There is a new TV series, "Emerald City",
based on the great stories of the land of Oz.
This is the first time in a while we've see anything Oz related that 's this big and mainstream;
not since the movie "Oz, the Great and Powerful", which was a prequel to the first Oz story.
I'll be watching the new show. I'm very curious about it.
I wonder which direction they'll go with it., and wihich part of the Oz mythos they'll explore.
But for now, I would to take this opportunity and talk about its source material,
the original Oz series of books, by L. Frank Baum.
I'll also talk a little about some of the Oz movies and discuss how and why
there don't exist many faithful adaptions.
There's fourteen books by the original author and many more by other writers.
It's really a gold mine of source material!
It could have been a huge film franchise,
like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or Chronicles of Narnia.
There's been tons of adaptations,
but none of them turned into a major movie series.
Even the most famous 1939 version, staring Judy Garland, is solitary and exists all by itself.
And maybe that's the way it should be.
Nothing could ever top the classic version.
Personally, it is one of my favorite films, and many people share that sentiment.
It's such a timeless movie with
every generations, it holds up so well.
that it's hard to guess what decade it was made.
I've heard lots of people say they thought it was the 50s.
There were many silent versions that came before it
but this is the one everyone knows.
It's a contender for "Most Beloved Film of All Time,"
and it is perhaps the only film that no one dares to remake.
But, like I said, there a whole bunch of books that are waiting for adaptations
and most of them are now public domain.
Let's see how "Emerald City" turns out,
But first let me tell you about these books and what we're missing out on.
The first, published in 1900, is the most famous of the stories.
If you've seen the classic Judy Garland movie, then you pretty much know what happens in the book.
But there are some differences that stuck out to me.
For example, in the book, the slippers or shoes that Dorothy gets the corpse of the Witch of the East are silver.
For the film, they were changed to a sparkling ruby red.
I assume the reason was because the film was made in color,
which was very expensive at the time,
so it made sense to show off the rich, lavish production by making them red.
In the book, there's two good witches; the Witch of the North and the Witch of the South, Glinda.
For the movie, they combined both of these witches into the same character and just called her Glinda, the Good Witch of the North.
When watching the movie, that always had me wondering
why didn't they have a Witch of the South.
Well, that's the reason.
As for why they combined the characters,
My hunch is that, since the Witch of the North appears near the beginning of the book and the Witch of the South appears near the end of the book,
it made sense just to make them the same character and tie it all together.
But this raises a little problem with the movie.
The whole time, all Dorothy is trying to do is go home.
Glinda gives her the slippers and sends her off to meet the Wizard,
which gets her into all this trouble with the Witch of the West
and after she finally meets the Wizard and kills the Witch
her problem still isn't solved.
Then Glinda comes out again and says all she need to do is
click her heels together and she's home.
In the book, this made sense because it was the first time she met Glinda,
but in the movie it makes you wonder, "Why couldn't she tell her that in the first place?"
other than the fact that it would have been a short movie.
Don't get me wrong: the movie's a masterpiece
and this does nothing to harm it.
It only makes it funnier.
It's one of those things you don't think about the first few times,
but after a while, you stop and go, "Oh ... Glinda's an asshole!"
There's a lot more characters in the book who we don't see in the movie
like the Kalidahs, who are bears with tiger heads
who try to stop the group on their journey to the Emerald City.
The lion says even he is no match for them.
Another obstacle they face is the hammer heads, who are armless men who attack by
stretching their necks, using their heads to hit.
There's a country in Oz called China
because all their buildings and people are made of porcelain.
While this didn't appear in the movie,
the porcelain girl did appear in "Oz, the Great and Powerful".
The Wizard of Oz himself has multiple forms,
not just the floating green head you see in the film.
Each of the characters are only allowed to meet with him one at a time
and on seperate days.
Everytime they seem him, he changes his appearance,
into different things, such as a beast with horns, a ball of fire, and even a charming girl with wings.
The way I interperet this is that,
since the Wizard has such an elusive, mysterious reputation,
each of the characters walked into that room with their own subjective mind
and imagined their own version of the him.
That's just how it came off to me.
The lion in the film is cowardly and timid.
In the book, that's also true
but he also has moments of bravery.
There's a part where a community of animals in the forest,
including bears, wolves, foxes and elephants,
are fearful of a giant spider, with legs as long as tree trunks,
who is devouring them.
Then, the lion proves his title as King of the Forest
killing the spider ... while it's sleeping ...
by knocking its head off.
I find that very funny to imagine.
While reading the book, I find myself visualizing these "deleted scenes" in the same style of the movie,
popping out from the pages with its Technicolor glow,
but there's violent, gory moments that strike me as being discordant with the childish tone.
The movie has some parts that are scarry for children
but the book ... check this out:
"... and it rolled over at his feet in two pieces."
The Tin Man is killing things with its axe!
In the movie, he's always holding that axe
and it makes you wonder: "What is he going to do with that axe?".
Well, in the book, he actually uses it ...
... in all the ways you'd imagine.
" ... so that it immediately died.".
"As soon as he could raise his axe another wolf came up, and he also fell under the sharp edge of the Tin Woodman's weapon."
"There were forty wolves, and forty times a wolf was killed;"
"so that at last they all laid dead in a heap before the Woodman."
The Tin Man has a body count!
And that's not all!
The Scarecrow kills just as much!
"And then another crow flew it him, and the Scarecrow twisted its neck also."
"There were forty crows, and forty time the Scarecrow twisted a neck,"
"until at last all were lying dead beside him."
Could you imagine the brainless scarecrow with that dopey look on his face
breaking the necks of forty crows one at a time?
There's also some philosophical moments.
The Tin Man and Scarecrow debate whether it's more important to have a brain or a heart.
The Scarecrow says, "A fool would not know to do with a heart without a brain."
And the Tin Man says, "... for brains do not make one happy, and happiness is the best thing in the world."
Hmm...
The group all have their differences.
Dorothy's hungry, but they're in the middle of the woods,
so the lion says he'll go to kill a deer,
but Dorothy won't eat raw meat
and the Lion says she has pecular tastes that she only likes cooked food.
Meanwhile, the Tin Man is about to cry over the idea of killing a deer
and is concerned he'll make himself rust.
The whole group is dysfunctional in a way.
And, as great as the movie is,
it only samples some of the comedy potential of these mismatched characters
overcoming their differences to work together.
When it comes time to kill the Witch,
they each give their reason why they're not properly equiped and address their own flaws.
The Lion says that he's too much of a coward,
the Scarecrow says he's too much of a fool,
The Tin Man says that he doesn't have the heart;
but they're so faithful to Dorothy, they'd do anything to help her.
Dorothy herself cries over the idea of having to kill someone in order to see her aunt and uncle again,
but she must try.
And this mishmash assortment of characters all join forces and bond their friendship.
It's this moment that I think sums up everything "Wizard of Oz" is all about.
It is the whole story right here on page 132.
Then they all start preparing for battle.
In one brisk paragraph,
the Tin Man is sharpening his axe ... getting his joints oiled,
The Scarecrow is stuffing himself with fresh straw...
If this were a movie, it would be a montage,
the kind in action movies where the heroes are gearing up.
It is almost a parody of a montage,
a parody of something that didn't even exist yet.
This was the year 1900,
and if made a movie of this today,
they could take this same scene with the same context
and it would already be parody,
but it needs a ton of close-ups and fast editing
in the same way that was so effective done by Edgar Wright in "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz".
There is more cinematic potential in these books than can even be estimated.
The books have such a weird, mixed tone
that you could adapt it any way you please.
You could make a dark, twisted version
or a funny, light-hearted one.
All the possibilities are there
and with tons of Oz books in the public domain, I wonder why
Hollywood hasn't taken advantage with more movie adaptations.
Like I said, therr's been a lot of Oz films over the decades,
but its never turn into a full film series like Harry Potter
Even "Oz, the Great and Powerful" has yet to see a sequel,
and I thought that movie was all right.
It laid a good foundation to build on.
I have some ideas why a big, mainstream
Oz franchise it hasn't yet happened.
This is just my own speculation ... some possible reasons.
Number one:
Hollywood is too busy adapting comic books.
Superheroes are more adult, more badass,
and they see Oz as more of a children's thing.
Number two:
Since the books are public domain,
anyone can do it... but that may also be the problem.
Let's say Disney and Warner Bros. both made an Oz movie at the same time...
it would be competition.
Everybody wants to have something that's exclusive.
Undoubtedly, if one major Oz movie get made,
a bunck of lower budget version could rise to the surface to cash in.
This was something very common during the Direct-to-DVD market.
The one I best remember was when three different "War of the Worlds" movies
all came out in the same month -
two of them the same weekend!
A big-budget Steven Spielberg version,
a low-budget version and a zero budget version,
and actually, the zero budget version was the most faithful to the book.
And the third reason:
if they make it into a series, they would have to start with the first book,
and that was already one the best films of all time.
Even though Hollywood has had no issues with remaking other classic films
like "Ben-Hur", which is ridiculous,
Oz seems to be remake-proof.
So, they'd have to be careful with that one.
They would have to make it different,
especially since while the books are public domain,
the movie is not.
Meaning, without a license, they couldn't immitate the same look for the characters,
use any of the songs or rehash any of the same elements that appeared solely in the film.
Nor should they.
Personally, the only reason I'd be okay with a remake
is if they explored its source material in new ways
and if it served as the launchpad for a whole series
to adapt the rest of the books.
They would have to do a good job with the first one
and it would have to be successful.
Now that we have 'Emerald City',
I may stand corrected.
It's television, it's not theatrical films,
but lots of franchises, such as "Evil Dead",
are going in the direction of TV anyway.
Could this be the Oz series I've been waiting for?
I at least plan to watch the first few episodes and see how it is.
If you want to hear me talk more Oz,
stay tuned. There's going to be a Part 2 of this video next week
I'll discuss a couple more of the books and another one of the films.