I LOVE WIZARD OF OZ - SHAME ABOUT THE BOOK

Orwell wrote:I'm with Mrs Figg. Great Movie. I just assume is it is far better than the book, David - assume! - not having read it.

That's really the trick, I think. Just don't read the books! I'm sure there are millions of people who've never read RotK who assume the movie is far better than the book, 11 Academy Awards and all, plus all those top 10 and top 100 lists. I mean, how could the book ever live up to that?

Orwell wrote:On further reflection:

David said: " ...But the subject came up because a certain OzHobbit, who shall remain nameless to return the courtesy, was holding holding up WoO as a shining example of how TH could be made as a successful, child-friendly movie that could be more true to the spirit of the book. ."

Did I really????

Yep, I'm afraid so. Check the Hobbit Trailer thread.

tribute to The Secret Garden

The Amazing mr Blunden.

The Singing Ringing Tree, rare film from Germany with Russian dubbing, this little film coloured the imaginatin of my childhood

Mrs Figg wrote:tribute to The Secret Garden

Thanks Mrs, Figg. I'll have to check that one out for my Mom. Secret Garden was one of here favorite books as a girl, and it's how I was first introduced to the magical land of Yorkshire when I was a kid

Ally wrote:Being a purist I'm still upset that they replaced the silver shoes with ruby slippers...doncha hate it when adaptations don't stick to the original source?

YES! another Baum reader!

Glad you like it David H, it makes me want Spring to come quickly.

Ruby slippers are a definite improvement.

My point is the Movie surpasses the Book. It must. The movie is Brilliant!

Orwell wrote:My point is the Movie surpasses the Book. It must. The movie is Brilliant!

Oh come on, Orwell! Is that what you call a "fierce rebuttal"?

Orwell wrote:
As best as I can tell, he has heaps of reasons why the Books are Great and the movie is s*^t, he even said he "ranted" about it --- but he's too polite to post the rant here! What! Does he think we're shrinking violets or something!? Too scared to face a fierce rebuttal - that's the real reason!

(These Bree-Landers ... don't have much ticker in my opinion )

The movie is brilliant, end of story. its one of the all time classics, its beyond critisism in my humble opinion.

And you are of course entitled to your opinion, Mrs. Figg, as I am to mine and Orwell to his. I thought I had diplomatically let this issue pass several weeks ago.

And then one day I go for a short stroll outside the safe boundries of the Hobbit Forums and what do I find? An ALL CAPITAL thread denigrating a much beloved book, AND personally questioning my moral fortitude for not defending it!

So now it has become necessary to defend my own honor as well as that of the book. But when I present myself as challenged I find no duel to be had. Such cowardice!

I'm not here to question the brilliance of the movie, though i could. (MGM was openly trying to capitalize on the success of Disney's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" the year before, and blatantly ripped it off. For example the Munchkins in the book were never supposed to be midgets. They were as tall or taller than Dorothy and dressed all in blue. MGM just wanted some dwarf sight gags and some "Hi Ho Hi Ho" songs because it worked so well for Disney.) I'm here to defend the honor of the book. Are there any critics out there who have actually read it?

[BTW isn't anybody else worried that Peter Jackson will make a highly popular movie using Disney-dwarf sight gags, and 70 years from now people will be saying "I LOVE THE HOBBIT - SHAME ABOUT THE BOOK" ? Anybody? Anybody at all?]

I feel for you David. I am not in a dismiilar position over on the Who thread!
I have never read the books sadly- although your defence of them has put them on my 'must read those' list.
And yes I am greatly afeard that in '70 years from now people will be saying "I LOVE THE HOBBIT - SHAME ABOUT THE BOOK" ?
I have heard that said on other sites about the LotR's films- enough to make you weep.

As I mentioned on the first page of this thread I never read the book and didn't care for the movie even as a kid, but I do have some affinity for the edited version of the movie set to Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon.

David H wrote:BTW isn't anybody else worried that Peter Jackson will make a highly popular movie using Disney-dwarf sight gags, and 70 years from now people will be saying "I LOVE THE HOBBIT - SHAME ABOUT THE BOOK" ? Anybody? Anybody at all?

Yep. The Wizard of Oz comparison is actually one that's been made since shortly after the films came out, though not so much on this forum as others. It's actually a fear a lot of people have for The Lord of the Rings, although in my opinion LOTR has shown enough enduring popularity both before and after the release of the films that it's chances of being forgotten by the unwashed masses (such as Orwell ) are unlikely. On the other hand, LOTR already has to deal with a lot of confusion and assumptions that people make based on the movies. That will probably get worse as time goes on, particularly if the movies continue their apparent ascent into classics of pop culture.

I have more concern for The Hobbit, partially because while it is also extremely popular and profitable, it is not quite as famous and iconic as LOTR. Also, because it is more of a children's book and a more serious and darker adaptation, particularly one that fits well with the LOTR films, will appeal to a whole different audience. On the other hand, the presence of generations of people who grew up with The Hobbit might improve the chances of the book for being remembered alongside the movies rather than eclipsed by them. Obviously there's no way to know except for the passage of time, but I guess I see reasons for both optimism and pessimism.

I've tried to read the WoO several times, but find it lacks (1) spark, and (2) a classic writing style - pedestrian in fact. Where The Hobbit has buzzing ideas and songs and a wonderful sense of humour and excitement, the WoO is merely an "adequate" tale for certain children living in the grey American landscape and know no better, and it is wasn't funny, exciting or have any songs. I know this from reading no more than a chapter. The WoO (movie) put in excitement and song and humour (and Judy), turning an "adequate" childrens story into a Brilliant movie for all ages. I rest my case.

You know David, it's hard to get involved in a discussion I posted weeks ago. Back then I was all aflame with rebutting you, but now I've got a bit older, and maudlin, and feel sad that you suffer a "WoZ'(book) delusion" alongside a corresponding 'WoO (movie) delusion." It's hard to give a fierce rebuttal of your ideas in such circumstances, me being a far more gentle soul since this thread was made.

I hope you're not saying that Baum is in the same league as Tolkien, btw!

Oh yes, PJ took out a lot of humour and nigh every song. The humour and songs ( ) it was replaced with lacked Tolkien's spark. He also added scenes that were not anywhere near as good as Tolkien's own. The WoO movie had witty and wise songs put in it (and Rainbow, the GREATEST song of all time, just about) and no doubt GREAT scenes that were never in the book. I rest my case a second time.

Much better, Orwell. Thank you!

Orwell wrote: the WoO is merely an "adequate" tale for certain children living in the grey American landscape and know no better, and it is wasn't funny, exciting or have any songs. I know this from reading no more than a chapter..... I rest my case.

I agree that the first chapter is grim and gray, but so are the first 17 minutes of the movie, the part that is filmed in black and white on a drought-plagued Kansas farm with some very stiff, shallow character actors. It would hardly be fair to judge the movie by the first 10 minutes, would it?

It's hard to give a fierce rebuttal of your ideas in such circumstances, me being a far more gentle soul since this thread was made.

The gentleness of your soul is duly noted. I'll try not to upset you so much in the future. Here's a flower as a peace offering

I hope you're not saying that Baum is in the same league as Tolkien, btw!

Oh no, definitely not, but I keep him on the same shelf with George MacDonald and Lewis Carroll. His prose is clearly aimed at younger readers (I started reading them at 8 ) and this can put some people off. I understand that. He's not for everybody, but I still count him as a very good writer precisely BECAUSE of what he's able to do with simple vocabulary.

Also, don't forget how early WoO was. In 1901 there were very few fantasy books that attempted to create a different world with consistent internal rules. There's a good case to be made that Tolkien's "The Hobbit" took it's central idea from Wyke-Smith's "The Marvellous Land of Snergs", which in turn seems to have been influenced by "The Marvelous Land of Oz". Interesting, in a geeky kind of way, huh?

The WoO movie had witty and wise songs put in it (and Rainbow, the GREATEST song of all time, just about) and no doubt GREAT scenes that were never in the book. I rest my case a second time.

{I notice you're resting your case a lot. Is it getting tired? }

I mostly agree with you about the songs, but there's so much that's borrowed from "Snow White" (an equally brilliant and much more original film,) that I find it distracting. Haven't you noticed the similarities between "Somewhere over the Rainbow" and "Someday my Prince will Come"? How about "Hi Ho! Hi Ho! It's off to Work we go" and "Ding Dong the Witch is dead"?

I really do like both films if you don't consider either of them as adaptations, but in my opinion Disney get's higher marks for originality in this case, and the book trumps both.

I am really glad you like george Macdonald David, do you also like Lord Dunsany? I really like The King of Elflands Daughter, and another book which is often overlooked is Lost Horizon by James Hilton, I watched the film adaptation, Shangri La the 1939 film. It always remained in my imagination as the epitome of adventure and mystery.

I read Lost Horizon many years ago and loved it. It was at a time when I was reading every Tarzan book I could find, but had discovered that Burroughs was cheating after the first three. My Aunt gave me LH as an alternative and I instantly started dreaming of trekking in the Himalayas rather than darkest Africa I still hope to go there one day. By the way, the movie "Himalaya" isn't fantasy but is well worth watching.

I've never tried Lord Dunsany, partly because someone I once knew didn't like it at all. What do you think, Mrs. Figg, is it worth a try? If so, where should I start?

Well the King of Elflands Daughter, is nice, the language is a bit flowery and poetical for some to stomach, maybe thats why that person didnt like it, but its well worth a try if you like obscure turn of the century fairy stories.

Alright then! I've just ordered The King of Elfland's Daughter from Amazon on your recommendation. So many good books, so little time!

I'm sorry I became "thoughtful" and "kind", you guys, you've gone all flowery and wishywashy now!

Btw David, it seems you largely agree with me... well, in some things.

As to WoO pinching good ideas from others, and making them GREAT, is it's exactly what Tolkien did. It's quite respectable to do it, you know. The proof is always in the pudding. If you fail, by boring people and seeming cliched, then it's a crime - of the worst kind! (PJ? Are you listening? )

It's great how the WoO movie depicted that grab greyness from Chapter One... Err... is the rest of the book in colour, David?

Dunsany was a bit high brow for me when I was young. But now that I'm a little older, and VERY discerning, I might give it another try, Mrs Figg.

I take it you didn't like the flower then.... sigh... This is almost as difficult as having a wife.

Actually the rest of the book IS in color. Note the spelling and please check your settings. The book was written in Region 1. It may not work right if you're trying to read it in Region 2.

Gosh I hope you enjoy the book David, I feel kinda responsible if you dont LOL.
Talking of obscure fantasy books though has anyone read. The Well at the Worlds End by William Morris the PreRaphaelite, it was written in 1896 and by all accounts Tolkien and C S Lewis were both very influenced by the book, there is even a white horse called Silverfax in it.
Obviously being from the 1890s I remember it first being published, but seriously.
I was only saying To Orwellian the other day how I loved kids fantasy books, my favs being Alan Garner, The Weirdstone of Brisingamen and Elidor, they are such comforting yet exciting books to read.