EN World Alternate History Theatre: The Wizard of Oz Discussed on the 1939 Internet

Today, I took my kids to see The Wizard of Oz at the movie theatre. As the movie started, a few thoughts hit me. First, was the movie greatly anticipated (like LotR two years ago)? It was a much loved fantasy book, made into a big budget movie. Second, what if the internet had been around when tWoO was released? What would a "purist" who loved the book had thought?

So, tonight, I present to you:

EN World Alternate History Theatre: The Wizard of Oz Discussed on the 1939 Internet

(You can read the original novel first, if you like.)



posted by Max Schreck on 30 June 1939 at 18:42:22 pm PDT

I saw a special advance screening of "The Wizard of Oz" last night. I love this book, and couldn't wait for the movie. It was memorable, all right, but for all the wrong reasons.

*spoilers*





The farmhouse – it's supposed to be a hovel. A one-room hovel. This place has rooms, and I wouldn't be surprised if the cleaning woman came by every Thursday.

Aunt Em and Uncle Henry – They're supposed to be bitter, old people. From the book: "She was thin and gaunt, and never smiled now" and "Uncle Henry never laughed." But not in the movie. Uncle Henry just yucks it up with the old chick on the bicycle.

Old chick on bicycle—where the hell did she come from? Never heard of her before. Aunt Em does get in a great line while telling her off. Yes, Aunt Em apparently likes to yell at people. Nice.

Dorothy—too old, not blond, and she sings. Yes, folks, it's a musical. Next stop, Broadway—NOT!

Glinda's Kiss—no, that's not a typo. The witch of the North is named Glinda. No "little old woman" here, as in the book. No, now she's some dippy beauty pageant reject. And she does kiss Dorothy on the forehead, but that provides no protection (or if it does, it's not explained—only those who read the book would know this).

Ruby Slippers – WTF??!?!?!?!! No, not another typo. They're not silver. Hello, did anyone working on this picture even read the book?!! It's like filming the Bible and deciding, well, Eve didn't really eat the apple!!!

Tin Man—well, he is a man made out of tin. That's right—he was made out of tin, from the beginning. No cursed axe, chopping off his body parts one at a time. And he's now the "Tin Man" because apparently "Tin Woodman" was too confusing for the studio execs. And now, he just wants a heart. No special reason. Un-freaking-believable. Uh, character motivation, anyone?

The Cowardly Lion—At first, I had high hopes. He starts out on all fours—just like a lion! My heart sank, as he jumped, landed on two legs, and proceeded to walk like a man for the rest of the movie. Oh, and the actor who played him? Some unknown Vaudevillian! I kid you not—not very lion-like at all. Great costume and make-up are wasted in this garbage dump of a movie.

Kalidahs—not in this Oz. :( Which is really too bad, because it would have been a KICK-ASS scene on screen.

Poppy field—OK, this one I'll concede to the film-makers. The witch makes the poppies appear (which is a cool idea), and there's even a decent solution (which I won't spoil here). The fix nicely avoids the field mice, which could not have been done with today's special effects.

Emerald City—At least it's green. But no one wears glasses. That's right, you heard me. No glasses. Again, did anyone involved in this movie actually read the book? And understand it.

The Wizard—or should I say, the lack thereof! Where is the beautiful lady? Where is the ball of fire? The terrible beast? All gone! Just the big head (which is cool—a true marvel of modern special effects—but that doesn't make up for the loss of the "other" wizards). Oh, and they ALL meet Oz TOGETHER! Hello??!! Film-makers, did you mean to ruin the symbolism in the book, or are you just stupid?

Journey to the West—No wolves, no crows. No bees (at least on screen), but the witch does mention sending some "insects" ahead to take the fight out of them. Sigh.

The winged monkeys—Yes! They are there, and they are AWESOME. No Golden Cap, but you can't have everything.

Killing Dorothy—OK, the witch tells the monkeys to kill Dorothy. But they can't, because the kiss from the Witch of the North protects her. But wait! The kiss is nothing special in this version, so why don't the monkeys kill Dorothy? Because the witch WANTS HER ALIVE! Of course, ten minutes later she wants Dorothy dead. :rolleyes:


I could go on, but why bother? I'm so upset, it's taken me hours to write this post. I've had to re-type most of it several times, since tremors of rage screw up my typing. It's all I can do to stop myself from screaming in agony from the TRAVESTY I just saw. I only hope that, one day, I can get those god-awful songs out of my head. "Ding dong the witch is dead"--who writes this drivel?

No one will ever remember this turkey!!!



Thus concludes the world premier of EN World Alternate History Theatre. I hope you've enjoyed The Wizard of Oz Discussed on the 1939 Internet. Please feel free to create a 1939 internet persona and continue the debate. :D
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

B&W, Color, B&W...Make up your Friggin Mind! They never should have used that cheap color trick in this classic. Years from now when they finally abandon that unrealistic color and stick with B&W like we all imagine when reading the books, film making will be back to its proper roots! Jeez! It took me long enough just to accept talkies since I miss half the film when my eyes automatically go to the bottom of the screen whenever someone opens their mouth! It'll never last and hopefully someone will redo WoO...and do it right!
 

*sigh*

I won't even touch the already mentioned deviation from the source material as it simply makes me ill. :mad:

Dorothy is obviously The Chosen One prophesied to save the land of Oz from the Witch of the North. It's SO obvious. So why did she need the rest of the characters in the movie? They served no purpose unlike they did in the book (as mentioned). Either way, I hope none of them show up in the "sequel" as the studios have even more source material to butcher.


Personal Note: Anyway. I have to go and make sure that the stream next to my house is still flowing at a decent rate as my electricity is starting to fluctuate and may loose connection soon...
 

Come now -- you folks can not expect the film to be exactly like the book.

Somethings work better on screen while others work better in a book. It is a different medium after all. No need to be so focused on the changes that you loose sight of the basic enjoyment of seeing the movie!
 

I haven't read the original book yet, so don't think that I'm naysaying the movie just because of some loyalty to the text. Instead, I'm concerned about the acting. All the characters were either too over-the-top to be believable, or too subdued to be empathized with. And then, that thing at the end . . .

Spoiler Space

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

When it turns out the whole thing was just a dream? I mean, what the hell was the that? The idea of just waving away the whole story by saying it was a dream is so trite and cliched. I was almost expecting at the end for her to wake up again and climb out of a cocoon full of red ooze in a post-apocalyptic skyline of crackling electrical towers and fiendish robotic overseers, and realize that her whole existence in Kansas was just a lie perpetuated to keep her in line.

But no, we're going to have a sequel, probably, and what will it have? Well, we've already had a straw man (har har), a tin man, and a furry. What's next, guys with wheels instead of hands? Ooh, scary.
 

RangerWickett said:
I haven't read the original book yet, so don't think that I'm naysaying the movie just because of some loyalty to the text. Instead, I'm concerned about the acting. All the characters were either too over-the-top to be believable, or too subdued to be empathized with. And then, that thing at the end . . .

Spoiler Space

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

When it turns out the whole thing was just a dream? I mean, what the hell was the that? The idea of just waving away the whole story by saying it was a dream is so trite and cliched. I was almost expecting at the end for her to wake up again and climb out of a cocoon full of red ooze in a post-apocalyptic skyline of crackling electrical towers and fiendish robotic overseers, and realize that her whole existence in Kansas was just a lie perpetuated to keep her in line.

But no, we're going to have a sequel, probably, and what will it have? Well, we've already had a straw man (har har), a tin man, and a furry. What's next, guys with wheels instead of hands? Ooh, scary.


posted by Max Schreck on 1 July 1939 at 07:12:38 am PDT

It's a dream?!! WTF?!!??!? I LEFT EARLY becaues I was so disgusted! It's a good thing I wasn't there for this ending, because I probably would have ripped my seat out and thrown it at the screen!
 

Barendd Nobeard said:
posted by Max Schreck on 1 July 1939 at 07:12:38 am PDT

It's a dream?!! WTF?!!??!? I LEFT EARLY becaues I was so disgusted! It's a good thing I wasn't there for this ending, because I probably would have ripped my seat out and thrown it at the screen!
I'm surprised you didn't leave at intermission, judging on how much this flick annoyed you.

But one bright spot was Judy Garland. I think her best work is ahead of her.
 

(Posted by fdr@whitehouse.gov on 1 July 1939 at 11:56:30 am PDT)

Doodz, wuzup wit da playa-hatin? This joint wuz off the hizzy yo! It's all bout the flying monkeys, beeotch! And that Dorothy chick was mad hot. This homey couldn't look at her and think anything but heterosexual thoughts.

My only diss was how Dorothy dropped a dime on the Wicked Weeotch. Water? The hell? She should have busted a cap on that pointy hat old skool-style.

Munchkins 4-eva! FDR out.
 



Remove ads

Top