@Tashawelling It's finally on DVD, though with the same extras that the VHS anniversary edition had. Still, it's nice to see Fairuza all grown up and hear her talk about her experiences making the movie.
@ClassixFromThe80s Fairuza was brilliant, and frankly, a better Dorothy than Judy Garland; I say that because where Judy played a Dorothy to whom things happened, Fairuza played a Dorothy more like Baum's, a Dorothy who did things.
I don't see what you're seeing as regards the shoes.
Man, I have been a member of the International Oz club off and on for sometime. I love seeing the clips from tv shows like the Mouseketeers I have read about for years. Thanks for the good work!
@Polishjazzman The "authorized" sequal to MGM's "Wizard" is actually "Journey Back to Oz," an animated feature produced by Filmation and starring Liza Minnelli as Dorothy, Mickey Rooney as the Scarecrow, Danny Thomas as the Tin Woodman, and Milton Berle as the Cowardly Lion, and featuring Margaret Hamilton as Aunt Em.
I think the Dorothy portrayed in this film is probably younger than the one in the original, which is crazy considering this film is a sequel to Wizard Of Oz!
They claimed it wasn't a direct sequel to the Judy Garland movie, however, since that's the only one with Ruby Slippers, it's a little problematic to reconcile...
@RoyalKidofOz Using the Ruby Slippers was the only mistake they made in "Return to Oz"; on the other hand, just because it shares that feature with the MGM movie, that doesn't mean it's a sequel.
Consider "Wicked." Like the MGM musical, it has a green-skinned, two-eyed Wicked Witch of the West, but otherwise is off in its own little continuity which has no connection with either Baum or MGM.
@RoyalKidofOz Crazy thought: maybe they could do a Special Edition in which the Ruby Slippers are digitally replaced by the Silver Shoes and they can bring in Fairuza Balk (who can still do her child voice) and Nicol Williamson to re-loop any lines referring to the shoes.
Well, Walt himself would have done a better job than his studio did with "Return to OZ". That was an interesting film but you can't really call it a sequel to the original. The studio blew it!.
@Snookiebutt Depends on your perspective. If you wanted something light and frothy, like the MGM film, then you were already doomed to disappointment. If, on the other hand, you wanted something thrilling, adventuresome, and "real Ozzy," as the saying goes-- in short, the sort of thing Baum wrote-- then you could not do better than "Return to Oz."
I remember when I first saw the trailer back in '85 and then saw the movie how misleading it was. Made it seem like another lighthearted fantasy flick, never dreaming (no pun intended) that there was a clinic involved, let alone severed heads. Nonetheless, I wound up liking this movie even more when I saw it again on TV and was older.
@ssudioTVgirl The heads of Mombi were based on the heads of Langwidere in the book "Ozma of Oz," so anyone who knew tuppence about Oz was not surprised by them. The clinic was original to the film, but it did serve to show how brave and resourceful Dorothy was.
Besides, give the Oz books a read sometime! Oz can be a very scary place, and as for severed heads, the Tin Woodman beheads a bobcat and forty wolves during thefirst story, and the Cowardly Lion knocks the head off a monster spider.
Shame he reviewed the movie so badly.... also a shame they created such a misleading trailer. to me, return to oz is better in many, if not most ways than the garland film.
@cecboydkj It would probably have been animated, and maybe even folloowed by adaptations of the other thirteen Oz books that Baum wrote. I wonder who would have supplied the voices....
Siskel gave the film a bad review because he had such fond memories of the classic original, which in my opinion was unfair to "Return to OZ". (Siskel was known for doing that a lot. He was a nice man, but his critical techniques were questionable at best in my opinion.) Something critics failed to understand is that if a movie like the original had come out in the 80's it wouldn't have worked with most audiences. It was bound to get criticized either way, but I'm glad Disney this version.
@OurGangFan "They" who? To me it was one of the best of 1985, and possibly the best Oz production ever, at least as far as capturing the real spirit of Baum's books.
I didn't write the script for that part, but I assume he means that the trailer made it look like another fun adventure with more whimsy than the final product had.
@Tashawelling It's finally on DVD, though with the same extras that the VHS anniversary edition had. Still, it's nice to see Fairuza all grown up and hear her talk about her experiences making the movie.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
The best fantasy films of all time were produced in the 80's.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
@oohcool All the children who watched it whenever I saw it in the theater (which was a lot of times) had a ball, even during the scary bits.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
@ClassixFromThe80s Fairuza was brilliant, and frankly, a better Dorothy than Judy Garland; I say that because where Judy played a Dorothy to whom things happened, Fairuza played a Dorothy more like Baum's, a Dorothy who did things.
I don't see what you're seeing as regards the shoes.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
Man, I have been a member of the International Oz club off and on for sometime. I love seeing the clips from tv shows like the Mouseketeers I have read about for years. Thanks for the good work!
frontensemble077 1 year ago
Funny how it's a sequel, but Dorothy looks so much younger.
Polishjazzman 1 year ago
@Polishjazzman But closer to the right age.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
@Polishjazzman The "authorized" sequal to MGM's "Wizard" is actually "Journey Back to Oz," an animated feature produced by Filmation and starring Liza Minnelli as Dorothy, Mickey Rooney as the Scarecrow, Danny Thomas as the Tin Woodman, and Milton Berle as the Cowardly Lion, and featuring Margaret Hamilton as Aunt Em.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
@Polishjazzman *sequel
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
I think the Dorothy portrayed in this film is probably younger than the one in the original, which is crazy considering this film is a sequel to Wizard Of Oz!
doctorwhoobawooba 2 years ago
They claimed it wasn't a direct sequel to the Judy Garland movie, however, since that's the only one with Ruby Slippers, it's a little problematic to reconcile...
RoyalKidofOz 2 years ago
@RoyalKidofOz Using the Ruby Slippers was the only mistake they made in "Return to Oz"; on the other hand, just because it shares that feature with the MGM movie, that doesn't mean it's a sequel.
Consider "Wicked." Like the MGM musical, it has a green-skinned, two-eyed Wicked Witch of the West, but otherwise is off in its own little continuity which has no connection with either Baum or MGM.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
@RoyalKidofOz Crazy thought: maybe they could do a Special Edition in which the Ruby Slippers are digitally replaced by the Silver Shoes and they can bring in Fairuza Balk (who can still do her child voice) and Nicol Williamson to re-loop any lines referring to the shoes.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
Well, Walt himself would have done a better job than his studio did with "Return to OZ". That was an interesting film but you can't really call it a sequel to the original. The studio blew it!.
Snookiebutt 2 years ago
It was based more on the book series than the original movie was, they couldn't have done a remake because it wouldn't have done nearly as well.
peachslice009 2 years ago
@Snookiebutt Depends on your perspective. If you wanted something light and frothy, like the MGM film, then you were already doomed to disappointment. If, on the other hand, you wanted something thrilling, adventuresome, and "real Ozzy," as the saying goes-- in short, the sort of thing Baum wrote-- then you could not do better than "Return to Oz."
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
do anyone like to tell me about what if it be
like if Walt Disney did the Wizard of Oz??
cecboydkj 2 years ago
I remember when I first saw the trailer back in '85 and then saw the movie how misleading it was. Made it seem like another lighthearted fantasy flick, never dreaming (no pun intended) that there was a clinic involved, let alone severed heads. Nonetheless, I wound up liking this movie even more when I saw it again on TV and was older.
ssudioTVgirl 3 years ago
@ssudioTVgirl The heads of Mombi were based on the heads of Langwidere in the book "Ozma of Oz," so anyone who knew tuppence about Oz was not surprised by them. The clinic was original to the film, but it did serve to show how brave and resourceful Dorothy was.
Besides, give the Oz books a read sometime! Oz can be a very scary place, and as for severed heads, the Tin Woodman beheads a bobcat and forty wolves during thefirst story, and the Cowardly Lion knocks the head off a monster spider.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
Shame he reviewed the movie so badly.... also a shame they created such a misleading trailer. to me, return to oz is better in many, if not most ways than the garland film.
TheArchDandy 3 years ago
what do you thinks what would it be like if Walt Disney gots the Rights to the Wizard
of Oz and did an Feature of the Wizard of
Oz?? eveyone shares your comments about Disney doing the Wizard of Oz with me.
cecboydkj 3 years ago
@cecboydkj It would probably have been animated, and maybe even folloowed by adaptations of the other thirteen Oz books that Baum wrote. I wonder who would have supplied the voices....
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
They don't go well with her dress.
OurGangFan 3 years ago
@OurGangFan Well, be fair, she didn't know she'd be wearing them again or she might have put another dress on.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
Siskel gave the film a bad review because he had such fond memories of the classic original, which in my opinion was unfair to "Return to OZ". (Siskel was known for doing that a lot. He was a nice man, but his critical techniques were questionable at best in my opinion.) Something critics failed to understand is that if a movie like the original had come out in the 80's it wouldn't have worked with most audiences. It was bound to get criticized either way, but I'm glad Disney this version.
ShootAndSpin 3 years ago
They named it one of the worse of 1985.
OurGangFan 3 years ago
@OurGangFan "They" who? To me it was one of the best of 1985, and possibly the best Oz production ever, at least as far as capturing the real spirit of Baum's books.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
@MaskedMan66 I mean Siskel and Ebert
OurGangFan 1 year ago
@OurGangFan That figures; if a fantasy or sci-fi film wasn't "Star Wars," they wouldn't even give it a chance.
MaskedMan66 1 year ago
The Wizard of Oz could have be Walt Disney's
Second Animated feature(which could have made
Pinocchio as Disney's Third Animated Feature
and other in an Different Line -Up)after Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs but..
but the Film Rights to the Wizard of oz that
Walt Disney wanted was lost out to MGM!!
Today...
We could have seen Products on Walt Disney's Wizard of Oz!
We could have met Dorothy,the Scarecrow,Tin Woodman,Cowardly Lion,Wicked Witch of West and The Wizard at Disney Parks.
cecboydkj 3 years ago
How is the trailer misleading?
OurGangFan 3 years ago
I didn't write the script for that part, but I assume he means that the trailer made it look like another fun adventure with more whimsy than the final product had.
RoyalKidofOz 3 years ago
i didnt even know there was a return to oz...
AnimePersonXD 3 years ago
LOVE IT!
thewizzfoz 3 years ago 2