Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:55, 26 February 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Oz (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oz, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OzWikipedia:WikiProject OzTemplate:WikiProject OzOz Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disney Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Oz the Great and Powerful appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 July 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that composer Danny Elfman agreed to score Sam Raimi's new film, Oz: The Great and Powerful, despite declaring he would never work with him again? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2011/July.

Lede

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

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

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

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

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

Plot summary copyvio?

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

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

Proposed addition to info box

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

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

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

Title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

plot and continuity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reception

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

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

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

Joey King has two credited roles in the movie.

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

China Doll and Wheel Chair Girl

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

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

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

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

Robert's dead plant, etc

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

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

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

I think something like this is a bit more accurate.

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

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

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

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

proposed to by (what name?)

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

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

"Continuity" section

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

"Continuity from the Baum novels"

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

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

"20 years before"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class Disney articles
• Mid-importance Disney articles
• C-Class Disney articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Disney articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles