View Full Version : Ugh....Twisted Land of Oz: The Movie

10-06-2003, 01:20 PM
Ugh. I can't believe that McFarlane is gonna mine the depths of depravity even more so, by making a movie out of his disgraceful toy line. Another example of Toddy flipping the finger to the Classic version of Wizard of Oz. Frank L. Baum is probably spinning in his grave now. It's a real shame that Oz is in the public domain, so it can be mined by idiots like McFarlane. This is from a post over on the Spawn boards by the Dark Prince of Depravity himself. :rolleyes: :dead:

Todd McFarlane
McFarlane Staff
posted 10-03-2003 07:39 PM
I haven't posted here for awhile so I thought I would drop in and give a little info on some of the potential happenings as they pertain to our Land of Oz images.

As Jon as told you in broad strokes, I have taken a big sweeping idea of a retelling of the OZ legend into hollywood. Our first meeting involved one of the bigger directors in town. He had just released a new movie that made over a hundred million dollars and sat down with my agent and the head of the agency that represents me. I told everyone that although a pitch usually takes about twenty minutes, I was going to need thier attention for a lot more than that.I then set up all of the toys as well as some other figures that would be prominent, a map, a miniture model of Emerald City, photos and sketches.
An hour and fifteen minutes later the pitch was over and I was left to wait for their reaction. Fortunately, all of those in the room were very enthused about the project. After talking about how we would try to sell the pitch to a studio, it became very clear that the big scope of the idea would easily require us having to ask for a budget of over 110 million dollars. This, we were now convinced, could be a huge summer launch film.

A week or so later the director officially signed on to the project. Next he needed to return from travelling abroad promoting his new movie before he would be able to personally walk into the office of the head of one of the studios and make the pitch himself. That happened last week and we now have a follow-up meeting next week to condense the story into a twenty minute presentation that will then give them enough information to either say "yes" or "no" to this project right there on the spot.

If the particular studio decides that it is too big an idea, we will then go to some of the other studios around town that have been calling and wanting to work with this particular director and his production company. We all feel confident that someone will snap up the story within two weeks.

The story that was pitched isn't the same as the one on the toy package. That one was a terrific idea in and of itself, but we didn't want the big sweeping story we took to hollywood to be out there until we had given the studios a chance to respond to my new "epic".

Now given that we are dealing with Hollywood, all of this could just mean that we sell another idea and then spin our wheels in developement. On the other hand, the cost to acquire this idea along with tying up an A-list director will be a nice incentive for them to keep moving it forward. And if they attach an expensive writer on the project we will be in as strong of a position as we ever have been with a project in that town.

And the nice thing would be that if some momentun were to come from this film idea, then it would also help along our other ideas such as SPAWN, Tortured Souls (with Clive Barker) and Torso (the Elliot Ness sequel). As well as the new Spawn animation talks. I will pass on the update as to how next weeks meeting goes or at the very least will get Jon to give you the scoop.

Thanks for listening and thanks for supporting our efforts.

Todd McFarlane

Jar Jar Binks

10-06-2003, 01:25 PM

10-06-2003, 01:30 PM
Bwah? How does it take creative genius to take an already written classic story, beloved by millions, and turn it into an abomination of sex and depravity? :eek: ;)


Jar Jar Binks

El Chuxter
10-06-2003, 01:35 PM
Yeah, and Tim Burton ain't even got nuthin' to do with it! You can't turn a classic tale into a twisted, disturbing film without ol' Tim.

Boo! Boo! :mad::crazed:

10-06-2003, 01:56 PM
Bwah? How does it take creative genius to take an already written classic story, beloved by millions, and turn it into an abomination of sex and depravity? :eek: ;)


Jar Jar Binks
I for one never liked WoOz....TOO lame for me....TWISTED VERSION SOUNDS REALLY COOL THO!! :D Who Doesnt Like "Sex & Depravity"?!? :confused:

10-06-2003, 01:59 PM

And if you think about it, weren't the original novels really very political and whatnot. if i remember, doesn't scarecrow become a bastardly dictator or something? So, actually, the original movie still isn't based on the book. Bring this movie on, baby!!! :D

James Boba Fettfield
10-06-2003, 02:40 PM
Well, it's got to better than the original. Anything has to be better than that.

10-06-2003, 02:40 PM
Wizard of Oz is highly overrated, it could definitely use some sex and depravity. :)

10-06-2003, 03:09 PM
I weep for our future...

10-06-2003, 03:55 PM
This could either suck horribly or be incredibly awesome. It all depends on the way it's done, but I'll probably see it either way.

10-06-2003, 04:57 PM
I see no reason for a movie of this. I didn't and don't like the Wizard of Oz that we have now - to me it was nothing special - but that doesn't really call for a Twisted version.
I bought the figures (and that was mostly a big mistake) and I interpreted them in my own way, staying away from sexual tones, even though it's kind of hard to avoid them - at least in the Dorothy figure.

I don't need to see any more movies with sex and depravity. There are enough of them. And if the movie will be anything like the story inserts (that came with the figures), it will be awful and nothing but a cheap and blatant attempt to put sex on the screen.

I do have to say that seeing a different interpretation might be interesting, especially something darker. But I don't think the "Twisted Land of Oz" is quite what I'd imagine. Maybe a few elements from it, but definitely not all.


10-06-2003, 05:04 PM
I'm all for a re-make of the classic movie, that more closely follows the original novel. Since it's much darker then the original movie. Hell, they could do like they did with Harry Potter and start a movie series, adapting the various novels. But a movie anything like what is featured in the story inserts is just ridiculous. :rolleyes:


Jar Jar Binks

10-06-2003, 05:10 PM
It just seems like you nay-sayers cant get past the "sex" part.....More to it than that, which is what i want to see, i want to see a DARK movie, not a "lived happily ever after" crap!!

10-06-2003, 05:42 PM
I say nay, and I have absolutely no problem with sex in general. I'm quite for it, actually, but this property is not the place for it.
There are plenty of "dark" movies around - plenty more coming up, but this one is just unnecessary and completely the wrong way to go, in my opinion.

10-06-2003, 07:35 PM
I personally like the idea. I think its cool and something new. But then again i am also the guy who wants a remake of will wonka and Marilyn Manson to play him, an all twisted version of that would rock too.

10-06-2003, 08:43 PM
You want something dark and closer to the originals? "Return to Oz" from '85, a vastly-overlooked but interesting amalgamation of the original stories (I think the 2nd and 3rd books) that throws away the MGM film in favor of an authentic tone. Don't let the fact that Disney released it fool you, this was during their dark period when they put out "Something Wicked This Way Comes" as well (both of which Disney all but disowned and let Anchor Bay release on DVD).

Here's what I don't get about all this - Dorothy is supposed to be about 10 years old, what kind of disgusting pedophiles want to sexualize that?

10-06-2003, 09:00 PM
Damn straight JT. 'Return to Oz' is a very very greatly overlooked film. It's also excellent, and didn't throw out all that much, IMHO. It did re-design the Oz characters a bit. But it can still be considered a sequel, in that it doesn't negate anything from the original film. Though I wish they would have re-made the first one, in the same way, following the original darker themed books. But it does basically pick up a while after the end of the original film. There's a new SE scheduled to be coming out on DVD in Febuary, and I can't wait for it. :)


Jar Jar Binks

10-06-2003, 09:45 PM
Yea Return to Oz is great, kinda got corny in some parts but nice and freaky. I liked the removeable head thing, that was suprising for a Disney movie.

If you want to see a "Twisted" version or whatever just go back to the porn sites, that's what they're there for. :p

10-06-2003, 11:00 PM
It's also excellent, and didn't throw out all that much, IMHO. It did re-design the Oz characters a bit. Although it didn't totally throw out the '39 MGM film, I think it's safe to say the elements it did salvage (except for the very beginning and end) were from the books.

As for re-design of Oz characters, I think that's not accurate, Return to Oz is faithful to the classic Oz drawings and it's the MGM film that re-designed the Oz characters.

BTW, Return to Oz was Executive Produced by ANH and ESB producer Gary Kurtz.

10-06-2003, 11:10 PM
Agreed. I know they look more like their classic book interpretations. After all, it was impossable in 1939 to have an actual Tin Man, without a guy in a suit. And the Lion is a lot better in Return to Oz also. I really would like to see a movie series, based on the books, be produced. Not something like Twisted Land. :p


Jar Jar Binks

10-08-2003, 01:23 AM
Maybe Todd will make another kiddified POS like the theatrical release of Spawn here thus destroying every link to both his toy line and the real Oz. ;)

10-08-2003, 11:26 AM
hey, everyone is forgetting that there already WAS a remake of WoOZ - THE WIZ!!! starring micheal jackson! if that's not darker and disturbing with sexual undertones (especially with little child-like munchkins running around jacko...) i don't know what is!!! :crazed: