If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boomstick Comics)   The trailer for Sam Raimi's 'Oz,The Great and Powerful' includes a sober James Franco and a stoned Tim Burton   (boomstickcomics.com) divider line 16
    More: Cool, Sam Raimi, James Franco, Wizard of Oz, Rachel Weisz, trailers  
•       •       •

5174 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 13 Jul 2012 at 9:24 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-13 09:34:30 PM
3 votes:

Jamdug!: Looks terrible.


browntimmy: Has potential.


Pretty much sums up how the threads for this movie will go from here on out.
2012-07-13 11:13:19 PM
2 votes:

a flock of birds: Why do so many movies say that they are "From the producer/writer/whatever of Alice in Wonderland."

I'm pretty sure the universal consensus was that that movie sucked balls.


Like no one could tell? My first thought upon the trailer finishing was "When did they transport OZ to Wonderland?"

Jocundry: A little off topic but does anyone remember the Emerald City in the book The Wizard of Oz? It's been ages since I read it but I remember that the city wasn't made of emeralds but that everyone wore green goggles that made the city look green.

Is that true? Or am I misremembering?


You remember right, but they phased it out in The Marvelous Land of OZ

dennysgod: This threat is worthless w/o

[warehouse.carlh.com image 520x283]


The books are darker than the '39 movie and I expect this new movie will end up being darker as well causing people to think it's a bad movie because they only know the Judy Garland fluff.

Return to OZ

is a far better movie, in my opinion, and it introduced us to Fairuza Balk, the only person who should play live action Harley Quinn
2012-07-13 10:17:26 PM
2 votes:
This threat is worthless w/o

warehouse.carlh.com


The books are darker than the '39 movie and I expect this new movie will end up being darker as well causing people to think it's a bad movie because they only know the Judy Garland fluff.
2012-07-14 05:51:44 PM
1 votes:

tlchwi02: theorellior: My wife loves the musical. I have no problem with it, except I'm assuming somehow Maguire gets paid royalties for its existence.

yeah, its pretty decent. my GF is really into the music, although i've always been more of a fan of les miss and classic rogers and hammerstein era stuff. still, the tiny change of having a protagonist in the musical makes a huge deal. also, its less stupid overall.


Having a primary protagonist, and the secondary one (Galinda/Glinda) give the play a point, a story, a theme.

Some of the songs are quite good. "Popular" and "Dancing Through Life" both rock after a little way through. Fieyro's numerous forshadowing (but hidden by double-meaning) lyrics in "Dancing Through Life" and "As Long as You're Mine" were fun to catch the second time around.
2012-07-14 04:51:21 PM
1 votes:

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: E_Henry_Thripshaws_Disease: who does Bruce Campbell play?

In a perfect world, this would be a one-man show starring Bruce Campbell.


This world is a one-man show starring Bruce Campbell. We all just live in it.
2012-07-14 04:33:31 PM
1 votes:

Mugato: Critch: Hollywood NEVER, EVER was original, and to expect otherwise is foolish. However, there are original movies out there, and probably more now than there ever has been.

Yeah but they didn't used to reboot a movie series 10 years after the original. Except when they moved from silent films to talkies. But remaking The Wizard of Oz isn't that terrible, it's been a while. Unless you count the one with Michael Jackson.



You don't know what you are talking about. Rio Bravo was already mentioned. Here are some more:

OK, so you are fine with the 1939 Wizard of Oz because it was a talkie replacing a 1925 silent film. That 1925 silent film followed a 1914 silent film, which followed a 1910 silent film, which followed a 1908 silent film. There were also numerous stage productions.

Sharon Stone starred in Gloria 19 years after Gina Rowlands did, so that's more than ten years.

Bridget Fonda in Point of No Return followed Nikita by only 3 years.

The crappy black American version of Death at a Funeral came out 3 years after the crappy white English version (both with Peter Dinklage).

The black American film Hit Man was a nearly shot-for-shot remake of Michael Caine's awesome Get Carter from only a year earlier (1972 and 1971, respectively). It was remade again in 2000 with Silvester Stallone.

Chicago (or its non-musical version, Roxy Hart) was released as a film in 1927, 1942, and 2002, and was a hit on Broadway several times in the interim.

State Fair was a talkie in 1933, 1945, and 1962.

Airplane!; OK, that was 23 years after Zero Hour!.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture just barely exceeded your 10-year window, having hit theatres with V'Ger 12 years after Nomad did the same stuff in the episode, "The Changeling".

What about all of the sequels and series of serials that have filled the cinemas since the birth of motion pictures? Look at how many Tarzan movies, Superman movies, Batman movies (& serials before that), James Bond movies, et al. were there in the mythical olden days you point to.

Likewise, what about all of the movies that were converted from stage productions since forever?

In short, Hollywood remakes are not a new thing. They've been around since before the film industry moved to Hollywood from Chicago.
2012-07-14 09:53:39 AM
1 votes:

BumpInTheNight: indarwinsshadow: Jamdug!: Looks terrible.

You can gauge an entire movie, by one trailer? That's quite the power Obi-Wan.

You can't figure out your interest from a concise sampling of a product that was designed to give you an impression of the full version? Did you eat paint chips in your youth?


Ha ha. Hollywood must love hearing that there are still people like you out there. They saw you coming a mile off.

Since you're so naive (and adorable!), I'll explain something to you that will possibly shake the foundation of your world view and belief system. Sometimes Hollywood produces bad movies, and they know they're bad. They use tricks, like shelving the movie for a year or two and releasing it during a slow patch in their or their competitor's schedules. They'll also refuse to screen it for reviewers, and the last trick they really like is to cut a trailer that makes a movie look awesome when in fact it sucks balls. I know it is shocking that businessmen might actually obfuscate the truth to get your money, but there we are.

Tomorrow I'll sit you down and explain how the banking industry doesn't actually think very highly of you.
2012-07-14 01:43:14 AM
1 votes:
Oh look, another origin movie.
2012-07-13 11:30:33 PM
1 votes:

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Bathia_Mapes: dennysgod: This threat is worthless w/o

[warehouse.carlh.com image 520x283]


The books are darker than the '39 movie and I expect this new movie will end up being darker as well causing people to think it's a bad movie because they only know the Judy Garland fluff.

I wonder how many people are aware that "Oz, The Great an Powerful" is a prequel to "The Wizard of Oz".

And I agree completely. The books are much darker.

The Wizard of Oz, the original book, is not that dark. Though it does use its setting as a cover for some rather adult themes.


Midget Porn?
2012-07-13 11:25:33 PM
1 votes:

JasonOfOrillia: Rachel Weisz


Yes, she's in the movie, as is Mila Kunis.

Bruce Campbell is in the movie too, but since there's no character listing for him, it might be a cameo role for him as it was in "Darkman".

Ted Raimi is in the movie as well, but that shouldn't be a surprise to any Sam Raimi movie fan.
2012-07-13 11:09:19 PM
1 votes:
This movie is very much in Burton's wheelhouse. That being said, James Franco might be a good Bruce Campbell replacement if he can lose the lisp. I don't think that will happen. Rachel Weisz (is she in it? I haven't checked the credits but I thought I recognized her voice) is an excellent proxy for Helena Bonham Carter.

Anywho, the trailer shows some promise. Seeing it will be a game-time decision.
2012-07-13 10:35:41 PM
1 votes:
Whoohoo looks awesome!
2012-07-13 10:33:36 PM
1 votes:
The witch is green. We could use a can of paint and a decent actress or fake looking CGI which we will also use to throw objects at the screen in a desperate attempt to make 3D seem worthwhile. Hmmm, difficult problem
2012-07-13 10:30:37 PM
1 votes:

dennysgod: This threat is worthless w/o

[warehouse.carlh.com image 520x283]


The books are darker than the '39 movie and I expect this new movie will end up being darker as well causing people to think it's a bad movie because they only know the Judy Garland fluff.


I wonder how many people are aware that "Oz, The Great an Powerful" is a prequel to "The Wizard of Oz".

And I agree completely. The books are much darker.
2012-07-13 09:55:31 PM
1 votes:

Jamdug!: Looks terrible.


Watever.

FLYING MONKEYS!!!
2012-07-13 09:31:48 PM
1 votes:
Has potential.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report