Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

"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 Anonymousreply 12306/03/2013

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 Anonymousreply 202/09/2013

That word makes no sense, R1. Perhaps you meant to say 'eldergay', but had a stroke instead.

by Anonymousreply 302/09/2013

There is no one in this film I want to see. With a different cast, I would have.

by Anonymousreply 402/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 502/09/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 602/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 902/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 1002/09/2013

Does James Franco suck another rubber dildo in this one, too?

by Anonymousreply 1102/09/2013

Grow up, r8...really!

by Anonymousreply 1202/09/2013

I hate the look of the CGI. Looks crappy, just like Alice in Wonderland's did.

by Anonymousreply 1302/09/2013

I'm tired of James Franco.

by Anonymousreply 1402/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 1502/09/2013

Am I paranoid or has this 'John Carter' written all over it story plot wise?

by Anonymousreply 1702/09/2013

John Carter was a classic story/plot, pulled from Edger Rice Burroughs story, "The Princess of Mars".

by Anonymousreply 1802/09/2013

A talking flying monkey? Seriously?

by Anonymousreply 1902/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 2102/09/2013

Honestly I'm not jazzed about the cast either. It's almost like a 90210 or CW show cast. It lacks gravitas.

by Anonymousreply 2202/09/2013

LOL@22 Gravitas. Get a load of you!

by Anonymousreply 2302/09/2013

This film is Disney kicking themselves they didn't buy the rights to WICKED.

by Anonymousreply 2402/09/2013

[quote]This film is Disney kicking themselves they didn't buy the rights to WICKED.

I never understood why anyone liked that thing.

by Anonymousreply 2602/09/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 2702/09/2013

It was shot in Detroit. What do YOU think?

by Anonymousreply 2802/09/2013

I would do things with James Franco that would spook the livestock.

by Anonymousreply 2902/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 3002/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 3102/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 3202/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 3302/10/2013

Franco is ugly with that mustache.

by Anonymousreply 3402/10/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 3502/10/2013

Mila is a great actress? Since when?

by Anonymousreply 3602/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 3702/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 3802/10/2013

Did Raimi try and get Liza for a cameo?

by Anonymousreply 3902/10/2013

[quote]Did Raimi try and get Liza for a cameo?

No, The Flying Monkey was always going to be CGI.

by Anonymousreply 4002/10/2013

The trailer looked amazing and I am really looking forward to this film.

by Anonymousreply 4102/10/2013

I like the happy Oz.

by Anonymousreply 4202/10/2013

"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 Anonymousreply 4302/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 4402/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 4502/10/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 4602/10/2013

The budget is $200 million! That is a giant gamble for a live-action cartoon.

by Anonymousreply 4702/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 4802/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 4902/24/2013

Wow, 49 people have an opinion of a movie that isn't even out yet.

by Anonymousreply 5002/24/2013

Wow, movie trailers influence audiences, R50. Wonder how that happens?

by Anonymousreply 5102/24/2013

Which one is Elphaba?

by Anonymousreply 5202/24/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 5302/27/2013

He's a clip from the film just released. I can't believe how horrible this is.

by Anonymousreply 5402/27/2013

The acting looks horrid.

by Anonymousreply 5502/27/2013

Obviously there is at least ONE person one this thread who ALREADY HATES the film, even though they haven't seen it....

by Anonymousreply 5602/27/2013

r56, we have seen it. It's been screened a million times already. We have the script too.

by Anonymousreply 5702/27/2013

We as in one ROYAL we, or do you refer to a group of people...

by Anonymousreply 5802/27/2013

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 Anonymousreply 5902/27/2013

"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 Anonymousreply 6002/27/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 6102/27/2013

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 Anonymousreply 6202/27/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 6302/27/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 6402/27/2013

Mila Kunis looks like a bug.

Don't tell me... By the end of the film, her skin is dark green.

by Anonymousreply 6502/27/2013

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 Anonymousreply 6603/04/2013

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 Anonymousreply 6703/04/2013

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 Anonymousreply 6803/04/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 6903/04/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 7003/04/2013

[quote]If city slickers are too sophisticated for this sort of thing, why was Wicked a hit musical?

Tourists

by Anonymousreply 7103/04/2013

Just for fun... and damn, if it doesn't look better without the CGI.

by Anonymousreply 7203/04/2013

Deadline says tracking is predicting a $80 million weekend. I find that number insane, but there's no accounting for taste.

by Anonymousreply 7303/04/2013

Reviews so far are so/so. Even the good ones seem tepid at best.

by Anonymousreply 7403/05/2013

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 Anonymousreply 7503/09/2013

Franco kills another one.

by Anonymousreply 7603/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 7703/09/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 7803/09/2013

r77, I was impressed by Mila, particularly in her scenes with Rachel -- they played marvelously off of each other.

by Anonymousreply 7903/09/2013

[quote]If Franco had the ability to go over the top without it feeling ironic

This is dead on!

by Anonymousreply 8003/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 8103/09/2013

r81, I suspect they were trying to match certain characters from the '39 Wizard of Oz.

by Anonymousreply 8203/10/2013

I can't watch Mila without hearing Meg Griffin.

by Anonymousreply 8303/10/2013

70 million gross opening weekend.

by Anonymousreply 8403/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 8503/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 8603/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 8703/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 8803/10/2013

Here's the original makeup:

by Anonymousreply 8903/10/2013

That looks exactly how she looks in the movie.

by Anonymousreply 9003/10/2013

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 Anonymousreply 9103/10/2013

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--

*faints*

by Anonymousreply 9203/11/2013

r91, that's dark as fuck. You're pulling bullshit out of your prolapsed anus. Get lost.

by Anonymousreply 9303/11/2013

[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.

link.

by Anonymousreply 9403/11/2013

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 Anonymousreply 9503/11/2013

James Franco, the Great and Powerful...and apparently horny.

by Anonymousreply 9603/11/2013

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 Anonymousreply 9703/11/2013

I liked it too.

by Anonymousreply 9803/11/2013

Mia Kuntis is the reason this is a hit.

by Anonymousreply 9903/11/2013

The Franco haters must feel pretty devestated that the movie is a hit and he is now a SUPERSTAR!!

by Anonymousreply 10003/11/2013

He's a closet case, R100. No one envies that.

by Anonymousreply 10103/11/2013

The film has now made $1,050,178,000 in three days. It cost $200 million to make. Sorry haters.

by Anonymousreply 10203/11/2013

Meg Griffin wins the box office weekend!

by Anonymousreply 10303/11/2013

So who/where the heck is the Good Witch of the North?

by Anonymousreply 10403/11/2013

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 Anonymousreply 10503/11/2013

"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 Anonymousreply 10603/11/2013

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 Anonymousreply 10703/11/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 10803/11/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 10903/11/2013

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 Anonymousreply 11003/11/2013

Or did the apple just conveniently justify her own tendency towards evil?

by Anonymousreply 11103/11/2013

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 Anonymousreply 11203/11/2013

That's my only real complaint, R11, nothing in the movie answers that question or suggests your assertion at all.

by Anonymousreply 11303/11/2013

oops, R111.

by Anonymousreply 11403/11/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 11503/11/2013

OZ has made almost $205 million. A definite hit.

by Anonymousreply 11604/06/2013

So the movie sucked but made a bit of cash.

by Anonymousreply 11704/07/2013

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 Anonymousreply 11804/07/2013

So, did Franco's charisma shine through like Johnny Depp's in the pirate movies? Can he carry a franchise?

by Anonymousreply 11904/07/2013

Franco was charming but miscast.

by Anonymousreply 12004/07/2013

Oz has made $230,381,718

by Anonymousreply 12105/15/2013

So has Mitt Romney, R121.

by Anonymousreply 12205/15/2013

It has made $233,007,000 t

by Anonymousreply 12306/03/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.