PDA

View Full Version : Anyone pick up any of the Twisted Land of OZ figures?



Turbowars
09-22-2003, 07:33 PM
I have seen these is 2 places and Dorothy is the hot pick of the bunch. I grabbed her with the idea that the rest will go on clearance like the TS figures and I really didn't have the cash for the others I liked anyways. The Wizard and Lion are the the nexted on my list. The other do nothing for me. The Fan club has a set with the flying monkeys, I guess thats cool. I opened Dorothy up and took that stupid black thing she had going on( I guess it's for retail purposes) and she's sexy in a Twisted sort of way.:Pirate: I have become a buy what I like from McFarlane. I used to buy the set. Not anymore, times a changing and there's no room anymore. For those who like the Oz line, what do you think of it?

Jedi_Master_Guyute
09-22-2003, 07:36 PM
I'm so tempted to get these. Low on the cash flow now though. We'll see, prolly when they go on clearance. :D

Turbowars
09-22-2003, 07:43 PM
I'm so tempted to get these. Low on the cash flow now though. We'll see, prolly when they go on clearance. :DYeah, but I don't think Dorothy will be sitting around. There's too many Twisted fools like me that love teddies and Clear Platform army boots on ladies.:crazed:

Beast
09-22-2003, 08:16 PM
The line is complete and utter crap in my opinion, but no suprise coming from the sick screwed up likes of McFarlane Toys. The Dorthy figure especially is some sick pornographic fantasy, and I can't believe they thought this crap would fly. And I hear that TRU accepted to carry them. :stupid: The line is disgusting filth. And I'd like to know why they turned Toto into a giant lump of dung. On second though, no I'd rather not. This garbage shouldn't even carry the name 'Oz' on it. It's disrespectful to the marvelous books that L. Frank Baum wrote. :dead: :p

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Jedi_Master_Guyute
09-22-2003, 09:10 PM
Uh, that's why it's called the "TWISTED" Land of Oz, JJB! It adds a new perspective to the Oz world. Now, if the line was called, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz!" and looked like this, yeah, it'd be wacky, but its' called "Twisted" for a reason. :D

Turbowars
09-22-2003, 09:34 PM
The line is complete and utter crap in my opinion, but no suprise coming from the sick screwed up likes of McFarlane Toys. The Dorthy figure especially is some sick pornographic fantasy, and I can't believe they thought this crap would fly. And I hear that TRU accepted to carry them. :stupid: The line is disgusting filth. And I'd like to know why they turned Toto into a giant lump of dung. On second though, no I'd rather not. This garbage shouldn't even carry the name 'Oz' on it. It's disrespectful to the marvelous books that L. Frank Baum wrote. :dead: :p

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks LOL JJB, I guess I know how you feel about it. Bring it on McFarlane!!

Beast
09-22-2003, 10:08 PM
I know, and I can understand the fact that it's twisted. But hell, the original book/books were pretty twisted. I just think it's an unnecissary toy line. But as they say, 'Different Strokes for Different Folks'. :D

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

JediTricks
09-22-2003, 11:35 PM
Like I've said before about these things, how are these "twisted" versions of the Oz stories? How do these really have anything to do with the Oz characters they claim to be portraying? Here's what I had to say (http://www.figures.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=20532#post20532) about them (specifically Dorothy, but it applies to the whole line in one way or another) when McF did his toy fair:

McFarlane's Dorothy has virtually nothing to do with Oz, it's just a smutty S&M statue-figure born from the proven-popular Tortured Souls concept using the Oz name.... The issue for me here isn't "Sex-themed Action Figures", it's the sleazy misuse of the Oz name and characters.

Jayspawn
09-22-2003, 11:50 PM
I would have been impressed if this line had been from the movie "The Wizard of Oz." Realistic movie figures would have been tops. I actually agree with JJB though.

I might get the Lion just because he's the best sculpted, McF can make some cool beasties when they try.

Beast
09-23-2003, 12:08 AM
JT, from what I heard from the sections of the terrible story that sounds like fanfic porn included with the figures, they don't really. Other then the names and the general theme, they have no association at all with 'The Wizard of OZ'. Basically ole McFarlane saw an oppertunity to make some easy scratch on a property that now is now public domain and he didn't have to pay for. Note that that's why the boots the Dorthy figure is wearing arn't even ruby looking. Because that aspect of the story still falls under the copyright of the original movie. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

RooJay
09-23-2003, 02:07 AM
This garbage shouldn't even carry the name 'Oz' on it. It's disrespectful to the marvelous books that L. Frank Baum wrote.

I couldn't agree more. I do tend to feel that McFarlane generally makes some pretty cool product (though I have lost interest in pretty much all but their movie based lines), but I just find this line rather sickening. I'm not knocking the subject matter (different strokes is about right), but why defame Baum's wonderful world of Oz in this way? Why not come up with something new and original, and leave Oz alone?

Jayspawn
09-23-2003, 08:51 AM
McFarlane COULD HAVE made some great looking figures from the books or the movie and would have been better off.

[DSS]Pedr0
09-23-2003, 09:26 AM
McFarlane COULD HAVE made some great looking figures from the books or the movie and would have been better off.
I LIKE IT, IT'S SOMETHING NEW DONE TO AN old STORY/CHARACTERS.....PUMPS LIFE INTO A DEAD HORSE.....MY .02

Lman316
09-23-2003, 11:16 AM
I took an entirely different approach to looking at this line than some of you. I thought that they all looked pretty "cool" when I first saw them on Spawn.com, and I wanted to get them.
But what I don't really understand is why so many of you are upset about the Dorothy figure. I can understand about first-sight impressions - Oh, my God! Shocking! Filth! - yeah, okay. But didn't anyone try a more "artistic" view? What do I mean by that? She's in bondage garb, and to me, that makes perfect sense. She's trapped and she can't get free of Oz.
Believe me, I'm about the most conservative person when it comes to a subject like that. I do not appove of "smut" and other garbage in that respect. I don't think this figure is a "hot chick" (hell, I fefuse to refer to any woman by that phrase). I think this figure has some artistic value, even if some of you might think it's a stretch.

End...

DarthBrandon
09-23-2003, 11:49 AM
I don't have any interest in buying any of these figures, yes they are artistic, but they do not do any of the characters any justice at all IMO. It's what it is, a TWISTED version of the land of OZ, it's nothing like the movie or any of it's characters, it's more less a sick opposite version of them. I guess that's why they call it twisted, the lion is the best of the group IMO, but I'm sure Dorothy will be scooped up because she is scantily clad. I won't purchase any of these for obvious reasons: one they don't do anything for me, and two I have a five year old that doesn't need to be subjected to that kind of material. That being said, one can make a choice to buy them or not. I'm not buying.

Turbowars
09-23-2003, 07:06 PM
-Since so many of you are putting your 2 cents in, I'll put mine:). For one thing, I didn't ask for all that hated the line to bash it:cry:. I asked to all that like the line to tell me what you think. It's a adult toy line. It's not for little kids. It's OK to not like it, but thats not what this thread was for. Hey for the record JJB, Dorothy does have some clear glitter platforms on her boots:D LOL. It's just all in fun collecting some of these strange figures.

Beast
09-23-2003, 07:16 PM
-Since so many of you are putting your 2 cents in, I'll put mine:). For one thing, I didn't ask for all that hated the line to bash it:cry:. I asked to all that like the line to tell me what you think. It's a adult toy line. It's not for little kids. It's OK to not like it, but thats not what this thread was for. Hey for the record JJB, Dorothy does have some clear glitter platforms on her boots:D LOL. It's just all in fun collecting some of these strange figures.
Well, you asked if anyone picked them up. You got a nice loud no and the reasons why. Like we said, different strokes for different folks. And who said that 'Wizard of Oz' is for little kids. Have you read the actual book, it's fairly twisted and messed up. It's just like the old Grimm Fairy Tales, written more with an adult reader in mind. The movie down plays a lot of the darkness of the book. After all, the movie never touches on things like the fact that the Tin Woodsman was once a man named Nick Chopper, who's axe the Wicked Witch enchanted to remove a piece of him with every swing. Luckily he was friend with a kindly tinsmith, who gave him tin replacements. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

jpak001
09-23-2003, 09:09 PM
I bought a Dorothy & opened it up. Will probably get the rest when they go on clearance too. Like Turbo, I dig the Lion, Wizard & Dorothy the best.

This line was destined to be a controversial one with that Dorothy in bondage getup, but like L-man said, the bondage does reflect on the situation at least. Pretty much all the current McF female figures are barely dressed and there are much more racy figures out there besides these. Look at those porn actress figures & Playboy dolls (you can take thier clothes off the reveal "correct anatomy" LOL!).... then again you can't get those at TRU, I really would be surprised to see one of these Dorothy's on the shelf there.

I guess I just like the way they look, the little munchkins that came with Dorothy are awesome! I'm kicking myself for not ordering the monkey set from McF (it's already sold out).

Just my opinion :) I dig these figures, but then again I like smut too ;)

Beast
09-23-2003, 09:21 PM
Yes, but the porn actress and playboy dolls arn't exactly using a classic story tale to sell filth either. That's the difference. McFarlane saw an opening due to the public domain nature of 'The Wizard of Oz' and the treasured memories of millions of fans, and pounced his goons on it merely to make a buck. It's shameful.

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

[DSS]Pedr0
09-23-2003, 10:22 PM
Yes, but the porn actress and playboy dolls arn't exactly using a classic story tale to sell filth either. That's the difference. McFarlane saw an opening due to the public domain nature of 'The Wizard of Oz' and the treasured memories of millions of fans, and pounced his goons on it merely to make a buck. It's shameful.

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks
Well, those "goons" have GREAT skill and taste in how they created and then sculpted these great figs....Do you same naysayers complain about American McGee's Alice?? those are great figs too....

Turbowars
09-23-2003, 10:44 PM
Well, you asked if anyone picked them up. You got a nice loud no and the reasons why. Like we said, different strokes for different folks. And who said that 'Wizard of Oz' is for little kids. Have you read the actual book, it's fairly twisted and messed up. It's just like the old Grimm Fairy Tales, written more with an adult reader in mind. The movie down plays a lot of the darkness of the book. After all, the movie never touches on things like the fact that the Tin Woodsman was once a man named Nick Chopper, who's axe the Wicked Witch enchanted to remove a piece of him with every swing. Luckily he was friend with a kindly tinsmith, who gave him tin replacements. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks I didn't say it was for kids, I said the Line is not for kids.

Dr Zoltar
09-24-2003, 12:22 AM
So from the description I read on McFarlane's website, it sounds like stories or comic books come with the figures as well. Is this true? How does this alternate story play out? And why does the Wizard have a gas mask?

JediTricks
09-24-2003, 12:45 AM
Dorothy is not trapped in Oz, she just thinks she is, and by the end of the story she loves Oz and even lives in Oz for several more books. Nowhere that I know of is 10-year-old Dorothy bound and tortured by Munchkins.


Aren't the McGee's Alice figures based on the game? And they're not using gratuitous sex to sell these, just good ol' disturbing violence.

Beast
09-24-2003, 12:56 AM
Someone posted the first section of the Story that comes with the Dorothy figure over on the Asylum board. I'm posting it against my better judgement just to show you what sort of fanfic porn crap comes with the figures. It's terrible writing and again, a disgrace to the Oz name. JT if it's too much, feel free to delete. :)


(deleted - JT)


MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

jpak001
09-24-2003, 02:25 AM
I hear you on the the Oz name thing JJB. I guess I could see how they could offend some heavy Wizard of Oz fans, just like McGee's video games & toys (they did an OZ based toy line too, though not as extreme as McF's). Especially parents that might have introduced OZ to their children. I was actually pretty surprised to find Dorothy at KB toys too, she is definitely not for kids.

I guess the lame literature just doesn't really bother me. I wasn't even planning on reading it, got too many good books that still need to be read :)

But now that you posted it, I read it. Kinda funny in a very juvenile way, almost like one of those trashy romance novels. Now I know not to waste my time reading the rest of them :D

Lman316
09-24-2003, 03:18 PM
I just got my figures in the mail today (ordered them online from EBGames.com). Now, while I defend the line (and I do agree with others here that they are NOT intended for kids), I have to say that I'm quite disappointed in the quality of the figures.
The first two that I opened - the Lion and Dorothy - were okay. The Lion is the better of the two (best of them all, so far), with decent paint application and just a better look overall. Dorothy has some problems. There is practially no articulation for her (her neck, one leg and I think the waist) and there were a lot of paint specks and splatters in places there shouldn't have. I also didn't like the fact that the two munchkins that come with her are just one piece. I think they should have been seperated, giving two complete figures there - but I guess that's a bit much to ask for.
Next, I opened the Wizard, and everything seemed fine until I actually popped him out of the insert. That mask of his just will not stay on his face. If you move his neck, it falls off. It just kinda sits on his head and any movement will make it fall. That seems rather weak considering that the Movie Maniacs Predator mask fits so well. The paint application on him seems okay, but I did notice a few splatters of green paint on his beige-ish socks.
After him, I opened the Scarecrow. I would highly, highly recommend that no one buy this figure. It will be a complete waste of your money (although many of you think that any one is a waste :D). First, you have to assemble this figure on your own. The right leg has to be popped into place and I almost cut my hand trying to do it - not to mention the fact that the peg is almost broken now from trying to fit it in correctly. Also, I can't find half the places were the crows are supposed to attach. It's really frustrating and it makes me angry that the quality of this figure is so bad. I normally don't have any problems with McFarlane figures, except for little articulation. And believe me, the Scarecrow has very little.
I haven't opened the Tin Woodman or Toto yet (but already I have problem with Toto because I just noticed that the rider isn't a seperate peice. It's like the rider for the Gungan Falumpaset, just from the waste up :mad: ) but once I get a chance, I'll comment on those.

End...

Beast
09-24-2003, 03:42 PM
After him, I opened the Scarecrow. I would highly, highly recommend that no one buy this figure. It will be a complete waste of your money (although many of you think that any one is a waste :D). Also, I can't find half the places were the crows are supposed to attach.
Here's where they need to go. I don't own them, just saw the instructions elsewhere. Don't say I never do anything nice. J/K. ;) :D

1 on his right leg almost on the hip.
2 on his face/head, they should look like they're pecking at his face. You just need to search his face to figure out where these two go.
1 on his left arm, underside, near the elbow.

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

187-Maul
09-24-2003, 03:58 PM
I haven't seen the figures in person yet, but I'll probably pick up Dorothy and maybe the Lion, but I'm not so sure on him yet, I really have to see him in person before I buy him
as for the others, the Wizard is nice too, and Tinman is ok, but the others suck IMO (the scarecrow could've been so cool, if they had made him scary and not tortured)
I would've gotten the monkeys though since they are very cool but with a shipping rate of 25 bucks for them (and 10 bucks each additional item) I just can't afford that :(

Dr Zoltar
09-24-2003, 09:35 PM
I saw these figures in person today and I agree, they are just OK. I like the colours and outfit on the wizard, but that's about it. I'm more interested in reading the story inserts that come with them to see how the story was "re-invisioned". And the flying monkeys are supposed to come with an alternate ending. McFarlane's website lists them as sold out already.

JediTricks
09-24-2003, 09:48 PM
That mess of a story that JJB reposted from McF was too suggestive for the forums so it had to go.

Beast
09-24-2003, 09:51 PM
That mess of a story that JJB reposted from McF was too suggestive for the forums so it had to go.
Understood JT. I figured it would be, and I was torn about posting it. But it was a perfect example of why the line is garbage. It takes a wonderful story like 'The Wizard of Oz' and turns it into fanfiction porn. :p

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Turbowars
09-24-2003, 10:38 PM
LOL, some of you guys like to make a big deal out of nothing. BTW the stories are not in some cool little book, but on the insert. Pretty cheap. I think I'll pass on the rest but the Wizard. They will go good with the TS line. You know as a kid I loved the story/movie and I still do. This in no way takes that away from me. In away I wish they didn't use the OZ name, so this wouldn't be an issue. Is that what bothers you JJB? I'm not trying to be a smart @ss, but really is that it. The TS line and another line you love is way more twisted than this.:)

Beast
09-24-2003, 10:49 PM
I don't care for the Tortured Souls figures either. But atleast they are what they should be. They're based on the messed up mind of Clive Barker. And he gave his seal of approval on the stuff. It just wasn't my thing. I didn't want 'knock-off' Hellraiser figures. That's what they seemed to be for me. That's why I didn't get any of them.

And yes, the whole issue is the misuse of the Oz name. If this was some generic monster line, I'd look at them and shrug and think they were stupid for the most part. The Dorothy figure would probably get a raised brow, especially if I saw it at TRU. And I'd consider it a waste of plastic. But it wouldn't be morally offensive. :)

And no way in hell is the TS and Hellraiser line more twisted then Oz. Because they are representation of what they are supposed to be. The figure makers aren't misusing beloved characters to make some cash. If I saw a ballarina Pinhead or something that didn't fit with the mindset of the original story, then it would get equal hell. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Lman316
09-29-2003, 03:04 PM
I forgot to come back and talk about the Tin Woodman and Toto.
First, Toto. This one is okay, and just that: okay. The sculpting is nice, but you really can't do much with it. The body and limbs are one solid piece, with the only articulation being at the neck (and in the rider, of course). As I mentioned in my earlier posts, the rider is not a seperate piece. The rider can move in certain places (neck and waist), but I think that's it. It also looks a little strange the way he is because it looks like the lower half of his body would be inside Toto (think vintage Star Wars Tauntaun). There are apparently glow-in-the-dark ribs and you can see the guts if you turn Toto upside down. But this isn't really anything great. It's okay... like I said.

The Tin Woodman is a very, very big disappointment. This figure has the most articulation of all the Oz figures, but that's his biggest disadvantage. Meaning that he's got so many points of articulation that he gets "loose" and he cannot stand up... at all. No matter what way I position him, he always falls over. And far be it from McFarlane to include two foot pegs. If there was one on each foot, it might help to hold this figure up. But since it doesn't, this is just going to aggravate a lot of people. The sculpting is nice, paint is nice and most of the points of articulation are nice. But all of that is marred by its falling down. It makes the figure worthless, IMO.

So, if people want to buy a couple of these figures, I would only really recommend Dorothy and the Lion. The Lion is the best figure in this line and it could probably stand up in other displays of monster figures (especially with the swords and the spear sticking out of his back).

Oh, and a comment on the story inserts. Yes, the story is very bad - the writing is horrible. But it does explain why the character look like they do. In the last section (the chapter that comes with the Wizard), it explains that the Lion, the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman turn into what the figures look like. Apparently, they looked like the regular characters (from the movie) in the earlier chapters. Only at the end, when Dorothy unleashes the power of Oz (something to do with silver boots... it's odd), are those characters punished by becoming what they once were. The Lion looks like he does because he ran from battle, leaving his fellow warriors behind (namely, being a coward). And his enemies threw weapons at him, cutting him open. The Scarecrow was some type of torture artist and now he's being tortured. A device is in his head, letting his brains leak out. I can't really remember what the Tin Woodman was before, but it's pretty much the same scenario as the other two.

End...

stillakid
01-14-2004, 06:00 PM
Well, hey, this was an interesting thread to read. I found it particularly interesting that JJB fell into lockstep with the Religious Right and commented on the property before even reading the entire storyline. :rolleyes: Typical puritan ethic there.

In any case, I did buy all of these primarily because I liked the concept before reading anything at all. The website they put together helped sell me on the idea.

The figures themselves are pretty interesting. My favorite has to be the Tin Woodsman followed by Dorothy and then the Scarecrow. In terms of design, they are interesting and captivating interpretations of the original idea.

I think that maybe it takes setting aside the fruit-loop worship of everything that is Judy Garland to see this story concept from a fresh perspective. No doubt the Baum story is classic and timeless. But that doesn't negate the possibilities for other ways to tell the same basic story of a young girl growing out of her naivete into full womanhood. Yes, she takes the path of, what some might label as, moral abomination, but who besides the Religious Right ever said that the only suitable choice for a woman was to become a dowdy soccermom? In this particular tale, the young girl finds that she rather enjoys her sexual power and we are left with the impression that she intends to use it to her full advantage. This differs very little from the real world if you look at people like Cindy Crawford or Marilyn Monroe. They recognized, quite frankly, that the sexual power they could command over the marketplace was more powerful to them than any amount of traditional domestic living ever could.

In any case, there is room for different interpretations of the same basic story. Kurosawa gave us his version then Lucas gave us his. Baum told a wonderful story and McFarlane took a stab at something else. Whether it worked as "great" literature or not doesn't seem to be the question posed by many above. It's mere existence has been questioned by those who never bothered to read it simply because, in their minds, it threatened the pristine memory of the timeless classic. You'd have to agree on some level that there is something rather wrong about that kind of attitude. Don't buy it if you don't like the idea. Don't buy it if you're afraid of overt sexuality. But please don't question it's right to exist simply because of your own Puritanical or Literary prejudices.

Beast
01-14-2004, 06:12 PM
Ummm, Stillakid. I read the entire storyline. So please, don't comment on things you don't know. I didn't fall in step with the 'religious right' or show off 'puritan ethics'. I have no problem at all regarding those things. My problem is in the fact that he's exploiting a classic story, because the story is in the public domain. That's the issue here, not the lame crap that you're spewing. And I'm in no way worshiping Judy Garland, since the original MGM film changed elements of the story to not make it so dark. In this case, McFarlane's company just took the name, and befouled the entire spirit of Baum's Classic 'Oz' stories, with his S&M Gore Filled crap. Just to make a buck.

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

stillakid
01-14-2004, 06:39 PM
In this case, McFarlane's company just took the name, and befouled the entire spirit of Baum's Classic 'Oz' stories, with his S&M Gore Filled crap. Just to make a buck.

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

Well, that may be true or not, but from what I read above, you didn't read the story in full, you didn't buy the figures, and you commented initially based on your impression of what you thought the story did to the Baum version. That much is clear.

Now, in the interim, you may have soiled your hands with the filth of this "S&M Gore Filled crap" and confirmed your own pre-disposition to it, so whatever. But what remains is that you're basing your own opinion of it on your own preconception of what how it might reflect upon the Baum version. Maybe he did "take the name, and befouled the entire spirit of Baum's Classic 'Oz' stories, with his S&M Gore Filled crap. Just to make a buck." But maybe not. You don't know that and neither do I. So your evaluation of it is rather out of turn and is entirely presumptuous based on your own prejudice against "S&M Gore Filled crap."

Now I haven't every said that it was well written or anything. If anything, there is room for a polish or two, but on the whole, it's an interesting concept and would make for a pretty interesting feature. I just received the alternate ending of the story which comes packed in with flying monkeys so even they recognize the potential and aren't locked into one course of action or another. Of course they'd have to change the name to avoid purists like you who wouldn't bother to see it before passing judgment (kind of like the reaction against The Passion going on now), but I think its an idea worthy of expansion.

Beast
01-14-2004, 06:48 PM
No, I've read the full story. I just posted the first part up here at the time, because it was the only section I had that was in a pasteable format. The rest was sent to me another way. So I was unable to post it, but I have read the full story and the alternate ending from the monkies.

As for me not knowing McFarlane's motives. Enough people have left that company with enough bad stories about him that it's clear he cares for nothing but making a quick buck. His company has pulled some shady deals in the past, and had it bite them on the backside enough times. And no, I have no issues with this kind of story if it was made into a movie. Hello, I'm a fan of films like Hellraiser. The only issue I have, is the explotation of the Oz name by Todd McFarlane's company.

One final comment. I wasn't the only one making the exact same comment. If you're going to make an attack against what you believe is my 'Puritan Ethics' and my so-called 'Religious Rights' leanings, you should include the other people that agree with my position. Or you're just coming off as spiteful and vindictive, since you bumped up a nearly 4 month old thread to make comments that attacked me for my opinion. :)

MTFBWY and HH!!

Jar Jar Binks

James Boba Fettfield
01-14-2004, 07:22 PM
I got one question. Why are you pointing out just JJB and his stand on this issue, stillakid? I looked back over this and I see JediTricks making similar remarks like JJB. RooJay, as well.

I know you and Binks have a great past, and this seems to be a continuation of it. I've got nothing against the arguing here (JT might, I'll let him decide that), but picking out JJB and conveniently leaving out the others who agree with him, that is stopping here. I'll give JT a head's up about this thread and see what he thinks the best way to handle this is.

stillakid
01-14-2004, 09:06 PM
I got one question. Why are you pointing out just JJB and his stand on this issue, stillakid? I looked back over this and I see JediTricks making similar remarks like JJB. RooJay, as well.

I know you and Binks have a great past, and this seems to be a continuation of it. I've got nothing against the arguing here (JT might, I'll let him decide that), but picking out JJB and conveniently leaving out the others who agree with him, that is stopping here. I'll give JT a head's up about this thread and see what he thinks the best way to handle this is.


Actually I didn't intend to pick him out of the crowd in the way you imply. JJB simply chose to respond to one small thing I posted therefore it appears like that. But absolutely not. I was responding to the general attitude that was displayed throughout the entire thread. :)

stillakid
01-14-2004, 09:12 PM
JT, from what I heard from the sections of the terrible story that sounds like fanfic porn included with the figures, they don't really.


Okay, so back to you. I believe you wrote "from what I heard from the sections" etc. That sounds an awful lot like you hadn't actually read any of it to me. At that point in history anyway, you had formed an opinion based on hearsay.

But back to the point of why I posted in the first place, I in fact didn't expect to find a thread like this at all. I was ready to start a new one to discuss the story when I decided it might be prudent to do a search just in case. Lo and behold I find this thread wherein a whole lot of people were dumping on the concept, presumably without having either bought the toys or read each and every story insert. It's difficult to have a discussion about story when the only thing available is knee-jerk Puritan rhetoric. That's pretty much what I was commenting on. But I'd just as soon get back to discussing the story itself with people who have actually read it entirely without preconceived bias. Maybe they don't exist here.

James Boba Fettfield
01-14-2004, 09:32 PM
Ok, just covering the bases, making sure nothing gets out of hand. Sorry if I made it seem like I jumped too early on this, but I was afraid it might turn into something bigger, basing that on past experiences. We are all civil in here, though, so it is all good.

stillakid
01-14-2004, 09:52 PM
Ok, just covering the bases, making sure nothing gets out of hand. Sorry if I made it seem like I jumped too early on this, but I was afraid it might turn into something bigger, basing that on past experiences. We are all civil in here, though, so it is all good.


No problem. As much as some people would like to disagree, I rarely if ever zero in on a "person." I'd much rather talk about ideas and concepts no matter who says it. And actually, truth be told, I generally don't even look to see who posts until after I read it. I want to hear what people are saying without placing some kind of pre-judgment upon it because of who they might happen to be. It's only fair. :)

JediTricks
01-15-2004, 06:54 PM
Stilla, what is the stick up your *** here? You claim you didn't single out JJB yet in your first post yesterday, the very first thing you comment on is JJB and nearly everything after that has connotations of what you commented on about JJB (incorrectly, I might add). Then you go off on a tilt with comments that don't really pertain to what was being discussed here at all, read what was actually said instead of what the script in your head seems to be telling you what you're reading - Roojay, myself, JJB all make comment about how it's not trying to be faithful to the original stories. Here's my own post on the matter of Dorothy, I still think it speaks to the line as a whole though:
McFarlane's Dorothy has virtually nothing to do with Oz, it's just a smutty S&M statue-figure born from the proven-popular Tortured Souls concept using the Oz name.... The issue for me here isn't "Sex-themed Action Figures", it's the sleazy misuse of the Oz name and characters. Nothing there suggests any sort of "puritanical values", nor the '39 MGM film or Judy Garland, and that seems to be the same sort of statement made by most the detractors of this line here.

stillakid
01-15-2004, 09:51 PM
Stilla, what is the stick up your *** here? You claim you didn't single out JJB yet in your first post yesterday, the very first thing you comment on is JJB and nearly everything after that has connotations of what you commented on about JJB (incorrectly, I might add). Then you go off on a tilt with comments that don't really pertain to what was being discussed here at all, read what was actually said instead of what the script in your head seems to be telling you what you're reading - Roojay, myself, JJB all make comment about how it's not trying to be faithful to the original stories. Here's my own post on the matter of Dorothy, I still think it speaks to the line as a whole though:Nothing there suggests any sort of "puritanical values", nor the '39 MGM film or Judy Garland, and that seems to be the same sort of statement made by most the detractors of this line here.


Um, hmm, interesting. Sorry to disappoint but there is nothing up my kiester. No, I still didn't single anyone out. I mentioned one of his comments in my post (correctly I might add) as it pertained to the general theme of what I continued about. It was he who not only chose to make my post a centerpiece of discussion, but as the thread stats show, he chose to make his own objections a centerpiece of the entire thread. If anyone singled JJB out in this instance, it was JJB himself. My own interpretation of his responses suggests that he not only wanted to broadcast his personal objection to the toy line, but he also had intent to convince others to avoid it as well. But that's my conjecture, so we'll have to await his denial of it which I'm sure will come fairly soon. ;)

But as I said earlier, I'd welcome an actual discussion of the story itself instead of having to fend off ridiculous notions of "singling out" or attacking someone. :) The comments pertaining to the way that Twisted wasn't trying to be faithful to the material itself of course are innocent, fair, and "discussable." But those statements extended themselves into judgments regarding the line's validity as an actual interpretation of The Wizard of Oz. For anyone who's read it, the story is clearly that and doesn't just use the names. Like any "interpretation," there will be some amount of derivation from the original storyline, but the basic gist of what the character arcs meant to the theme is still there. Having said that, I can see how easy it could be for someone to take a quick glance at the "smutty" nature of one of the toys and make a hasty judgment when compared to the saccharine innocence of the Baum story. I guess all I'm asking for is that everyone take a breath and try to take a look at this from a different point of view. That's what is asked of me continually with the Star Wars Prequels. There seems to be a double standard at work here.

This Twisted version unquestionably reinterprets Dorothy's final destination from her journey to womanhood and is "intended for mature audiences." (Violence is okay for kids though, but that's a different discussion). So whether this is for kids isn't really a question. So given that, I'm not exactly sure what the objection really amounts to if, in theory, the intended audience consists of legal aged adults. Theoretically, anyone who even takes a second glance at the title, "Twisted Land of Oz," will already be aware of the orginal "The Wizard of Oz" so it sounds like there is a fear floating around that somehow the audience will replace Wizard with Twisted. Can't two interpretations of the material exist? What would the reaction be to an interpretation dreamed up by James Galway? Or Tom Hanks? Is the objection purely because Twisted is of a sexual nature so any other "innocent" interpretation would be okay?

stillakid
01-15-2004, 10:48 PM
But on second thought, I want to be entirely fair here. Let's start over. First a show of hands. How many people here have read the entire story, cover to cover including the alternate ending? Once we establish that, then we can move on to a civilized discussion. :)