"Oz, The Great And Powerful"
I really want this to be good. Michelle Williams, Mila Kunis, and Rachel Weisz are great actresses. Sam Raimi is also an excellent director. Still, they have to contend with James Franco's acting and Disney...
Do we think this will be a critical darling or a tragic flop?
|by Anonymous||reply 123||06/03/2013|
op= fangayling. The most tedious gayling subgroup.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||02/09/2013|
Did you forsake the coffee barista meme, R1? Have you given up on the bizarre Rogaine obsession? We all know who you are, so you might as well give up, eldergay... You make PPSM look subtle and informed.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||02/09/2013|
That word makes no sense, R1. Perhaps you meant to say 'eldergay', but had a stroke instead.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||02/09/2013|
There is no one in this film I want to see. With a different cast, I would have.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||02/09/2013|
I want this film to be good. I love a good fantasty film, I like two out of the four leading actors, and certainly the germ of the story is intriguing.
Of course it'll probably be a big old mess, but even if it's a mess I hope it makes some money. If it flops, that'll be it for a "Wicked" film.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||02/09/2013|
[quote]There is no one in this film I want to see. With a different cast, I would have.
Are you serious? This is a first rate cast, and the trailer looks amazing.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||02/09/2013|
R6=Pauline Keal, plus the rogaine stains and splenda stench of course.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||02/09/2013|
Only flyovers will see this movie.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||02/09/2013|
R5, who are the 2 actors you prefer to see?
By the way, I still want to see the film in spite of the trailer, which seems rather disorganized, if you ask me.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||02/09/2013|
The two actors I like are Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams. Franco I'm ambivalent about; if I hadn't read so much about his relentless, pretentious, publicity-mongering on the Datalounge, I might like him as an actor.
I agree that the trailer doesn't look very promising.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||02/09/2013|
Does James Franco suck another rubber dildo in this one, too?
|by Anonymous||reply 11||02/09/2013|
I hate the look of the CGI. Looks crappy, just like Alice in Wonderland's did.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||02/09/2013|
I'm tired of James Franco.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||02/09/2013|
I don't understand why they don't use both real sets and CGI together. The combination can be breathtaking and more realistic-looking. Look at JURASSIC PARK, which relied on models and some CGI, and the visuals are still stunning even today. But you have current movies like ALICE IN WONDERLAND and TWILIGHT, for example, and the effects look cheap and fake as hell and don't hold up next to a 20-year-old film like JP.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||02/09/2013|
Am I paranoid or has this 'John Carter' written all over it story plot wise?
|by Anonymous||reply 17||02/09/2013|
John Carter was a classic story/plot, pulled from Edger Rice Burroughs story, "The Princess of Mars".
|by Anonymous||reply 18||02/09/2013|
A talking flying monkey? Seriously?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||02/09/2013|
It has a great director and a terrific cast, so I'm hoping for the best. I adore Rachel Weisz, so even if it's not good, I'll be there to see her.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||02/09/2013|
I have not heard any positive buzz for this film, which makes me wonder if it is a turkey. If it got good reviews I would see it.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||02/09/2013|
Honestly I'm not jazzed about the cast either. It's almost like a 90210 or CW show cast. It lacks gravitas.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||02/09/2013|
LOL@22 Gravitas. Get a load of you!
|by Anonymous||reply 23||02/09/2013|
This film is Disney kicking themselves they didn't buy the rights to WICKED.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||02/09/2013|
One of the worst films of all time. My god, it looks like a cheap cartoon. They musn't have had a budget.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||02/09/2013|
[quote]This film is Disney kicking themselves they didn't buy the rights to WICKED.
I never understood why anyone liked that thing.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||02/09/2013|
[quote]One of the worst films of all time. My god, it looks like a cheap cartoon. They musn't have had a budget.
I agree. The CGI looks very cheesy and fake. From the trailer, it looks like they did the whole thing in front of a green screen.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||02/09/2013|
It was shot in Detroit. What do YOU think?
|by Anonymous||reply 28||02/09/2013|
I would do things with James Franco that would spook the livestock.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||02/09/2013|
I liked John Carter (not a great movie, but I thought it was as entertaining as The Avengers, Iron Man, or any of those big summer blockbusters). I'm glad Taylor Kitsch is still finding work in 2013 after what he experienced in 2012.
I just can't get into this Oz thing. And Franco is fucking tiresome so that doesn't help.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||02/10/2013|
It better be good, it had to contend with Jack the Giant Slayer as it's other fantasy piece which is getting good buzz. Hopefully they take some from wicked and not just draw everyone in good and evil There were so many OZ books, it's a wonder they have not made others based of the actual books in the series, similar to Lion Witch and Wardrobe.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||02/10/2013|
If I had the ability to predict a hit or flop I wouldn't be fucking around on DL. I'd be in Hollywood being the highest paid person in the entire world. That said, I can't see this being a hit in any way, shape or form, but after a perfunctory theatrical release it could have an enduring and profitable half-life on video, which in many cases is what studios are counting on these days.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||02/10/2013|
A movie has to make 4 times what it cost to break even. That is why there are so many Paranormal Activity movies, the first one cost 10K to make and the world wide gross for all 4 is 717 million. Avatar's world wide gross is 2.8 billion. OZ does not have to do great here. It just has to do great over seas.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||02/10/2013|
Franco is ugly with that mustache.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||02/10/2013|
[quote]One of the worst films of all time. My god, it looks like a cheap cartoon. They mustn't have had a budget.
That's the problem, they do have a budget, a huge one they prefer to spend on crappy CGI instead of hiring true artists to recreate the gorgeous sets of the original. Audiences then would be enchanted. If they could build those sets in 1939 in a studio in Hollywood, surely they could do it again today.
[quote]It better be good, it had to contend with Jack the Giant Slayer as it's other fantasy piece which is getting good buzz.
Once again. have you seen how phony those giants look? Ridiculous. People accept and pay for video game quality CGI today.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||02/10/2013|
Mila is a great actress? Since when?
|by Anonymous||reply 36||02/10/2013|
My first thought on the trailer was that it looked like the CGI of Alice in Wonderland - not a good thing.
But I like the story and the cast seems ok. We'll see.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||02/10/2013|
They actually used a lot of fully realised sets for the film - some set reports have fantastic photos. But it looks like they tried to improve upon them with cgi in post production and ruined the look.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||02/10/2013|
Did Raimi try and get Liza for a cameo?
|by Anonymous||reply 39||02/10/2013|
[quote]Did Raimi try and get Liza for a cameo?
No, The Flying Monkey was always going to be CGI.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||02/10/2013|
The trailer looked amazing and I am really looking forward to this film.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||02/10/2013|
"they do have a budget, a huge one they prefer to spend on crappy CGI instead of hiring true artists to recreate the gorgeous sets of the original. Audiences then would be enchanted."
Oh dear, more romanticizing of old-school special effects. Recently, I've found nerds saying that Hollywood ought to go back to Harryhausen stop-motion monsters, and the gas jets from "Towering Inferno". Hah!
Look, models vs. CGI doesn't make the difference in "enchanting" audiences, characters we can care about do.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||02/10/2013|
This looks like a special-effects driven film made for kids. James Franco is aging fast. He has bags under his eyes and he looks 45 to 50.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||02/10/2013|
The casting is so unoriginal.
This could turn out like "Alice In Wonderland" and make a billion, or it could crash and burn. It's family-friendly, so who knows? Kids love cartoony shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||02/10/2013|
[quote]Oh dear, more romanticizing of old-school special effects. Recently, I've found nerds saying that Hollywood ought to go back to Harryhausen stop-motion monsters, and the gas jets from "Towering Inferno". Hah!
Wow glad I don't know you and certainly glad I don't go to the movies with you. I'm sure you'll be jerking off all through "Jack the Giant Slayer".
|by Anonymous||reply 46||02/10/2013|
The budget is $200 million! That is a giant gamble for a live-action cartoon.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||02/10/2013|
In six months, the only people who will ever think of this film will be airline passengers flipping channels.
I'm not dissing the movie. I'm just suggesting that its just another meaningless show that makes up modern American "cinema."
|by Anonymous||reply 48||02/10/2013|
Looks awful. And why is James Franco a star? Is it his bland, unthreatening good looks? He comes across as a 21st century American suburban boy who is dressed up in 19th century clothing. He seems utterly gormless.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||02/24/2013|
Wow, 49 people have an opinion of a movie that isn't even out yet.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||02/24/2013|
Wow, movie trailers influence audiences, R50. Wonder how that happens?
|by Anonymous||reply 51||02/24/2013|
[quote]The trailer looked amazing and I am really looking forward to this film.
lmao, you're like the only person who said this. It's universally seen as a joke. People were 'thinking' of seeing, but not after the trailer.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||02/27/2013|
He's a clip from the film just released. I can't believe how horrible this is.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||02/27/2013|
Obviously there is at least ONE person one this thread who ALREADY HATES the film, even though they haven't seen it....
|by Anonymous||reply 56||02/27/2013|
r56, we have seen it. It's been screened a million times already. We have the script too.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||02/27/2013|
We as in one ROYAL we, or do you refer to a group of people...
|by Anonymous||reply 58||02/27/2013|
I know I will get a "Mary!" for this, but if you want to know how good the film will be, look a the porcelain doll. It does't look like any porcelain doll or figurine that exists in real life. What it looks like, with its soccer mom hairdo, is a Fisher Price doll house doll. actually not even a real FP doll house doll, but the sort of generic version that is used for insurance or drug commercials. I am sure that is was designed by either Hasbro or Mattel for the shelves of a big box store rather than as a part of the movie.
Everything in this movie seems as if it was designed by a marketing department. As someone posted on another thread, the women look as if they were costumed by JC Penny. The backgrounds are watered down Dr Seuss. Heaven only knows why that piranha type creature in in there except to appeal to boys who find fantasy too girly.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||02/27/2013|
"A movie has to make 4 times what it cost to break even"
Granted I'm no math whiz, but wouldn't a film need to make what it cost to make to break even? I'm including advertising and distribution as part of that cost.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||02/27/2013|
[quote]Granted I'm no math whiz, but wouldn't a film need to make what it cost to make to break even? I'm including advertising and distribution as part of that cost.
The studios don't take home all the money. They roughly split the box office with theater owners, 50/50.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||02/27/2013|
Why do I get a cheesy/smarmy feel from watching the trailer? Or are most cartoons overdone and over wrought? Admittedly I'm not a cartoon fan.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||02/27/2013|
[quote]Looks awful. And why is James Franco a star?
Last resort. Depp turned them down. He had a commitment to "The Lone Ranger" he wouldn't break. Franco was signed weeks before filming began and got $7 million.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||02/27/2013|
[quote]Obviously there is at least ONE person one this thread who ALREADY HATES the film, even though they haven't seen it....
If a film stars James Franco you can add me to the list of those who hate it without needing to see it.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||02/27/2013|
Mila Kunis looks like a bug.
Don't tell me... By the end of the film, her skin is dark green.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||02/27/2013|
OK, did find out something kind of interesting about this. The "China Girl" is a marionette that has had its strings removed in CGI. Apparently it is cheaper than doing stop motion animation.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||03/04/2013|
Yeah, yeah, you fuckers all said the same thing about "Alice in Wonderland". CUT TO billions in profit. It looks beautiful, will appeal and maybe scare kids but adults raised on "Oz" too, it will rock. and the cast including, yes, Franco (who looks perfectly cast) help give it some balls too.
Can't wait and, no, I'm not a shill. By the way, "Life of Pi" also made 500 million worldwide. DIdn't some of you think it was an expensive bust too?
|by Anonymous||reply 67||03/04/2013|
For R8: supposed "flyovers" make up quite a good-sized audience, you snob.
I suppose that you even consider me a flyover. I happily embrace the term.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||03/04/2013|
[quote]Which one is Elphaba?
There is no Elphaba, but Mila Kunis plays the Wicked Witch of the West, and Rachel Weisz plays the sister who gets a house dropped on her.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||03/04/2013|
[quote]Only flyovers will see this movie.
If city slickers are too sophisticated for this sort of thing, why was Wicked a hit musical?
|by Anonymous||reply 70||03/04/2013|
[quote]If city slickers are too sophisticated for this sort of thing, why was Wicked a hit musical?
|by Anonymous||reply 71||03/04/2013|
Just for fun... and damn, if it doesn't look better without the CGI.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||03/04/2013|
Deadline says tracking is predicting a $80 million weekend. I find that number insane, but there's no accounting for taste.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||03/04/2013|
Reviews so far are so/so. Even the good ones seem tepid at best.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||03/05/2013|
Just got back from seeing it. It's not quite the mess I was expecting, but it's not great either. Just kind of middling, which, I suppose, for costing as much as it did makes it a mess after all.
Franco is miscast, but not dreadfully so -- at least he tries here. The visual design is impressive, but the 3D is shockingly under-utilzed.
Then there's the issue of the women. Kunis, Weisz and Williams are wonderful, of course, but the movie is rather regressive in its portrayal of the women: first, there's the fact THE key plot development is a woman getting pissed that a man lied to her and literally turns green with envy (essentially, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned); second, did it not occur to any of these women that they don't need a man to run things after all -- there's no questioning of the "prophesy" that a wizard (male) will come to save them, no second guessing that a woman can run the show capably.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||03/09/2013|
Franco kills another one.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||03/09/2013|
Agree, R75. The actresses all looked beautiful and were, for the most part, great.
Williams was gorgeous and REALLY delivered with what she was given. It's a shame her role is so underwritten.
Weisz was perfection.
And now Mila. This is gonna be a love it or hate it performance. I personally loved it, but I can understand the people who will loathe it.
If Franco had the ability to go over the top without it feeling ironic, and the film had used more practical sets, it could have been pretty fantastic.
As it is, it's an okay movie, nothing better.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||03/09/2013|
[quote]If Franco had the ability to go over the top without it feeling ironic, and the film had used more practical sets, it could have been pretty fantastic.
I think that's why they wanted RDJ in the role originally.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||03/09/2013|
r77, I was impressed by Mila, particularly in her scenes with Rachel -- they played marvelously off of each other.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||03/09/2013|
[quote]If Franco had the ability to go over the top without it feeling ironic
This is dead on!
|by Anonymous||reply 80||03/09/2013|
I had some friends who worked on this, and they were very disappointed with the CGI-Mila and Bruce Campbell had some great facial prosthetics on and in post they totally distorted their faces (Mila had a very pointed and angular face). Why even have SPFX makeup in the first place?
|by Anonymous||reply 81||03/09/2013|
r81, I suspect they were trying to match certain characters from the '39 Wizard of Oz.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||03/10/2013|
I can't watch Mila without hearing Meg Griffin.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||03/10/2013|
70 million gross opening weekend.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||03/10/2013|
It's getting a lot of comparisons to Burton's Alice. Did anyone love, or strongly like, Burton's Alice but hates this? Because I think Alice is one of the few good movies Burton has made in ages. I believed all the negative reviews though, until I saw it on tv, and then wished I'd seen it in 3D.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||03/10/2013|
I hated Burton's Wonderland. It was ugly and didn't feel like Wonderland. And trying to turn it into an action movie was stupid. All of the wit and riddle was gone.
I enjoyed Iz, though. It felt like Oz. It wasn't perfect, but I enjoyed it. And I said it in the other thread but I'll say it here, too: Michelle Williams is extremely pretty.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||03/10/2013|
r82- they did match with the prosthetics (hence the sharp and angular face). What they did in post was to widen her face and head (to take out the angularity) and make her eyes smaller.
|by Anonymous||reply 87||03/10/2013|
Okay- I found out why they distorted her makeup- copyright infringement. Apparently she looked too much like Margaret Hamilton's witch and they had to change it.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||03/10/2013|
Here's the original makeup:
|by Anonymous||reply 89||03/10/2013|
That looks exactly how she looks in the movie.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||03/10/2013|
Here's the CGI'd version- they took the hook out of the nose, softened the point on the chin and widened her face. It looks like her face has massive carb bloat.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||03/10/2013|
I saw OTGAP this weekend, and now I'm in lust with James Franco's hands. All veiny and thick-fingered; I could not stop staring at them. It helped that there were so many closeups of them. I'd lick and suck every friggin milimeter. And if his cock looks like that--
|by Anonymous||reply 92||03/10/2013|
r91, that's dark as fuck. You're pulling bullshit out of your prolapsed anus. Get lost.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||03/10/2013|
[quote]Okay- I found out why they distorted her makeup- copyright infringement. Apparently she looked too much like Margaret Hamilton's witch and they had to change it.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||03/10/2013|
Burton's Alice crap, didn't even use the book. It stole the title, and made some tragic new story. I don't know how they got away with doing that. The reason why he was allowed to make "Dark Shadows" is because he brought in over a billion dollars from Alice.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||03/10/2013|
James Franco, the Great and Powerful...and apparently horny.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||03/10/2013|
I saw the film and actually enjoyed it. It's no WIZARD OF OZ, but entertaining non the less. (Thank God they didn't make WICKED.) The explanation in this version of how the wicked witch becomes wicked is much better than the politically correct, maudlin version in WICKED. I was surrounded by kids in the audience and there was not a peep or fidget out of any of them. And no - they weren't asleep!
|by Anonymous||reply 97||03/10/2013|
Mia Kuntis is the reason this is a hit.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||03/10/2013|
The Franco haters must feel pretty devestated that the movie is a hit and he is now a SUPERSTAR!!
|by Anonymous||reply 100||03/10/2013|
He's a closet case, R100. No one envies that.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||03/10/2013|
The film has now made $1,050,178,000 in three days. It cost $200 million to make. Sorry haters.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||03/11/2013|
Meg Griffin wins the box office weekend!
|by Anonymous||reply 103||03/11/2013|
So who/where the heck is the Good Witch of the North?
|by Anonymous||reply 104||03/11/2013|
There was no Good Witch of the North - Glinda overthows the Wicked Witch of the North before Ozma was born. In the books Glinda is more powerful than all of the witches but does not overthrow the east and west because she wants all of OZ united under Princess Ozma first.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||03/11/2013|
"In the original novel, of course, the unnamed Good Witch of the North genuinely believed that the Wizard of Oz was the only entity powerful enough to send Dorothy back home to Kansas, while Glinda the Good Witch (later "Sorceress") of the South does not claim to be similarly powerful until the sixth book, The Emerald City of Oz, by which point in time she creates 'The Great Book of Records,' which chronicles everything that takes place inside as well as outside Oz."
|by Anonymous||reply 106||03/11/2013|
It was enjoyable. Visually stunning. The story was utterly predictable, but the acting was good. I'd have made Glinda more ethereal.
There also seemed to be cuts regarding Theodora's story. It is obvious the instant Evanora appears who the real wicked witch is but other than being her sister, there is no real indication of why Theodora would be "wicked deep down" other than a very brief flash of temper and Evanora saying so. A broken heart after one lie from Evanora is too pat an explanation. Hitler didn't become Hitler because he didn't get into Art School.
One inexplicable disappointment but perhaps to leave room for another prequel was, well, something very important to the original story was missing.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||03/11/2013|
[quote] There also seemed to be cuts regarding Theodora's story. It is obvious the instant Evanora appears who the real wicked witch is but other than being her sister, there is no real indication of why Theodora would be "wicked deep down" other than a very brief flash of temper and Evanora saying so. A broken heart after one lie from Evanora is too pat an explanation. Hitler didn't become Hitler because he didn't get into Art School.
This was my biggest beef with the movie. If they had slowed down and developed Theodora's character more the movie would have resonated much more.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||03/11/2013|
[quote] A broken heart after one lie from Evanora is too pat an explanation. Hitler didn't become Hitler because he didn't get into Art School.
She ate the apple that made her evil and her heart impenetrable.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||03/11/2013|
No, she chose to eat the apple knowing it would do so.
That was a step over the line of Disnification by the way, nods to Genesis too I suppose.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||03/11/2013|
Or did the apple just conveniently justify her own tendency towards evil?
|by Anonymous||reply 111||03/11/2013|
She was infatuated with Oz. He was this big important man and he told her all the right things. And her sister manipulated her into thinking he put the moves on her and Glinda. Eating the apple was an impulse move to quickly get rid of the pain. She immediately regretted it.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||03/11/2013|
That's my only real complaint, R11, nothing in the movie answers that question or suggests your assertion at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||03/11/2013|
[quote] He was this big important man and he told her all the right things
Yes, and five minutes after landing in a strange land and being attacked by two different sets of strange creatures, he is putting the moves on THeodora and asking her to dance.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||03/11/2013|
OZ has made almost $205 million. A definite hit.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||04/06/2013|
So the movie sucked but made a bit of cash.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||04/06/2013|
The movie didn't suck. I don't even think that's the consesus in this thread.
It was a good movie. It has problems, but it's still worth watching.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||04/06/2013|
So, did Franco's charisma shine through like Johnny Depp's in the pirate movies? Can he carry a franchise?
|by Anonymous||reply 119||04/06/2013|
Franco was charming but miscast.
|by Anonymous||reply 120||04/06/2013|
So has Mitt Romney, R121.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||05/15/2013|
It has made $233,007,000 t
|by Anonymous||reply 123||06/03/2013|