Yes, No, Maybe So: "Oz, the Great and Powerful" (Plus "Wicked")
Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 10:01PM Technically we should resist going all Yes No Maybe So on teasers. When we have in the past everyone expected it all over again with the subsequent full trailer... and I can't do redundancy like that. I don't have it in me like all those heavy traffic movie blogs that will post at least five identical posts on everything "rumor. denial of rumor. updates of rumor. facts concerning rumor. rumor becoming fact." or slight variations thereof and a post for each and every minor iteration of a trailer and each batch of stills and each poster that appears for a grand total of about 250 posts about each film before the readers have even seen it. The studios know how to play the internet these days. But that's why we see too much of movies now before we even see them if you know what I mean. Nobody has any self control and we're all starting to ruin our virgin experiences with new movies.
But I'm a Friend of Dorothy so I can't resist Oz. I'm whisked up in that tornado every time.
yes no maybe so breakdown if you click your mouse three times...
there's no place like blog. there's no place like blog.
YES
- Well it is the wonderful world of Oz.
- Every shot of Glinda is exciting though Michelle Williams has a very solemn face for such a previously cheerful witch. It's intriguing that the clouds she appears to be summoning move more like waves of water. But are we not going to get her signature pink bubbles?
- The move from black and white to color is 1000% obvious but it's tweaked enough with the shift from square frame to widescreen (and it's easy to forget that movies were square before they were rectangular.)
- That bit with James Franco in the Oz role putting his hat back on when things start suspending in mid air is a nice touch.
- Sam Raimi is a terrific director with a mischievous sense of humor and a gift for iconography so he might be a great fit for the material.
NO
Oz. You're in Oz."
-Mila Kunis as "Theodora"
- Actually Mila, it looks like we're in Tim Burton's Eyesore in Wonderland... my least favorite movie of the past several years. It looks so much like that. The frames are so fussy and hideous with color and mad-hatter like art direction. Like leprechauns have puked rainbows all over the set. Anything that reminds me of Eyesore in Wonderland is troubling.
- I h-a-t-e Mila's costume and look here. Sorry Gary Jones. I don't understand the 1940s Joan Crawford shoulder pads influence in garish red (the sets have enough color) and Mila looking like Catherine Zeta Jones instead of herself. What is this?
MAYBE SO
- For every seemingly ugly shot I keep coming back to this one of a living doll, which is creepy and beautiful simultaneously. It's beyond. Plus it's simple enough to be iconic if its a great moment in the movie. I want to see the movie just to see how this fits in but I worry that the movie will be mostly horrible with these weird flashes of inspiration.
- The little "tag" after the title, the spot where a laugh line or scare usually goes is reserved for the Wicked Witch of the West. It'd be super effective if the rest of the tease didn't worry me so much.
- Oz's yearning to be a great man, which opens the teaser and which we're reminded of at the end 'Are you the great man we've waited for?' sounds like the emotional arc, but I'd so prefer the emotional arcs to belong to the witches. Will James Franco care enough to send his very best? He has to care or he's barely there.
Yes, it's true. I'm a "Maybe So" verging on "No" because mostly it didn't sell the movie to me. It made me scream "YES" for Wicked instead. Which wasn't what it was hawking. (Um, Nathaniel... it kinda was. Obviously this movie is trying to capitalize on the Oz craze that Wicked caused.) But that's another movie. With a similar plot. Only with songs. And what is Oz without musical numbers? A less fantastical place.
HOW ABOUT YOU? YES, NO or MAYBE SO?
P.S. Speaking of Wicked, Deadline is reporting that Universal wants Stephen Daldry to direct it and I think I'm feeling relief. A) He's a friend of Dorothy. B) He's such a less scary option than some of the other people who've been interested in helming that billion dollar stage musical's screen transfer. C) He proved with The Hours that he can handle multiple female arcs intertwined with one another. D) He proved with Billy Elliott that he can do heightened emotion through musical expression (dance rather than singing but...the ballpark, you know).
Did he prove with The Reader that he can do sympathy for the devil Wicked? That film is so divisive that the answer must be Yes and No.
Reader Comments (29)
James Franco is so boring. He looks stoned here, as per usual.
Mila is looking very Carmen Sandiego.
So... is Mila Kunis the Witch of the South... or East. I'm assuming Weisz is West and somehow turns green and CGI-ish?
Rachel Weisz is playing the witch of East (the film will probably end with her getting crushed by the house.)
I think for the Wicked film Anne Hathaway, Samantha Barks or Lea Michelle should play Elephaba (I wish for Hathaway to do it)
For Glinda I would choose Amanda Seyfried, Megan Hilty or Samatha barks (I wish Hilty)
I'm a yes mostly for Michelle Williams who looks gorgeous in this teaser. But yes I can't stop thinking Alice in Wonderland with the teaser and it makes me queasy.
Big ole YES from me.
Yes yes yes yes!!!!! Its oz!!!
Ugh...the first word that came to mind was one you used, "garish". Williams is the loveliest thing in the trailer and I'm excited to see how the other actresses do. I'm a "Maybe".
Ummmmm... NO!
Eyesore in Wonderland is perfect. Thank you for that.
Loved the black and white intro and some of the smaller touches in the trailer enough that I'm hoping Raimi has a firm handle on the overdone Eyesore-ness of the Oz landscapes. I was really hoping they'd go a little more Avatar natural for this. A land of Oz that didn't scream "Cutesy kids movie!" quite so hard would be greatly appreciated.
FWIW, I thought Franco looked engaged. After participating in the backlash against him these last couple years, I feel myself coming around to him once again (this actually started with his surprisingly okay performance in Rise of the Planet of the Apes)
The one and only "Yes" for me are the miniscule touches of Raimiesque horror near the end; the whole thing looks too much like Ugly Alice</I> for me to muster up more than the dimmest, most theoretical enthusiasm.
And good Lord, but Kunis's costume is wrong on every possible level.
Is it me or does Michelle look exactly like Kim Basinger in that close-up?
Where is Kim these days anyway?
No for me. Oz was never my cup of tea.
I know I'm not the only person in the world who enjoyed Kate in The Reader and the film itself. Not sure what people wanted from that material?—of course a Nicole version would tonally be different by virtue of the awesome differences between the two women.
Firmly maybe. Like you said, the Eyesore in Wonderland touches are very worrying. I have faith in Raimi to be more interesting than that in the finished product though!
I'm sad because I watched it earlier and I had been so excited and all I saw was Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland in the trailer ... I knew you'd think the same thing. BLAH
I'm still a yes simply because the actressexual in me loves Michelle, Mila, and Rachel and I want to see them do their thing. But to everything else? No. It's almost hard to recreate Oz because although there's no rule that says anyone has to go by the original movie, but it's such a classic and has been engrained in our brains so much that anything that doesn't look at least reminiscent to that Oz feels too far-fetched.
As for Wicked...
I feel like Lea Michele hasn't been given what she deserves (even if for simply her star power right now...but she has talent too), so I'd like to see her be Elphaba. Anne has the better look for it, but Lea has an actual voice. She has the theatre background with the hit television crossover starpower and she deserves a musical role.
Not sure right now on Glinda.
As for Stephen Daldry, I like the idea. In terms of The Reader...I didn't like the movie much, but I did think he dealt with the "sympathy for the wicked" well.
I'm not sure how I feel about the Oz movie. I am very excited for Wicked though. I saw the play and it was amazing. I think Reese Witherspoon would make a perfect Glinda. As for Elphaba, Anne Hathaway could pull off her part well. There are lot's of others too, but I can't think of them right now. I hope they don't screw it up.
Yes for Michelle. Raining isn't Burton. So it may be alright. I wish they'd about the Book and not the Wicked Musical. Ugh.
I meant Raimi and the book is so much better than the horrid musical.
I'm a maybe so, dependent on reviews, although most of my positive feelings are based around Michelle right now.
and it's easy to forget that movies were square before they were rectangular
I love looking at reviews of pre-1952 movies on Amazon, becuase there is inevitably at least one person who gives the movie one star because they're outraged that the studio didn't release a widescreen version of the DVD. I like to imagine these people thinking, "Look at all these dopes accepting a pan-and-scan version of the real movie and giving it five stars. What a bunch of idiots!" And then you have people commenting on their reviews, saying, "Uh, no."
Happens every time.
No. No. No. Why do I want this? As with any retelling of a beloved story, they have to convince me to sample the wares, rather than stick with my beloved. Wicked is convincing. Wicked is compelling. This is just, Oh look, we prettied it up.
Screw them and their confusion of CGI with interesting.
Looks like Eyesore in Wonderland. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a great film, but not necessarily a faithful adaptation of the book. I thought this would be more faithful to the book and have 4 witches instead of three. I'm a maybe mainly because of Raimi and I love Michelle.
I too would prefer the book adaptation of Wicked rather than the musical. Especially if they are going to cast such OBVIOUS choices Anne Hathaway, Lea Michele and Amy Adams. No No and Double No. I hope they go with some unique and interestting choices and not the most obvious. I could see Adepero Oduye as Elfaba and Kirsten Dunst as Galinda.
Agreed, Nathaniel. It looks like Eyesore in Wonderland meets the Dr. Seuss landscape. I thought I saw a mountain range of Mt. Crumpits.
And since when are there fairies and monsters in Oz? I'm very confused on their take on the place.
Agreed on the ominous resemblance to Alice in Poorly Composited Land. In fact, that alone might be too much NO for me to deal with, though the Maybe So is quite intriguing.
Isn't Daldry a bit... dour to handle Wicked?
A big fat NO! From the moment I laid eyes on the trailer it just screamed cheapness to me.
I played this at work earlier today, and my co-worker immediately asked if Tim Burton was directing this. I can't say I'm terribly interested.
honestly until here NO
i hate the "every one is CGI" à la Artur and the Minimoys except the actors and when you see it's all CGI
in more it's barely if i recognise an actor,they look lost in the suit and make-up
as i like Sam Raimi and his casting as here it looks like an empty wannabe Tim Burton movie
The thing about casting Wicked is that the characters spend half the film in a sort of college setting, so they have to be plausibly college-aged, unlike the stage versions, who can be in their forties or whatever.
Franco is miscast. Gosling, Gordon Lewitt, Tom Hiddleton, Tom Hardy would have been so much better
I'm a maybe. I'm excited to see what Michelle Williams does with this. As for Wicked: I think I'd like Hathaway. I'd also vote for Megan Hilty for Glinda. I've seen the stage show several times and Hilty is by far the best Glinda I've seen. I'd even go as blasphemous as to say she's better the K Chenoweth (Please don't strike me down Nathaniel). Hilty is simply superb.