American McGee To Adapt Oz As Movie

Ant writes "According to ShackNews and Hollywood Reporter, American McGee's "Oz" is back on track in several ways. Infogrames dropped the Wizard of Oz based videogame a while ago, but it's being revived now that McGee will be writing an Oz movie script for producer Jerry Bruckheimer. McGee said: "The hero of the story, a teenage boy named Arthur, is whisked away from Earth to an Oz in turmoil. Like Neo in 'The Matrix' films, the boy makes a hero's journey and comes to grips with his powers," he said. "What Jerry Bruckheimer was able to do with 'Pirates of the Caribbean' was simply brilliant, and since 'Oz' is similar in tone to that film franchise, I'd like to follow that model.""

Comments

Translation

[MyLongNickName]

"What Jerry Bruckheimer was able to do with 'Pirates of the Caribbean' was simply brilliant, and since 'Oz' is similar in tone to that film franchise, I'd like to follow that model."

Babel Fish translation: "It made a crapload of money. Rather than go a different direction, which requires creativity, I'd like to copy it and make my own crapload of money."

That Babelfish gets better and better with each passing year!

Re:Translation

[th3walrus]

Wow, with a movie description that includes "it's like The Matrix or Pirates of the Caribbean", how can you go wrong? Hell, why now throw some other stuff in there. It's Gone With The Wind meets Citizen Kane in space like Star Wars... and they all can do Matrix stuff. Crapfest coming up...

On a more serious note, why does the Dorothy of this movie need "powers"? That's always been part of the draw to the Wizard of Oz. An innocent normal girl ends up in this strange land and has to make friends to surivive and find her way home. Give this character super powers and I don't see how it's going to be any good.

American McGee = Overrated Trash

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Dorothy = 19 year old Dominatrix. Then it would be fit for American cinema :)

Bad tin man... bad BAD tin man....

Re:Translation

[hal2814]

I actually have a rule for movie watching. If while seeing a preview, that preview says something along the lines of "If you liked "Movie X," you'll love this movie." I will not see that movie. Time and again I have found that those movies tend to be pretty bad (not the Michael Jackson, grab-myself-while-dancing kind of bad, but the really bad like Crocodile Dundee 2 kind of bad).

Re:Translation

[bluephone]

He could at least have kept Dorthy a girl, rather than changing it to a boy. After all, isn't the core of the film "A young girl awakens in an alien landscape to discover she has accidentally killed a woman. She later conspires with three strangers to kill again."? :)

I still want to see his take on "Strawberry Shortcake". ;)

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bend her over a chair and give her some of my broom stick. shes a dirty little whore and we all know it. she wants it bad. I hope american mcgee makes a game where you can take Dorothy and Alice together and paint a white map of hawaii all over their cheeks. Imagine a 1600 x 1200 anti-aliased antiostropic-filtered bump-mapped spectal lighted close up of Alice's clit that would sell a million copies even if it was distributed via Steam, aka the virus infecting computers across the world as we speak.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a new rule for movie watching. If it has "American McGee" attached to it in any way, shape, or form I will not see that movie.

Not True To The Original

[TheWanderingHermit]

I've never heard of American McGee, but I used to read the Oz books to my students when I taught elementary school. After looking over the American McGee site, I can't see that it has any real, significant connection to the originals. For one thing, there's a reference to "the darker side of Oz" and Frank Baum made it clear there was no darker side. His intent was to create a land of wonder and amazement without the creatures that caused kids nightmares.

I've never been able to stand it when movies or updates sanitized stories for mass consumption, and I find I'm feeling the same way about taknig something that was created with specific intent and twisting that intent into something opposite of it.

So, after checking out the site, it looks to me like American McGee took someone else's creation and re-did it without a lot of what made the original special. It'd be kind of like taking the Terminator series and remaking it without evil robots. So am I missing something about American McGee, or is it the same kind of "ignore the original and remake in our way" stuff as what I just described?

Re:Not True To The Original

[koi88]

For one thing, there's a reference to "the darker side of Oz"

You should check out what he did to Alice in Wonderland.
Pretty cool (in my opinion), but also much darker (and more violent) than the original Alice in Wonderland.

Re:Not True To The Original

[{8_8}]

McGee did something similar with Alice in wonderland. He took a standard children's story, made it "darker" and then turned it into a video game. His adaptations are never really true to the original. Penny Arcade did a spoof of McGee's style involving Strawberry Shortcake.

Re:Not True To The Original

[hal2814]

"For one thing, there's a reference to "the darker side of Oz" and Frank Baum made it clear there was no darker side."

Maybe he confused Frank Baum's Oz with the HBO prison show "Oz." That would explain it. I saw one episode where a guy moved cells because he was afraid of his cellmate, but he ended up in a cell where he had to be someone's girlfriend. That's definately a dark side.

Re:Not True To The Original

[tyndyll]

You have obviously never heard of American McGee I'm afraid. American McGee is probably most famous around these parts for the "Alice" game causing a dispute between American Greetings and Penny Arcade. His take on Alice was .... interesting .... to say the least, touching much more on the insanity of the books that the Disney cartoon. I would say that his take on the Oz will be much closer to "Return to Oz" that "The Wizard..." - those flying monkey sstill give me nightmares...

Re:Not True To The Original

[Mechanik]

For one thing, there's a reference to "the darker side of Oz" and Frank Baum made it clear there was no darker side. His intent was to create a land of wonder and amazement without the creatures that caused kids nightmares.

Hmm...

Bitchy old woman that wants to kill cute little dog, CHECK.

Evil witch killed by falling house, CHECK.

Grotesque flying monkeys that have been giving kids nightmares for decades, CHECK

Evil witches that melt into a puddle of goo, CHECK.

Yep, no dark side whatsoever!


Mechanik

Re:Not True To The Original

[TheWanderingHermit]

Try reading the books. I never said anything about the movie (and I'm referring ONLY to the 1939 movie, with Judy Garland, not any of the others).

Oh, and as a small point of trivia, when, in the movie, you see the Witch prepare to order the Flying Monkeys, notice that the monkey with her hands her a strange hat. That's a small reference to an important point in the book (that matters later in the book, but not in the movie). The monkeys were not grotesque and were not evil. Whoever had possession of the magic hat could control the monkeys 3 times. The only reason they followed the witch's orders were because of the hat.

And in the book the witches were not as frightening. Mean, but not nearly the threat they were in the movie. Miss Gulch, who wanted to kill Toto, was NEVER in the book. There was hardly any development of the Kansas characters in the book (including the Professor who, in Oz, was the Wizard and other characters). In the book, it is also NOT a dream.

There are a HUGE number of liberties taken in the movie that have nothing to do with the book. There is also a LOT that was omitted from the movie, like what happened to the other characters at the end. (And one last point of trivia: as I said, in the books, Oz is NOT a dream. It is real and in the 5th book, when Uncle Henry realizes the farm is failing, Dorothy has them all transported to Oz where Uncle Henry and Auntie Em run a farm in Munchkinland from then on.)

Re:Not True To The Original

[Trillian_1138]

I'll be honest - I haven't read the Oz books, nor have I checked out McGee's site to read what he has planned about the movie. But it would seem - just from the presence of the Wicked Witch of the West and the Wicked Witch of the East (if I'm remembering correctly) that there is room for some 'dark' or 'evil' in Oz, even if it gets banished eventually. I don't know the Oz lore to say how or where the witches came from (other than "Wicked," which I have a feeling does not fit with Baum's intent...although maybe I'm wrong and he would have loved it; again, I'm no Oz expert). But perhaps an examination of Oz under the rule of one or both of the Wicked Witches would give enough fodder for a 'dark OZ' which still stays true to the origonal.

It'll still probably suck ass, but I wouldn't go so far as to say the idea of "the darker side of Oz" is entirely impossible.

-Trillian

Re:Not True To The Original

[Anonymous Coward]

For a look at the "darker side of Oz" that definitely doesn't suck, check out the book Wicked by Gregory Maguire.

Re:Not True To The Original

[mink]

True, but the books do have some quite dark elements.
The Witch causing 2 people to injure themselves, over and over, but ends up creating 3 people (tin man, tin soldier, and the man made from the bits they lost).
The glass cat was creepy.
The implications of the powder of life and other magical items are frightning.
That whole forest that likes to kill people.
Those creatures with wheels for feet that liked to kill people.
The dead land keeping OZ seperate from the rest of the world (kills you if you touch it).
Great books, but some elements were rather dark.

Anybody remembers Alice?

[koi88]

I loved American McGee's Alice.
It seems everybody else hated it, but I liked the scenery and the story. Playing it I felt really in a different world.

Re:Anybody remembers Alice?

[DrJonesAC2]

I still play this game occasionally. What ever happened to the 'American McGee's Alice' Movie?

Re:Anybody remembers Alice?

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

It seems everybody else hated it
Not me, I think it's rather good actually.

Re:Anybody remembers Alice?

[Anonymous Coward]

People realized that American McGee isn't the artistic genius that he thinks he is. He has decent control over mood and tone, but he isn't the icon he likes to present himself to be, forcing his name into the title of whatever piece of media. I'm just waiting for a "make you his bitch" comment from this prick.

Re:Anybody remembers Alice?

[lhouk281]

From American McGee's website, http://www.americanmcgee.com/blosxom.cgi/home/

wow, do people ever want to know what's up with the alice film. well, here's the full story: while an employee of electronic arts i conceived of and produced "american mcgee's alice". this meant that i (along with my exec producer rj berg) wrote the story, drove the art style, choose the development team, managed the development process, yadda, yadda. as an employee of ea i didn't "own" the idea even though i created it.

for me alice was more than just a game, it was an attempt to prove to ea that we could create original properties and exploit them in markets other than games. it seemed to me then (and even more now) that the games industry shouldn't rely solely on hollywood for their game ideas and more importantly, that we as an industry could come up with ideas that hollywood would make into movies. i've now come to realize that game publishers care less about original ideas than they do "pre-sold awareness" (ie, someone else's marketing dollars)... but that's a topic for another day.

so... before the game was completed i (along with two film producers i knew at the time) pitched the idea of an alice movie to dimension films. bob weinstien (head of the studio) bought the idea "in the room" based on a 30 second film-esque trailer and nothing more. then began "the fun". well known screenwriter john august was brought in to write a film treatment, which he did. the treatment was great. somehow the studio neglected to notice it. john went off to work on something else. the studio then wanted him on the project. too late. after that literally dozens of writers took various stabs at ideas for the film story. apparently they couldn't just go with the original story from the game. wes craven was brought in to direct. things seemed to happen. then nothing happened for a long time. then more nothing. then in typical hollywood style the film studio became displeased with those film producers i mentioned earlier and vice versa. no one was friends anymore. the alice film project was dead in the water because of the relationship between studio and producers. nice. even more nothing happened.

then recently... the film rights moved to a new studio, fox. they, like everyone else in hollywood that i've talked to, love the project, are going to make it, blah, blah, blah. there are new producers attached to the project. its status is "in development". that's it, that's all i know. personally, i think an oz film will get made before alice sees the light of day.

now, no more questions about this. i don't know anything else. i *really* don't know who's going to direct, who's playing alice, when the movie is coming out, or if there will even be a movie for that matter. these things can sometimes take years. be patient... and to pass the time lets play a game called "who can go the longest without asking american a question related to the alice film". ready? go!

Re:Anybody remembers Alice?

[Minna Kirai]

it was an attempt to prove to ea that we could create original properties

Ok, mistake #1: If you want to create an ORIGINAL property, don't take an EXISTING property and then shoot it up with a twist of dark attitude. That's not what "original" means.

Re:Anybody remembers Alice?

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to be a rip-off hack without any original ideas, apparently his shift key is broken. And there are some serious punctuation errors that my seventh-grade kid doesn't even make.

i think american mcgee is a self absorbed "fucktard".

Huh?!

[mshiltonj]

"What Jerry Bruckheimer was able to do with 'Pirates of the Caribbean' was simply brilliant

WTF?! Okay, are the /. article submissions themselves becoming trolls nows? PotC was okay -- in the sense that it didn't completely suck -- but to say it as "simply brilliant" is just a joke.

Re:Huh?!

[benito27uk]

Its a quote from McGee, not the submitter. And from Bruckheimer's view PotC was brilliant - at least in making money for Jerry Bruckheimer.

McGee wants to feed at the same trough, it beats having to come up with original ideas that investors would have to take a chance on.

On the upside,

[Canthros]

Frnak L. Baum's body, which is undoubtedly spinning in his grave, can probably be utilised to generate a not insignificant amount of power. It won't be clean power, admittedly, owing to the generation of reels and reels of garbage film, but it ought to rather cleaner than, say, coal.

HBO's Oz

[{8_8}]

For a split second, I thought McGee was going to adapt the HBO prison series Oz. I found myself wondering how he could possibly make beatings, stabbings and prison rape any darker than they already are.

Re:HBO's Oz

[blueZhift]

Hmmm, adapting HBO's Oz might lead to some rather interesting gameplay possibilities. Just imagine it as an MMORPG wherein players all start off as inmates, etc... Of course PvP would be mandatory! As silly as this all sounds, that might actually attract a not insignificant market. If the social conservatives are complaining about the GTA series now, just imagine the fuss over Oz. I could see Rockstar doing a game like this.

Re:HBO's Oz

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh! I can just picture it now:

Welcome to Oz.
You have entered zone "Cell-Block 6"
Sowja rapes you for 50 dignity points.
Sowja: lol j00 got r4p0rzd
Congratulations, You have earned the rank of Bitch.

Disney

[Ian_Bailey]

Disney has followed a simmilar pattern for its entire history.

Either it was neutering the most frigtening parts of the stories (Snow White, Litte Mermaid, etc.), or just re-inventing a new story (Treasure Planet).

I don't see anything wrong with it, as this is really the purpose of copyright expiration. New storytellers can re-imagine elements of old stories and mix them into something entirely new.

This is different than taking something that's currently has copyright protection (see Lion King vs Kimba the White Lion), making money for a big idea-starved company that the original creative artist should be earning. Determining what the limit for copyright expiration is a tricky issue, but it should eventually expire for precisely this reason.

Re:Disney

[TheWanderingHermit]

I agree with the point about copyright expiration. I like seeing new works that can include old works (for example, "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid"), but I think there's a limit. I guess I should point out that I'm a writer (I started my current business to finance a digital film production company so I could shoot my own scripts MY way instead of selling them and seeing them re-written 20 times). Maybe that's why I feel the original creation should be treated with respect. It's also why I don't like remakes. For example, "Casablanca" was a great film, and there's no need to remake it. The remake of "Psycho" a few years ago seemed totally pointless to me -- especially since it was a "shot for shot" remake.

If a writer/artist can't come up with something original, I'd rather not see them do anything with it at all. I don't like ripping off another person's work, signing your name, and passing it off as new (which is one reason I never bothered to see "Treasure Planet" -- the book is great and if it were done RIGHT on film, there's no need to do it with spaceships instead).

I don't like Disney neutering, as you say (good term) work. I think it's wrong, and I think it's just as wrong to take something tame (like Oz) and darken it. I'd rather see the people involved showing enough creativity and imagination to come up with something on their own.

On the other hand, I do have to add that "Forbidden Planet" (a re-write of "The Tempest") is one of my favorite SF films.

Re:Disney

[Ian_Bailey]

It seems your argument is that reworking of prior art is okay as long as the end result is good.

I'm sure you see the obvious flaw is that while it may be easy in hindsight to see what is bad and what isn't, those in the middle of the process may not be able to see this. Remember, the original Psycho is not yet in the public domain, so the remake was done with permission from the copyright holder. So while Hitchcock did not personally endorse the remake, whomever he decided would take over his estate did (presumably a trusted person).

Even more important, one man's trash is another's gold. There are many people who enjoy particular Disney movies. Who are we to say which re-telling is sufficiently creative for distribution?

When stories are still under copyright protection, the creators can do whatever they please. They can lock it in a vault, authorize endless bad remakes, or open-source the work. That is their right.

At some point, though, I believe this right should end, and the work(s) should enter the public domain. Ideally, this should happen at some point after the author has exhausted all revenue from the work, but before the work is destroyed (so a copies can be made and kept as a record). In reality, there is no such area of mutual agreement, and we will always have this tug-of-war between the supply and demand for creative ideas.

Re:Disney

[TheWanderingHermit]

It seems your argument is that reworking of prior art is okay as long as the end result is good.

Not really. I'm just admitting that while I think it's a writer's job to come up with original material (yes, I know there are only a limited number of plots, but there are an unlimited number of character and character interaction possibilities), I still like "Forbidden Planet".

So while Hitchcock did not personally endorse the remake, whomever he decided would take over his estate did (presumably a trusted person).

While Hitchcock was a powerful player in Hollywood by the time "Psycho" was made, I think (I am not sure and haven't checked) the copyright for the film is still held by the studio, or whatever studio bought the original studio. Directors don't (usually) hold a copyright. (Side note: For example, "Rebecca" won Best Picture, but the Oscar went to Selznick, the producer, and the director (Hitch) was ignored, as is often the case.)

You are right that it is subjective. You can't tell a work will suck until it's done. And it might be hated now, but loved later ("Oklahoma" was originally panned by critics). I might love it, others might hate it. (For example, I think "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg", "The Story of Adele H", and "La Strada" are masterpieces of art. I have a number of friends who think they're boring.)

I agree that copyright should end, and a work should enter public domain (except for Peter Pan -- Royalties to to a children's hospital and the copyright was extended forever by a special act of Parliment). It's like a playground. The person who built it should have first rights to it, but after a while, when other writers are let in to play with the same toys, they get different results. On the other hand, I'd rather see writers come up with original ideas instead of re-hashing other peoples' work.

I know I'm being snooty about it, but I think a writer who is full of creativity can easily focus on creating new wonderful works, instead of rehashing someone else's work. It is VERY rare that a rehash ever shows staying quality. The only rehash of "Romeo and Juliet" that I've found worthwhile is "West Side Story".

Stories are rehashed because the original captured peoples' imagination and somehow has a staying power. There was something special about it that made that storie (or work of art) rise above others and be noticed as something special. It seems like a writer somehow expects that special quality to transfer to their new work, but rarely are the derivatives anywhere near as good as the original.

Maybe it is worth all the easily ignored derivative work to see the few that are worthwhile (like "West Side Story" and "Forbidden Planet"), but I still feel a writer's talents are better used creating original work than re-doing someone else's creative ideas.

Re:Disney

[cpt kangarooski]

It's funny you mention Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare rather closely ripped off earlier (sometimes lost) sources, for virtually everything he wrote. He wasn't a very original writer. Just an exceptionally good one.

Don't fetishize original works. They're on an equal footing with derivative works: most suck, and a few of each are really good.

Yes, but...

[Guppy06]

When can we expect their adaptation of Strawberry Shortcake?

I'd provide a link, but, well, you know...

Seriously, though, the Unseen Comic pretty much describes my own opinion of American McGee by now, and somehow I doubt I'm alone judinging the department this came from.

Re:Yes, but...

[Tantrum420]

> Seriously, though, the Unseen Comic pretty much describes my own opinion of American McGee by now, and somehow I doubt I'm alone judinging the department this came from.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

T

Alice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't American McGee's Alice also coming to a cinema near us too? I remember they had Wes Craven lined up to direct...

I'll belive this one when I see it.

Er... seriously I CANT play devils advocate here.

[AzraelKans]

Are you guys sure this is not an april fools or something? I mean seriously , I dont know whats worst the fact that everything in this "film" has dollar signs written in them, that they are bastardizing to the point of ridiculous an incredible piece of literature or that Bruckheimmer actually thinks he can name the main character "Arthur" without anyone remember his late (2 actually) flops, and make american Mcgee (no less) to write 3 movies (3!) with a goddamned happy ending to tight it to the MGC classic(?!) WTF!

Just read the article, there are more hollywood jokes there than a faux somethingawful site!

If you can I will definetily advice you NOT to invest any real cash on this movie. I smell a disaster of incredible proportions coming up.

Yeah

[Lord_Dweomer]

Yeah, because you know the first thing that pops into mind when I think of Wizard of Oz is undead pirates and people saying "Whoah, I know kung-fu".

Oh well, I'm looking forward to this as well as the darker Willy Wonka coming out. I wonder what other interesting classics could be made darker?

I vote for Cinderella. Maybe they'll show how she REALLY won over the prince. Oh, and don't forget the product placement of Gucci glass slippers.

Or maybe the Jungle Book. Wanna find out what REALLY happens when a bunch of wild animals find a human baby alone in the jungle? Here's a hint: It'll be a short movie.

Re:Yeah

[Maserati]

Well, I think Fox has already turned your treatment for The Jungle Book into at least one TV series...

As for Cinderella, you might be interested in the Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister. An absolutely smashing retelling of Cinderella from the viewpoint of the stepsisters. No product placement in this one.

By the same author, and something I'm very surprised hasn't been mentioned so far, is Wicked, which isn't darker per se, but it is an outstanding novel, being in the main the life and times of the Wicked Witch of the West. Somewhere, somewhen a green girlchild was born, and things can only go downhill from there. The treatment of the political situation in Oz during the Wizard's reign is quite interesting, if only for being considered at all.

This has already been adapted for Broadway, one wishes the movie rights get acted on quickly to pre-empt this inevitable train-wreck of a project.

'Tain't funny, McGee

[MilenCent]

(blink)

The guy who turned Alice in Wonderland into a Quake-based action game is making a movie, based on the Wizard of Oz, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.

In other news, Satan announced in a press release that Hell will be closing up shop for an indefinite period. "With McGee and Bruckheimer on the case and hundreds of millions of Hollywood funding dollars behind them, how can we compete?"

McGee said: "The hero of the story, a teenage boy named Arthur, is whisked away from Earth to an Oz in turmoil.

Has McGee even read the Oz books, or just seen the movie?

Like Neo in 'The Matrix' films, the boy makes a hero's journey and comes to grips with his powers," he said.

Way to go McGee, describe your movie by comparing it to the other movie that you hope it'll be like. Also, make that movie something that has as little to do with your subject matter as possible.

"What Jerry Bruckheimer was able to do with 'Pirates of the Caribbean' was simply brilliant, and since 'Oz' is similar in tone to that film franchise, I'd like to follow that model.

(smacking McGee upside the head) Dude! Get this in your damn fool level building head! Pirates of the Caribbean was cool for one, and ONLY one, reason -- JOHNNY DEPP. Bruckheimer is not, in any sense of the word, brilliant. This is the guy who produced National Treasure, a movie with a primary character named Benjaman Franklin Gates. (How I wish to god that wasn't true.) Also, he produced Gone in Sixty Seconds, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor and Kangaroo Jack. KANGAROO JACK, McGee!

I understand you're trying to talk the guy up so he'll use your script, but please try to refrain from uttering too many more gross inanities.

Twisted Land of Oz

[SixArmedJesus]

I, for one, would much prefer it if they could somehow get Todd McFarlane's Twisted Land of Oz characters to come to the big screen. THAT I would go see. If you're going to make Oz dark, don't do it half way.