Talk:Oz the Great and Powerful

Lede

For months the lede of the article has called the film a "prequel", without explaining what it is a prequel to. I might GUESS that it could be a prequel to "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", for example, but I haven't seen the film yet so I don't know. If anyone knows what it's intended to be a prequel to, please add that information. Infrogmation (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that this edit did absolutely noting to clarify the problem. A request for clarification is NOT a request for citation. We have vague and confusing language in the lede of the article. Can someone please fix it? Does anyone know what it is a prequel to? And if not, why is it important to state it is a "prequel" to some unknown entity? Infrogmation (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarified, using the source that was added to check for sure. Done and done, in all of about no seconds. GRAPPLE X 13:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It took 3 months, but finally Grapple X to the rescue! Thanks! Infrogmation (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And now it's a "spiritual" prequel! lolol.--Reedmalloy (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary copyvio?

Plot summary appears to be copied directly from the movie's website at http://disney.go.com/thewizard/#/story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.224.221 (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggest a reference be made to "Epics" and the "epic genre," specifically to Joseph Campbell's summative description of the twelve conventions of epics. Suggest a link to the wikipedia article The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which describes the those conventions. The plot of Oz the Great and Powerful follows loyally the conventions. Gray-pine (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition to info box

Hi, I noticed that the info box does not credit Mitchell Kapner as the "screen story" writer. Disney is a client of my employer, so while I don't edit Disney-related Wikipedia articles, I would like to propose a change to list Mitchell Kapner as the screen story writer in the info box. Here are a couple of sources supporting this proposed addition: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100388085/HSN_And_Disney_Collaborate_To_Create_Unparalleled_Retail_And_Entertainment_Experience_For_Oz_The_Great_and_Powerful http://waltdisneystudios.com/corp/news/1259

I'd really appreciate it if you could help me out in making this change. Thanks very much, and please let me know if there is any other way I can help to facilitate this alteration.

Jbettigo (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Title

I hate and dread bringing this up, given the inane lengths of the debate at Star Trek Into Darkness over capitalizing or not capitalizing the "I" in "into, but we've the same situation here, where the studio and the filmmakers spell the title in a non-grammatical way. All the official Disney material titles the film “Oz The Great and Powerful" -- not "Oz the Great and Powerful" nor "Oz: The Great and Powerful." Why Disney does it that way is no clearer than why Paramount and J.J. Abrams et al. spell it Star Trek Into Darkness. But I think, following the example there, that as much as it pains me to go ungrammatical, we may need to do the same here.

The New York Times isn't any help: It spells it both of the other two ways. (See here.) However, the most Entertainment Weekly article spells it cap-T-no-colon at "Mariah Carey records song for 'Oz The Great and Powerful'."

Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The official website seems to use "Oz the Great and Powerful" in the title.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be Oz, the Great and Powerful (though redirects should exist at The Great and Powerful Oz, Oz: The Great and Powerful. ) ? -- 00:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No comma onscreen or at any of the official sites. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Great and Wonderful is his title (as in a nobility title), so "The" should be capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardenclyffetower (talk • contribs) 14:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

plot and continuity

this is missing a plot summary/synopsis, and it is missing anything about how this links to other Oz works and the rest of the fictional universe, and what changes were made that are incompatible with other works. Some of the film reviewers have point out some of these issues, so this should be added to the article. And any article on a fictional narrative should always have a summary. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have now seen the movie and was very appreciative of the old-fashioned look of the introduction, along with the b&w-color transition and the occurrence of a tornado, all reminding me of the 1939 film. In the black-and-white part of THIS film, we hear of Annie having been proposed to by JOHN Gale. The same person who plays Annie plays, as aleady noted here on Wikipedia, Glinda the Good Witch. However, in writeups related to the 1939 film and its predecessors, I recall some connection between Glinda and AUNTIE Em (in the 1939 film, we hear of Dorothy Gale living with Uncle Henry and Auntie Em); for the 1939 movie, it was decided that different actresses would play Glinda and Auntie Em.

In the 1939 film, we catch a glimpse of the shoes of the just-killed Wicked Witch of the East, which character is not played by anyone. Margaret Hamilton played Miss Gulch & Wicked Witch of the West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

the giant bubbles are said to be from the 1939 film but they are from the book road to oz — Preceding unsigned

the tinkers are not in any books that Baum wrote they are from a Oz book, authored by James Howe

Under "Continuity": The movie takes place in 1905, but this is not 20 years before the Wizard of Oz novel setting. The novel was published in 1900. It is unclear to me when the 1936 movie is set, but the clothing does not exclude the possibility it also takes place in 1900. At least "novel" should be removed from this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.5.2 (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Reception

No mention of James Franco's critical disappointment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.63.41 (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

We can start addressing specific points of criticism when we organize the critical reception a bit more. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Where's Franco's miscast allegations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.174.87 (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Joey King has two credited roles in the movie.

The Actress Joey King has two credited roles in the movie.

China Doll and Wheel Chair Girl

(It might be nit picking, but in the closing credits, she is listed with two roles)

And in Australia, the movie was first screened to general audiences on Thursday March 7th

Regards, Timelord2067 (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Timelord2067 Looking at the cast section now, would more detail on her role be helpful? DelightedResearch (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

That would be voice-only for the China Doll, which is animated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Robert's dead plant, etc

Lines in article: "In January 2011, Raimi attempted to revive discussions with Downey, but became aware that the actor was uninterested after he discovered a dead plant Raimi had given to Downey as a goodwill gesture in his home. With Downey's disinterest acknowledged..."

Corresponding lines in source material: "Raimi visited Downey at his Los Angeles home, still attempting to land him, but upon entering the house, Raimi spotted a plant that he had given the actor as a goodwill gesture wilting in a corner. (The filmmaker declines to elaborate.)"

The lines in the Wikipedia article feel like a retelling with artistic license. Raimi did revive talks and even made it into his home, but they didn't pan out. The plant was not dead but wilting. And, probably most importantly, the source never clearly states that Downey was "uninterested." Now, perhaps I am picking at nits here, but reporting the plant as dead paints a bit darker picture than the cited reference and there just seems to be a little too much information that feels embellished. It's a simple fix and if there are no objections, I will change it. But if someone else changed it, I'd prefer that.

I think something like this is a bit more accurate.

"In January 2011, Raimi did meet with Downey but did not land him. While no specific reasons were given, the director mentioned seeing a neglected plant in the actors home that had been a gift from Raimi, but declined to explain further."184.156.23.123 (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done with some slight alteration ~ Jedi94 (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that works nicely. Thanks.184.156.23.123 (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no — it's WP:UNDUE since we're suggesting an implicit correlation. It's a tangential anecdote, and unless we have indication that it has any relevance to Raimi / Downey's decision, it has no encyclopedia bearing. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

proposed to by (what name?)

At this writing, I see in this article that Annie, in the opening scenes in Kansas, "has been proposed to by a Johnathan Gale". I have seen the movie twice and recall hearing "John Gale" (which could have instead been "Jon Gale"), but certainly not "Jonathan" (which is misspelled in this article). Unless I hear from others regarding this, I am hesitant to change this in the article.

 Done Rewritten as John. Also, please make sure you sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, like this: (~~~~) ~ Jedi94 (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"Continuity" section

After reading through the "Continuity" section of the article, I feel it should be split into two sections:

"Continuity from the Baum novels"

"Continuity from the 1939 M-G-M release"

MJEH (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"20 years before"

As mentioned above, the statement that the movie is set 20 years before the events of the original novel is confusing and potentially misleading, as The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was published, and presumably set, in 1900. I added a clarifying parenthetical, but it was subsequently removed. What is the source for the "20 years" figure anyway? Does it feature in publicity materials for the film? It should be cited, and the sentence should be reworked to avoid the implication that the original novel is set in 1925. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

67.170.169.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has now reverted my addition of a clarifying parenthetical twice, most recently saying "The published year has nothing to do with when the story takes place." That may be so, but there is nothing in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz to suggest that it is set in the then-distant future of 1925. We should not suggest that there is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of any further comment or explanation from 67.x, I'm restoring the parentheses. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a page on a movie not on the book if you want this said so bad then go to the page for the book and add it there67.170.169.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The article on the book already mentions its publication date. In the absence of any other evidence, any reader would assume it was set at the same time as its publication. We should not imply that it is set in 1925.

We appear to be at an impasse. Any other editors have an opinion on this? If nobody else has a view about this, we should get a third opinion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've invited members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Oz to chime in, if they wish. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

While we're waiting for a third opinion, I'll just point out a few sources commenting on the tension between the 1905 setting of the film and the 1900 publication of the book it's supposedly a prequel to: [1], [2], [3], [4]. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)The book was set in 1900; the MGM movie in 1939. There's no proof to suggest otherwise. AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)BTW, this proves this film doesn't connect to the MGM movie. This film is set in 1905, "20 years before", and the 1939 MGM film is either set in 1900 (the year the book came out) or in 1939 (the year the film was released). Either way, the MGM film is NOT set in 1925, so that scuttles the idea of this film connecting to it. In fact, I know of no OZ movie set in 1925, so this is a "stand alone" movie, just like the MGM one is. AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Monaural to stereo and eventually surround sound

This has been a long-term problem, right? Just take a look at the article's revision history and you may see it seems like an edit war is happening. Several combative IP addresses insist that the "stereo" be removed, but the inline citation proves the opposite. And they repeatedly undid many editors' revisions because of this. Please have a quick talk and reach consensus right here, or I'll bring it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Quenhitran (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Continuity: OR? (or is the lion the Cowardly Lion)

(Moved this conversation from my talk page to article talk page so others can chip in) --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 21:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I just reverted your edits to Oz the Great and Powerful because there was no explanation as to why you made the edit. I read what you wrote to the IP editors talk page and I'm sorry but just because another page erroneously claims that it is the same lion does not make it true. I had a look at the Cowardly lion page and deleted the section on "Oz The Great and Powerful because the reference used was a blogger and not considered WP:RS. Your argument about it being a reference to the cowardly lion is nothing more than WP:OR. If you can find a reliable source that gives the same information, I invite you to re-add the information with new Reliable references. Thank you Gfyd (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, ok. The very same page makes that claim, and with a reference: 'Other referenced characters include the Scarecrow, who is built by the townspeople as a scare tactic and the Cowardly Lion, who is frightened away by Oscar after attacking Finley. ^[1]' And I get what you're saying about OR, but if we're going to be that strict about it, half the stuff in Oz the Great and Powerful#Continuity is OR. Really, there's OR, and then there's stating the obvious. Oz scares away a lion and then calls it 'cowardly'. So regardless of if that lion is meant to be the same one as the actual Cowardly Lion, it is undeniably a reference, which I feel justifies a link to show this? --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 21:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Just as a cowardly lion isn't THE Cowardly Lion, the Wizard of Oz is different too. In this film he's Oscar Diggs. In the '39 film he's nameless. The way the nameless Wiz got to Oz differs from the way Oscar does. It just isn't connected to the '39 film. Abbythecat Abbythecat (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not A MGM Prequel

Abbythecat (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC) This is NOT a prequel to the 1939 MGM movie. MGM has stated this. Legally, it CANNOT be related to the MGM film. Certain things in this movie couldn't be done because MGM legally wouldn't let them, as this is NOT a MGM film. Saying this relates to the 1939 movie would be like saying RETURN TO OZ and TIN MAN do. They don't. MGM has NEVER done a sequel/prequel to the 1939 movie. They have never been involved in one in any way. Before this lie is put back, please first provide LEGAL PROOF that MGM approved of this film. THEY DON'T. I should know. Thank you. Abbythecat (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Abbythecat. PS - Before I could even finish this, the edit was undone, so the lie is back. No point in me doing this again, but I'd love to know HOW anyone could say this relates to the 1939 movie. PROOF IS NEEDED. DO NOT PRINT LIES ON WIKI. Abbythecat (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source was provided proving that this was called a prequel by reviewers. Where are your sources saying it is not? We need proof here, not just your say-so. Elizium23 (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Under "filming", you can read the restrictions MGM (WB) put on this film because it isn't related to the 1939 film (note 38). Why are there legal restrictions if it is a prequel to the 1939 movie? Also, under the prequel line, if you go to reference 2, it reads it is a "Disney-made prequel", NOT a MGM-made prequel. I agree with this, so how about a compromise? I'll add the words "Disney'-made" before prequel. If you think this is fair, keep it. If not, undo it again, and I'll forget it. AGF. Fair enough? I hope. Thank you. AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Someone (not me) changed it to "spiritual prequel", which I think is brilliant, and I hope it stays. IMDB says this film is "not cannon" to the MGM film. Thanks. AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If you or Jedi94 (talk · contribs) or anyone can find a reliable secondary source that says it is a "spiritual prequel" then it can stay in, but no source I've seen says it, only "prequel", so I've reverted the change. Elizium23 (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Well, Disney-made prequel works just fine, too, thanks! AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I used "spiritual prequel" because I believe it is the most accurate term to define this film in relation to the MGM film (I found a couple secondary sources that use that word too; ScreenRant, IFC.com). This film is not an officially-sanctioned prequel (or anything legally relating to the 1939 MGM film, for that matter) according to Warner Bros. However, Disney did develop and market the film under that pretense, albeit without using elements that were unique to that film. This pretense was also clearly shared by numerous journalists, film critics, and media outlets who reported the film as a prequel, with some sources even describing the film as a "prequel of sorts"—a phrase that could arguably be interchanged with "spiritual prequel" (Entertainment Weekly, Los Angeles Times). The filmmakers themselves also had the direct intent to allude to the MGM film with artistic choices.

As a side note: In my opinion, the phrase "Disney-produced"—although blatantly accurate—seems rather redundant to use here, considering the producing studio is already stated later in the lead and the development section, as well as in the infobox. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 03:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)I totally agree with all you wrote. The problem is, once a Wiki editor is determined not to allow something, we mere contributors can never change their minds. Believe me, I've been at this for years, and I've never won a single time. So at least by adding "Disney produced" it tells everyone -- indirectly -- that it isn't really a prequel to the MGM film. If it reverts back to just "a prequel", then readers will be deceived again into believing that lie. I think your description is 100% brilliant and accurate (spiritual prequel), but now that it was deleted, good luck with ever getting it restored. "They" just ain't gonna let that happen. I've been through all this more times than I can count -- it's a winless battle. At any rate, this film does NOT connect to the MGM movie, and anyone who thinks it does should sing the Scarecrow's song, "If I Only Had A Brain!"! I'll bet you anything that if anyone restores "spiritual prequel", it'll be undone instantly. Sometimes you have to settle for a compromise -- so I hope we can at least keep "Disney produced". PS - I just changed it to "Disney's unofficial prequel", which is 100% true, but I bet you it gets reverted instantly. Well, I tried! AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

All I said was, "find a source". Jedi94 (talk · contribs) has done that, and has my blessing to return that phrasing to the article. Abby, you need to assume better from me. I am committed to working collegially, that is, cooperating and working out a consensus for everything we do. I am not here to stand in the way of constructive contributions. I am just ensuring that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are upheld, and everything Jedi94 is doing is fine with me. Elizium23 (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)I see someone has put "spiritual prequel" back ... let's see how long it lasts. My guess is that it will vanish again. I meant no personal attack on you, Elizium23, and please note I didn't mention your name. But almost everything I add gets deleted. For instance, I created the page for the WALKING TALL TV series years ago, and it included the lyrics to the theme song. Someone just recently deleted this. I was never notified about this. I have no idea who did it or why. Things like this are what I mean. I once put it an edit for a Beatles page. I wrote that "John Lennon was a member of the Beatles" and that "The Beatles recorded 'Yesterday'". Both were deleted because they weren't referenced! I mean, c'mon, references aren't ALWAYS needed, not for things THIS obvious, are they? But I do apologize, I didn't mean to offend you in any way. OK, a few minutes have passed ... wanna bet "spiritual prequel" has already been deleted...? AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's good to see that we reached a consensus on the matter. I've added a hidden note within the lead to avoid future removals without discussion. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 01:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Thank you, Jedi94 and Elizium23 -- you are both intelligent and kind gentlemen. Best AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk)

Budget gross and net

I looked at the source and it is fairly obvious that the net that was given in the article was the estimated film budget with estimated incentive amount deducted. Given that that was not explicitly stated in the source as net and the fact it was calculated by a wikipedia editor, that is fairly obvious WP:SYNTHESIS. In addition, why would we care about something called net. The amount spent in making the film is still the same which is what we care about. The fact that some of the funding comes from government sources shouldn't really matter. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You're right, the Infobox should list the should list the budget as they actual amount spent. If editors want to explain further about tax credits and rebates they should be should be adding details to explain the various figures to Production section. The WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to summarize what is actually in the article body. The budget should have been added to the Production section first, it should still be added and if there were tax rebates that should be explained too. -- 109.76.197.50 (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Top Citations

The top of the article doesn't include citations until the very end. I'm thinking I should add some in areas such as Robert Downey Jr. and Johnny Depp rejecting the lead role. I would like to hear others thoughts before I make a change since I'm so new to editing on Wikipedia. With care, DelightedResearch (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article, there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)