The Battle for Oz – Olson vs McFarlane: Family Friendly or Twisted?
Posted by Rodneyon 05. 01. 2010in News Chat
There is a storm brewing that Todd McFarlane just doesn’t look like he is going to win. Seems his Twisted World of Oz treatment that has been rumoured to be made into a feature film is contending against another treatment written by Oscar nominated Josh Olson.
RamaScreen has Olson’s take:
It’s a modern-day sequel. The story centers on Dorothy Neil, a bright and ambitious young lawyer for a prestigious law firm in Chicago. Neil is the grand-daughter of Dorothy Gale, who is now an old woman living in Kansas and telling her tales about her time in the land of Oz to a new generation of kids. However, trouble is afoot in Oz, as a new witch is destroying the magic that keeps the entire place running. While babysitting her boss’ kid, the kid and Dorothy Neil are brought back to Oz and united with the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow and tasked with killing an evil witch and restoring order in Oz.
Josh Olson wrote this pitch that would be his own works and that is contending for the job. If the WB goes family friendly (like Olson’s treatment) then they will not be working with Todd McFarlane at all.
So clearly McFarlane doesn’t want that to happen!
Personally I would like to see both, but maybe not back to back. Let Olson get it on with the WB and put out a family friendly version so they can rake in the duckets. But I would really like to see McFarlane’s version too.
Unfortunately thats now how its going to work and we know it. WB won’t make two Oz films, and money will always win the day. Family Friendly will get the job.
Remember the squash
This post was written by :
Rodney who has written 8899 posts on The Movie Blog
visit author's website | Contact the Author
That just sucks, I want to see both too. McFarlane’s version most of all though, but that’s because I love his take on things and the twisted Oz figures her did a few years ago were just awesome.
I think your probably right though, the family friendly version will win out. But McFarlane can always just for to another company. I’m sure Fox would like to do it.
Just gotta hope for the best I suppose. I wish someone would start picking up McFarlane’s ideas and making them into films. He’s got so many great ones, but they hardly ever go anywhere these days.
I would assume that WB probably has the rights to Oz movies, so McFarlane wouldn’t be legally able to just up and find a different studio.
Could be wrong here Jeremy K, but I think Oz is now in the public domain ie: anyone can use it. Proof of this is the fact that Alan Moore was able to use Dorothy Gale for his explicit (and quite brilliant) graphic novel “Lost Girls”. Hence, McFarlane would have the option of going to another studio, unless he already has contractual obligations to WB.
Hmm.. good point! Somebody, not me because I’m lazy, should do some research into that! Be brilliant if he can!
OK, guess I wasn’t to lazy. Then I would have to to agree, if WB won’t do McFarlane’s Oz he should shop it out to somebody that will.
Sounds a lot like HOOK!
Which is AWESOME, because HOOK is my favorite movie of ALL TIIIIIME!!!!
If i’m not mistaken, I think Tim Burton is going a similar route with Alice in Wonderland.
Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland are both in Public Domain also (again, Alan Moore used the characters in “Lost Girls”)
Peter Pan’s rights did expire in the United Kingdom, and it was granted a special exception under the Copyright Act that requires royalties to be paid for performances within the UK, so long as Great Ormond Street Hospital (to whom Barrie gave the rights) continues to exist.
Though in most of the rest of the world Pan is public domain as is Oz.
Interesting. Thanks, Rodney.
where can I read McFarlanes take?
and the family friendly description above sounds spot on.
Anyone remember the Wiz? w/ micheal Jackson
I’ve been doing my best to forget it!
I want to see the dark McFarlane film and I want Dakota Fanning to play Dorothy.
why are they remaking this?