Slashdot Mirror


Warner Bros. to Turn All 15 Oz Books Into Movies

Lucas123 writes "After purchasing the rights to the Oz books from Ted Turner Warner Bros., along with Village Roadshow Pictures, will be taking Spawn creator Todd McFarlane's idea to produce movies based on the Oz books. They've obtained the rights to the 14 titles written by 'The Wizard of Oz' author L. Frank Baum, as well as the the fifteenth book ('The Royal Book of Oz'), written by Ruth Plumly Thompson. Screen Writer John Olson's 'vision is of a bit tamer PG movie and hopefully the two can find some middle ground of compromise that will please them both and not hurt the final product.'"

49 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Public Domain by tidewaterblues · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Correct me if I am wrong, but all 14 original Oz books and the MGM movie are all public domain. As long as you only base you canon on this material, you can make whatever movie you want, and you don't have to pay anyone a dime. Now, the characters name are another matter. Many of those are still trademarked by various corporations.

    --


    ...En að Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað Er Nýr Dagur
    1. Re:Public Domain by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean like Mickey Mouse, created at least 30 years before hand is in the Public Domain...

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:Public Domain by Erasmus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mickey Mouse is a trademark. The character will never slide into the Public Domain so long as Disney is defending it.

      Mickey Mouse cartoons, on the other hand, will never slide into the Public Domain so long as Disney keeps paying congress to extend the copyright length...

    3. Re:Public Domain by Shrubbman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dude, the first OZ book was published in 1900. The 15th book they mention was published in 1921. There's actually some 40 books in total considered 'canon' along side a pile of either unauthorized or non-canonical novels set in Oz as well.

    4. Re:Public Domain by fm6 · · Score: 5, Informative
      It's yet another sloppy summary of TFA, which mentions two distinct facts:
      • Warner plans to adapt all 15 books.
             
      • Warner bought the rights to the 1939 movie from Ted Turner. (Actually, they bought Ted Turner's whole media operation, which happened to include his film library, which happened to include this movie. This happened over 10 years ago; it's connection with this announcement isn't clear.)

      The writer of the TFA was a little sloppy, and the submitter was very sloppy, so of course the facts got a bit jumbled. Welcome to Slashdot.
    5. Re:Public Domain by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All of the Oz books published before 1923 are public domain in the US, because every copyright from that period had expired before the Congress started rubber-stamping renewals. Everything L. Frank Baum wrote (at least by himself) has been in the public domain in the EU since the end of 1989 (70 years after he died). Likewise with the original character designs by illustrator W. W. Denslow, who died in 1915. However, the MGM movie (produced in 1939) and everything original that was introduced by it (e.g. "Somewhere....") is very much under copyright in the US and the EU (and probably everywhere else, since most countries follow one or the other model).

      The only thing that could still be "owned" about the original books are the trademark rights, which could be maintained indefinitely if they're continually exercised. I'm pretty sure MGM has done its job in maintaining "The Wizard of Oz" and the distinctive likenesses of Judy Garland, Margaret Hamilton, Bolger, Haley, Lahr, etc. as trademarks, and they're powerful enough to get away with claiming just "Oz" as a trademark if they set their legal will to it.

      The bottom line is that anyone could produce a bunch of movies based on the books without buying the rights from anyone... but they'd have a really dicey time marketing it without running into MGM's trademark enforcement suits.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    6. Re:Public Domain by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That makes sense. Obviously, they want to be able to reference the changes that were made in the movie since the movie version is what's stuck in the public consciousness. I remember when I saw Wicked, she was confused about the crystal shoes, wondering why they weren't the "ruby slippers" of of the movie - I had to explain that the "ruby slippers" were a feature exclusive to the film version, which the creators of Wicked likely didn't have the rights to. They probably want to be able to avoid that problem, so they're getting the movie rights too.

  2. How many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    All 15 ounce books? I have no idea how many movies that would be?

    1. Re:How many? by dr_dank · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just the important ones.

      Deep voice movie announcer guy

      This summer...

      WHOOSH

      There is another word for EXCITEMENT!

      Roget's Thesaurus: The Motion Picture

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    2. Re:How many? by clickety6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shouldn't that be:

      Roget's Thesaurus: The Motion Picture, Feature Film, Movie, Moving Picture, Flick, Cinematic Entertainment

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    3. Re:How many? by louzerr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Glad to see I wasn't the only one initially confused by the posting's title.

      I guess I can find out exactly what Oz is, if I can weight for the movie. (there goes any Karma I had ...)

      --
      "The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
  3. What about the 1 pound books? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Weight discrimination again!

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:What about the 1 pound books? by spun · · Score: 3, Funny

      An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, man. Everyone knows that.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  4. 15oz. books? by fatblunt · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why make books that weigh almost one pound into movies?

    1. Re:15oz. books? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      It worked for War and Peace
      That movie sucked. The war part was cool, but the whole peace bit got a bit slow at the end.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. So what you're telling me... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is that Hollywood is preparing to shit all over another part of my childhood? 13 times?

    Great.

    Man, Return to Oz was such a bastardization of "Marvelous Land" and "Ozma" - still, it had more Baum to it than the old MGM "all singing, all dancing" all vomiting wreck.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:So what you're telling me... by K8Fan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Return to Oz" was a very enjoyable film on it's own merits, but the movie critics of the time were unable to judge it on those merits - and could only see it as the film that didn't have Judy Garland in it.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
    2. Re:So what you're telling me... by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I saw it in the theater when I was six years old. Pretty heavy stuff at that age...the living bodyless heads were especially striking. My parents expected something entirely different.

      It might have been heavy stuff as compared the Wizard of Oz movie, but in the books Dorothy or Ozma were quite regularly in serious danger and dealing with bizarre perhaps horrific things. I don't really see why your parents were suprised. Then again if you made a movie based on most fairy tales from the Brothers Grimm it would have to be rated "R" for violence. But most parents just assume that stories for kids of 80 years ago are going to be just fine with their modern ideas of how to raise a child.

      --
      We are all just people.
    3. Re:So what you're telling me... by hguorbray · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually there were 'scientific' slightly futuristic (for the story time frame) elements in Return to OZ -the primitive electrochock machine they were going to hook Dorothy up to in the asylum for instance. -and the Wheelers looked like some sort of skatepunks........

      Having read all the Oz books as a kid I was thrilled to see a more accurate, darker picture of the land of Oz after the more saccharine MGM version. I guess I should check out 'Wicked' for the same reason

      Also, Fairuza Balk, young Dorothy, went on to become quite the bad girl in movies such as 'the Craft', the disastrous remake of 'the island of Doctor Moreau and other uneven fare such as 'No FishFood in Heaven' which was notable for having stolen its plot from the Velevet Underground song 'The Gift' which was narrated by John Cale (It was now mid August and Waldo Jeffers had reached his limit....)

      I'm just sayin'.....

    4. Re:So what you're telling me... by geobeck · · Score: 2, Funny

      It was a miracle that Lord of the Rings didn't suck, but the truth is that it was far from perfect...

      At least they didn't turn it into a musical (wrong Jackson for that). They would have had to extend it out to about 14 hours, and have shrieking breastplated women on horses, the hero singing to his sword, supernatural beings crooning while leaving the world...

      Wait a sec... didn't someone already do that?

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    5. Re:So what you're telling me... by GrievousMistake · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How so? I read Grimm's fairy tales as a kid, and I can't recall them being unusually violent as fairy tales go. Did I get a sanitized edition?
      It was a lot cleaner than, say, One Thousand and One Nights, which I also read, where people had their eyes stabbed out on a fairly regular basis.

      --
      In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
  6. wtf by User+956 · · Score: 3, Funny

    After purchasing the rights to the Oz books from Ted Turner Warner Bros., along with Village Roadshow Pictures, will be taking Spawn creator Todd McFarlane's idea to produce movies based on the Oz books.

    Excellent! And perhaps they might even be able to get Uwe Boll to direct!

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  7. Aren't they in the public domain? by cpghost · · Score: 4, Informative

    L. Frank Baum's books have been in the public domain for quite some time now. They're available in Project Gutenberg, on Wikisource and everywhere.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    1. Re:Aren't they in the public domain? by flu1d · · Score: 4, Funny

      Quiet man, I'm trying to sell them some more public domain stuff.

    2. Re:Aren't they in the public domain? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just because the text (which is under copyright) are public domain does not mean the characters (which are under trademark) are.

    3. Re:Aren't they in the public domain? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Informative
      Just because the text (which is under copyright) are public domain does not mean the characters (which are under trademark) are.

      A specific version and depiction of the characters could be trademarked -- as the Tin Man's costume. But not a Tin Man you designed just referencing the book and your own imagination.

  8. Math is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you're going to include Thompson, then there are more than 15. Here's wikipedia's list of the "famous forty"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oz_books

  9. buying rights != making movies; uneven quality by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just because they've bought the rights, that doesn't mean they'll actually make the movies. It's extremely common for a studio to buy rights to a book, then never make the movie.

    The quality of the Oz books is very uneven. Some of the later ones have long, extremely tedious sections that serve no purpose except to bring back a long list of favorite characters like Jack Pumpkinhead. A lot of the plots revolve around lame puns.

  10. Oh, real tough getting the rights to all 15 books! by thisissilly · · Score: 3, Informative
    ...given that all 15 are in the Public Domain, having been published before 1923. In fact, I'm surprised they didn't claim 16, seeing as the 16th was published in 1922.

    Everyone in the US has the right to make any of those books into a movie.

  11. Seems right... by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative

    the Oz books were published between 1900 and 1920. Works published before 1923 are in the public domain. (Mickey was born circa 1928).

    Here's my vote that they do Tik-Tok first. My mom had first editions of all the books when I was a kid, that was my favorite.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  12. Missing some of the review by fireboy1919 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "McFarlane has a vision of Oz that is a dark, edgy and muscular PG-13, without a singing Munchkin in sight," wrote journalist Michael Fleming. "That was clear with a toy line he launched several years ago that featured a buxom Dorothy and Toto re-imagined as an over-sized snarling warthog.

    Olson's vision is of a bit tamer PG movie and hopefully the two can find some middle ground of compromise that will please them both and not hurt the final product. This was missing from the end:
    McFarlane and Olson are also planning on releasing a new hip, edgy version of the Care Bears based mostly on Sin City. The "Care Bear Stare" will be reimagined as beam weapons mounted on the bears heads that melt off peoples faces. A sequel of "Milo and Otis" set twenty years later is also scheduled as the newest spin on "Pet Cemetary."

    While nothing else is really complete, these two want to assure you that the plan to replace every warm, fuzzy childhood story with nightmarish tales so that you'll lose all sense of past and therefore be willing to watch anything is proceeding according to plan and scheduled to be complete by the year 2015.
    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    1. Re:Missing some of the review by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe McFarlane was influenced by the Marin Independent Journal's movie synopsis:

      "Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman, then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again."

      --
      >;k
    2. Re:Missing some of the review by kabocox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "McFarlane has a vision of Oz that is a dark, edgy and muscular PG-13, without a singing Munchkin in sight," wrote journalist Michael Fleming. "That was clear with a toy line he launched several years ago that featured a buxom Dorothy and Toto re-imagined as an over-sized snarling warthog.

      While nothing else is really complete, these two want to assure you that the plan to replace every warm, fuzzy childhood story with nightmarish tales so that you'll lose all sense of past and therefore be willing to watch anything is proceeding according to plan and scheduled to be complete by the year 2015.


      Hey, Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland were the two most scary horror filled movies that I had to suffer through. Both movies are a walk through some one's drug trip. The horror in wizard of Oz starts with killing off an old woman, whom the munchkins claim is a witch and then the evil little girl not happy with killing off one member of the family goes and kills the old woman's sister as well. Oh, and the horror of fly monkeys, walking scare crows, a lion, and the Wizard's city. I'm sorry, but McFarlane was just honestly showing the Wizard of Oz as an honest remake as I recall the movie. Alice in the Drug trip was the other horror flick, but I'm just not going there that world was scary.

  13. Hollywood thinking by taustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "... hopefully the two can ... compromise ... and not hurt the final product.'"

    That they can even say this with a straight face is why movies suck.

  14. You Can Read Them Online, You Know ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's correct, enjoy them at Project Gutenberg or the Online Books Project at U Penn. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the one by Plumly ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:You Can Read Them Online, You Know ... by Chyeld · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google Books seems to have it. If the link doesn't work (haven't tried linking through it before), just search for the name.

      This is actually the first of the 19 books she wrote to continue the story after Baum died. However it's a mix between fans whether they consider the books cannon or not. Some feel she took too much liberty with the characters and situations.

      Most of her books, however, are still covered by copyright. It's only the very earliest that have passed back into the public domain.

    2. Re:You Can Read Them Online, You Know ... by djdavetrouble · · Score: 3, Informative

      Theres also a bunch of audio books on archive.org, some are read by my dad, Roy Trumbull......(had to plug !!!) He has made a hobby recording public domain works and posting them
      on the internet.
      oz on archive.org audio

      --
      music lover since 1969
  15. Re:Oh, real tough getting (copyright/trademark) by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Funny

    Given that the title includes the word Oz, that is unlikely to be much of a barrier.

    They could always call it 0Z (chr(13)) instead and it would ... look like Oz, but would be more like the original typeface that more resembled a zero plus Z.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  16. FTA by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Dorothy as some bondage queen isn't something I want to do," Olson told Fleming.

    He can speak for himself. Red thigh-high stiletto boots work magic for me!

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  17. Tin Woodman of Oz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There's a group Animation:Master users who have been working on a full-length, CGI production of The Tin Woodman of Oz. The entire project is taking place on-line. For example, here are links to the production journal and the image gallery. You can find much more additional information - clips, discussions, animatics, models - on the website.

    I'd think the development of an "Open" movie - much like Blender's Elephant's Dream and Project Peach - only more ambitious, would be more interesting to Slashdot readers.

  18. Sooo.... by qzulla · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do you think they can get Pink Floyd for the sound track?

    qz

  19. American McGee by Paralizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    American McGee is supposed to be doing a film version of his video game American McGee's Alice.
    There is some info about it here.

    How will these versions compare? American's was very dark and twisted, with Alice emotionally disturbed and borderline insane. Characters were murdered and gruesome experiments were performed on the inhabitants of Wonderland.

    1. Re:American McGee by jkoke · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm thinking they will be quite different, since American's adaptation is based on a book by Lewis Carroll, called Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and this story is about an adaptation of books written by L. Frank Baum, beginning with The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

  20. Re:Wizard of Oz theory by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

    Except he never mentions that, ever. Most of that speculation comes from the style of drawing, say that they were the same style that appeared in political cartoons; however they fail to mention that the reason that style was used in political cartoons because it was there style at the time. almost any drawing from that periods will look similar.

    really, it's a case of finding pattern because you are looking for a pattern. Just because you interpret a pattern doesn't mean that pattern was intentional.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  21. They'll either be unfaithful or uncinematic by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Oz books are not very cinematic.

    The 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz was almost an original creation. It was a success, not because of L. Frank Baum's story, but because of its wonderful performers, wonderful music, wonderful art direction, and interesting script. At least half of the cherished elements of the movie have no parallels in the original.

    OK, so they have the Oz books, but have they got a Harold Arlen and a Ray Bolger and a Judy Garland?

    Great material doesn't guarantee a great movie. Don't forget, there was also a Ralph Bakshi Lord of the Rings.

  22. Authentic, I hope. by Cjays · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd love to see an authentic depiction of the story rated at least PG-13. I want see the woodsman get hacked to pieces with his enchanted axe (cursed by the Wicked Witch of the East) before being rebuilt as the Tin Man. I want to see the Lion fight off the tiger-bear beasts and kill the giant spider. I want to see the Tin Man slaughter the 40 wolves of the Witch, and the Scarecrow wring the necks of the 40 crows. It would have been cool to see Tim Burton make this. Johnny Depp could have played one of the flying monkeys.

    --
    This is my signature. soid st egr.hyTa rsiugm usnin Any questions?
  23. Re:Good Grief by jkoke · · Score: 4, Informative

    They found the forest very thick on this side, and it looked dark and gloomy. After the Lion had rested they started along the road of yellow brick, silently wondering, each in his own mind, if ever they would come to the end of the woods and reach the bright sunshine again. To add to their discomfort, they soon heard strange noises in the depths of the forest, and the Lion whispered to them that it was in this part of the country that the Kalidahs lived.

    "What are the Kalidahs?" asked the girl.

    "They are monstrous beasts with bodies like bears and heads like tigers," replied the Lion, "and with claws so long and sharp that they could tear me in two as easily as I could kill Toto. I'm terribly afraid of the Kalidahs."

    "I'm not surprised that you are," returned Dorothy. "They must be dreadful beasts."

    The Lion was about to reply when suddenly they came to another gulf across the road. But this one was so broad and deep that the Lion knew at once he could not leap across it.

    So they sat down to consider what they should do, and after serious thought the Scarecrow said:

    "Here is a great tree, standing close to the ditch. If the Tin Woodman can chop it down, so that it will fall to the other side, we can walk across it easily."

    "That is a first-rate idea," said the Lion. "One would almost suspect you had brains in your head, instead of straw."

    The Woodman set to work at once, and so sharp was his axe that the tree was soon chopped nearly through. Then the Lion put his strong front legs against the tree and pushed with all his might, and slowly the big tree tipped and fell with a crash across the ditch, with its top branches on the other side.

    They had just started to cross this queer bridge when a sharp growl made them all look up, and to their horror they saw running toward them two great beasts with bodies like bears and heads like tigers.

    "They are the Kalidahs!" said the Cowardly Lion, beginning to tremble.

    "Quick!" cried the Scarecrow. "Let us cross over."

    So Dorothy went first, holding Toto in her arms, the Tin Woodman followed, and the Scarecrow came next. The Lion, although he was certainly afraid, turned to face the Kalidahs, and then he gave so loud and terrible a roar that Dorothy screamed and the Scarecrow fell over backward, while even the fierce beasts stopped short and looked at him in surprise.

    But, seeing they were bigger than the Lion, and remembering that there were two of them and only one of him, the Kalidahs again rushed forward, and the Lion crossed over the tree and turned to see what they would do next. Without stopping an instant the fierce beasts also began to cross the tree. And the Lion said to Dorothy:

    "We are lost, for they will surely tear us to pieces with their sharp claws. But stand close behind me, and I will fight them as long as I am alive."

    "Wait a minute!" called the Scarecrow. He had been thinking what was best to be done, and now he asked the Woodman to chop away the end of the tree that rested on their side of the ditch. The Tin Woodman began to use his axe at once, and, just as the two Kalidahs were nearly across, the tree fell with a crash into the gulf, carrying the ugly, snarling brutes with it, and both were dashed to pieces on the sharp rocks at the bottom.

    "Well," said the Cowardly Lion, drawing a long breath of relief, "I see we are going to live a little while longer, and I am glad of it, for it must be a very uncomfortable thing not to be alive. Those creatures frightened me so badly that my heart is beating yet."

    "Ah," said the Tin Woodman sadly, "I wish I had a heart to beat."

  24. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    But do they have the right to title them as "Oz" movies? Eight justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled that trademarks cannot be used to extend the term of exclusive rights in a work whose U.S. copyright has expired. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003).
  25. 15 Oz Books? by AikonMGB · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was definitely confused as to what the books' weights had to do with anything...

    Aikon-