Warner vs Disney in OZ

Follow @empiremagazine

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]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Warner vs Disney in OZ - 18/3/2013 8:15:38 PM

losthighway

Posts: 3166
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: 51558
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!

Films watched 2012

What are your top 10/25 films of 2012? Vote in the forum Annual Poll now! Deadline is Sunday.

(in reply to losthighway)

Post #: 2

RE: Warner vs Disney in OZ - 18/3/2013 8:24:13 PM

losthighway

Posts: 3166
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: 51558
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!

Films watched 2012

What are your top 10/25 films of 2012? Vote in the forum Annual Poll now! Deadline is Sunday.

(in reply to losthighway)

Post #: 4

RE: Warner vs Disney in OZ - 18/3/2013 8:50:31 PM

directorscut

Posts: 9843
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: 51558
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!

Films watched 2012

What are your top 10/25 films of 2012? Vote in the forum Annual Poll now! Deadline is Sunday.

(in reply to directorscut)

Post #: 6

RE: Warner vs Disney in OZ - 18/3/2013 9:58:59 PM

directorscut

Posts: 9843
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: 51558
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!

Films watched 2012

What are your top 10/25 films of 2012? Vote in the forum Annual Poll now! Deadline is Sunday.

(in reply to directorscut)

Post #: 8

RE: Warner vs Disney in OZ - 19/3/2013 11:17:39 AM

AxlReznor

Posts: 1095
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).

_____________________________

"It's amazing how many supposed 'plot holes' turn out to now be plot holes if you'd just pay attention", Me

(in reply to elab49)

Post #: 9