Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TiwazTyrsfist" data-source="post: 8074339" data-attributes="member: 70582">The biggest reason in my mind is that the 1939 Film softened, shortened, and in general watered down the Story of the Wizard of Oz.It made it more acceptable and accessible for a larger audience.And since almost EVERYONE is exposed to OZ first via that movie, all the other adaptations of other books in the series that are more true to the original works, and the original works themselves, seem very odd, off-tone, and even disturbing.It's like picking up a cup of what you think is Cola, taking a big swig, and discovering it's Sarsaparilla.It's also why SO MANY people hate the Jonny Depp "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and claim it's "Not true to the original" when in fact it is MUCH MORE true to the original BOOK than the Gene Wilder "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory".  First exposure was Gene Wilder so that's what people see as the "True" work.It seems like a circular problem, in that not enough people are exposed to the original material to generate the interest necessary to create or support derived material, and not enough modern derived material exists to draw people past the Judy Garland movie to the Original works.Editted: because I got Julie Andrews and Judy Garland mixed up.  Thank you Eyes of Nine.</blockquote>