There are some people who have a deep devotion to the 1939 version of The Wizard of Oz, and this next bit is going to cause them to freak out: Warner Bros. is in talks with Robert Zemeckis to direct a remake using the original ’39 shooting script.
About the only interesting thing regarding this whole thing is the part about using the original script, which Deadline correctly states had 19 writers, although you wouldn’t know it from how classic the movie turned out. They’re calling it a “live-action remake”, which doesn’t do much to quell the fears of the fans, and there’s no word yet on whether or not they’re keeping it a musical. They’d almost have to you’d think, especially if the original script is in play, but you never know with these remakes anymore. There’s the school of thought that says if you’re doing a Wizard of Oz remake you HAVE to have the songs, while the other believes they could never do near as good of a job as they did back in the 30’s so forget the tunes and concentrate on the drama.
Whichever camp you’re in Warner’s isn’t listening. Instead they’re barreling ahead at full-steam, even though Sam Raimi is prepping his own version of L. Frank Baum’s tale, Oz, The Great and Powerful, which is more of a prequel as it centers on the Wizard’s first arrival in Oz.
There have been several “sequels” and adaptations throughout the years, a bunch of them animated, but if this remake really happens it’s going to continue the debate over why-bother-with- remakes, especially those using the same scripts their predecessors used. See: Psycho.
11 comments
It's like the book doesn't even exist anymore. Instead of trying to remake the MGM film they should do a brand new feature adaptation of the Baum's book.
I say get rid of the songs and feature more on the drama. I hink that would be the first thing to distinguish it from the original. Whatever happened to the Wicked movie they were going to make? ANd why is Sam Raimi working on Oz, The Great and Powerful? What happened to WoW?
I agree with Aaron.I would much rather see someone adapt the original book – there's a marvelous fantasy world just waiting to be brought to the screen.
Marvel has been adapting the original novels (with brilliant art by Skottie Young) – there's your template for something new and different, Warner Bros.
This is freaking retahded. Ugh.
Put me down for adapting the book, there's a lot of cool stuff going on it it that isn't in the movies.
Let them remake it. Who cares. Let them remake everything. It doesn't tarnish the original, as that still exists. And without remakes we wouldn't have Cronenbergs The Fly or Carpenters The Thing. And alas, if you want to get technical about it the 1939 version of The Wizard OF Oz was itself a remake.
My favorite parts of the book are when the Tin Woodman uses his ax to kill things. Like when he sees a cat chasing a mouse and chops off the cat's head. Or when he and the lion fight a flock of flying monkies and end up in the middle of piles of hacked and bleeding flying monkey carcases. And this is from a book that purported to avoid any content which might disturb a child!
Absolutely nothing can go wrong with this.
Yes, technically, The Wizard of Oz and – as is always pointed out in these discussions – The Maltese Falcon are remakes but in these cases the preceding versions weren't particularly well thought of. Once you get a property as 'right' as the 1939 film did (even if it's not particularly faithful to the source) then what's the point of going back again? And with the same script? Madness. And how could they ever improve on that cast? Anyone remember when Zemeckis used to be a good director. A long, long time ago…
Zemeckis? Prepare for some serious uncanny valley!
I'm pretty Zemeckis hasn't made a good movie since "Cast Away?" I truly hope this doesn't happen.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.