"The Wizard of Oz as you've never seen it before"

Rosenthal could have taken her sunglasses off during that interview. Lots and lots of AI was used in the making of this, which I imagine will be a turn-off for some.

Opens August 28th, by the way.

Do you think this is okay? Or should they just leave the movie alone?

I think it's okay, as long as it's made clear this is AI-augmented content.

I will NOT watch anything containing AI SLOP.

The definitive version of this movie involved extensive digital restoration of the original, vaulted movie reels and was released on DVD in 2005 by Warner, in the original aspect ratio of the theatrical release.

There is no need to fuck with this film beyond what's already been done.

I don't get it. It's a sphere? why? I don't think my ADD can process that much information at once, where do you look?

Unless they hand out lollipops during the lollipop guild scene or blanket the audience in real asbestos snow it's a waste.

Something tells me this will be very popular with The Gays.

Did they also release an IMAX 3-D version at one point?

I see this as being like when Lucas ruined the first three movies adding all kinds of shit in the imagery.

^^^ sorry, Star Wars movies

Of course it's going to be terrible. This is DL, where EVERYTHING sucks.

Something new? Different? ? WE HATE IT.

Personally, I love it.

Cynthia Erivo has been AIed in to replace Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch.

I saw this on CBS Sunday Morning this past weekend. It looks rather exciting and well-done. But the true test is being there in person and living the experience. I'm curious what word-of-mouth will be in three or four months.

Would be amazing with copious amounts of drugs

R13 as opposed to professionally?

But why is it in a sphere? I HATE new things! Why do they have to change EVERYTHING? Where are my pills?

From what I can see in that CBS piece, most of the backgrounds have been completely replaced by digital recreations, with the cast rotoscoped and inserted into these new environments. Some of the backgrounds are more loyal to the original film than others. The Emerald City is a slightly different design, for instance.

It’s an interesting concept, but I can see a lot of backlash from purists.

The hoi polloi outnumber the purists by a good margin.

You have to keep things updated to hold the public's interest.

The original print of Star Wars that was released in 1977 looks very dated now. If George Lucas hadn't updated that film, it would be a relic.

R21 Not the same thing as The Wizard of Oz. It's already proven to be popular across generations without being "updated."

Remember when Vegas did 'Oz' with the initial incarnation of the then new MGM Grand (not the one that became Bally's)?

[quote] I can see a lot of backlash from purists.

Purists LIVE to provide backlash.

r22 the update looks great. It will be more relevant to modern audiences. It's a good thing.

Lorna said Judy would've loved it, so case closed.

R25 The great and powerful Oz has spoken, I guess.

[quote]The Wizard of Oz. It's already proven to be popular across generations without being "updated."

Until people start having Spheres built in their living rooms, it is safe to assume that the traumatizing effect of this "update" will be limited.

Never said I was traumatized or that it even bothered me.

[quote]Lorna said Judy would've loved it, so case closed.

Have the other two weighed in as well? They could outvote her!

This is for information purposes only. No one really expected DLers to leave their house, let alone go to Las Vegas, to see this.

I dont think it's cool to AI wide sides and a top to extend from the 1.37:1 aspect ratio. that's not the conception of the movie. They figures look lost in huge huge spaces in some of the sneak peaks we can see.

[quote]No one really expected DLers to leave their house, let alone go to Las Vegas, to see this.

Those Designing Women reruns on VHS need to be watched for the 105th time.

Taking a classic film and adding razzmatazz is low- and middle-brow entertainment.

r34 it's keeping up with the times. Of course you old queens would be against it.

Well you and you opera glasses can stay home, Miss Priss.

How our eldergays prefer to watch the original Wizard of Oz...

"Changing anything from the way it was and making anything new or different is low class and common. I refuse to leave my tract housing development for anything so degrading to my character.

Razzmatazz and low- and middle-brow entertainment is what built Las Vegas.

Don't tell anyone here about the Wizard of Oz slot machines.

Besides being a commodity to make money, a great movie is also a work of art, created by a number of great visual artists. They shot the scenes in the way they wanted for the 1.37:1 aspect ratio.

It might be fun, who knows. The glimpse I go looked sick making, with weird proportions to the human actors and fake looking separation between actor and mis en scene. A kind of 2d replication of 3D.

They didn't just add scenery to the top and sides, but as the segment notes, they CGIed characters into shots where, in the original, they entered the frame later (Uncle Henry in the scene with Miss Gulch. They give the actor character actions, that are their idea of what's appropriate to the scene, which they made up).

It's similar to colorizing old black and white movies, or when MGM released a "wide screen" version of The Wizard of Oz by cropping the top and bottom, in 1955.

Right, R35. See R39

Jim Dolan is so well known as an avant-garde, forward-thinking artiste.

r42 it's the updating that matters. Culture and tech evolve, you have to keep up with the times. I think the new version looks fantastic, from the clips that are available.

[quote]Jim Dolan is so well known as an avant-garde, forward-thinking artiste.

It's the movie business, honey.

Ugh this is gross. Real CG artists could've been hired to do the work but they're lazy cheapskates. Start enjoying your soulless slop now I guess

R43 Yeah! It'll be great when they do this with Psycho, Seven Samurai, Citizen Kane and The Passion of Joan of Arc! Can't wait.

The thing about these overly negative reactions that make them so ridiculous is that the original remains. It's still available. It's still the "official" version. These dramatics make it sound like The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce broke into your house and stole your Betamax copy of The Wizard of Oz. Calm the fuck down, Mary.

r45 - grinding out her Virginia Slim in the ashtray in disgust.

Why not, r46? The originals will always exist. Use tech to make things look better.

R47 Exactly what Ted Turner said about colorization.

I'm not against it and I have no way of seeing it since I don't live in the US, but from what I've glimpsed of the footage in OP's report, it looks plastic-y and cheap. That bothers me more than anything else.

R43, that's true. But the craftsmanship and artistry of 1939 made the film a classic.

There's no craftsmanship or artistry on display here. It's just bigger and splashier, which simply take away from the artistry in the performances.

Comparing this to colorisation seems crazy to me. You're just adding colour there, whereas you're actually inventing new footage here. Again, I don't mind that this is being done, but that is not an apt comparison at all.

Let me know when they give the same treatment to "Dawson's 50-Load Weekend".

By the way, originals don't just exist, or will always just exist. A lot of older films have needed or will need painstaking restoration, and it doesn't always happen in time. Just saying it's not that simple.

I’d want to see it if I ever were to go to Las Vegas (unlikely). The tornado looks like it would be fun. Sounds like it will be “particulate matter” being blown around, not just wind. Will that be an issue for contact lens wearers?

Judy’s profile looked too crisp in one scene. That’s going to look fake. Also, the green smoke wizard head looked very cartoonish. I don’t remember that.

R53 It's altering the original film--the original intent of the filmmakers. The fight about colorization was a big deal at one time.

[quote]Lorna said Judy would've loved it, so case closed.

[quote]Have the other two weighed in as well? They could outvote her!

Joey was hoping that the Emerald City would be tinted blue.

Have the children of any other cast members been consulted on what their parents would have thought of it?

I must say, Lorna looks fabulous! Much better than her famous sister, even though she's battled cancer.

I'm 79, sweetheart. She's only 72.

I can't wait until the touring company comes to Orlando!

Will they add the cut Jitterbug song? I would pay to see that done in AI !!

Thanks, I thought you meant Orlando Bloom.

The Wizard of Oz was considered technologically advanced when it was first released, so it's fitting to use technology to provide a new and immersive experience for today's audiences.

R65 Morons

....

It was not the first film in color. There were silent films in color, albeit rare. It wasn't even the first film in Technicolor.

But it was one of the earliest films to use a technological advancement as a selling point for the film itself, and structuring the film in a way that had maximum impact, in the scene where Dorothy lands in Oz and it goes from Black and White to color. A brilliant collaboration between filmmakers, screen writers, special effects artists and marketing people, to create a memorable experience that would drive word of mouth reviews. It was so successful that almost a century later people think it was the first to use color at all.

[quote][R47] Exactly what Ted Turner said about colorization.

If the man wants to colorize movies, let him colorize movies.

It's show business, for God's sake!

Do any of the profits trickle down to the original filmmakers’ and actors’ estates? MGM? Did filmmakers have to get families’ permission to generate AI performances?

R68 Good post.

Many of the early sound films were also in color--two-strip Technicolor. It couldn't reproduce a true blue, and three-strip didn't start getting used until around '33 or '34. By '38-'39 it had improved a lot, as can be seen in Wizard and GWTW.

Just screaming "all technological advancement is good!" whenever anyone expresses concerns about the ethics of a new technology makes people sound like morons. This looks like shit. Every meaningful close-up in the film is relegated a tiny speck of a corner of gigantic walls of 99% AI slop. Like fine make an entirely CG immersive world of Oz and guide us through it. But whatever this is ain't it

….. and then r72 stood up on the porch and shook his cane at the kids screaming “get off my lawn”

R73 What a dumb reply to R72's intelligent post.

*wonders if the sharp digital enhancement will make it look like soap operas on tv when you have the settings high in motion smoothing*

Technologically it's a great thing, the Sphere thing--but it's also just using The Wizard of Oz to squeeze more money out of it. They're not "honoring" the film or any of that bullshit.

R74 is screaming at the kids on the lawn too, but seated.

You don’t need a cane in your mobility rascal

R70 I don't think MGM owns the film, I think it's Warner Bros. now. I doubt anyone connected to the film has made any profit from working on it for a very long time. Maybe the songs, idk.

R77 It must be nice to have the kind of simple brain that can reduce everything to "people who scream at kids on the lawn," "people who don't scream at kids on the lawn." The current world was made for folks like you.

R79, don’t you have to go outside and scream at some clouds that look like they might be made by AI?

I once saw Wizard of Oz on the big screen, some of the effects looked obviously like dolls (like the wicked witch flying in a broomstick). They would have to fix those for such large screen

I’d pay to see this.

Surely rooms are cheap AF during the week, especially since according to multiple MSM news sources, LV tourism has declined significantly this year.

[quote]Have the children of any other cast members been consulted on what their parents would have thought of it?

I believe the children of the other cast members are all dead.

Sorry, Bert Lahr's son John Lahr is still alive. He's in his 80s now.

Margaret Hamilton's son, Hamilton Meserve, is still alive.

Jim Dolan is a soulless cunt. Ticket prices are $240 for this nonsense. Fuck Dolan and his hatred of his audiences.

If you've ever littered in Madison Square Garden or called Dolan a soulless cunt, the spy cameras will vaporize you.

Tickets are $240? Where's my fainting couch?

I'm still woozy from the thought of an $84 lunch at Denny's. Probably also from that Brisket Melt.

$240 is okay if it includes acid

[quote]Tickets are $240? Where's my fainting couch?

Exactly where it was the last time you used it.

R8 There was an IMAX 3D re-release that was a kind of cheat. The 3D conversion was amazing and there's a 3D Blu-ray available of this version. The IMAX was BS because the original square image was windowboxed to regular size inside the huge IMAX screen.

R68 People think it was the first color movie because they are ignorant. People think Gone With The Wind was made shortly after the Civil War.

Itsh a traveshty!

[quote]Lorna said Judy would've loved it, so case closed.

But, this is DL where the only pertinent question is: Would Sondheim have approved?

[quote]Tickets are $240?

Fake news.

I think if you want to see it but are expecting the original, then you'd absolutely hate it. If you go in looking at it as a different experience, it could be great. Making that switch could be really difficult though, with such a beloved classic we've all seen a zillion times. I'm curious about it, but not $240 curious. And it would also involve going to Vegas, which thankfully, we don't have to go to next year. It looks like a pass, but not for the reasons many of you have stated.

It's an amusement park ride. It hasn't replaced the original any more than the Indiana Jones ride at Disneyland has replaced Raiders of the Lost Ark.

r97 - that's a pretty good take. I couldn't quite come up with an example that supported what I was trying to say.

If you get motion sick, there is a possibilty that it'll make you nauseous.

R55 “ originals don't just exist, or will always just exist”

K

If they use actual leaves and twigs during the tornado sequence, count me in.

Vegas is reaching new levels of desperation. The magic of the Wizard of Oz is that you don't need it on a massive state of the art screen to enjoy. It takes you into its world even if watching on a humble television. Call me when they screen Showgirls in the Sphere.

I wonder if they will zoom into the hanging munchkin in the woods scene?

Ticket prices START at $139 and go up to $349 each - to see a fucking movie.

Most of the films at the Sphere are over $100 each for 'the experience'.

And they wonder why tourism in Vegas is down. Fucking rapacious pricing.

Ridiculous.

I'm the world's biggest Wizard of Oz fan and I'd love to see it.

I hope you get the opportunity, [R106].

It's not a movie, r104, it's an *experience*. It's no different than Broadway pricing.

r104, they're doing it with "Blade Runner" here in L.A., with a live score. I was considering it until I saw the ticket prices- $53 being the lowest, not to mention all the fees that Ticketmaster tacks on.

R108 That's real people, though.

Oh, absolutely. I want to put more money in the pockets of a major asshole who cancels his employees' pension plans, refuses to negotiate their contracts, and works them to fucking death during a pandemic. Here's my $150 bucks, King Dolan.

[quote][R108] That's real people, though.

I know, r110. But it's obvious how much expense and expertise went into this so the pricing doesn't surprise me in the least.

I hate that this has turned into a generational fight. Not wanting to consume AI slop shouldn't be seen as an old people's thing. You're carrying water for the corporations by insisting on that argument.

R112 - well, not everyone is as gullible and easily-impressed as you by taking an 86 year old film and putting it on a round screen.

Broadway tickets are expensive due to orchestra, large cast, individual hand-made costumes and shoes, union wages for stage hands, etc.

It's ridiculous to compare the two as much as you think the word 'experience' is supposed to change our minds.

It's gouging - pure and simple. And don't get all shitty and comment about others 'being poor' like a little bitch.

I hate AI when it's used to undermine or replace the work of artists, photographers and writers. AI is dangerous because it will directly impact people's financial viability by causing unemployment. That's not the case here, it's enhancing an existing work and making it something unique. It's not replacing the original and most people won't even see this extravagant show in Las Vegas. It's hardly a threat to, well, anything. You could argue that this use of AI is supporting workers because it's generating jobs.

Who's forcing you to pay and see it, r114?

[quote]"The Wizard of Oz as you've never seen it before"

I could imagine that as the title of a porn video.

I’m only going if there’s a back room.

They're actually creating a tornado inside the Sphere with wind, fog and debris blowing around you. That alone is worth the price of admission.

R116 - you have the logic and rhetorical skills of a 16 year old. Nobody is forcing me to pay and watch it - that's not the point.

It's the price gouging for this 'experience' that is the norm in Las Vegas and is killing their tourism. Tons and tons of articles about it this year alone. Las Vegas exists only because of tourism and hospitality.

Just another rip-off that's going to piss people off even more.

[quote]They're actually creating a tornado inside the Sphere with wind, fog and debris blowing around you. That alone is worth the price of admission.

That's how low-brow things have gotten.

[quote]well, not everyone is as gullible and easily-impressed as you

[quote]you have the logic and rhetorical skills of a 16 year old.

Actually, r120, I'm a senior and I've been around long enough to not sweat the small stuff. You want to get bent out of shape about this, knock yourself out. Personally, I think it looks like great fun.

[quote]They're actually creating a tornado inside the Sphere with wind, fog and debris blowing around you. That alone is worth the price of admission.

I hope they do this with Gone With the Wind.

We'll be able to smell Scarlett's perfume and Mammy's sweat.

I swear to god there are Dataloungers who live just to shit all over anything new, different or fun. They'd curl up and die within a day if they didn't have Datalounge to express their constant state of anger and disgust. "Why is it in a sphere? Why does it cost so much? They're ruining my beloved Wizard of Oz!" Just fucking DIE already!!

In 1976, Liza Minnelli was joined by Jack Haley, Ray Bolger, Jack Haley, Jr., Mervyn LeRoy, and Billy Curtis to accept the Ruby Slipper Award Salute to “The Wizard of Oz,” presented by the Center of Films for Children in Beverly Hills, California. 👠✨

Dick Van Dyke, joined by his children Chris, Stacey and Barry Van Dkye, hosted two annual broadcasts of “The Wizard of Oz” on CBS, airing in 1961 and 1962.

[quote]I swear to god there are Dataloungers who live just to shit all over anything new, different or fun. They'd curl up and die within a day if they didn't have Datalounge to express their constant state of anger and disgust.

This is just what the film always needed!

I'd be interested in going but I hate Vegas. I'll read reviews when it opens and consider it if people swear it's worth seeing

The beauty of the original film is its positively charming 1939 art direction. Oz is stylized and we're transported to another world.

But see the image at R127, and note how the idiots of 2025 destroy all that and make everything "literal". The clouds, the mountains. Ugh.

I wish they'd use this technology to reconstruct the missing scenes from A Star is Born (1954). Now it can be done.

R114 You doing ok?

Seems like it could be fun

[quote]Seems like it could be fun

Unless you get conked on the head by flying cyclone debris.

I always wanted to see a movie in Cinerama or Cinemascope. Maybe this is the closest I'll get.

The first full length live action 3 strip color film was Becky Sharp with Miriam Hopkins in '35. A number of others before Oz and GWTW. Like Selznick's A Star is Born and Tom Sawyer.

[quote]I always wanted to see a movie in Cinerama or Cinemascope. Maybeyss this is the closest I'll get.

When I was 14, I saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" in Cinerama and never forgot it, even if I didn't fully understand it at the time. It remains one of my favorite movie experiences. I hear people today talk about it as a "boring" movie. It certainly wasn't for me.

2001 needs to be seen on a huge screen with a 70mm print. One ingests edibles and then smokes a joint. By the time the "stuff" starts happening, the edibles have kicked in. That's how we did it in the 70s.

Why did they turn the Oz head into a cartoon? That was really stupid. I understand using AI to show entire landscape but don’t mess with the look of the characters. Geez.

It’s just another way to experience the film. They even blast wind to make you feel like you’re experiencing the tornado. The Wicked Witch of the West skywrites over your head. I saw the 3D version. I watch the original at home but I don’t mind these things being put together. It’s like a theme park exhibit. These are going to become the official versions of the film.

Is it true they cut 27 minutes out of it?

I was just watching a documentary about Roger Corman. In the doc, Corman said that Jaws changed Hollywood filmmaking, because it was basically the first Roger Corman film done on an A budget. (Thrills, jump scares, shocks, a monster shark.) And Hollywood has been making these kinds of movies ever since.

When I read here about them blasting wind to make you think you're in the middle of a hurricane, it reminded me of the Corman (or was it William Castle?) films that had skeletons flying out at you from above the screen, and vibrating theater seats, and stuff like that. That's what passes for entertainment now.

[quote] It'll be great when they do this with Psycho, Seven Samurai, Citizen Kane and The Passion of Joan of Arc!

R46 Imagine the shower scene from Psycho in color with Jaimie Lee Curtis’s head replacing her mother’s head!

[quote] Will they add the cut Jitterbug song? I would pay to see that done in Al !!

R63 Especially if they include Haley and Lahr dancing with each other as was in the original choreography. Apparently, a Jitterbug bite caused same-sex dancing. The question is, who was leading, Haley or Lahr?

[quote] Unless you get conked on the head by flying cyclone debris.

R133 I’m bringing an attorney with me.

It was fun to be a film buff in the 20th century. I saw "Polyester" with the Odorama scratch n sniff. I saw a rerelease (perhaps a very special one night event) of William Castle's The Tingler with Percepto! seat vibrators. And so on.

All we see is blue sky and tiny characters. Anything for a tech buck

[quote]It’s like a theme park exhibit. These are going to become the official versions of the film.

I assume you meant to say these aren't going to become the official versions of the film, R139.

Well... For many people facsimiles are the same as the real. How is the Arc doing?

I MISS THE DAYS OF REAL ENTERTAINMENT LIKE CHARIOT RACES - NOT THIS LOW-BROW NEW STUFF!

The Adventures of Little Orphan Annie were designed to only be listened to on cathedral or tombstone radios. That musical many years later ruined the characters legacies forever!

‘’Odorama’’ the birth of high-tech.

R148... The Ark Adventure as of 2023. The rainbow entrance must be keeping true Christians away for fear that, once they cross through it, they will become gay.

Kind of a stretch to call it same sex dancing when one was a tin man and one was a lion.

There's a difference between entertainment and amusement. An illuminating or moving film or play, vs a carnival ride. Seems to me we've been moving farther away from real entertainment and closer to amusement for a few decades now.

R144-In which case you'll be barred from seeing the Knicks or Rangers at MSG ever again.

R149 Ben-Hur was about more than the chariot race. It had a pretty serious, involving story.

R143 Haley is clearly leading Lahr in the Jitterbug at 1:15 and 1:44. The Wizard of Oz didn’t need a “modern” dance number that slowed down the plot and it was cut for good reason.

R155 truly!

[quote] I always wanted to see a movie in Cinerama or Cinemascope. Maybe this is the closest I'll get.

Pretty much every movie made today is in Cinemascope. All the major releases especially action/adventure, every Star Trek movie, every Bond movie, John Wick, etc. You have seen Cinemascope.

[quote] When I was 14, I saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" in Cinerama and never forgot it

I hate to burst your bubble but if this is the only movie you remember seeing in Cinerama, you never saw real Cinerama. You just saw a 70mm print projected onto a curved screen. This was advertised as Cinerama when 2001 came out because the real Cinerama with three synced projectors had been phased out 5 years earlier but the theaters knew the word Cinerama would bring people to the theaters, just as today putting IMAX on any show (even those not filmed for IMAX) brings the audiences in.

How the West was Won — true Cinerama

Was Fiddler on the Roof true Cinerama?

I cried a LOT to get my parents to take me.

No, Fiddler was in Panavision which is the same as Cinemascope. It was blown up to 70mm for certain engagements and may have been shown in former Cinerama theaters but it was not in Cinerama.

Cinerama narrative movies = 2, total. The process was a gimmick for travelogue movies. 70mm movies are single camera and single projector.

Panavision isn't the same as CinemaScope.

[quote] Pretty much every movie made today is in Cinemascope. All the major releases especially action/adventure, every Star Trek movie, every Bond movie, John Wick, etc. You have seen Cinemascope

Original CinemaScope was wider than today's widescreen films--also, it was projected on the largest screens possible, which you're not going to see at the multiples.

*multiplexes

Yes original CinemaScope is quite a different thing than the wide screen we have today. It was very wide which is why one director said it was only good for filming a snake. The only time I actually saw one which had an aspect ratio of 2.55 as opposed to Panavision's 2.35 was Seven Brides at Radio City in the late 70s. I had never seen a screen so wide and the barn raising scene was the most exciting I've ever seen it.

I saw 2001 as a boy and it was a theater full of kids who wanted a real space adventure. There were a lot of bored noisy boys wondering what the hell was going on. I saw it years later in a Cinerama print in the old great Broadway movie house the Rivoli which had a huge curved screen and phenomenal sound system. One of the greatest film experiences of my life. And no I wasn't on anything. Nobody will ever see it like that again. Those theaters have all been closed or torn down. The only way to see 3 strip Cinerama is on bluray where they restored the films and you can try hard and can kind of tell what an experience it was like. If you have a very large TV screen. 3 strip Cinerama Brother's Grimm was supposed to be unrestorable but they managed it and it looks great. I think they might have shown 3 strip Cinerama at the Cinerama in LA but it was not built for it. It was built for sing strip Cinerama(like 2001.) But I believe it closed.

2001 at the Cinerama Dome was awesome. And I wasn’t even high…

Cinerama Dome was converted to a multiplex way back…

Have they torn it down yet?

I believe you are mistaken R167. 2001 was shot in Super Panavision 70, a single-camera 65mm film process. It was released with 70mm "Cinerama" branding, but that label was purely marketing. I can find no mention it was ever converted to a three projector cinerama version. Before digital imagery, I don't think it would have been possible to convert a 1 camera movie into a three projector screening.

R167 wrote “It was built for sing strip Cinerama(like 2001.)”

I remember in the 70s the *70mm* being the selling point with no mention of Cinerama. It certainly wasn't 3-camera Cinerama. My first job was at an old movie palace and our screen was big (wide) enough to accommodate 70mm without letterboxing. It was installed in front of the old original standard screen. We showed 2001 and *that* was the way to see it.

After the two actual Cinerama fiction films were released, other films were labeled Cinerama and shown in Cinerama domes, like Grand Prix, and The Battle of the Bulge. But they were not true Cinerama.

I think the Dome in LA was able to show How the West Was Won, but it's correct it was not built for it. I seem to remember a friend of mine saw it there a few years ago. I don't live there but I think it's been shut down since Covid or before.

As AI Overview tells us...

"2001: A Space Odyssey" was filmed and presented in a way that leveraged the immersive qualities of Cinerama, though it wasn't a traditional three-strip Cinerama film. It utilized Super Panavision 70, a 70mm process, and was often shown on curved Cinerama screens to enhance the feeling of being enveloped by the image."

And, it worked. At the Dome.

The last three strip Cinerama film was supposed to be Mad World. They started it that way but then when the technology came along for single strip it was converted to a single strip film. However people who saw the original Three strip Cinerama films on those huge screens say there was nothing comparable to it. What they are today on Blu-ray are just visually great documentaries about how the world looked during the periods they were filmed

The skies/background in Oz almost look like they were illustrated by Maxfield Parrish, whereas the Sphere version merely looks photorealistic, which takes the fantasy element out.

[quote]People think it was the first color movie because they are ignorant.

The Wizard Of Oz is the first color film to have been a huge hit and culturally significant. By a wide margin. Of course the public is going to think it's the first color film, why wouldn't they? You could never expect anyone to know of "23 Skidoo Flapper Jubilee" from 1929 or whatever the fuck the first color film was, historically, except for old movie scholars or bitter, ancient queens with one foot in the grave.

[quote]The Wizard Of Oz is the first color film to have been a huge hit and culturally significant.

The 1937 version of "A Star is Born" is in Technicolor and was a widely-seen, big hit. And "culturally significant" enough to have been remade several times.

r180 again, the general public is not really aware of that one. The Wizard of Oz is one of the most famous films of all time.

[quote]The Wizard Of Oz is the first color film to have been a huge hit and culturally significant. By a wide margin.

Wizard of Oz wasn't a huge hit when it was released, r179, and what about Gone With the Wind?

Gone With the Wind is also very famous, but it's totally unfashionable now.

[quote]Wizard of Oz wasn't a huge hit when it was released

It became very famous later on.

[quote]Would be amazing with copious amounts of drugs

I'll drink to that!

R179 Ironically, it underwhelmed at the box office and its new-found success on tv in the late 50s/early 60s was all in B&W. Most Americans only saw the color from and after the late 60s, with widespread ownership of color tvs.

I was never very precious about "the Wizard of Oz" in the first place, so I'm fine with this.

Also, it is one of the rare movies that has become more of a "spectacle" than a movie, so this seems appropriate.

Furthermore, it's not like anyone is taking away the original version. It will still exist.

I'm just worried they are going to go the Disney World route and squirt water in everyone's faces. For some reason that annoys me.

[quote] Original CinemaScope was wider than today's widescreen films--also, it was projected on the largest screens possible, which you're not going to see at the multiples.

Those are minor details that only confuse the uninitiated. Cinemascope has changed by a couple of "inches" because of the different types of soundtrack on and off the film but it has remained essentially unchanged for 6 decades.

That’s what my BBC daddy said, too.

[quote]People think it was the first color movie because they are ignorant.

[quote]The Wizard Of Oz is the first color film to have been a huge hit and culturally significant.

This was already disproven. The Wizard of Oz has this perception because it's the earliest color film to find a lucrative second life through TV broadcasts and later on home video, attaining a widespread and long-lasting relevance that films like "A Star is Born" never quite achieved. It's also a movie that appeals to children, and it became a cultural touchstone that everyone watched while growing up, so for many people it was the earliest color film they ever saw.

NYC was the first big city I ever saw. Doesn't mean I was dumb boy who thought NYC was the oldest big city in history.

r191 again, the general public shouldn't be expected to know the first color film is something that's long forgotten.

And now you're going to be outraged that Janet Gaynor and Miriam Hopkins are totally unknown today.

Janet GAYnor was Mrs. Norman Maine. Everyone knows that!

No one has mentioned THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, a big Technicolor success in 1938.

Didn't blow fans in my face and tell me it's a tornado!

DON'T!

They'll make sure in this new version that it's clear that Dorothy shot Greedo first.

Can you spot the three children in this behind-the-scenes photo who were hired to help fill in the Munchkinland scene? One of them is still alive today! 🌷🛖

I can't believe that someone who was in the Wizard of Oz is still alive today. That doesn't seem possible. Is anyone from Gone With the Wind still alive?

The last surviving Gone With the Wind actor died in 2022 at age 90 - Mickey Kuhn, who played Ashely Wilkes' son.

Well, tell us all about it then, R194. Start with the premiere. Did you enjoy yourself? Meet any big stars?

He blew Errol Flynn in the men's room at the premiere!

[quote]Is anyone from Gone With the Wind still alive?

It sho ain't me. I's been passed on since nineteen fiddy two!

He ate Alan Hale’s cum! Sr., not Jr.

Gone with the Wind was the first film that established Technicolor as a viable way to lure people into the theaters.

Who cares about this ancient history. The first GOOD movie is Scream from 1996 which was way before I was even born, like 50 years ago.

I think this looks SUPER cool. I wish I could see it

Why are people being so negative about this? What I've seen of it looks fantastic. And, its not like you can't see the original any time of day you want.

Some of us don't think it looks or sounds fantastic, that's why. Question of taste. Also, lexis. In no way is this glitzy commercial production a "restoration". What they have done is anything but a restoration. The original is fine, of course. Yes, it's not like painting a permanent porn moustache on the Mona Lisa and giving her a cup of Starbucks to hold.

[quote]Why are people being so negative about this? What I've seen of it looks fantastic. And, its not like you can't see the original any time of day you want.

Because they're bitter, ancient old misanthropes who are terrified of contemporary society and technology.

[quote]Why are people being so negative about this?

Because this is DL. A huge portion of posters here just live to spew negativity constantly.

As much as I enjoy DL, I see some (okay, quite a few) of the eldergays as a cautionary tale. As you get older you need to keep engaging with the world, keep learning new things, be around people who are younger than you and never stop enjoying life. When you're an older person you don't want to be a bitter and cynical person who's stuck in the past and isolated, which we see a lot of here.

R211 yeah I mean I'm old and when I saw a clip from this new production, not having any idea what it was, I was intrigued. The new bit blended seamlessly into the 1939 version and piqued my interest.

And, if I see it and its terrible, fine. But the idea of being enveloped by Oz is neat.