Why dont the Oz books get adapted into movies

[VenomFang]

There's 2 movies coming out. An animated one called Dorothy of Oz which is a sequel to the Wizard of Oz and Sam Rami's one which is supposed to be an original story. There's quite a few books out there and they could adapt them all and do it like Narnia or Harry Potter but they dont do that for some reason. These are all the Oz books Baum wrote:

01. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
02. The Marvelous Land of Oz
03. Ozma of Oz
04. Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz
05. The Road to Oz
06. The Emerald City of Oz
07. The Patchwork Girl of Oz
08. Tik-Tok of Oz
09. The Scarecrow of Oz
10. Rinkitink in Oz
11. The Lost Princess of Oz
12. The Tin Woodman of Oz
13. The Magic of Oz
14. Glinda of Oz

So far in like 100 years there's been 2 movies (Wizard of Oz & Return to Oz) and Return to Oz combined elements of multilple books. Dont you think its weird there havent been more Oz movies made and how its strange the upcoming movies arent even going to adaptions from specific books ? Its just like comic book movies. They have years and years of stories from the comics to use for the movies and instead they make up their own stuff.

[salsashark]

Adebisi is disappointed with your choice of Oz subjects.

[Fiddleford H. McGucket]

....Where to begin


The Original 1939 Version.....Full stop. Everyone and thier Grandmother has probably seen this film at LEAST once. It's been parodied, parroted, ripped-off and re-done in TV shows for 70 years....simply put it's OLD Territory.

While Yes, the version is nowhere NEAR a complte adaptation, it HAS supplanted the actual novels as far as what everyone remembers when it comes to Oz in general. You start talking about Silver Shoes, Winkies, and Ozma people would claim youre doing some weird Expanded Universe version of Oz.

Then you get into some of the other smaller aspects, later Oz books are.....weird. As in, it's "See our heroes encounter some strange land of odd people (Dainty China Country, Bun/Bunnyberry, That one backwards land) and then move on".

Finally....Past experience has soured people on OZ remakes/relaunches. Return to Oz was needlessly dark when compared to the original. The Wiz is a catchy movie but it's a niche film that seems campy today, and the latest Re-Vamp (Tin Man) while a rare good SyFy Original is one of those strange dystopian re-imaginings that puts some people off.

I'd honestly love a REAL adaptation of Wizard of Oz at some point, but the sheer length of the series (over 10 books depending on what you consider "canon") repitition among certain volumes, and approximately 80 years of there being only one "Good" version of it (That most people have seen repeatedly) it's going to be a uphill battle to do it.

[Fiddleford H. McGucket]

Also sory for the Double post, but....

There have been several Oz adaptations over the last century or so. Including several Pre-MGM versions in the Silent Era, The 1939 Version (The Classic), An animated Sequel in 1974 Starring Liza Minelli as Dorothy called Journey Back to Oz , the 1978 adatation of the The Wiz (Starring Diana Ross, A young Micheal Jackson as The scareccrow, and Richard Pryor as the Wizard), The Disney Produced Return to Oz in the 80s (Starring a young Fairuza Balk). There was also a short-lived animated series in the late 80s Early 90s on ABC, and there's always some buzz about adapting Wicked for the Screen at some point.

[Drillbit Taylor]

They did make alot of those when they were popular/new books 100 years ago.

The Patchwork Girl of Oz



Wizard of Oz



etc...

[VenomFang]

Well Im saying they take elements from the books and mix them together, they dont adapt specific novels for whatever reason. If they did straight adaptions of specific books Narnia or Harry Potter big budget style they could be huge.

[Turd Ferguson]

Dec 29, 2011 12:47:43 GMT -5 salsashark said:

Adebisi is disappointed with your choice of Oz subjects.

What I came in to post.

[Drillbit Taylor]

Dec 29, 2011 13:30:51 GMT -5 VenomFang said:

Well Im saying they take elements from the books and mix them together, they dont adapt specific novels for whatever reason. If they did straight adaptions of specific books Narnia or Harry Potter big budget style they could be huge.

I agree. I think that is a great book series that has not been fully tapped into. Get the right actress and a good director, I hate to say it but based on how dark/whumsical those books are Burton might be a good choice, and those can be good hits.

[VenomFang]

Burton maybe but Sam Rami's doing one and its an orignal story I'm pretty sure.

[Dr. T is an alien]

How recently have you read the books? I only ask because I wonder what type of adaptation you are looking for. Do you want a true to the material (and therefore disturbing as hell) or do you want a candy-coated version that encapsulates the feeling of the material to a child? If you want the former you had better hope that it is handled by someone with some real sense of both style and taste as it could go so wrong, so fast.

[VenomFang]

I havent read them all and its been a while since then but of course I want true to the material PG 13 versions. I wish Rami was doing like 3 of the books in a trilogy or something.

[lovingway]

It is pretty much like Gone with the Wind and why there isn't many remakes or any of it. People are so use to that version any other would pale in comparison.

I do see a director like Burton doing a take on it, but it is doubtful since no matter what is done it will be crapped on. The best bet is for an independent company to do it and do an avant garde take on it

[The Line]

Guillermo Del Toro would probably have an interesting take on Oz.

[BlackoutCreature]

I'm a fan of the original Baum novels and Return to Oz is one of my favorite movies. I've also never been a fan of the original Judy Garland Wizard of Oz movie. That being said the Judy Garland movie has become ingrained in... I want to say pop culture but that doesn't seem accurate enough... become ingrained in our collective consciousness. It is what people think about and expect when they think of an Oz movie. I can't imagine any other interpretation ever being accepted by the public. Even a version that continued on exactly like the Judy Garland movie would still always be compared to and never measure up to the original in peoples minds.

[dav]

Wasn't there a cartoon series back in the 80's/90's that expanded upon the movie? How faithful was that to the books?

[VenomFang]

The Cowardly Lion got all the attention and fame while The Hungry Tiger never got his chance to shine. Not fair.

[Legion]

To be honest, I have little to no interest in a huge series of novels like this being adapted.

Everyone has seen the original Oz movie; I think people are actually born having already seen it.

If they want to make a lot of money, adapted Wicked. It's outside the books, is already huge and well known, and people actually want an adaption of it.

A 14 film series, that doesn't even really contain many of the same characters or even over arching story isn't going to work in regards making big money, imo.

[Sir Woodrow]

Oh you just know there's some Producer in Hollywood making their pitch for a Twilightesque Oz Reboot.

Dorothy as a near comatose bore, with Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion all being "hunky" guys who are all in love with her.

[lildude8218]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz_%281986_TV_series%29


I've always been a fan of this version

[clashofchampains]

I wouldn't mind them taking on the Potter model with quality people on it.

Also they should remake Zardoz the terrible movie with Sean Connery. And make it a dark futur with people using Wizard of Oz as the Bible.