Here is your Oz open thread. I haven't seen the movie or read the books, but both Shakesville and Jezebel have interesting things up about it. Spoilers abound herein.
66
comments:
Evan
said...
(Technical note: Dorothy actually couldn't return using the shoes; they fell off her feet over the Deadly Desert because, being magical, they couldn't exist in the outside world. Her future journeys were by other means, usually the Magic Belt. At least, that's how it is in the books; I actually haven't seen the movie.)
Not having seen the movie again, I can think of two possible reasons for Glinda to not tell Dorothy about the shoes at once. First, perhaps she didn't know and only found out after she returned home to her library? Second and worse, perhaps she was manipulating Dorothy to find out what's going on with the Wizard's magic. If this allegedly great and powerful wizard who hasn't done anything can send her home by his own magic, great; that's useful information. If he tells her to use the silver shoes, that still says he knows something about magic (and might lead him to underestimate Glinda for apparently not knowing, which could turn out useful in any future wars.) But if he can't... then perhaps Glinda doesn't need to be afraid of him anymore.
As it turned out, of course, Glinda's plot mostly worked. The Wizard was revealed to not know the first thing about magical footware. What's more, he fled the Emerald City. Now Glinda doesn't need to be afraid of him... but there's also a visible power vacuum. Of course Glinda is going to prop up her puppet the Scarecrow, but this isn't a stable situation because he doesn't inspire the same awe as the Wizard. Fortunately, by the time the Scarecrow gets overthrown, Glinda has either found or made up the whereabouts of a previous dynasty's heir...
Side Note: Perhaps the Wizard really was sexist? At least, he inspired a feminist revolution against his successor...
Second Side Note: At least in Machiavellian-Glinda-verse, I'm wondering whether Tip was born as Ozma, or whether Glinda just picked a somewhat-prominent boy of indefinite origins and Mombi was coerced into playing along.
Yes, that's probably the same thing, although if it is you're mashing two different episodes together.
The antagonist who had different personalities based on what headgear she was wearing is the Princess of Ev, who appears in the section based on the third book. (And is another departure from the source: in the book, the princess had different personalities based on what head she was wearing.)
And the anime has an entirely concocted episode just after Dorothy and the gang defeat the Wicked Witch of the East, which introduces Mombi and Tip and has Mombi, having learned of the WWE's death, attempt to make off with the hat that controls the wingéd monkeys.
Yes, that's probably the same thing, although if it is you're mashing two different episodes together.
The antagonist who had different personalities based on what headgear she was wearing is the Princess of Ev, who appears in the section based on the third book. (And is another departure from the source: in the book, the princess had different personalities based on what head she was wearing.)
And the anime has an entirely concocted episode just after Dorothy and the gang defeat the Wicked Witch of the East, which introduces Mombi and Tip and has Mombi, having learned of the WWE's death, attempt to make off with the hat that controls the wingéd monkeys.
Didn't that anime have an antagonist who had different personalities based on what her headgear was?
And she antagonized Dorothy because Dorothy was in possession of some kind of crown that she'd taken off of the Wicked Witch of the West after killing her?
If it's the same thing... oh I remember that. That was -ages- ago. {wistful}
Didn't that anime have an antagonist who had different personalities based on what her headgear was?
And she antagonized Dorothy because Dorothy was in possession of some kind of crown that she'd taken off of the Wicked Witch of the West after killing her?
If it's the same thing... oh I remember that. That was -ages- ago. {wistful}
You remember quite correctly. That'd be Princess Langwidere, who was sort of softened up for the anime -- in the book, she had thirty different heads that she could swap out at random, and each head had a different personality -- and she antagonized Dorothy because she wanted her head; she thought Dorothy had a pretty face and wanted it for her own. Dorothy naturally didn't want to give up her head, despite Langwidere's offer to swap with one of her own heads.
Yeah, the Oz books had some really grotesque things going on at time.
You remember quite correctly. That'd be Princess Langwidere, who was sort of softened up for the anime -- in the book, she had thirty different heads that she could swap out at random, and each head had a different personality -- and she antagonized Dorothy because she wanted her head; she thought Dorothy had a pretty face and wanted it for her own. Dorothy naturally didn't want to give up her head, despite Langwidere's offer to swap with one of her own heads.
Yeah, the Oz books had some really grotesque things going on at time.
Tip could be considered the Animus and Ozma the Anima, of each other, their personalities a thesis and antithesis. Ozma does get a chance to strut her stuff, and save her kingdom, in Edward Einhorn's "Paradox of Oz". It involves time-travel, more insight on Ozma's family, and an amusing scene where Ozma does meet "zirself" as Tip. It is worth looking for.
Well, you can at least see the intro and credits of the English dub, which includes a look at most of the characters (who look nothing like they do either in the MGM movie or John R. Neill's illustrations), and a surprisingly catchy theme song.
*hums* Oh, it's fun on the other side, no one looks ahead -- But you can't always run and hide, under the bed! Yes, it's fun on the other side, that's what I said...
I don't know how much my memory is clouded by nostalgia, but I would definitely give it a try. I watched it almost 18-19 years ago and I remember it came on at an ungodly hour in the morning and I would be trying to watch it while getting ready for school... Ha I am so old now :)
I don't think the English-language version has ever been given a home video release (at least, in its full form: it did get hacked down to four "movies" at one point).
There used to be a web site where one could (and I did, a year or two ago) rewatch the whole thing for free, along with other shows handled by the same distributor, but the distributor got eaten by another company recently and that site has been shut down.
There have been several attempts by other authors of explaining why Ozma's persona is so different from the one she had as Tip.
This is one of the places the anime series breaks from the novels: when Tip is physically transformed back into a girl, her personality stays exactly the same. The process of learning to be Ozma takes place over the rest of the series, only producing something like the books' Ozma in the final episode or two. (At which point there's so much plot going on that it's hard to tell whether it's mainly a public persona and she's still her old self when she's just hanging out with her friends, because everybody's too busy for just hanging out.)
That's one of the most fun thing about Oz, given how it was continued by so many other authors, and Baum's books and characters are now in the public domain, anyone can write their own Oz books and play with the characters and situations -- not that all of them do a good job, but it has made for some pretty entertaining books.
I know someone who's shopping around a novel featuring Polychrome the Rainbow's Daughter. (He's a published author, but it's not a good fit for his usual publisher, which tends toward adventure novels featuring spaceships, dragons, or both.)
This is one of the places the anime series breaks from the novels: when Tip is physically transformed back into a girl, her personality stays exactly the same.
Ah yeah. I was actually going to mention that in my post, as an example of a different way Ozma was handled in that adaptation... but I forgot. ^_^*
There have been several attempts by other authors of explaining why Ozma's persona is so different from the one she had as Tip. (That's one of the most fun thing about Oz, given how it was continued by so many other authors, and Baum's books and characters are now in the public domain, anyone can write their own Oz books and play with the characters and situations -- not that all of them do a good job, but it has made for some pretty entertaining books.)
There's been a lot of speculation about how Tip's personality was part of Mombi's transformation in order to make the disguise complete. Some stories has Tip actually as a separate person who was somehow switched with Ozma -- those stories tend to find a way to bring Tip back in a body of his own. And there are many stories about Ozma trying to adjust to being a girl (usually taking place between books two and three).
I think my favorite, though, is the explanation suggested by author March Laumer (who wrote several Oz books, of varying quality), largely because it's the simplest one: Ozma's personality is an act.
Since she grew up as a farmboy, with no other female role models around than Mombi, she has no idea how to be a girl or a queen/princess (the books are a little inconsistent on which term to use) -- and so she overcompensates by really playing into as many girly and princessy stereotypes as she can. It doesn't help, either, that most of her closest friends at the time are male, and none of them are even human (The Tin Woodman used to be human, but the others are either talking creatures or constructs like the Scarecrow and Jack Pumpkinhead) -- they have no idea what a young queen should be or act like either. This goes on to explain many of Ozma's more foolish moments in some of the books; she's trying to be the "perfect princess" and "wise ruler" and is just doing a really bad job at it because she's pretty much got no idea what's she's doing.
If she'd been the ruler of any place other than Oz, she would have been a spectacular failure, but lucklily for her the generally laid-back and accepting nature of the Ozzians (not to mention that Ozma at least isn't setting out to oppress anyone) means that it generally works.
She does get better over time, learning a lot through her developing friendships with Dorothy, Glinda and other girls/women, but by that time the "Ozma" persona has become so natural and so much a part of her that it's easier to just continue the act.
It's a sad explanation, since it means Ozma doesn't really dare being herself even among her friends (even though she has to know they'd accept her in an instant no matter what, but fears and insecurities aren't always logical)... but I think it makes more sense than most of the other explanations. Besides -- it's Oz. It's a place where changes and differences are celebrated. So there's hope there that Ozma eventually will get more comfortable with herself and dare to let her "inner Tip" out more often.
What I wouldn't give for a film centered around Tip, though. Granted, the original Reveal about her true nature was irritating and completely overwrote her personality for some reason, but a film about her would be rather one in the eye to this director. Something that looks like yet another film about an intrepid boy hero stomping around and causing mischief and stopping a vile usurper... oh, wait, surprise! She's a girl and the rightful queen of Oz. How 'bout that.
Now, admittedly, I haven't actually read the book yet (I actually plan to read the series, now that I've got a handly link), but the impression I got was that Tip was just a carrier, i.e., he was completely different from Ozma - so it seemed like his/her personality was completely overriden because it was... Alternatively, it could just be a matter of gender essentialism. Yeah. Let's go with that...
Also did you notice that Evanora was surprised by her transformation, also kind of taken aback when she suggested that they kill Glinda's army instead of letting them flee.
Yep. I don't know what they were doing with the witches, at all, really. You've got one utterly tragic villain, who is treated as if she's a typical card carrying villain (and who will eventually be killed) and one villain who... what was Evanora's motive for her actions again? I felt like her characterization was all over the place. Was it just to rule Oz? Then why did she want her sister by her side in evil? (And what are we supposed to think of her being taken aback by WWoW's more deadly wickedness?) Why did she keep her sister so naive? (and if she didn't, who or what did? Also, what did Theodora mean when she said something about Oscar not knowing about witches when he thought she must have had many admirers. Are witches feared? Are they only allowed to have a relationship with the king? What?)
I also had real problems with Glinda. Yes, it's good that she protected the people she protected, but, really what was she doing waiting around for a savior instead of trying to explain the truth to Theodora (even if both Glinda and Theodora are weaker than Evanora, there's two of them) and/or trying to learn more powerful magic (if magic is something one learns in Oz). She just sort of wandered around smirking and saying drivelly "good" things. Do something, lady, you're a witch! (The character grated on me some, but mostly my irritation is that she was written that way.)
Also, this particular jerkass to hero plot really left me feeling that everything was about Oscar - the entire world of Oz was populated with NPCs who helped him on his road to not being a jerkass. WHY? It was entirely his decision to be a jerkass in the first place. We are given no explanation for his jerkassery, no tragic backstory, nothing. He's just a jerkass. Why should a whole magical kingdom have to suffer so he can become a decent person?
"And the second reason was -- during the years that I spent running Walt Disney Studios -- I learned about how hard it was to find a fairy tale with a good strong male protagonist. .."
Hyaroo writes: " *rolls eyes* Has this guy even read any fairytales?! "
I know! Has he even watched any Disney movies? The top grossing Disney animated movies, according to Wikipedia, are: Toy Story 3, The Lion King, and Finding Nemo (which are also the top three grossing animated films ever). The next highest grossing Disney movies are Up, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille. Notice anything about those movies? [Hint: It's not the overwhelming number of strong female protagonists.] In fact, the highest-grossing animated movie (from any studio) with a female protagonist is Tangled, at #17. And the next highest-grossing - and the first with the woman's name in the title, sort of - is Beauty and the Beast, at THIRTY-FOUR.
That was pretty much my response. She's upset by his faithlessness (I can't be certain if we were supposed to believe her wicked sister when she claimed he'd spent the night with her, but given what we saw of his behavior, it's completely in character) and her sister talks her into eating an apple which first gives her the insight that whups, sis is evil wicked, and then shrinks her heart away (she even asks what's happening to her when this happens, horrified and in pain). Somehow heart shrinkage also causes her to turn green and beaky nosed (which is "hideous"). She then acts like the Wicked Witch of the West from the 1939 movie.
I'm all "You're going to address this, right, movie? Because if you don't, WTF on toast!?"
Toward the end, Oz tells her he knows that this isn't the real her and she's welcome back if she ever becomes herself again.
Me: "That isn't dealing with it, movie! She was magicked! This wasn't a choice she can just unchoose! ARGH!"
That leaves a horrible contrast between her becoming irrevocably evil/wicked because she bit a magic apple (an apple???? Really????) and him conning women into sleeping with him (which might not be "evil," but is massively, massively not okay yet still having, supposedly, a good heart. (You fucked with people's lives, you asshat! I know the women still had a choice in sleeping with you, but given your lies about the endless stream of music boxes you were handing out, they weren't just not getting the full story, they were actively being fed a false one.)
And, worse, if he'd been honest with Theodora - and I don't mean just not trying to seduce her, but, once he realized she thought they were in love and going to be ruling Oz together not correcting her - she might not have been so upset that her sister was able to manipulate her. Her paying the price for his bad deeds is wrong.
Mm, and I forgot a fail in my first post. Both of the wicked witches end up ugly*, which means we've got ye ol' unfortunate implication of good = pretty and bad = ugly. Yay. Only, not yay.
*Though, honestly, while the classic Wicked Witch of the West look is atypical, I don't find it ugly.
Yay Depizan replies to me :) .. you have pretty much expressed all my thoughts on the movie.
Regarding Evanora's characterization, the only thing that could possibly explain her actions is that she believed the magic apple would lead Theodora to cooperate with her schemes, but she still expected her to remain the weaker ally, still subservient to her.. remember what the WWOW says at the end, Evanora always believed Theodora to be the weaker sister.
Therefore she is surprised when the WWoW so easily overrides her and assumes the mantle of the leader when she calls for Glinda's army to be exterminated. She expected a powerful sidekick, not someone who could eventually sideline her. Had they won, I would say that it is clear that Evanora would have eventually turned on the WWoW.
The point about Theodora's comment on how witches are treated is interesting. Oscar was at least right about one thing, superficially she should have had many admirers, why didn't she? At that point in the movie I thought there was already something sinister about Theodora. Maybe a cliched dark side that led her to be kept isolated and feared. Evanora even hints on her inherent wickedness. I expected the movie to expand on it but it never did. Instead Oscar betrays her and Evanora manipulates her into her tragic fate. Although If the inevitable sequel decides to paint her as always having been evil and completely exonerates Oscar, I am not going to be happy :(
Since I have more deep meaningful :) , thoughts on Glinda and James Franco I will follow up with another comment.
Gah...I cannot remember. They hide in a cave set into a cliff. Maybe my overactive imagination is adding a waterfall. Anyone else saw the movie and remembers where they hid?
No, I'm...pretty sure there was a waterfall. Not 100% sure, but pretty sure. I just can't think of any plausible way for them to get there without Theodora getting damp.
And here's the thing: I can understand privilege-blinders, I really can. I can understand if the producer truly, honestly thought that male protagonists were rare. I can think he's very very wrong and very very unobservant, but ok, I can accept that people can make honest mistakes, because that's how privilege works.
So ok, go make your movie with your strong male protagonist, give those young boys the role model they're so clearly lacking. *eyeroll*
But this...
Your male protagonist, your role model, is someone who is not just an ass in general, but who specifically deceives and takes advantage of women? And (I haven't seen the movie, but based on the descriptions here and elsewhere) continues deceiving and manipulating women throughout the film, and who apparently doesn't take responsibility for messes he's arguably very responsible for? That's... uh... that's not much of a role model.
If this were just any old run-of-the-mill jackhole protagonist, it would still be pretty bad. But knowing that at least one producer saw this character as his Big Chance to provide a Strong Male Fairytale Protagonist, it seems especially distressing that this is what he came up with. If you really think there aren't enough male heroes, wouldn't you want to make sure that the one you provide audiences is, y'know, actually a hero worth looking up to? Is this guy seriously the sort of person you're hoping boys will see as a role model? Because if so... that's pretty awful.
Also don't Oscar and Theodora hide behind a waterfall, seems strange that a person with a fatal reaction to water shows no true fear of it.
...
And I thought the thing with the tears was nonsensical enough. She wanders close enough to a marshy area to meet Oscar, hangs out with a sopping wet guy without comment or apparent reaction and... how did they get behind the waterfall again? I cannot replay the scene in such a way that it doesn't involve them wading through the stream to get there. It can't because that would make NO SENSE, but... how'd they get there? o_O
You are correct, Theodora suggests running at once, while Glinda expects him to fight the flying monkeys.. though at that point I don't think we are told that she see's through him yet, so it is kind of a movie fake out, in order to prolong the suspense for the audience I think.
You're right, of course, but it does leave us with the good witch defaulting to violence while the witch who gets made wicked defaults to avoiding violence. Which is damn strange because you'd expect the fluffy kind of good Glinda is portrayed as to be anti-violence. Nope. Between that and the china doll character, the takeaway is that violence is a trait of good people. Wait, what? AUGH, movie, you make no sense!
In fact, the highest-grossing animated movie (from any studio) with a female protagonist is Tangled, at #17. And the next highest-grossing - and the first with the woman's name in the title, sort of - is Beauty and the Beast, at THIRTY-FOUR.
Thanks Hyaroo for clearing up the questions on the Wizard's rule.
Because apparently she thought Dorothy needed to learn a lesson about there being no place like home. That does not make any sense. Dorothy was already eager to go home, which is why she seemed to be desperately asking Glinda for a way back. Why did she need to learn a lesson? (rhetorical question, I guess :) ). If Glinda had told her about the shoes already, Dorothy could have been assured that she can go back anytime she wants and then chosen to explore Oz if she wanted an adventure. Like she does in the anime/subsequent books. Movie dropped the ball :) .
Spoilers ahead for the Movie. It is clear that Evanora at least is very powerful at this point. She poisons a presumably magical King, works an enchantment that withers her sisters heart and sees right through Oscar. But she is still completely taken in by the light and fireworks show that Oz puts up. I know she is ultimately defeated by Glinda but I would have preferred a little more role for Glinda. Also in the movie .. Glinda speaks entirely in platitudes and Ice cream Koans :) . At least Michelle Williams is warm and likable.
In the books it appears that Glinda is very powerful, however until the end she is severely under powered in the Movie, I guess it is sequel time. The movie still has to explain the magic shoes as well as explain Glinda taking several levels in badassery before Dorothy comes in to the picture. Also the movie ends with Oz redeemed. How are they going to fit in Tip/Ozma, since clearly the wizard does not act in good faith in that case. Are they NOT going to make those stories at all? Hope they don't go that route :(
Thanks Hyaroo for clearing up the questions on the Wizard's rule.
Because apparently she thought Dorothy needed to learn a lesson about there being no place like home. That does not make any sense. Dorothy was already eager to go home, which is why she seemed to be desperately asking Glinda for a way back. Why did she need to learn a lesson? (rhetorical question, I guess :) ). If Glinda had told her about the shoes already, Dorothy could have been assured that she can go back anytime she wants and then chosen to explore Oz if she wanted an adventure. Like she does in the anime/subsequent books. Movie dropped the ball :) .
Spoilers ahead for the Movie. It is clear that Evanora at least is very powerful at this point. She poisons a presumably magical King, works an enchantment that withers her sisters heart and sees right through Oscar. But she is still completely taken in by the light and fireworks show that Oz puts up. I know she is ultimately defeated by Glinda but I would have preferred a little more role for Glinda. Also in the movie .. Glinda speaks entirely in platitudes and Ice cream Koans :) . At least Michelle Williams is warm and likable.
In the books it appears that Glinda is very powerful, however until the end she is severely under powered in the Movie, I guess it is sequel time. The movie still has to explain the magic shoes as well as explain Glinda taking several levels in badassery before Dorothy comes in to the picture. Also the movie ends with Oz redeemed. How are they going to fit in Tip/Ozma, since clearly the wizard does not act in good faith in that case. Are they NOT going to make those stories at all? Hope they don't go that route :(
I agree with you completely, Theodora is clearly the good sister here. Glinda, who is nice to everyone else tragically ignores her. She could have easily tried to meet Theodora who is clearly running around the country alone and is not locked up in the Emerald city.
Theodora is also the one who wants a peaceful resolution and is glad when Oscar meets Glinda since she thinks that he will negotiate a compromise with her. The movie seriously is not fair to her at all. This should be her story, her tragedy, not his.
You are correct, Theodora suggests running at once, while Glinda expects him to fight the flying monkeys.. though at that point I don't think we are told that she see's through him yet, so it is kind of a movie fake out, in order to prolong the suspense for the audience I think.
I might have liked it better, If Glinda was perfectly capable of defeating the monkeys on her own but held out till the last minute so he could admit that he knows nothing and is useless and then she stepped up and defeated the monkeys, thus demonstrating herself to be capable. However that would negate the movies central .. oh Noes.. we need mysterious prophesied Man to save Oz premise.
Also don't Oscar and Theodora hide behind a waterfall, seems strange that a person with a fatal reaction to water shows no true fear of it.
Why should a whole magical kingdom have to suffer so he can become a decent person?
Thought about this. I know this is definitely not true, but the framework of the older movie (with the recurring characters in Kansas and Oz) suggests that this is all happening in Dorothy's head when she loses consciousness in the tornado. The world of Oz serves as a setting for a journey of self discovery for her and the people who aid her in real life aid her there as well, while those who oppose her are defeated.
The new movie has a similar framework, with Oz existing solely to cater to Oscar's aspirations to Greatness. He becomes the great man that he wanted to be, becomes worthy of and gets the girl he wants (barf!!) and lives happily ever after (until he wakes up from a tornado induced Coma in Kansas, when he leaves Oz in the original movie). :). Also explains why the witches almost seem to have existed in a state of stasis until he got there.
Makes me sad as well. When Tangled was first announced and I learnt that the name was changed from "Rapunzel" to "Tangled" and the promos focused on Flynn Ryder so as to appeal to boys, I was enraged.
WTF Disney, you make millions of dollars selling princess fantasies to young impressionable girls. Yet when it comes to your big summer blockbusters, you don't want to acknowledge girls or respect them as your target demographic. UGH!!.
I will admit, I loved Tangled. I even cried. I also like the trend of characterizing the male love interest a little bit more as well, so that the inevitable romance doesn't appear rushed and out of the blue like Snow white and Cinderella, but there is no need to make them the focus of the movie. To deliberately market the movies to boys since apparently they matter more as a demographic annoys the heck out of me.
Bioware did the same with ME3. Why does everyone hate their female fanbase.
remember what the WWOW says at the end, Evanora always believed Theodora to be the weaker sister.
Which makes it all the more tragic (and puzzling) that Glinda never tried to win her over. Theodora has a temper, is pretty naive, and a bit too quick to build a relationship in her head with a man she just met (though he helped her there and did nothing to dissuade her), but she seems to be a good person. She wants the conflict among the sisters over non-violently, her response to the flying evil baboon attack is to flee,* even when she loses her temper and flames something, she flames an inanimate object. (I also think its interesting that I overheard someone telling someone else about the movie describe her as "the nicest person in Oz.")
*Correct me if I'm misremembering, but as I recall she straight up suggests fleeing despite thinking he's The One while Glinda the Good (or is that "Good"?) expects him to slaughter (or at least fight) their enemies and they run only when he suggests it. WHUT.
Thanks Evan, I haven't read the books and my memories of the anime are poor at best.
The first explanation is alright I guess, the second makes Glinda as manipulative as Dumbledore (Still love him) :). I guess it just doesn't tie in with the goody two shoes characterization of Glinda that we get in both the movies, though IMHO it is very much in character for the Wicked book verse's Glinda.
I read the book and didn't particular like it, it was interesting to be sure, but it seemed to leach away all the joy and magic and inherent ridiculousness of, what for me was primarily a universe meant for Children. All the rest of the fairy tales at least already have a very grimdark origin, Oz to me is technicolor magic and the tone of the book felt very discordant.
I haven't read any of the Oz books. I quite loved the 1939 Movie. However the best version of Oz that I have ever seen was an anime version of the complete Oz books. It was ages ago and I was quite young but I still remember being so blown away by the Tip/Ozma reveal. I also enjoyed how proactive Dorothy seemed, much more so than the movie version, however I may not remember it as well as I think. Also do the books actually explain how the wizard managed to become ruler of Oz?
I maybe remembering everything wrong but in the original movie, why does Glinda send Dorothy on to the wizard if she knows that the shoes can send her home? I guess it makes sense if there were two different witches but doesn't the movie make the character of Glinda problematic since it appears as though she manipulated Dorothy deliberately.
I haven't read any of the Oz books. I quite loved the 1939 Movie. However the best version of Oz that I have ever seen was an anime version of the complete Oz books. It was ages ago and I was quite young but I still remember being so blown away by the Tip/Ozma reveal. I also enjoyed how proactive Dorothy seemed, much more so than the movie version, however I may not remember it as well as I think. Also do the books actually explain how the wizard managed to become ruler of Oz?
I maybe remembering everything wrong but in the original movie, why does Glinda send Dorothy on to the wizard if she knows that the shoes can send her home? I guess it makes sense if there were two different witches but doesn't the movie make the character of Glinda problematic since it appears as though she manipulated Dorothy deliberately.
Hey, here's a fun little thought game: Anyone who's read one or more of the Oz books, can you think of one or more characters that you think deserve a movie all about them? Could be an origin story, or just a movie where they have a starring role.
Me, I can think of quite a few Oz characters I think should get more attention and would make for better movie protagonists than James Franco's wizard, even if not all of them are as iconic... but you know, the one I think I would most like to see in a movie of her own would be Polychrome, the Rainbow's Daughter.
Described as "a sky fairy" and "the sweetest and merriest, and the most reckless, of the daughters of the Rainbow," I always thought she'd make a great movie protagonist. Not only would there be some neat visuals there, with her classic rainbow-colored robe and her dancing among the skies, but she'd make for a great "fish out of water" type character if forced to leave her sky kingdom and walk on the ground. There's also the question of her personal journey; it's not that well-documented in the books, but it's very noticable how she develops and grows more independent and competent with each appearance. Her four main appearances in Baum's books really shows some impressive growth:
- In her first appearance, in The Road to Oz she's stranded on the ground for the first time in her life and is pretty helpless, having no real idea on how to cope on her own, even if she does put on a brave face and tries her best (and sometimes loses her nerve and hides behind Dorothy).
- In her second appearance, inSky Island, we get to see her in her element for the first time, and all of a sudden it becomes clear how smart and competent she really is.
- In her third appearance, in Tik-Tok of Oz, she's stranded on the ground again, but has much more self-confidence and is more likely to try and protect others than she is to hide behind them to get them to protect her. She also gets to show off her intelligence much more.
- In her fourth appearance, in The Tin Man of Oz, she's become a powerful and accomplished magic-user (despite claiming in The Road to Oz that she didn't know any magic), and even if she spends most of the book trapped in the form of a canary, she still manages to perform several helpful magics, even if she occasionally missteps and forgets about magic powers.
It's not even commented upon by anyone in the books, but damn. Over the course of four books, she transforms from a helpless, though cheerful, little thing, to positively badass. And she does it without really changing as a person; she remains the same sweet, cheerful, reckless and slightly-scatterbrained girl from beginning to end.
I think she'd make for a great movie protagonist, especially if she manages to go through anywhere near that much growth. We could get to see her home realm in the sky, and all her sisters, and the personification of the Rainbow, her father (somehow I'm envisioning Brian Blessed in that role!) and maybe others... and then send her to the ground to get mixed up in a big Oz adventure. With lots of appearances by many classic Oz characters. Yeah!
Hey, here's a fun little thought game: Anyone who's read one or more of the Oz books, can you think of one or more characters that you think deserve a movie all about them? Could be an origin story, or just a movie where they have a starring role.
Me, I can think of quite a few Oz characters I think should get more attention and would make for better movie protagonists than James Franco's wizard, even if not all of them are as iconic... but you know, the one I think I would most like to see in a movie of her own would be Polychrome, the Rainbow's Daughter.
Described as "a sky fairy" and "the sweetest and merriest, and the most reckless, of the daughters of the Rainbow," I always thought she'd make a great movie protagonist. Not only would there be some neat visuals there, with her classic rainbow-colored robe and her dancing among the skies, but she'd make for a great "fish out of water" type character if forced to leave her sky kingdom and walk on the ground. There's also the question of her personal journey; it's not that well-documented in the books, but it's very noticable how she develops and grows more independent and competent with each appearance. Her four main appearances in Baum's books really shows some impressive growth:
- In her first appearance, in The Road to Oz she's stranded on the ground for the first time in her life and is pretty helpless, having no real idea on how to cope on her own, even if she does put on a brave face and tries her best (and sometimes loses her nerve and hides behind Dorothy).
- In her second appearance, inSky Island, we get to see her in her element for the first time, and all of a sudden it becomes clear how smart and competent she really is.
- In her third appearance, in Tik-Tok of Oz, she's stranded on the ground again, but has much more self-confidence and is more likely to try and protect others than she is to hide behind them to get them to protect her. She also gets to show off her intelligence much more.
- In her fourth appearance, in The Tin Man of Oz, she's become a powerful and accomplished magic-user (despite claiming in The Road to Oz that she didn't know any magic), and even if she spends most of the book trapped in the form of a canary, she still manages to perform several helpful magics, even if she occasionally missteps and forgets about magic powers.
It's not even commented upon by anyone in the books, but damn. Over the course of four books, she transforms from a helpless, though cheerful, little thing, to positively badass. And she does it without really changing as a person; she remains the same sweet, cheerful, reckless and slightly-scatterbrained girl from beginning to end.
I think she'd make for a great movie protagonist, especially if she manages to go through anywhere near that much growth. We could get to see her home realm in the sky, and all her sisters, and the personification of the Rainbow, her father (somehow I'm envisioning Brian Blessed in that role!) and maybe others... and then send her to the ground to get mixed up in a big Oz adventure. With lots of appearances by many classic Oz characters. Yeah!
I watched the movie and was entertained by it, but I share some of the many complaints about the character of Oz. Spoilers abound ahead.
Why was the movie wasting time on the spineless, gormless Wizard who we all know is going to turn out to be heroic in the end, instead of focusing on the more interesting aspects, like the three witches. I wanted to understand their dynamic. Why was Theodora blown away by Oz' s attentions. The movie indicated that she was naive and had not been paid so much attention before, but I wanted to know if Evanora recognized her greater power and was isolating her, keeping her self esteem low. What was Glinda's relationship with the others, why didn't she do more to bring Theodora to her side if she realized that she was an innocent. I would have enjoyed the movie a 100 times more if they had just gotten rid of the wizard completely. Also the fact that Theodora, due to no fault of hers is going to get assassinated eventually instead of getting a redemptive arc was so disappointing. I wish the movie had given some other reason for her transformation, given her more of a choice so to speak. As it stands she is way more sympathetic than Oz right now. Also did you notice that Evanora was surprised by her transformation, also kind of taken aback when she suggested that they kill Glinda's army instead of letting them flee. Suggested to me that she did kinda love her sister and didn't completely know what she was doing either with that apple. I want MOAR witches...less James Franco :)
Having one of the big bads start as a nice and naive woman with a bit of a temper who got mistreated which left her open to being tricked into eating something that destroyed her heart...and not dealing with the fact that that is fucking tragedy is epic fail.
I feel this ties into the Snow White conversation the other day because OMFGWTFBBQ.
Obligatory link to all of L. Frank Baum's Oz books, on Project Gutenberg. (They've also got the first couple by Ruth Plumly Thompson, but I'd recommend not bothering with those - Thompson totally changes the atmosphere to make Oz another faux-medieval fairyland.)
I haven't seen this movie, and judging from these reviews, I don't want to. I don't see why they need to make up their own storyline... in my mind, Baum's Oz books suffer from very poor overall plotting, but each individual episode of his is wonderful. A dozen movies, or more, could mine episodes from his books! And they wouldn't even need to pay a cent in royalties! Even if they consider inserting Princess Ozma too much of a change in the original Oz, they could easily change the borrowed episodes to leave her out!
And that's leaving out the actual flaws their new plot apparently suffers from. Sigh.
Wait... still haven't seen the movie, but did it really have only three witches?! Even though the book very plainly states that there are four? Two good witches, two wicked witches?
Aargh.
Once again, the MGM movie's awful decicion to combine the two good witches into one character (and thereby not only providing some serious plot problems but effectively ruins two perfectly decent characters because I always found the composite Glinda an awful, awful character) shoves itself into the public eye.
Everything was wrong with it! Okay, fine, nearly everything. As I said in the other thread, why did we need yet another jerkass to hero tale? I'm so sick of that character arc, partly because its overdone and partly because its generally an excuse to have a dood be awful to people, especially women, for a good part of the story. (Yes, it can be done well. Then it doesn't make me want to lob rotten produce. This movie did not do it well.)
Worse, he wasn't even a general con man, he just conned his way into women's pants. Fuck you, asshole. And his crappy treatment of women directly led to Theodora becoming the Wicked Witch of the West. (Which was epic fail since a) nice job great asshat and b) she really had no idea what she was doing to herself when she bit that apple - of knowledge and heart shrinking whut. They addressed the second part sort of in one line, but not nearly enough given that she should have been an incredibly tragic figure not a pulp villain after what Oz and her sister did to her. Also, yay, agency removal.
There was no reason to make him an asshat at all. He could've been just a stage magician in over his head. Hell, there was no reason to do this story - bunch of Oz books guys. Or even do an original character sucked into Oz. (Imagine if the technology vs magic plot had instead starred a woman inventor having a tough time in our world because sexism who got to be an epic hero and save the day with her inventions in Oz.)
Having the only good witch be blond was unfortunate implications. (Worse unfortunate implications in her sisters referring to her as pretty all the time as if they weren't. WTF?) Having one of the big bads start as a nice and naive woman with a bit of a temper who got mistreated which left her open to being tricked into eating something that destroyed her heart...and not dealing with the fact that that is fucking tragedy is epic fail.
(Minor quibbles: how does being burned by your own tears even work, movie? She should've been destroyed from the inside by her saliva, blood, etc, etc the moment she was born. Also, wicked witches are Sith Lords, whut.)
I suppose it must have been Movie time. Also it was clear she was didn't know how far she was going when she bit into that apple. I was extremely bothered by the timeline of Anakin's fall in Revenge of the Sith too. The only thing that bothered me more was Obi Wan screaming at Anakin while he was slowly and agonizingly BURNING away. At least have the decency to kill the man if you wont help him.
I thought the tears were kinda cool, since I have a tendency to mostly accept magical handwaves at face value :). In a way her aversion to water may have been the reason she was kept protected and isolated by her sister. Still does not explain what she was doing wandering alone in the countryside.
I thought the apple was a reference to Snow White, and I was a bit confused, but I suppose its a biblical reference.
I suppose it must have been Movie time. Also it was clear she was didn't know how far she was going when she bit into that apple. I was extremely bothered by the timeline of Anakin's fall in Revenge of the Sith too. The only thing that bothered me more was Obi Wan screaming at Anakin while he was slowly and agonizingly BURNING away. At least have the decency to kill the man if you wont help him.
I thought the tears were kinda cool, since I have a tendency to mostly accept magical handwaves at face value :). In a way her aversion to water may have been the reason she was kept protected and isolated by her sister. Still does not explain what she was doing wandering alone in the countryside.
I thought the apple was a reference to Snow White, and I was a bit confused, but I suppose its a biblical reference.
Also it was clear she was didn't know how far she was going when she bit into that apple.
I'm not sure her sister knew how far she was going by giving her the apple. If this hadn't been a prequel to the Wizard of Oz, there are any number of better places they could've gone with the story. Evanora goes "oh crap, that's not what I wanted!" and runs off to Glinda for help, for example. Or Glinda, knowing it's magic, works out how to reverse the process and save Theodora. Theodora has moments of knowing something's terribly wrong and tries to fix herself. Etc, etc.
I was torn between thinking the tears were kind of cool and thinking Whut? O_o But then, water as a weakness raises sooooooo many questions anyway. (Or I am very good at overthinking things that I should just wave off with "a wizard did it.")
Maybe the apple was supposed to be a reference to Snow White. I really don't know what they were going for. The biblical reference came to mind because the first thing it did was give her the knowledge that her sister was wicked.
(Re: Revenge of the SIth. At least have the decency to kill the man if you wont help him. Indeed! Characterization in the prequels was nearly as all over the place as in this movie.)
Also it was clear she was didn't know how far she was going when she bit into that apple.
I'm not sure her sister knew how far she was going by giving her the apple. If this hadn't been a prequel to the Wizard of Oz, there are any number of better places they could've gone with the story. Evanora goes "oh crap, that's not what I wanted!" and runs off to Glinda for help, for example. Or Glinda, knowing it's magic, works out how to reverse the process and save Theodora. Theodora has moments of knowing something's terribly wrong and tries to fix herself. Etc, etc.
I was torn between thinking the tears were kind of cool and thinking Whut? O_o But then, water as a weakness raises sooooooo many questions anyway. (Or I am very good at overthinking things that I should just wave off with "a wizard did it.")
Maybe the apple was supposed to be a reference to Snow White. I really don't know what they were going for. The biblical reference came to mind because the first thing it did was give her the knowledge that her sister was wicked.
(Re: Revenge of the SIth. At least have the decency to kill the man if you wont help him. Indeed! Characterization in the prequels was nearly as all over the place as in this movie.)
Agree with you on almost all points though I superficially enjoyed the movie. The colors, costumes and the sets were great. And I love Rachel Weisz and Mila Kunis. Also I don't have an attachment to the source material, unlike say for instance the Hobbit. I was disappointed in that movie though it was considered to be largely successful by movie and book fans alike. :(. Not to imply that you disliked it only because of an attachment to the books, didn't mean to come off like that at all. Just that I may have enjoyed it more because I knew so little about the world overall.
Coming back to Oz I just wish they had jettisoned the wizard and made the whole story about the witches. There needed to be something more to explain Theodora's (I actually liked the name :) ) unnaturally quick attachment to the Wizard. The whole betrayal and anger thing was far too much, far too soon. How I wish they could have made the entire movie about her, why she was the way she was, her relationship to her sisters, what made her so vulnerable to manipulation and an acknowledgement that her story was tragic could have made a truly great movie.
Regarding the China Doll. Yes she was beautifully animated. However, I am kind of sick of the trope of how the jerk-ass hero needs a sweet, vulnerable little girl to protect in order to get in touch with his own goodness. Also her character fluctuated wildly, one minute she is broken heartedly crying over her dead family (understandable!!). Next moment she is skipping along merrily on the yellow brick road because the Wizard let her go on an adventure with him. To me it was too much mood whiplash.
Agree with you on almost all points though I superficially enjoyed the movie. The colors, costumes and the sets were great. And I love Rachel Weisz and Mila Kunis. Also I don't have an attachment to the source material, unlike say for instance the Hobbit. I was disappointed in that movie though it was considered to be largely successful by movie and book fans alike. :(. Not to imply that you disliked it only because of an attachment to the books, didn't mean to come off like that at all. Just that I may have enjoyed it more because I knew so little about the world overall.
Coming back to Oz I just wish they had jettisoned the wizard and made the whole story about the witches. There needed to be something more to explain Theodora's (I actually liked the name :) ) unnaturally quick attachment to the Wizard. The whole betrayal and anger thing was far too much, far too soon. How I wish they could have made the entire movie about her, why she was the way she was, her relationship to her sisters, what made her so vulnerable to manipulation and an acknowledgement that her story was tragic could have made a truly great movie.
Regarding the China Doll. Yes she was beautifully animated. However, I am kind of sick of the trope of how the jerk-ass hero needs a sweet, vulnerable little girl to protect in order to get in touch with his own goodness. Also her character fluctuated wildly, one minute she is broken heartedly crying over her dead family (understandable!!). Next moment she is skipping along merrily on the yellow brick road because the Wizard let her go on an adventure with him. To me it was too much mood whiplash.
There needed to be something more to explain Theodora's (I actually liked the name :) ) unnaturally quick attachment to the Wizard.
I was willing to go along with it, because I kept expecting an explanation. She seemed oddly sheltered and naive, and there was that (apparently throwaway) line about him not knowing about witches as an explanation for why she didn't have suitors. Surely, we'd get the background on that - perhaps witches aren't allowed relationships except with the king or with wizards/other witches, perhaps her sister had convinced her she was too powerful/not powerful enough/not attractive enough/had too much of a temper/liked red too much/whatever to have a relationship, perhaps ... something. (Also, with Oscar being, apparently, irresistible to all womankind, it didn't really stand out from all the other women he seduced.)
The whole betrayal and anger thing was far too much, far too soon.
Movie time? I dunno, it bothered me less than Anakin's fall in Revenge of the Sith. I think because, in this case, it was easy to write her off as temporarily angry, which her sister took advantage of to feed her the apple of knowledge and evil (REALLY, MOVIE!???). It was her first relationship, ever (I think we're supposed to believe that anyway), and I thought part of her distress was that, if he'd lied about one thing - could he be trusted at all. It wasn't just that she'd lost him as a lover, she'd lost him as a savior of Oz, too. (But that may entirely be me making shit up because the movie made no bloody sense. Also, I was terribly distracted by the tears thing* at that crucial moment.)
*My thoughts in the theater: She's burned by her own tears? That...looks sort of cool. Wait, how does that even work!? Why didn't her internal liquids destroy her the moment she was born? How could she even have been born? Witches are born, right? I mean, she's a magic using human, yes? She had a dad. Why isn't her blood and saliva eating her alive? Yeah, yeah, fairy tale logic and all, but, come on. Wait, did she and Oscar kiss? HOW? Are we supposed to believe they had sex? But she can't have sex is bodily fluids burn her. She can't exist if bodily fluids burn her! ... An apple? REALLY, MOVIE??? Oh, great, sure, turn her magically evil. That's nice. You'd better deal with this, movie, or we are having words, and they won't be nice words.
There needed to be something more to explain Theodora's (I actually liked the name :) ) unnaturally quick attachment to the Wizard.
I was willing to go along with it, because I kept expecting an explanation. She seemed oddly sheltered and naive, and there was that (apparently throwaway) line about him not knowing about witches as an explanation for why she didn't have suitors. Surely, we'd get the background on that - perhaps witches aren't allowed relationships except with the king or with wizards/other witches, perhaps her sister had convinced her she was too powerful/not powerful enough/not attractive enough/had too much of a temper/liked red too much/whatever to have a relationship, perhaps ... something. (Also, with Oscar being, apparently, irresistible to all womankind, it didn't really stand out from all the other women he seduced.)
The whole betrayal and anger thing was far too much, far too soon.
Movie time? I dunno, it bothered me less than Anakin's fall in Revenge of the Sith. I think because, in this case, it was easy to write her off as temporarily angry, which her sister took advantage of to feed her the apple of knowledge and evil (REALLY, MOVIE!???). It was her first relationship, ever (I think we're supposed to believe that anyway), and I thought part of her distress was that, if he'd lied about one thing - could he be trusted at all. It wasn't just that she'd lost him as a lover, she'd lost him as a savior of Oz, too. (But that may entirely be me making shit up because the movie made no bloody sense. Also, I was terribly distracted by the tears thing* at that crucial moment.)
*My thoughts in the theater: She's burned by her own tears? That...looks sort of cool. Wait, how does that even work!? Why didn't her internal liquids destroy her the moment she was born? How could she even have been born? Witches are born, right? I mean, she's a magic using human, yes? She had a dad. Why isn't her blood and saliva eating her alive? Yeah, yeah, fairy tale logic and all, but, come on. Wait, did she and Oscar kiss? HOW? Are we supposed to believe they had sex? But she can't have sex is bodily fluids burn her. She can't exist if bodily fluids burn her! ... An apple? REALLY, MOVIE??? Oh, great, sure, turn her magically evil. That's nice. You'd better deal with this, movie, or we are having words, and they won't be nice words.
My main problem with "Theodora" as a name is that... it's a name. An actual name that you can find in a "what to name the baby" book. It's just out of place next to the more fantasyish names of "Evanora" (which is, admittedly, two names, Eva and Nora, smooshed together, but feels more fantasyish) and "Glinda." For some reason it just doesn't seem right that an Oz witch should have a "real" name, much less a name that according to the dictionary was actually quite common at the time the movie's taking place.
I agree that her role was wasted. She could have worked as the tragic villain (kinda the way Wicked managed to make the Wicked Witch of the West into a sympathetic and tragic villain), but the story is too rushed and too shallow.
And yeah, the China Girl's role as the "vulnerable girl that the man needs to protect" is problematic to say the least... and yes, her characterization is inconsistent and all over the place. I still found her one of the more engaging characters in the movie, which was kind of why I wished the movie had been about her instead. I think she'd have made for a good protagonist, when not constrained to the role of "whatever the Wizard needs her to be at any given time."
My main problem with "Theodora" as a name is that... it's a name. An actual name that you can find in a "what to name the baby" book. It's just out of place next to the more fantasyish names of "Evanora" (which is, admittedly, two names, Eva and Nora, smooshed together, but feels more fantasyish) and "Glinda." For some reason it just doesn't seem right that an Oz witch should have a "real" name, much less a name that according to the dictionary was actually quite common at the time the movie's taking place.
I agree that her role was wasted. She could have worked as the tragic villain (kinda the way Wicked managed to make the Wicked Witch of the West into a sympathetic and tragic villain), but the story is too rushed and too shallow.
And yeah, the China Girl's role as the "vulnerable girl that the man needs to protect" is problematic to say the least... and yes, her characterization is inconsistent and all over the place. I still found her one of the more engaging characters in the movie, which was kind of why I wished the movie had been about her instead. I think she'd have made for a good protagonist, when not constrained to the role of "whatever the Wizard needs her to be at any given time."
This might be a generational thing, but until just now, I had no idea Glinda wasn't a real name. Huh. (So, to me, her's is the name that stood out. It's much harsher sounding than Theodora and Evanora.)
This might be a generational thing, but until just now, I had no idea Glinda wasn't a real name. Huh. (So, to me, her's is the name that stood out. It's much harsher sounding than Theodora and Evanora.)
Apparently Ozma/Tip isn't mentioned in it! Which is a darn shame. And puzzling.
What I wouldn't give for a film centered around Tip, though. Granted, the original Reveal about her true nature was irritating and completely overwrote her personality for some reason, but a film about her would be rather one in the eye to this director. Something that looks like yet another film about an intrepid boy hero stomping around and causing mischief and stopping a vile usurper... oh, wait, surprise! She's a girl and the rightful queen of Oz. How 'bout that.
Apparently Ozma/Tip isn't mentioned in it! Which is a darn shame. And puzzling.
What I wouldn't give for a film centered around Tip, though. Granted, the original Reveal about her true nature was irritating and completely overwrote her personality for some reason, but a film about her would be rather one in the eye to this director. Something that looks like yet another film about an intrepid boy hero stomping around and causing mischief and stopping a vile usurper... oh, wait, surprise! She's a girl and the rightful queen of Oz. How 'bout that.
This is part of the problem with an entertainment industry where male characters dominate completely -- if any franchise/genre isn't 90% male characters, then there's a big cry from producers and audience alike that "THERE ARE NO MEN HERE WE NEED MORE MEN!" No, we really don't. Trust me, there are more men there than you might think.
This. A response to Plums' comment noted that there are ~13 female Disney leads to ~20 male Disney leads.
Chalk it up to one more example of the normalization of maleness as a default.
This is part of the problem with an entertainment industry where male characters dominate completely -- if any franchise/genre isn't 90% male characters, then there's a big cry from producers and audience alike that "THERE ARE NO MEN HERE WE NEED MORE MEN!" No, we really don't. Trust me, there are more men there than you might think.
This. A response to Plums' comment noted that there are ~13 female Disney leads to ~20 male Disney leads.
Chalk it up to one more example of the normalization of maleness as a default.
I was all OMGWTFBBQ when I saw the trailer. Oz has ALWAYS been about the women. And to take that and make it all about the Wizard, a HUMBUG! I plotzed. I ranted a bit, in the theater. I ranted a bit at the Star Trek trailer too. (Then the Hobbit came on and I was swept away... Yes, all male, but we KNEW that going in)
I was all OMGWTFBBQ when I saw the trailer. Oz has ALWAYS been about the women. And to take that and make it all about the Wizard, a HUMBUG! I plotzed. I ranted a bit, in the theater. I ranted a bit at the Star Trek trailer too. (Then the Hobbit came on and I was swept away... Yes, all male, but we KNEW that going in)
66 comments:
(Technical note: Dorothy actually couldn't return using the shoes; they fell off her feet over the Deadly Desert because, being magical, they couldn't exist in the outside world. Her future journeys were by other means, usually the Magic Belt. At least, that's how it is in the books; I actually haven't seen the movie.)
Not having seen the movie again, I can think of two possible reasons for Glinda to not tell Dorothy about the shoes at once. First, perhaps she didn't know and only found out after she returned home to her library? Second and worse, perhaps she was manipulating Dorothy to find out what's going on with the Wizard's magic. If this allegedly great and powerful wizard who hasn't done anything can send her home by his own magic, great; that's useful information. If he tells her to use the silver shoes, that still says he knows something about magic (and might lead him to underestimate Glinda for apparently not knowing, which could turn out useful in any future wars.) But if he can't... then perhaps Glinda doesn't need to be afraid of him anymore.
As it turned out, of course, Glinda's plot mostly worked. The Wizard was revealed to not know the first thing about magical footware. What's more, he fled the Emerald City. Now Glinda doesn't need to be afraid of him... but there's also a visible power vacuum. Of course Glinda is going to prop up her puppet the Scarecrow, but this isn't a stable situation because he doesn't inspire the same awe as the Wizard. Fortunately, by the time the Scarecrow gets overthrown, Glinda has either found or made up the whereabouts of a previous dynasty's heir...
Side Note: Perhaps the Wizard really was sexist? At least, he inspired a feminist revolution against his successor...
Second Side Note: At least in Machiavellian-Glinda-verse, I'm wondering whether Tip was born as Ozma, or whether Glinda just picked a somewhat-prominent boy of indefinite origins and Mombi was coerced into playing along.
Yes, that's probably the same thing, although if it is you're mashing two different episodes together.
The antagonist who had different personalities based on what headgear she was wearing is the Princess of Ev, who appears in the section based on the third book. (And is another departure from the source: in the book, the princess had different personalities based on what head she was wearing.)
And the anime has an entirely concocted episode just after Dorothy and the gang defeat the Wicked Witch of the East, which introduces Mombi and Tip and has Mombi, having learned of the WWE's death, attempt to make off with the hat that controls the wingéd monkeys.
Yes, that's probably the same thing, although if it is you're mashing two different episodes together.
The antagonist who had different personalities based on what headgear she was wearing is the Princess of Ev, who appears in the section based on the third book. (And is another departure from the source: in the book, the princess had different personalities based on what head she was wearing.)
And the anime has an entirely concocted episode just after Dorothy and the gang defeat the Wicked Witch of the East, which introduces Mombi and Tip and has Mombi, having learned of the WWE's death, attempt to make off with the hat that controls the wingéd monkeys.
Oh wait!
Didn't that anime have an antagonist who had different personalities based on what her headgear was?
And she antagonized Dorothy because Dorothy was in possession of some kind of crown that she'd taken off of the Wicked Witch of the West after killing her?
If it's the same thing... oh I remember that. That was -ages- ago. {wistful}
That's something to rediscover.
Oh wait!
Didn't that anime have an antagonist who had different personalities based on what her headgear was?
And she antagonized Dorothy because Dorothy was in possession of some kind of crown that she'd taken off of the Wicked Witch of the West after killing her?
If it's the same thing... oh I remember that. That was -ages- ago. {wistful}
That's something to rediscover.
You remember quite correctly. That'd be Princess Langwidere, who was sort of softened up for the anime -- in the book, she had thirty different heads that she could swap out at random, and each head had a different personality -- and she antagonized Dorothy because she wanted her head; she thought Dorothy had a pretty face and wanted it for her own. Dorothy naturally didn't want to give up her head, despite Langwidere's offer to swap with one of her own heads.
Yeah, the Oz books had some really grotesque things going on at time.
You remember quite correctly. That'd be Princess Langwidere, who was sort of softened up for the anime -- in the book, she had thirty different heads that she could swap out at random, and each head had a different personality -- and she antagonized Dorothy because she wanted her head; she thought Dorothy had a pretty face and wanted it for her own. Dorothy naturally didn't want to give up her head, despite Langwidere's offer to swap with one of her own heads.
Yeah, the Oz books had some really grotesque things going on at time.
Tip could be considered the Animus and Ozma the Anima, of each other, their personalities a thesis and antithesis.
Ozma does get a chance to strut her stuff, and save her kingdom, in Edward Einhorn's "Paradox of Oz". It involves time-travel, more insight on Ozma's family, and an amusing scene where Ozma does meet "zirself" as Tip. It is worth looking for.
I've been wanting to read "Paradox in Oz" for years, but I can't find it anywhere.
Well, you can at least see the intro and credits of the English dub, which includes a look at most of the characters (who look nothing like they do either in the MGM movie or John R. Neill's illustrations), and a surprisingly catchy theme song.
*hums* Oh, it's fun on the other side, no one looks ahead -- But you can't always run and hide, under the bed! Yes, it's fun on the other side, that's what I said...
If you go to the video description it links to a playlist of all the episodes!
I'm watching it out of order, but I really like Jinjur's character design.
I don't know how much my memory is clouded by nostalgia, but I would definitely give it a try. I watched it almost 18-19 years ago and I remember it came on at an ungodly hour in the morning and I would be trying to watch it while getting ready for school... Ha I am so old now :)
I don't think the English-language version has ever been given a home video release (at least, in its full form: it did get hacked down to four "movies" at one point).
There used to be a web site where one could (and I did, a year or two ago) rewatch the whole thing for free, along with other shows handled by the same distributor, but the distributor got eaten by another company recently and that site has been shut down.
Hmmm, I definitely want to look into this anime series people are talking about.
So that's an unexpected gem. :)
There have been several attempts by other authors of explaining why Ozma's persona is so different from the one she had as Tip.
This is one of the places the anime series breaks from the novels: when Tip is physically transformed back into a girl, her personality stays exactly the same. The process of learning to be Ozma takes place over the rest of the series, only producing something like the books' Ozma in the final episode or two. (At which point there's so much plot going on that it's hard to tell whether it's mainly a public persona and she's still her old self when she's just hanging out with her friends, because everybody's too busy for just hanging out.)
That's one of the most fun thing about Oz, given how it was continued by so many other authors, and Baum's books and characters are now in the public domain, anyone can write their own Oz books and play with the characters and situations -- not that all of them do a good job, but it has made for some pretty entertaining books.
I know someone who's shopping around a novel featuring Polychrome the Rainbow's Daughter. (He's a published author, but it's not a good fit for his usual publisher, which tends toward adventure novels featuring spaceships, dragons, or both.)
This is one of the places the anime series breaks from the novels: when Tip is physically transformed back into a girl, her personality stays exactly the same.
Ah yeah. I was actually going to mention that in my post, as an example of a different way Ozma was handled in that adaptation... but I forgot. ^_^*
There have been several attempts by other authors of explaining why Ozma's persona is so different from the one she had as Tip. (That's one of the most fun thing about Oz, given how it was continued by so many other authors, and Baum's books and characters are now in the public domain, anyone can write their own Oz books and play with the characters and situations -- not that all of them do a good job, but it has made for some pretty entertaining books.)
There's been a lot of speculation about how Tip's personality was part of Mombi's transformation in order to make the disguise complete. Some stories has Tip actually as a separate person who was somehow switched with Ozma -- those stories tend to find a way to bring Tip back in a body of his own. And there are many stories about Ozma trying to adjust to being a girl (usually taking place between books two and three).
I think my favorite, though, is the explanation suggested by author March Laumer (who wrote several Oz books, of varying quality), largely because it's the simplest one: Ozma's personality is an act.
Since she grew up as a farmboy, with no other female role models around than Mombi, she has no idea how to be a girl or a queen/princess (the books are a little inconsistent on which term to use) -- and so she overcompensates by really playing into as many girly and princessy stereotypes as she can. It doesn't help, either, that most of her closest friends at the time are male, and none of them are even human (The Tin Woodman used to be human, but the others are either talking creatures or constructs like the Scarecrow and Jack Pumpkinhead) -- they have no idea what a young queen should be or act like either. This goes on to explain many of Ozma's more foolish moments in some of the books; she's trying to be the "perfect princess" and "wise ruler" and is just doing a really bad job at it because she's pretty much got no idea what's she's doing.
If she'd been the ruler of any place other than Oz, she would have been a spectacular failure, but lucklily for her the generally laid-back and accepting nature of the Ozzians (not to mention that Ozma at least isn't setting out to oppress anyone) means that it generally works.
She does get better over time, learning a lot through her developing friendships with Dorothy, Glinda and other girls/women, but by that time the "Ozma" persona has become so natural and so much a part of her that it's easier to just continue the act.
It's a sad explanation, since it means Ozma doesn't really dare being herself even among her friends (even though she has to know they'd accept her in an instant no matter what, but fears and insecurities aren't always logical)... but I think it makes more sense than most of the other explanations. Besides -- it's Oz. It's a place where changes and differences are celebrated. So there's hope there that Ozma eventually will get more comfortable with herself and dare to let her "inner Tip" out more often.
What I wouldn't give for a film centered around Tip, though. Granted, the original Reveal about her true nature was irritating and completely overwrote her personality for some reason, but a film about her would be rather one in the eye to this director. Something that looks like yet another film about an intrepid boy hero stomping around and causing mischief and stopping a vile usurper... oh, wait, surprise! She's a girl and the rightful queen of Oz. How 'bout that.
Now, admittedly, I haven't actually read the book yet (I actually plan to read the series, now that I've got a handly link), but the impression I got was that Tip was just a carrier, i.e., he was completely different from Ozma - so it seemed like his/her personality was completely overriden because it was... Alternatively, it could just be a matter of gender essentialism. Yeah. Let's go with that...
Also did you notice that Evanora was surprised by her transformation, also kind of taken aback when she suggested that they kill Glinda's army instead of letting them flee.
Yep. I don't know what they were doing with the witches, at all, really. You've got one utterly tragic villain, who is treated as if she's a typical card carrying villain (and who will eventually be killed) and one villain who... what was Evanora's motive for her actions again? I felt like her characterization was all over the place. Was it just to rule Oz? Then why did she want her sister by her side in evil? (And what are we supposed to think of her being taken aback by WWoW's more deadly wickedness?) Why did she keep her sister so naive? (and if she didn't, who or what did? Also, what did Theodora mean when she said something about Oscar not knowing about witches when he thought she must have had many admirers. Are witches feared? Are they only allowed to have a relationship with the king? What?)
I also had real problems with Glinda. Yes, it's good that she protected the people she protected, but, really what was she doing waiting around for a savior instead of trying to explain the truth to Theodora (even if both Glinda and Theodora are weaker than Evanora, there's two of them) and/or trying to learn more powerful magic (if magic is something one learns in Oz). She just sort of wandered around smirking and saying drivelly "good" things. Do something, lady, you're a witch! (The character grated on me some, but mostly my irritation is that she was written that way.)
Also, this particular jerkass to hero plot really left me feeling that everything was about Oscar - the entire world of Oz was populated with NPCs who helped him on his road to not being a jerkass. WHY? It was entirely his decision to be a jerkass in the first place. We are given no explanation for his jerkassery, no tragic backstory, nothing. He's just a jerkass. Why should a whole magical kingdom have to suffer so he can become a decent person?
"And the second reason was -- during the years that I spent running Walt Disney Studios -- I learned about how hard it was to find a fairy tale with a good strong male protagonist. .."
Hyaroo writes: " *rolls eyes* Has this guy even read any fairytales?! "
I know! Has he even watched any Disney movies? The top grossing Disney animated movies, according to Wikipedia, are: Toy Story 3, The Lion King, and Finding Nemo (which are also the top three grossing animated films ever). The next highest grossing Disney movies are Up, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille. Notice anything about those movies? [Hint: It's not the overwhelming number of strong female protagonists.] In fact, the highest-grossing animated movie (from any studio) with a female protagonist is Tangled, at #17. And the next highest-grossing - and the first with the woman's name in the title, sort of - is Beauty and the Beast, at THIRTY-FOUR.
OMFGWTFBBQ
That was pretty much my response. She's upset by his faithlessness (I can't be certain if we were supposed to believe her wicked sister when she claimed he'd spent the night with her, but given what we saw of his behavior, it's completely in character) and her sister talks her into eating an apple which first gives her the insight that whups, sis is evil wicked, and then shrinks her heart away (she even asks what's happening to her when this happens, horrified and in pain). Somehow heart shrinkage also causes her to turn green and beaky nosed (which is "hideous"). She then acts like the Wicked Witch of the West from the 1939 movie.
I'm all "You're going to address this, right, movie? Because if you don't, WTF on toast!?"
Toward the end, Oz tells her he knows that this isn't the real her and she's welcome back if she ever becomes herself again.
Me: "That isn't dealing with it, movie! She was magicked! This wasn't a choice she can just unchoose! ARGH!"
That leaves a horrible contrast between her becoming irrevocably evil/wicked because she bit a magic apple (an apple???? Really????) and him conning women into sleeping with him (which might not be "evil," but is massively, massively not okay yet still having, supposedly, a good heart. (You fucked with people's lives, you asshat! I know the women still had a choice in sleeping with you, but given your lies about the endless stream of music boxes you were handing out, they weren't just not getting the full story, they were actively being fed a false one.)
And, worse, if he'd been honest with Theodora - and I don't mean just not trying to seduce her, but, once he realized she thought they were in love and going to be ruling Oz together not correcting her - she might not have been so upset that her sister was able to manipulate her. Her paying the price for his bad deeds is wrong.
Mm, and I forgot a fail in my first post. Both of the wicked witches end up ugly*, which means we've got ye ol' unfortunate implication of good = pretty and bad = ugly. Yay. Only, not yay.
*Though, honestly, while the classic Wicked Witch of the West look is atypical, I don't find it ugly.
Yay Depizan replies to me :) .. you have pretty much expressed all my thoughts on the movie.
Regarding Evanora's characterization, the only thing that could possibly explain her actions is that she believed the magic apple would lead Theodora to cooperate with her schemes, but she still expected her to remain the weaker ally, still subservient to her.. remember what the WWOW says at the end, Evanora always believed Theodora to be the weaker sister.
Therefore she is surprised when the WWoW so easily overrides her and assumes the mantle of the leader when she calls for Glinda's army to be exterminated. She expected a powerful sidekick, not someone who could eventually sideline her. Had they won, I would say that it is clear that Evanora would have eventually turned on the WWoW.
The point about Theodora's comment on how witches are treated is interesting. Oscar was at least right about one thing, superficially she should have had many admirers, why didn't she? At that point in the movie I thought there was already something sinister about Theodora. Maybe a cliched dark side that led her to be kept isolated and feared. Evanora even hints on her inherent wickedness. I expected the movie to expand on it but it never did. Instead Oscar betrays her and Evanora manipulates her into her tragic fate. Although If the inevitable sequel decides to paint her as always having been evil and completely exonerates Oscar, I am not going to be happy :(
Since I have more deep meaningful :) , thoughts on Glinda and James Franco I will follow up with another comment.
Gah...I cannot remember. They hide in a cave set into a cliff. Maybe my overactive imagination is adding a waterfall. Anyone else saw the movie and remembers where they hid?
No, I'm...pretty sure there was a waterfall. Not 100% sure, but pretty sure. I just can't think of any plausible way for them to get there without Theodora getting damp.
And here's the thing: I can understand privilege-blinders, I really can. I can understand if the producer truly, honestly thought that male protagonists were rare. I can think he's very very wrong and very very unobservant, but ok, I can accept that people can make honest mistakes, because that's how privilege works.
So ok, go make your movie with your strong male protagonist, give those young boys the role model they're so clearly lacking. *eyeroll*
But this...
Your male protagonist, your role model, is someone who is not just an ass in general, but who specifically deceives and takes advantage of women? And (I haven't seen the movie, but based on the descriptions here and elsewhere) continues deceiving and manipulating women throughout the film, and who apparently doesn't take responsibility for messes he's arguably very responsible for? That's... uh... that's not much of a role model.
If this were just any old run-of-the-mill jackhole protagonist, it would still be pretty bad. But knowing that at least one producer saw this character as his Big Chance to provide a Strong Male Fairytale Protagonist, it seems especially distressing that this is what he came up with. If you really think there aren't enough male heroes, wouldn't you want to make sure that the one you provide audiences is, y'know, actually a hero worth looking up to? Is this guy seriously the sort of person you're hoping boys will see as a role model? Because if so... that's pretty awful.
Also don't Oscar and Theodora hide behind a waterfall, seems strange that a person with a fatal reaction to water shows no true fear of it.
...
And I thought the thing with the tears was nonsensical enough. She wanders close enough to a marshy area to meet Oscar, hangs out with a sopping wet guy without comment or apparent reaction and... how did they get behind the waterfall again? I cannot replay the scene in such a way that it doesn't involve them wading through the stream to get there. It can't because that would make NO SENSE, but... how'd they get there? o_O
You are correct, Theodora suggests running at once, while Glinda expects him to fight the flying monkeys.. though at that point I don't think we are told that she see's through him yet, so it is kind of a movie fake out, in order to prolong the suspense for the audience I think.
You're right, of course, but it does leave us with the good witch defaulting to violence while the witch who gets made wicked defaults to avoiding violence. Which is damn strange because you'd expect the fluffy kind of good Glinda is portrayed as to be anti-violence. Nope. Between that and the china doll character, the takeaway is that violence is a trait of good people. Wait, what? AUGH, movie, you make no sense!
In fact, the highest-grossing animated movie (from any studio) with a female protagonist is Tangled, at #17. And the next highest-grossing - and the first with the woman's name in the title, sort of - is Beauty and the Beast, at THIRTY-FOUR.
This makes me so sad.
Thanks Hyaroo for clearing up the questions on the Wizard's rule.
Because apparently she thought Dorothy needed to learn a lesson about there being no place like home.
That does not make any sense. Dorothy was already eager to go home, which is why she seemed to be desperately asking Glinda for a way back. Why did she need to learn a lesson? (rhetorical question, I guess :) ). If Glinda had told her about the shoes already, Dorothy could have been assured that she can go back anytime she wants and then chosen to explore Oz if she wanted an adventure. Like she does in the anime/subsequent books. Movie dropped the ball :) .
Spoilers ahead for the Movie.
It is clear that Evanora at least is very powerful at this point. She poisons a presumably magical King, works an enchantment that withers her sisters heart and sees right through Oscar. But she is still completely taken in by the light and fireworks show that Oz puts up. I know she is ultimately defeated by Glinda but I would have preferred a little more role for Glinda. Also in the movie .. Glinda speaks entirely in platitudes and Ice cream Koans :) . At least Michelle Williams is warm and likable.
In the books it appears that Glinda is very powerful, however until the end she is severely under powered in the Movie, I guess it is sequel time. The movie still has to explain the magic shoes as well as explain Glinda taking several levels in badassery before Dorothy comes in to the picture. Also the movie ends with Oz redeemed. How are they going to fit in Tip/Ozma, since clearly the wizard does not act in good faith in that case. Are they NOT going to make those stories at all? Hope they don't go that route :(
Thanks Hyaroo for clearing up the questions on the Wizard's rule.
Because apparently she thought Dorothy needed to learn a lesson about there being no place like home.
That does not make any sense. Dorothy was already eager to go home, which is why she seemed to be desperately asking Glinda for a way back. Why did she need to learn a lesson? (rhetorical question, I guess :) ). If Glinda had told her about the shoes already, Dorothy could have been assured that she can go back anytime she wants and then chosen to explore Oz if she wanted an adventure. Like she does in the anime/subsequent books. Movie dropped the ball :) .
Spoilers ahead for the Movie.
It is clear that Evanora at least is very powerful at this point. She poisons a presumably magical King, works an enchantment that withers her sisters heart and sees right through Oscar. But she is still completely taken in by the light and fireworks show that Oz puts up. I know she is ultimately defeated by Glinda but I would have preferred a little more role for Glinda. Also in the movie .. Glinda speaks entirely in platitudes and Ice cream Koans :) . At least Michelle Williams is warm and likable.
In the books it appears that Glinda is very powerful, however until the end she is severely under powered in the Movie, I guess it is sequel time. The movie still has to explain the magic shoes as well as explain Glinda taking several levels in badassery before Dorothy comes in to the picture. Also the movie ends with Oz redeemed. How are they going to fit in Tip/Ozma, since clearly the wizard does not act in good faith in that case. Are they NOT going to make those stories at all? Hope they don't go that route :(
I agree with you completely, Theodora is clearly the good sister here. Glinda, who is nice to everyone else tragically ignores her. She could have easily tried to meet Theodora who is clearly running around the country alone and is not locked up in the Emerald city.
Theodora is also the one who wants a peaceful resolution and is glad when Oscar meets Glinda since she thinks that he will negotiate a compromise with her. The movie seriously is not fair to her at all. This should be her story, her tragedy, not his.
You are correct, Theodora suggests running at once, while Glinda expects him to fight the flying monkeys.. though at that point I don't think we are told that she see's through him yet, so it is kind of a movie fake out, in order to prolong the suspense for the audience I think.
I might have liked it better, If Glinda was perfectly capable of defeating the monkeys on her own but held out till the last minute so he could admit that he knows nothing and is useless and then she stepped up and defeated the monkeys, thus demonstrating herself to be capable. However that would negate the movies central .. oh Noes.. we need mysterious prophesied Man to save Oz premise.
Also don't Oscar and Theodora hide behind a waterfall, seems strange that a person with a fatal reaction to water shows no true fear of it.
Why should a whole magical kingdom have to suffer so he can become a decent person?
Thought about this. I know this is definitely not true, but the framework of the older movie (with the recurring characters in Kansas and Oz) suggests that this is all happening in Dorothy's head when she loses consciousness in the tornado. The world of Oz serves as a setting for a journey of self discovery for her and the people who aid her in real life aid her there as well, while those who oppose her are defeated.
The new movie has a similar framework, with Oz existing solely to cater to Oscar's aspirations to Greatness. He becomes the great man that he wanted to be, becomes worthy of and gets the girl he wants (barf!!) and lives happily ever after (until he wakes up from a tornado induced Coma in Kansas, when he leaves Oz in the original movie). :). Also explains why the witches almost seem to have existed in a state of stasis until he got there.
Makes me sad as well. When Tangled was first announced and I learnt that the name was changed from "Rapunzel" to "Tangled" and the promos focused on Flynn Ryder so as to appeal to boys, I was enraged.
WTF Disney, you make millions of dollars selling princess fantasies to young impressionable girls. Yet when it comes to your big summer blockbusters, you don't want to acknowledge girls or respect them as your target demographic. UGH!!.
I will admit, I loved Tangled. I even cried. I also like the trend of characterizing the male love interest a little bit more as well, so that the inevitable romance doesn't appear rushed and out of the blue like Snow white and Cinderella, but there is no need to make them the focus of the movie. To deliberately market the movies to boys since apparently they matter more as a demographic annoys the heck out of me.
Bioware did the same with ME3. Why does everyone hate their female fanbase.
remember what the WWOW says at the end, Evanora always believed Theodora to be the weaker sister.
Which makes it all the more tragic (and puzzling) that Glinda never tried to win her over. Theodora has a temper, is pretty naive, and a bit too quick to build a relationship in her head with a man she just met (though he helped her there and did nothing to dissuade her), but she seems to be a good person. She wants the conflict among the sisters over non-violently, her response to the flying evil baboon attack is to flee,* even when she loses her temper and flames something, she flames an inanimate object. (I also think its interesting that I overheard someone telling someone else about the movie describe her as "the nicest person in Oz.")
*Correct me if I'm misremembering, but as I recall she straight up suggests fleeing despite thinking he's The One while Glinda the Good (or is that "Good"?) expects him to slaughter (or at least fight) their enemies and they run only when he suggests it. WHUT.
Thanks Evan, I haven't read the books and my memories of the anime are poor at best.
The first explanation is alright I guess, the second makes Glinda as manipulative as Dumbledore (Still love him) :). I guess it just doesn't tie in with the goody two shoes characterization of Glinda that we get in both the movies, though IMHO it is very much in character for the Wicked book verse's Glinda.
I read the book and didn't particular like it, it was interesting to be sure, but it seemed to leach away all the joy and magic and inherent ridiculousness of, what for me was primarily a universe meant for Children. All the rest of the fairy tales at least already have a very grimdark origin, Oz to me is technicolor magic and the tone of the book felt very discordant.
Hmm, I have some things to think about...
This is probably going to wind up in the "liking problematic art" category for me.
Hmm, I have some things to think about...
This is probably going to wind up in the "liking problematic art" category for me.
Hey, we all do that. I like James Bond movies, for spaghetti's sake.
Hey, we all do that. I like James Bond movies, for spaghetti's sake.
I haven't read any of the Oz books. I quite loved the 1939 Movie. However the best version of Oz that I have ever seen was an anime version of the complete Oz books. It was ages ago and I was quite young but I still remember being so blown away by the Tip/Ozma reveal. I also enjoyed how proactive Dorothy seemed, much more so than the movie version, however I may not remember it as well as I think. Also do the books actually explain how the wizard managed to become ruler of Oz?
I maybe remembering everything wrong but in the original movie, why does Glinda send Dorothy on to the wizard if she knows that the shoes can send her home? I guess it makes sense if there were two different witches but doesn't the movie make the character of Glinda problematic since it appears as though she manipulated Dorothy deliberately.
I haven't read any of the Oz books. I quite loved the 1939 Movie. However the best version of Oz that I have ever seen was an anime version of the complete Oz books. It was ages ago and I was quite young but I still remember being so blown away by the Tip/Ozma reveal. I also enjoyed how proactive Dorothy seemed, much more so than the movie version, however I may not remember it as well as I think. Also do the books actually explain how the wizard managed to become ruler of Oz?
I maybe remembering everything wrong but in the original movie, why does Glinda send Dorothy on to the wizard if she knows that the shoes can send her home? I guess it makes sense if there were two different witches but doesn't the movie make the character of Glinda problematic since it appears as though she manipulated Dorothy deliberately.
Hey, here's a fun little thought game: Anyone who's read one or more of the Oz books, can you think of one or more characters that you think deserve a movie all about them? Could be an origin story, or just a movie where they have a starring role.
Me, I can think of quite a few Oz characters I think should get more attention and would make for better movie protagonists than James Franco's wizard, even if not all of them are as iconic... but you know, the one I think I would most like to see in a movie of her own would be Polychrome, the Rainbow's Daughter.
Described as "a sky fairy" and "the sweetest and merriest, and the most reckless, of the daughters of the Rainbow," I always thought she'd make a great movie protagonist. Not only would there be some neat visuals there, with her classic rainbow-colored robe and her dancing among the skies, but she'd make for a great "fish out of water" type character if forced to leave her sky kingdom and walk on the ground. There's also the question of her personal journey; it's not that well-documented in the books, but it's very noticable how she develops and grows more independent and competent with each appearance. Her four main appearances in Baum's books really shows some impressive growth:
- In her first appearance, in The Road to Oz she's stranded on the ground for the first time in her life and is pretty helpless, having no real idea on how to cope on her own, even if she does put on a brave face and tries her best (and sometimes loses her nerve and hides behind Dorothy).
- In her second appearance, inSky Island, we get to see her in her element for the first time, and all of a sudden it becomes clear how smart and competent she really is.
- In her third appearance, in Tik-Tok of Oz, she's stranded on the ground again, but has much more self-confidence and is more likely to try and protect others than she is to hide behind them to get them to protect her. She also gets to show off her intelligence much more.
- In her fourth appearance, in The Tin Man of Oz, she's become a powerful and accomplished magic-user (despite claiming in The Road to Oz that she didn't know any magic), and even if she spends most of the book trapped in the form of a canary, she still manages to perform several helpful magics, even if she occasionally missteps and forgets about magic powers.
It's not even commented upon by anyone in the books, but damn. Over the course of four books, she transforms from a helpless, though cheerful, little thing, to positively badass. And she does it without really changing as a person; she remains the same sweet, cheerful, reckless and slightly-scatterbrained girl from beginning to end.
I think she'd make for a great movie protagonist, especially if she manages to go through anywhere near that much growth. We could get to see her home realm in the sky, and all her sisters, and the personification of the Rainbow, her father (somehow I'm envisioning Brian Blessed in that role!) and maybe others... and then send her to the ground to get mixed up in a big Oz adventure. With lots of appearances by many classic Oz characters. Yeah!
Hey, here's a fun little thought game: Anyone who's read one or more of the Oz books, can you think of one or more characters that you think deserve a movie all about them? Could be an origin story, or just a movie where they have a starring role.
Me, I can think of quite a few Oz characters I think should get more attention and would make for better movie protagonists than James Franco's wizard, even if not all of them are as iconic... but you know, the one I think I would most like to see in a movie of her own would be Polychrome, the Rainbow's Daughter.
Described as "a sky fairy" and "the sweetest and merriest, and the most reckless, of the daughters of the Rainbow," I always thought she'd make a great movie protagonist. Not only would there be some neat visuals there, with her classic rainbow-colored robe and her dancing among the skies, but she'd make for a great "fish out of water" type character if forced to leave her sky kingdom and walk on the ground. There's also the question of her personal journey; it's not that well-documented in the books, but it's very noticable how she develops and grows more independent and competent with each appearance. Her four main appearances in Baum's books really shows some impressive growth:
- In her first appearance, in The Road to Oz she's stranded on the ground for the first time in her life and is pretty helpless, having no real idea on how to cope on her own, even if she does put on a brave face and tries her best (and sometimes loses her nerve and hides behind Dorothy).
- In her second appearance, inSky Island, we get to see her in her element for the first time, and all of a sudden it becomes clear how smart and competent she really is.
- In her third appearance, in Tik-Tok of Oz, she's stranded on the ground again, but has much more self-confidence and is more likely to try and protect others than she is to hide behind them to get them to protect her. She also gets to show off her intelligence much more.
- In her fourth appearance, in The Tin Man of Oz, she's become a powerful and accomplished magic-user (despite claiming in The Road to Oz that she didn't know any magic), and even if she spends most of the book trapped in the form of a canary, she still manages to perform several helpful magics, even if she occasionally missteps and forgets about magic powers.
It's not even commented upon by anyone in the books, but damn. Over the course of four books, she transforms from a helpless, though cheerful, little thing, to positively badass. And she does it without really changing as a person; she remains the same sweet, cheerful, reckless and slightly-scatterbrained girl from beginning to end.
I think she'd make for a great movie protagonist, especially if she manages to go through anywhere near that much growth. We could get to see her home realm in the sky, and all her sisters, and the personification of the Rainbow, her father (somehow I'm envisioning Brian Blessed in that role!) and maybe others... and then send her to the ground to get mixed up in a big Oz adventure. With lots of appearances by many classic Oz characters. Yeah!
I watched the movie and was entertained by it, but I share some of the many complaints about the character of Oz. Spoilers abound ahead.
Why was the movie wasting time on the spineless, gormless Wizard who we all know is going to turn out to be heroic in the end, instead of focusing on the more interesting aspects, like the three witches. I wanted to understand their dynamic. Why was Theodora blown away by Oz' s attentions. The movie indicated that she was naive and had not been paid so much attention before, but I wanted to know if Evanora recognized her greater power and was isolating her, keeping her self esteem low. What was Glinda's relationship with the others, why didn't she do more to bring Theodora to her side if she realized that she was an innocent. I would have enjoyed the movie a 100 times more if they had just gotten rid of the wizard completely. Also the fact that Theodora, due to no fault of hers is going to get assassinated eventually instead of getting a redemptive arc was so disappointing.
I wish the movie had given some other reason for her transformation, given her more of a choice so to speak. As it stands she is way more sympathetic than Oz right now. Also did you notice that Evanora was surprised by her transformation, also kind of taken aback when she suggested that they kill Glinda's army instead of letting them flee. Suggested to me that she did kinda love her sister and didn't completely know what she was doing either with that apple. I want MOAR witches...less James Franco :)
Having one of the big bads start as a nice and naive woman with a bit of a temper who got mistreated which left her open to being tricked into eating something that destroyed her heart...and not dealing with the fact that that is fucking tragedy is epic fail.
I feel this ties into the Snow White conversation the other day because OMFGWTFBBQ.
Obligatory link to all of L. Frank Baum's Oz books, on Project Gutenberg. (They've also got the first couple by Ruth Plumly Thompson, but I'd recommend not bothering with those - Thompson totally changes the atmosphere to make Oz another faux-medieval fairyland.)
I haven't seen this movie, and judging from these reviews, I don't want to. I don't see why they need to make up their own storyline... in my mind, Baum's Oz books suffer from very poor overall plotting, but each individual episode of his is wonderful. A dozen movies, or more, could mine episodes from his books! And they wouldn't even need to pay a cent in royalties! Even if they consider inserting Princess Ozma too much of a change in the original Oz, they could easily change the borrowed episodes to leave her out!
And that's leaving out the actual flaws their new plot apparently suffers from. Sigh.
Wait... still haven't seen the movie, but did it really have only three witches?! Even though the book very plainly states that there are four? Two good witches, two wicked witches?
Aargh.
Once again, the MGM movie's awful decicion to combine the two good witches into one character (and thereby not only providing some serious plot problems but effectively ruins two perfectly decent characters because I always found the composite Glinda an awful, awful character) shoves itself into the public eye.
Woo! Let me begin with the spoilerful WTFage.
Everything was wrong with it! Okay, fine, nearly everything. As I said in the other thread, why did we need yet another jerkass to hero tale? I'm so sick of that character arc, partly because its overdone and partly because its generally an excuse to have a dood be awful to people, especially women, for a good part of the story. (Yes, it can be done well. Then it doesn't make me want to lob rotten produce. This movie did not do it well.)
Worse, he wasn't even a general con man, he just conned his way into women's pants. Fuck you, asshole. And his crappy treatment of women directly led to Theodora becoming the Wicked Witch of the West. (Which was epic fail since a) nice job great asshat and b) she really had no idea what she was doing to herself when she bit that apple - of knowledge and heart shrinking whut. They addressed the second part sort of in one line, but not nearly enough given that she should have been an incredibly tragic figure not a pulp villain after what Oz and her sister did to her. Also, yay, agency removal.
There was no reason to make him an asshat at all. He could've been just a stage magician in over his head. Hell, there was no reason to do this story - bunch of Oz books guys. Or even do an original character sucked into Oz. (Imagine if the technology vs magic plot had instead starred a woman inventor having a tough time in our world because sexism who got to be an epic hero and save the day with her inventions in Oz.)
Having the only good witch be blond was unfortunate implications. (Worse unfortunate implications in her sisters referring to her as pretty all the time as if they weren't. WTF?) Having one of the big bads start as a nice and naive woman with a bit of a temper who got mistreated which left her open to being tricked into eating something that destroyed her heart...and not dealing with the fact that that is fucking tragedy is epic fail.
(Minor quibbles: how does being burned by your own tears even work, movie? She should've been destroyed from the inside by her saliva, blood, etc, etc the moment she was born. Also, wicked witches are Sith Lords, whut.)
I suppose it must have been Movie time. Also it was clear she was didn't know how far she was going when she bit into that apple. I was extremely bothered by the timeline of Anakin's fall in Revenge of the Sith too. The only thing that bothered me more was Obi Wan screaming at Anakin while he was slowly and agonizingly BURNING away. At least have the decency to kill the man if you wont help him.
I thought the tears were kinda cool, since I have a tendency to mostly accept magical handwaves at face value :). In a way her aversion to water may have been the reason she was kept protected and isolated by her sister. Still does not explain what she was doing wandering alone in the countryside.
I thought the apple was a reference to Snow White, and I was a bit confused, but I suppose its a biblical reference.
I suppose it must have been Movie time. Also it was clear she was didn't know how far she was going when she bit into that apple. I was extremely bothered by the timeline of Anakin's fall in Revenge of the Sith too. The only thing that bothered me more was Obi Wan screaming at Anakin while he was slowly and agonizingly BURNING away. At least have the decency to kill the man if you wont help him.
I thought the tears were kinda cool, since I have a tendency to mostly accept magical handwaves at face value :). In a way her aversion to water may have been the reason she was kept protected and isolated by her sister. Still does not explain what she was doing wandering alone in the countryside.
I thought the apple was a reference to Snow White, and I was a bit confused, but I suppose its a biblical reference.
Also it was clear she was didn't know how far she was going when she bit into that apple.
I'm not sure her sister knew how far she was going by giving her the apple. If this hadn't been a prequel to the Wizard of Oz, there are any number of better places they could've gone with the story. Evanora goes "oh crap, that's not what I wanted!" and runs off to Glinda for help, for example. Or Glinda, knowing it's magic, works out how to reverse the process and save Theodora. Theodora has moments of knowing something's terribly wrong and tries to fix herself. Etc, etc.
I was torn between thinking the tears were kind of cool and thinking Whut? O_o But then, water as a weakness raises sooooooo many questions anyway. (Or I am very good at overthinking things that I should just wave off with "a wizard did it.")
Maybe the apple was supposed to be a reference to Snow White. I really don't know what they were going for. The biblical reference came to mind because the first thing it did was give her the knowledge that her sister was wicked.
(Re: Revenge of the SIth. At least have the decency to kill the man if you wont help him. Indeed! Characterization in the prequels was nearly as all over the place as in this movie.)
Also it was clear she was didn't know how far she was going when she bit into that apple.
I'm not sure her sister knew how far she was going by giving her the apple. If this hadn't been a prequel to the Wizard of Oz, there are any number of better places they could've gone with the story. Evanora goes "oh crap, that's not what I wanted!" and runs off to Glinda for help, for example. Or Glinda, knowing it's magic, works out how to reverse the process and save Theodora. Theodora has moments of knowing something's terribly wrong and tries to fix herself. Etc, etc.
I was torn between thinking the tears were kind of cool and thinking Whut? O_o But then, water as a weakness raises sooooooo many questions anyway. (Or I am very good at overthinking things that I should just wave off with "a wizard did it.")
Maybe the apple was supposed to be a reference to Snow White. I really don't know what they were going for. The biblical reference came to mind because the first thing it did was give her the knowledge that her sister was wicked.
(Re: Revenge of the SIth. At least have the decency to kill the man if you wont help him. Indeed! Characterization in the prequels was nearly as all over the place as in this movie.)
Agree with you on almost all points though I superficially enjoyed the movie. The colors, costumes and the sets were great. And I love Rachel Weisz and Mila Kunis. Also I don't have an attachment to the source material, unlike say for instance the Hobbit. I was disappointed in that movie though it was considered to be largely successful by movie and book fans alike. :(. Not to imply that you disliked it only because of an attachment to the books, didn't mean to come off like that at all. Just that I may have enjoyed it more because I knew so little about the world overall.
Coming back to Oz I just wish they had jettisoned the wizard and made the whole story about the witches. There needed to be something more to explain Theodora's (I actually liked the name :) ) unnaturally quick attachment to the Wizard. The whole betrayal and anger thing was far too much, far too soon. How I wish they could have made the entire movie about her, why she was the way she was, her relationship to her sisters, what made her so vulnerable to manipulation and an acknowledgement that her story was tragic could have made a truly great movie.
Regarding the China Doll. Yes she was beautifully animated. However, I am kind of sick of the trope of how the jerk-ass hero needs a sweet, vulnerable little girl to protect in order to get in touch with his own goodness. Also her character fluctuated wildly, one minute she is broken heartedly crying over her dead family (understandable!!). Next moment she is skipping along merrily on the yellow brick road because the Wizard let her go on an adventure with him. To me it was too much mood whiplash.
Agree with you on almost all points though I superficially enjoyed the movie. The colors, costumes and the sets were great. And I love Rachel Weisz and Mila Kunis. Also I don't have an attachment to the source material, unlike say for instance the Hobbit. I was disappointed in that movie though it was considered to be largely successful by movie and book fans alike. :(. Not to imply that you disliked it only because of an attachment to the books, didn't mean to come off like that at all. Just that I may have enjoyed it more because I knew so little about the world overall.
Coming back to Oz I just wish they had jettisoned the wizard and made the whole story about the witches. There needed to be something more to explain Theodora's (I actually liked the name :) ) unnaturally quick attachment to the Wizard. The whole betrayal and anger thing was far too much, far too soon. How I wish they could have made the entire movie about her, why she was the way she was, her relationship to her sisters, what made her so vulnerable to manipulation and an acknowledgement that her story was tragic could have made a truly great movie.
Regarding the China Doll. Yes she was beautifully animated. However, I am kind of sick of the trope of how the jerk-ass hero needs a sweet, vulnerable little girl to protect in order to get in touch with his own goodness. Also her character fluctuated wildly, one minute she is broken heartedly crying over her dead family (understandable!!). Next moment she is skipping along merrily on the yellow brick road because the Wizard let her go on an adventure with him. To me it was too much mood whiplash.
There needed to be something more to explain Theodora's (I actually liked the name :) ) unnaturally quick attachment to the Wizard.
I was willing to go along with it, because I kept expecting an explanation. She seemed oddly sheltered and naive, and there was that (apparently throwaway) line about him not knowing about witches as an explanation for why she didn't have suitors. Surely, we'd get the background on that - perhaps witches aren't allowed relationships except with the king or with wizards/other witches, perhaps her sister had convinced her she was too powerful/not powerful enough/not attractive enough/had too much of a temper/liked red too much/whatever to have a relationship, perhaps ... something. (Also, with Oscar being, apparently, irresistible to all womankind, it didn't really stand out from all the other women he seduced.)
The whole betrayal and anger thing was far too much, far too soon.
Movie time? I dunno, it bothered me less than Anakin's fall in Revenge of the Sith. I think because, in this case, it was easy to write her off as temporarily angry, which her sister took advantage of to feed her the apple of knowledge and evil (REALLY, MOVIE!???). It was her first relationship, ever (I think we're supposed to believe that anyway), and I thought part of her distress was that, if he'd lied about one thing - could he be trusted at all. It wasn't just that she'd lost him as a lover, she'd lost him as a savior of Oz, too. (But that may entirely be me making shit up because the movie made no bloody sense. Also, I was terribly distracted by the tears thing* at that crucial moment.)
*My thoughts in the theater: She's burned by her own tears? That...looks sort of cool. Wait, how does that even work!? Why didn't her internal liquids destroy her the moment she was born? How could she even have been born? Witches are born, right? I mean, she's a magic using human, yes? She had a dad. Why isn't her blood and saliva eating her alive? Yeah, yeah, fairy tale logic and all, but, come on. Wait, did she and Oscar kiss? HOW? Are we supposed to believe they had sex? But she can't have sex is bodily fluids burn her. She can't exist if bodily fluids burn her! ... An apple? REALLY, MOVIE??? Oh, great, sure, turn her magically evil. That's nice. You'd better deal with this, movie, or we are having words, and they won't be nice words.
There needed to be something more to explain Theodora's (I actually liked the name :) ) unnaturally quick attachment to the Wizard.
I was willing to go along with it, because I kept expecting an explanation. She seemed oddly sheltered and naive, and there was that (apparently throwaway) line about him not knowing about witches as an explanation for why she didn't have suitors. Surely, we'd get the background on that - perhaps witches aren't allowed relationships except with the king or with wizards/other witches, perhaps her sister had convinced her she was too powerful/not powerful enough/not attractive enough/had too much of a temper/liked red too much/whatever to have a relationship, perhaps ... something. (Also, with Oscar being, apparently, irresistible to all womankind, it didn't really stand out from all the other women he seduced.)
The whole betrayal and anger thing was far too much, far too soon.
Movie time? I dunno, it bothered me less than Anakin's fall in Revenge of the Sith. I think because, in this case, it was easy to write her off as temporarily angry, which her sister took advantage of to feed her the apple of knowledge and evil (REALLY, MOVIE!???). It was her first relationship, ever (I think we're supposed to believe that anyway), and I thought part of her distress was that, if he'd lied about one thing - could he be trusted at all. It wasn't just that she'd lost him as a lover, she'd lost him as a savior of Oz, too. (But that may entirely be me making shit up because the movie made no bloody sense. Also, I was terribly distracted by the tears thing* at that crucial moment.)
*My thoughts in the theater: She's burned by her own tears? That...looks sort of cool. Wait, how does that even work!? Why didn't her internal liquids destroy her the moment she was born? How could she even have been born? Witches are born, right? I mean, she's a magic using human, yes? She had a dad. Why isn't her blood and saliva eating her alive? Yeah, yeah, fairy tale logic and all, but, come on. Wait, did she and Oscar kiss? HOW? Are we supposed to believe they had sex? But she can't have sex is bodily fluids burn her. She can't exist if bodily fluids burn her! ... An apple? REALLY, MOVIE??? Oh, great, sure, turn her magically evil. That's nice. You'd better deal with this, movie, or we are having words, and they won't be nice words.
My main problem with "Theodora" as a name is that... it's a name. An actual name that you can find in a "what to name the baby" book. It's just out of place next to the more fantasyish names of "Evanora" (which is, admittedly, two names, Eva and Nora, smooshed together, but feels more fantasyish) and "Glinda." For some reason it just doesn't seem right that an Oz witch should have a "real" name, much less a name that according to the dictionary was actually quite common at the time the movie's taking place.
I agree that her role was wasted. She could have worked as the tragic villain (kinda the way Wicked managed to make the Wicked Witch of the West into a sympathetic and tragic villain), but the story is too rushed and too shallow.
And yeah, the China Girl's role as the "vulnerable girl that the man needs to protect" is problematic to say the least... and yes, her characterization is inconsistent and all over the place. I still found her one of the more engaging characters in the movie, which was kind of why I wished the movie had been about her instead. I think she'd have made for a good protagonist, when not constrained to the role of "whatever the Wizard needs her to be at any given time."
My main problem with "Theodora" as a name is that... it's a name. An actual name that you can find in a "what to name the baby" book. It's just out of place next to the more fantasyish names of "Evanora" (which is, admittedly, two names, Eva and Nora, smooshed together, but feels more fantasyish) and "Glinda." For some reason it just doesn't seem right that an Oz witch should have a "real" name, much less a name that according to the dictionary was actually quite common at the time the movie's taking place.
I agree that her role was wasted. She could have worked as the tragic villain (kinda the way Wicked managed to make the Wicked Witch of the West into a sympathetic and tragic villain), but the story is too rushed and too shallow.
And yeah, the China Girl's role as the "vulnerable girl that the man needs to protect" is problematic to say the least... and yes, her characterization is inconsistent and all over the place. I still found her one of the more engaging characters in the movie, which was kind of why I wished the movie had been about her instead. I think she'd have made for a good protagonist, when not constrained to the role of "whatever the Wizard needs her to be at any given time."
This might be a generational thing, but until just now, I had no idea Glinda wasn't a real name. Huh. (So, to me, her's is the name that stood out. It's much harsher sounding than Theodora and Evanora.)
This might be a generational thing, but until just now, I had no idea Glinda wasn't a real name. Huh. (So, to me, her's is the name that stood out. It's much harsher sounding than Theodora and Evanora.)
Apparently Ozma/Tip isn't mentioned in it! Which is a darn shame. And puzzling.
What I wouldn't give for a film centered around Tip, though. Granted, the original Reveal about her true nature was irritating and completely overwrote her personality for some reason, but a film about her would be rather one in the eye to this director. Something that looks like yet another film about an intrepid boy hero stomping around and causing mischief and stopping a vile usurper... oh, wait, surprise! She's a girl and the rightful queen of Oz. How 'bout that.
Apparently Ozma/Tip isn't mentioned in it! Which is a darn shame. And puzzling.
What I wouldn't give for a film centered around Tip, though. Granted, the original Reveal about her true nature was irritating and completely overwrote her personality for some reason, but a film about her would be rather one in the eye to this director. Something that looks like yet another film about an intrepid boy hero stomping around and causing mischief and stopping a vile usurper... oh, wait, surprise! She's a girl and the rightful queen of Oz. How 'bout that.
Somehow heart shrinkage also causes her to turn green and beaky nosed (which is "hideous").
--So the WWoftheWest is related to the Grinch somehow? That was the first thing I thought when I read about the shrunken heart and turning green.
Somehow heart shrinkage also causes her to turn green and beaky nosed (which is "hideous").
--So the WWoftheWest is related to the Grinch somehow? That was the first thing I thought when I read about the shrunken heart and turning green.
This is part of the problem with an entertainment industry where male characters dominate completely -- if any franchise/genre isn't 90% male characters, then there's a big cry from producers and audience alike that "THERE ARE NO MEN HERE WE NEED MORE MEN!" No, we really don't. Trust me, there are more men there than you might think.
This. A response to Plums' comment noted that there are ~13 female Disney leads to ~20 male Disney leads.
Chalk it up to one more example of the normalization of maleness as a default.
This is part of the problem with an entertainment industry where male characters dominate completely -- if any franchise/genre isn't 90% male characters, then there's a big cry from producers and audience alike that "THERE ARE NO MEN HERE WE NEED MORE MEN!" No, we really don't. Trust me, there are more men there than you might think.
This. A response to Plums' comment noted that there are ~13 female Disney leads to ~20 male Disney leads.
Chalk it up to one more example of the normalization of maleness as a default.
I was all OMGWTFBBQ when I saw the trailer. Oz has ALWAYS been about the women. And to take that and make it all about the Wizard, a HUMBUG! I plotzed. I ranted a bit, in the theater. I ranted a bit at the Star Trek trailer too. (Then the Hobbit came on and I was swept away... Yes, all male, but we KNEW that going in)
I have no interest in seeing this mangling.
I was all OMGWTFBBQ when I saw the trailer. Oz has ALWAYS been about the women. And to take that and make it all about the Wizard, a HUMBUG! I plotzed. I ranted a bit, in the theater. I ranted a bit at the Star Trek trailer too. (Then the Hobbit came on and I was swept away... Yes, all male, but we KNEW that going in)
I have no interest in seeing this mangling.
Post a Comment