be changed. It's my own opinion and you shouldn't even be calling me out on it. And lastly your sarcasm fails to make me want to continue this convo. And your avatar doesn't help either. ;D
WizardOfOzfan94 2 years ago
My avatar? you mean me and the dog? Or my name...Mmm, I love the taste of hypocracy in the morning, don't you?
I don't care what you're opinion is, but you were making unfounded/incorrect statements about Wicked "fan-fictionish prequel that gives false truths" based purely on having seen the musical-which doesn't represent the book well at all I was initially correcting you, but you took offense. I couldn't help but add a little snide into my remarks.
Treemeadow 2 years ago
I think hypocracy would be making snide comments while trying to correct someone when you shouldn't be correcting an opinion. My opinion is in fact founded, as I have years of worship towards anything Oz, but I don't fancy a R.L. about the story. An opinion, just get over it. If I think the story should remain original that's my right. Now go and comment someone all day. I don't care for your "hypocracy" or your diminutive name.
WizardOfOzfan94 2 years ago
Isn't it odd when we must resort to petty insults to get our points across? A crime of which we are both now guilty.
But really, to bring the insults down to names shows something- that you no longer have any basis in logic to argue with, meaning that by general rules of debate, I have won.
Years of idolising a book does not make your opinion anything more than an opinion, it does not make it founded. Just ask the thousands of fanatical Christians out there.
"diminutive name" Spppf!
Treemeadow 2 years ago
Well, actually - miss; considering you implied my thinking as against modern day logic - I consider I won a while back. You, brought the insult down to something I am not. If i were against modern day-greats, I wouldn't have a cellphone; you tube account or a my space. These people who have created such things are not authors - but yet very modern aren't they?
If I were to respond via text to you again I would consider myself a hypocrite. I'll let you finish.
" Treemeadow "
XD
WizardOfOzfan94 2 years ago
And so baiteth the hook.
XD!
Consider yourself successully troll'd!
Treemeadow 2 years ago
@Treemeadow What about the billions of non-fanatical Christians?
Either the Bible comes straight from God or it doesn't. If it does (I'm asking you to keep an open mind here, as I reckon you fancy yourself as having one), then human opinion don't affect it none. You're free to reject it but then you put yourself in the position of a man who says, "In my opinion, gravity has no effect on me" and then jumps off a cliff.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
Gravity is proven. God is not.
Treemeadow 6 months ago
@Treemeadow Even proof is not the final deciding factor in anything, as it's so often wrong.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
Examples?
I've never seen Gravity proven wrong. I have seen many reasons to doubt the existence of God, and at any rate- believing in God "just in case" is Pascal's Wager, and that is a foolish reason to believe in a supreme being anyway. Better to actually believe for a reason than "just in case".
Think of it this way- you're just as much an agnostic as I am. I am just doubtful of ONE god more than you are.
Treemeadow 6 months ago
@Treemeadow Any number of people whose guilt in a crime has been "proven," only for the "proof" to be found erroneous. Something that science is supposed to have "proved" only for the "proof" to have really been pointing to another conclusion.
Don't obsess too much on gravity; I could just as well have used the example of a man who thinks a speeding train won't harm him, so he steps in front of it.
Who's an agnostic? I'm a Christian, mate!
(continued)
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
@Treemeadow I just hope your "reasons to doubt the existence of God" don't include Eusibius's "argument" in which he puts forth two scenarios involving God and evil, neither of which has anything to do with the God of Juedo-Christian belief. I'd so love to hear something original.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
I have never even heard of that argument. Look- I'm not trying to rile you up by not believing in your god...it's not personal.
I just don't believe in it- I don't "not believe" to spite you or , as some suggest, God itself...I just don't believe in that version of things.
Treemeadow 6 months ago
@Treemeadow Well, there's a switch. Usually it's the first thing the mockers trot out.
It's not a matter of "my" God; I have no influence over Him, He just is who He is, and would still be so even if I didn't believe. The only "version" (as you put it) of God I believe in is the one who revealed Himself to us; otherwise, we'd never have known Him. Certainly no human would ever make up a God like Him; that is, a God who is better than we are.
MaskedMan66 5 months ago
No one human made him up, but thousands over thousands of years. Why, there is evidence to suggest hat even though Christ was an historical figure, the miracles and mythology associated with him did not appear till nearly 100 years or more later- when religions began to merge and combine with growing trade and population shifting.
Just so you know, when discussing Gods in a framework such as this, it's probably best not to talk in absolutes- it tends to turn people away faster than anything.
Treemeadow 5 months ago
@Treemeadow No humans made Him up at all; again, why would they?
You state a tired old cliche. The miracles of Jesus were told during His lifetime, inspiring trumped-up charges of consorting with demons which formed part of the "evidence" against Him at His trial. They were mentioned in the letters of His apostles, who of course didn't make it to old age, let along 100 years after the events.
(continued)
MaskedMan66 5 months ago
@Treemeadow ("Let alone," that should have been)
The miracle of the Resurrection was the basis of Christianity, which began within weeks of the event itself, not hundreds of years later, and was recorded by Luke, who was alive at the time and heard the reports from people who were there. You also hear of the miracles of Christ in historians of the time. So bang goes the whole "100 years later" lark.
"it's probably best not to talk in absolutes" is an absolute statement.
MaskedMan66 5 months ago
Sorry, look, I just don't agree. I've seen and studied this all before, I attended Seminary School and can read in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
I don't agree, and the 100 years later stuff is real- why, even Theologians agree that the books weren't written until, in some cases, up to 70 Years later, and many of the books were compiled not by one man,but by several.
But it's not worth discussing, because you're attached to your belief, so I'll let you be.
Treemeadow 5 months ago
Sorry, look, I just don't agree. I've seen and studied this all before, I attended Seminary School and can read in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
I don't agree, and the 100 years later stuff is real- why, even Theologians agree that the books weren't written until, in some cases, up to 70 Years later, and many of the books were compiled not by one man,but by several.
But it's not worth discussing, because you're attached to your belief, so I'll let you be.
Treemeadow 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaskedMan66 Sorry, look, I just don't agree. I've seen and studied this all before, I attended Seminary School and can read in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
I don't agree, and the 100 years later stuff is real- why, even Theologians agree that the books weren't written until, in some cases, up to 70 Years later, and many of the books were compiled not by one man,but by several.
But it's not worth discussing, because you're attached to your belief, so I'll let you be.
Treemeadow 5 months ago
@lizziemagic Okay, it's like this: the original Wicked Witch of the West was not your dear "Elphie," and she never had any dealings with Glinda. The one-eyed old hag appeared in one chapter in the middle of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" and then expired.
As for Glinda herself, she is not bubbly, but serene and majestic, and appears in most of the Oz books by Baum and several of the ones by the other Oz authors.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
how cute!!!! haha 7 or 8 years to make a cartoon movie lol now they make like 3 a year lol
lizziemagic 2 years ago
Gawd, I just ADORE this!!
Luckynumber78 2 years ago
yeah, the face on the Patchwork Girl is kinda creepy... so are the twisted fingers...
RavenBettyBlue 2 years ago
thank god disney came to his senses and realised he'd never top the original. There's no point trying to compete with a classic.
polotottie 2 years ago
@polotottie Rubbish. It's ridiculous that ONE adaptation of ONE book in a series should have a choke hold on people who want to do something else with the stories and concepts which were around long before that "classic" was ever made.
Remember: the REAL original, the REAL classic, was a book published in 1900... 39 years before that movie.
(continued)
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
@polotottie It may interest you to hear that when MGM first announced their movie, people were upset to learn it would not include any of the songs from the 1902 Broadway smash "The Wizard of Oz," and a lot of folks then thought MGM shouldn't try to "top the original" or "compete with a classic."
Besides, this movie wasn't even based on the same story, so they'd have been quite in the clear.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
The Patch-Work Girl is scarier than Jigsaw.
MagicEmperor 3 years ago
She is just plain scary. And no reproduction of the original will ever come close.
1WILLIAMSLEDDFANN 3 years ago
@1WILLIAMSLEDDFANN I take it that by "the original" you mean the 1900 book "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz?" The best adaptation of that book I've ever seen was a musical created in 2000 which I saw in Toronto in 2002.
In any case, this was not based on the original, nor any of Baum's other 13 books; it was a brand-new story.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago
Didn't this become "Return to Oz" (which is an awesome movie)?
hd1987 3 years ago
@hd1987 No, this was a story concocted for the screen, while "Return to Oz" seamlessly blended elements from "The Marvelous Land of Oz" and "Ozma of Oz," the second and third books in the Oz series.
MaskedMan66 6 months ago