Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

Warner vs Disney in OZ

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> Warner vs Disney in OZ Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Warner vs Disney in OZ - 18/3/2013 8:15:38 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3248
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/mar/15/oz-great-powerful-warner-bros-walt-disney

Read the article and then can anyone shed light on this for me...

Disney made Return to Oz, which features the ruby red slippers, the cowardly lion, the tin woodsman, the Scarecrow and the Road of Yellow Brick (all be it in ruins!). Despite folks criticising the sequel at the time, it's actually more faithful than the original and closer to the tone of the books.

Anyway, my point is... what's the difference now over then in regards to icons like the ruby reds and the cowardly lion being used? I realise the new film is a prequel but to say that Disney can't use any of the iconic characters/items from the original film in future Oz tales seems somewhat mute considering they already did back in 1985!

_____________________________

The secret to becoming a star is knowing how to behave like one.
Post #: 1
RE: Warner vs Disney in OZ - 18/3/2013 8:18:31 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54575
Joined: 1/10/2005
I'm not sure they did. I think what Disney have been careful to do is not use anything Warners created in a very loose adaptation of the Baum books. Disney can, I think, adapt them BUT if it's a Warners created bit, then Warners own it.

It's a bit like mapmakers putting in bits they've made up to try and catch out other selling their maps. Those others are completely entitled to create their own map BUT can't copy someone elses. I think!

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to losthighway)
Post #: 2
RE: Warner vs Disney in OZ - 18/3/2013 8:24:13 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3248
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I'm not sure they did. I think what Disney have been careful to do is not use anything Warners created in a very loose adaptation of the Baum books. Disney can, I think, adapt them BUT if it's a Warners created bit, then Warners own it.

It's a bit like mapmakers putting in bits they've made up to try and catch out other selling their maps. Those others are completely entitled to create their own map BUT can't copy someone elses. I think!


Warners created the ruby red slippers... Disney used them in Return to Oz. The slippers are actually silver in the original books.

_____________________________

The secret to becoming a star is knowing how to behave like one.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 3
RE: Warner vs Disney in OZ - 18/3/2013 8:36:45 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54575
Joined: 1/10/2005
Possibly they had permission for that? The problem here seems to be Warners apparently had been thinking about doing something similar to Disney but Disney were way ahead of them.

Mind you. as Disney have apparently made a disappointing mess in terms of how they've respected Baum's work, particularly in the way it treats women, Warners still have options

http://www.film.com/movies/oz-the-great-and-powerful-witches

This isn't really spoilery but excessive -phobes may wish to proceed with caution.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to losthighway)
Post #: 4
RE: Warner vs Disney in OZ - 18/3/2013 8:50:31 PM   
directorscut


Posts: 10881
Joined: 30/9/2005
Warner didn't gain control of The Wizard of Oz until 1996 when they merged with Turner Entertainment who bought the rights to MGM's back catalogue in 1986, one year after Return to Oz was made,

_____________________________



Member of the TMNT 1000 Club.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 5
RE: Warner vs Disney in OZ - 18/3/2013 9:22:03 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54575
Joined: 1/10/2005
Ah. So no rights issues with, presumably, whoever owned them then?

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to directorscut)
Post #: 6
RE: Warner vs Disney in OZ - 18/3/2013 9:58:59 PM   
directorscut


Posts: 10881
Joined: 30/9/2005
According to wikipedia:

"A large fee was paid, however, to use the ruby slippers, which were still the intellectual property of MGM at the time (as the ruby slippers had been created for the 1939 film to replace the Silver Shoes of the original stories)."

I guess the fee to pay Warner was not in the scope of the $200 million budget for the new film.

_____________________________



Member of the TMNT 1000 Club.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 7
RE: Warner vs Disney in OZ - 18/3/2013 10:06:40 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54575
Joined: 1/10/2005
I'm not sure if it's the Guardian link above, but I'm guessing it wouldn't have helped Disney's super secret squirrel code word approach to filming either

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to directorscut)
Post #: 8
RE: Warner vs Disney in OZ - 19/3/2013 11:17:39 AM   
AxlReznor

 

Posts: 1623
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain
quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Possibly they had permission for that? The problem here seems to be Warners apparently had been thinking about doing something similar to Disney but Disney were way ahead of them.

Mind you. as Disney have apparently made a disappointing mess in terms of how they've respected Baum's work, particularly in the way it treats women, Warners still have options

http://www.film.com/movies/oz-the-great-and-powerful-witches

This isn't really spoilery but excessive -phobes may wish to proceed with caution.


Because the beautiful blonde witch being good, and the ugly witch automatically being 'wicked' is exactly the kind of feminist message that should be spread far and wide.

I'm actually confused, though... I would've thought if they were going to make a prequel, they'd just adapt Wicked. That wouldn't have had so much to prove before people would accept it, because the stage production has a huge fanbase already.

It'd be nice if they actually adapted Baum's other books, but like that article said, the '39 movie is always going to hang over any of those (despite actually being the fourth adaptation of that book itself, if I remember correctly... definitely not the first).

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> Warner vs Disney in OZ Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.059