This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oz the Great and Powerful article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Oz the Great and Powerful appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 July 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
For months the lede of the article has called the film a "prequel", without explaining what it is a prequel to. I might GUESS that it could be a prequel to "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", for example, but I haven't seen the film yet so I don't know. If anyone knows what it's intended to be a prequel to, please add that information. Infrogmation ( talk) 02:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Plot summary appears to be copied directly from the movie's website at http://disney.go.com/thewizard/#/story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.224.221 ( talk) 02:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Suggest a reference be made to "Epics" and the "epic genre," specifically to Joseph Campbell's summative description of the twelve conventions of epics. Suggest a link to the wikipedia article The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which describes the those conventions. The plot of Oz the Great and Powerful follows loyally the conventions. Gray-pine ( talk) 11:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that the info box does not credit Mitchell Kapner as the "screen story" writer. Disney is a client of my employer, so while I don't edit Disney-related Wikipedia articles, I would like to propose a change to list Mitchell Kapner as the screen story writer in the info box. Here are a couple of sources supporting this proposed addition: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100388085/HSN_And_Disney_Collaborate_To_Create_Unparalleled_Retail_And_Entertainment_Experience_For_Oz_The_Great_and_Powerful http://waltdisneystudios.com/corp/news/1259
I'd really appreciate it if you could help me out in making this change. Thanks very much, and please let me know if there is any other way I can help to facilitate this alteration.
Jbettigo ( talk) 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I hate and dread bringing this up, given the inane lengths of the debate at Star Trek Into Darkness over capitalizing or not capitalizing the "I" in "into, but we've the same situation here, where the studio and the filmmakers spell the title in a non-grammatical way. All the official Disney material titles the film “Oz The Great and Powerful" -- not "Oz the Great and Powerful" nor "Oz: The Great and Powerful." Why Disney does it that way is no clearer than why Paramount and J.J. Abrams et al. spell it Star Trek Into Darkness. But I think, following the example there, that as much as it pains me to go ungrammatical, we may need to do the same here.
The New York Times isn't any help: It spells it both of the other two ways. (See here.) However, the most Entertainment Weekly article spells it cap-T-no-colon at " Mariah Carey records song for 'Oz The Great and Powerful'."
Thoughts? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
this is missing a plot summary/synopsis, and it is missing anything about how this links to other Oz works and the rest of the fictional universe, and what changes were made that are incompatible with other works. Some of the film reviewers have point out some of these issues, so this should be added to the article. And any article on a fictional narrative should always have a summary. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 06:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have now seen the movie and was very appreciative of the old-fashioned look of the introduction, along with the b&w-color transition and the occurrence of a tornado, all reminding me of the 1939 film. In the black-and-white part of THIS film, we hear of Annie having been proposed to by JOHN Gale. The same person who plays Annie plays, as aleady noted here on Wikipedia, Glinda the Good Witch. However, in writeups related to the 1939 film and its predecessors, I recall some connection between Glinda and AUNTIE Em (in the 1939 film, we hear of Dorothy Gale living with Uncle Henry and Auntie Em); for the 1939 movie, it was decided that different actresses would play Glinda and Auntie Em.
In the 1939 film, we catch a glimpse of the shoes of the just-killed Wicked Witch of the East, which character is not played by anyone. Margaret Hamilton played Miss Gulch & Wicked Witch of the West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
the giant bubbles are said to be from the 1939 film but they are from the book road to oz — Preceding unsigned
the tinkers are not in any books that Baum wrote they are from a Oz book, authored by James Howe
Under "Continuity": The movie takes place in 1905, but this is not 20 years before the Wizard of Oz novel setting. The novel was published in 1900. It is unclear to me when the 1936 movie is set, but the clothing does not exclude the possibility it also takes place in 1900. At least "novel" should be removed from this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.5.2 ( talk) 14:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
No mention of James Franco's critical disappointment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.63.41 ( talk) 16:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Where's Franco's miscast allegations? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2.25.174.87 (
talk)
09:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The Actress Joey King has two credited roles in the movie.
China Doll and Wheel Chair Girl
(It might be nit picking, but in the closing credits, she is listed with two roles)
And in Australia, the movie was first screened to general audiences on Thursday March 7th
Regards, Timelord2067 ( talk) 12:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be voice-only for the China Doll, which is animated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Lines in article: "In January 2011, Raimi attempted to revive discussions with Downey, but became aware that the actor was uninterested after he discovered a dead plant Raimi had given to Downey as a goodwill gesture in his home. With Downey's disinterest acknowledged..."
Corresponding lines in source material: "Raimi visited Downey at his Los Angeles home, still attempting to land him, but upon entering the house, Raimi spotted a plant that he had given the actor as a goodwill gesture wilting in a corner. (The filmmaker declines to elaborate.)"
The lines in the Wikipedia article feel like a retelling with artistic license. Raimi did revive talks and even made it into his home, but they didn't pan out. The plant was not dead but wilting. And, probably most importantly, the source never clearly states that Downey was "uninterested." Now, perhaps I am picking at nits here, but reporting the plant as dead paints a bit darker picture than the cited reference and there just seems to be a little too much information that feels embellished. It's a simple fix and if there are no objections, I will change it. But if someone else changed it, I'd prefer that.
I think something like this is a bit more accurate.
"In January 2011, Raimi did meet with Downey but did not land him. While no specific reasons were given, the director mentioned seeing a neglected plant in the actors home that had been a gift from Raimi, but declined to explain further." 184.156.23.123 ( talk) 07:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
At this writing, I see in this article that Annie, in the opening scenes in Kansas, "has been proposed to by a Johnathan Gale". I have seen the movie twice and recall hearing "John Gale" (which could have instead been "Jon Gale"), but certainly not "Jonathan" (which is misspelled in this article). Unless I hear from others regarding this, I am hesitant to change this in the article.
Done Rewritten as John. Also, please make sure you sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, like this: (~~~~) ~ Jedi94 ( talk) 02:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
After reading through the "Continuity" section of the article, I feel it should be split into two sections:
"Continuity from the Baum novels"
"Continuity from the 1939 M-G-M release"
MJEH ( talk) 03:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned above, the statement that the movie is set 20 years before the events of the original novel is confusing and potentially misleading, as The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was published, and presumably set, in 1900. I added a clarifying parenthetical, but it was subsequently removed. What is the source for the "20 years" figure anyway? Does it feature in publicity materials for the film? It should be cited, and the sentence should be reworked to avoid the implication that the original novel is set in 1925. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a page on a movie not on the book if you want this said so bad then go to the page for the book and add it there 67.170.169.30 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This has been a long-term problem, right? Just take a look at the article's revision history and you may see it seems like an edit war is happening. Several combative IP addresses insist that the "stereo" be removed, but the inline citation proves the opposite. And they repeatedly undid many editors' revisions because of this. Please have a quick talk and reach consensus right here, or I'll bring it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Quenhitran ( talk) 09:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
(Moved this conversation from my talk page to article talk page so others can chip in) -- Imagine Wizard ( talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 21:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I just reverted your edits to Oz the Great and Powerful because there was no explanation as to why you made the edit. I read what you wrote to the IP editors talk page and I'm sorry but just because another page erroneously claims that it is the same lion does not make it true. I had a look at the Cowardly lion page and deleted the section on "Oz The Great and Powerful because the reference used was a blogger and not considered WP:RS. Your argument about it being a reference to the cowardly lion is nothing more than WP:OR. If you can find a reliable source that gives the same information, I invite you to re-add the information with new Reliable references. Thank you Gfyd ( talk) 07:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Abbythecat ( talk) 00:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC) This is NOT a prequel to the 1939 MGM movie. MGM has stated this. Legally, it CANNOT be related to the MGM film. Certain things in this movie couldn't be done because MGM legally wouldn't let them, as this is NOT a MGM film. Saying this relates to the 1939 movie would be like saying RETURN TO OZ and TIN MAN do. They don't. MGM has NEVER done a sequel/prequel to the 1939 movie. They have never been involved in one in any way. Before this lie is put back, please first provide LEGAL PROOF that MGM approved of this film. THEY DON'T. I should know. Thank you. Abbythecat ( talk) 00:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Abbythecat. PS - Before I could even finish this, the edit was undone, so the lie is back. No point in me doing this again, but I'd love to know HOW anyone could say this relates to the 1939 movie. PROOF IS NEEDED. DO NOT PRINT LIES ON WIKI. Abbythecat ( talk) 00:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the source and it is fairly obvious that the net that was given in the article was the estimated film budget with estimated incentive amount deducted. Given that that was not explicitly stated in the source as net and the fact it was calculated by a wikipedia editor, that is fairly obvious WP:SYNTHESIS. In addition, why would we care about something called net. The amount spent in making the film is still the same which is what we care about. The fact that some of the funding comes from government sources shouldn't really matter. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 19:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oz the Great and Powerful article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Oz the Great and Powerful appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 July 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
For months the lede of the article has called the film a "prequel", without explaining what it is a prequel to. I might GUESS that it could be a prequel to "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", for example, but I haven't seen the film yet so I don't know. If anyone knows what it's intended to be a prequel to, please add that information. Infrogmation ( talk) 02:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Plot summary appears to be copied directly from the movie's website at http://disney.go.com/thewizard/#/story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.224.221 ( talk) 02:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Suggest a reference be made to "Epics" and the "epic genre," specifically to Joseph Campbell's summative description of the twelve conventions of epics. Suggest a link to the wikipedia article The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which describes the those conventions. The plot of Oz the Great and Powerful follows loyally the conventions. Gray-pine ( talk) 11:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that the info box does not credit Mitchell Kapner as the "screen story" writer. Disney is a client of my employer, so while I don't edit Disney-related Wikipedia articles, I would like to propose a change to list Mitchell Kapner as the screen story writer in the info box. Here are a couple of sources supporting this proposed addition: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100388085/HSN_And_Disney_Collaborate_To_Create_Unparalleled_Retail_And_Entertainment_Experience_For_Oz_The_Great_and_Powerful http://waltdisneystudios.com/corp/news/1259
I'd really appreciate it if you could help me out in making this change. Thanks very much, and please let me know if there is any other way I can help to facilitate this alteration.
Jbettigo ( talk) 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I hate and dread bringing this up, given the inane lengths of the debate at Star Trek Into Darkness over capitalizing or not capitalizing the "I" in "into, but we've the same situation here, where the studio and the filmmakers spell the title in a non-grammatical way. All the official Disney material titles the film “Oz The Great and Powerful" -- not "Oz the Great and Powerful" nor "Oz: The Great and Powerful." Why Disney does it that way is no clearer than why Paramount and J.J. Abrams et al. spell it Star Trek Into Darkness. But I think, following the example there, that as much as it pains me to go ungrammatical, we may need to do the same here.
The New York Times isn't any help: It spells it both of the other two ways. (See here.) However, the most Entertainment Weekly article spells it cap-T-no-colon at " Mariah Carey records song for 'Oz The Great and Powerful'."
Thoughts? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
this is missing a plot summary/synopsis, and it is missing anything about how this links to other Oz works and the rest of the fictional universe, and what changes were made that are incompatible with other works. Some of the film reviewers have point out some of these issues, so this should be added to the article. And any article on a fictional narrative should always have a summary. -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 06:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have now seen the movie and was very appreciative of the old-fashioned look of the introduction, along with the b&w-color transition and the occurrence of a tornado, all reminding me of the 1939 film. In the black-and-white part of THIS film, we hear of Annie having been proposed to by JOHN Gale. The same person who plays Annie plays, as aleady noted here on Wikipedia, Glinda the Good Witch. However, in writeups related to the 1939 film and its predecessors, I recall some connection between Glinda and AUNTIE Em (in the 1939 film, we hear of Dorothy Gale living with Uncle Henry and Auntie Em); for the 1939 movie, it was decided that different actresses would play Glinda and Auntie Em.
In the 1939 film, we catch a glimpse of the shoes of the just-killed Wicked Witch of the East, which character is not played by anyone. Margaret Hamilton played Miss Gulch & Wicked Witch of the West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
the giant bubbles are said to be from the 1939 film but they are from the book road to oz — Preceding unsigned
the tinkers are not in any books that Baum wrote they are from a Oz book, authored by James Howe
Under "Continuity": The movie takes place in 1905, but this is not 20 years before the Wizard of Oz novel setting. The novel was published in 1900. It is unclear to me when the 1936 movie is set, but the clothing does not exclude the possibility it also takes place in 1900. At least "novel" should be removed from this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.5.2 ( talk) 14:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
No mention of James Franco's critical disappointment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.63.41 ( talk) 16:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Where's Franco's miscast allegations? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2.25.174.87 (
talk)
09:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The Actress Joey King has two credited roles in the movie.
China Doll and Wheel Chair Girl
(It might be nit picking, but in the closing credits, she is listed with two roles)
And in Australia, the movie was first screened to general audiences on Thursday March 7th
Regards, Timelord2067 ( talk) 12:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be voice-only for the China Doll, which is animated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 ( talk) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Lines in article: "In January 2011, Raimi attempted to revive discussions with Downey, but became aware that the actor was uninterested after he discovered a dead plant Raimi had given to Downey as a goodwill gesture in his home. With Downey's disinterest acknowledged..."
Corresponding lines in source material: "Raimi visited Downey at his Los Angeles home, still attempting to land him, but upon entering the house, Raimi spotted a plant that he had given the actor as a goodwill gesture wilting in a corner. (The filmmaker declines to elaborate.)"
The lines in the Wikipedia article feel like a retelling with artistic license. Raimi did revive talks and even made it into his home, but they didn't pan out. The plant was not dead but wilting. And, probably most importantly, the source never clearly states that Downey was "uninterested." Now, perhaps I am picking at nits here, but reporting the plant as dead paints a bit darker picture than the cited reference and there just seems to be a little too much information that feels embellished. It's a simple fix and if there are no objections, I will change it. But if someone else changed it, I'd prefer that.
I think something like this is a bit more accurate.
"In January 2011, Raimi did meet with Downey but did not land him. While no specific reasons were given, the director mentioned seeing a neglected plant in the actors home that had been a gift from Raimi, but declined to explain further." 184.156.23.123 ( talk) 07:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
At this writing, I see in this article that Annie, in the opening scenes in Kansas, "has been proposed to by a Johnathan Gale". I have seen the movie twice and recall hearing "John Gale" (which could have instead been "Jon Gale"), but certainly not "Jonathan" (which is misspelled in this article). Unless I hear from others regarding this, I am hesitant to change this in the article.
Done Rewritten as John. Also, please make sure you sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, like this: (~~~~) ~ Jedi94 ( talk) 02:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
After reading through the "Continuity" section of the article, I feel it should be split into two sections:
"Continuity from the Baum novels"
"Continuity from the 1939 M-G-M release"
MJEH ( talk) 03:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned above, the statement that the movie is set 20 years before the events of the original novel is confusing and potentially misleading, as The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was published, and presumably set, in 1900. I added a clarifying parenthetical, but it was subsequently removed. What is the source for the "20 years" figure anyway? Does it feature in publicity materials for the film? It should be cited, and the sentence should be reworked to avoid the implication that the original novel is set in 1925. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a page on a movie not on the book if you want this said so bad then go to the page for the book and add it there 67.170.169.30 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This has been a long-term problem, right? Just take a look at the article's revision history and you may see it seems like an edit war is happening. Several combative IP addresses insist that the "stereo" be removed, but the inline citation proves the opposite. And they repeatedly undid many editors' revisions because of this. Please have a quick talk and reach consensus right here, or I'll bring it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Quenhitran ( talk) 09:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
(Moved this conversation from my talk page to article talk page so others can chip in) -- Imagine Wizard ( talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 21:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I just reverted your edits to Oz the Great and Powerful because there was no explanation as to why you made the edit. I read what you wrote to the IP editors talk page and I'm sorry but just because another page erroneously claims that it is the same lion does not make it true. I had a look at the Cowardly lion page and deleted the section on "Oz The Great and Powerful because the reference used was a blogger and not considered WP:RS. Your argument about it being a reference to the cowardly lion is nothing more than WP:OR. If you can find a reliable source that gives the same information, I invite you to re-add the information with new Reliable references. Thank you Gfyd ( talk) 07:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Abbythecat ( talk) 00:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC) This is NOT a prequel to the 1939 MGM movie. MGM has stated this. Legally, it CANNOT be related to the MGM film. Certain things in this movie couldn't be done because MGM legally wouldn't let them, as this is NOT a MGM film. Saying this relates to the 1939 movie would be like saying RETURN TO OZ and TIN MAN do. They don't. MGM has NEVER done a sequel/prequel to the 1939 movie. They have never been involved in one in any way. Before this lie is put back, please first provide LEGAL PROOF that MGM approved of this film. THEY DON'T. I should know. Thank you. Abbythecat ( talk) 00:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Abbythecat. PS - Before I could even finish this, the edit was undone, so the lie is back. No point in me doing this again, but I'd love to know HOW anyone could say this relates to the 1939 movie. PROOF IS NEEDED. DO NOT PRINT LIES ON WIKI. Abbythecat ( talk) 00:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the source and it is fairly obvious that the net that was given in the article was the estimated film budget with estimated incentive amount deducted. Given that that was not explicitly stated in the source as net and the fact it was calculated by a wikipedia editor, that is fairly obvious WP:SYNTHESIS. In addition, why would we care about something called net. The amount spent in making the film is still the same which is what we care about. The fact that some of the funding comes from government sources shouldn't really matter. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 19:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)