Talk:Return to Oz

Permissions

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Return to Oz given the go-ahead by the Oz Production Company? And weren't the aforesmentioned company the copyright holders for the Oz series at the time? --Jb-adder 04:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, while MGM held the movie rights to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Disney held movie rights to most of the later Oz books, so thus no approval by MGM or anyone was needed. --[[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Budget

Why are there two budgets mentioned for the film?, one mentions "$25,000,000" and the other "$35 Million" Does anyone know which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.100.179 (talk) 04:26, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Summary Corrections

Was the theatrical ending different than the one currently available on VHS/DVD? In the video version, there is nothing in the end about socks, and Dorothy's feet don't turn red. Were there two different endings, or is the wiki page incorrect?

It's incorrect. It's fixed now. --Bishop2 12:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Reception" section ends with a lot of opinion with nothing to back it up

Fair use rationale for Image:Returnoz.jpg

Image:Returnoz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

budget

The widget at the top of the page notes the budget as $25M, but the reception section refers to a $35M budget that was overdrawn. Did the film go $10M overbudget (from $25M to $35M) or is one of the listed budgets incorrect?

Fair use rationale for Image:DorothyFairuzaBalkFeetandShoes.JPG

Image:DorothyFairuzaBalkFeetandShoes.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Story

I'm wondering how much of the original story section is accurate. While it is true that "Return to Oz" went through several drafts in conceptualization, this sounds like nothing I've heard of. (A good bit of actual, proven information is online at http://www.waltdisneysreturntooz.com.) In addition, it references it's information from a Special Edition DVD, when the DVDs that have been released discuss no such thing, and, in fact, there has been no "Special Edition" release.

I'm wondering if this may be some irrelevant vandalism here.

EDIT - This has been changed to "Production," which is an inappropiate title. -Jared Davis

Since so many movie entries have comments about inconsistencies or inaccuracies, it would be interesting to see a section devoted to the issues with this movie as a "sequel" to the 1939 movie. I'm hardly an expert on either, but my impressions are that Dorothy seems several years YOUNGER in this movie (possibly more accurate to the books?) and there are time references in "Return" that put it in the late 1800s, but I think the 1939 movie was free of hard time references -- as if it were happening in 1939 -- right? (I could be wrong here, but the only place I can think of that there MIGHT be a hard time reference is when the Wizard is exposed as a fraud, and explains how he came to OZ; however in "Return" the doctor clearly states that the coming 20th century will be the century of electricity -- or something to that effect.) ... I'll leave this discussion to people much smarter than myself to finish ... thanks. - C. Parker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.54.171 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Loosely based on Baum?

The article states that Return to Oz "is loosely based on L. Frank Baum's Oz novels." In fact, this adaption is the closest attempt to capture the essence of the Oz books yet done in film. -- Many have pointed this out, for example, Harlan Ellison commenting in Harlan's Watching #2 ("Harlan, on the good stuff.") from the Sci Fi channel (currently known as SyFy.) Search "Harlan Ellison's Watching 2" on You Tube. (Wikipedia won't allow me to post the url.) Specific mention of Return to Oz occurs at the 2:55 mark. -- Can someone think of an alternative to that line? 71.35.103.206 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hogwash. This movie jumbles together the plots of books 3 and 4 throws in stuff from book 2 and adds original stuff. It is absolutely loosely adapted if anything ever was.Heathcliff (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm so glad this was discussed previously.

First, Heathcliff, please be respectful of your fellow Wikipedians and don't call their claims "hogwash" especially if they cite their sources and you don't. It's rude and ignorant.

Second, see the following for an explanation of a "loose" adaptation, which states--in part--that in loose adaptation keeps "only an idea, a character, or a situation...then develops [the new work] independently." According to this this definition, the film would actually be a "faithful" adaptation of the combined plots of both books. https://litreactor.com/columns/10-great-loose-film-adaptations. True examples of loose adaptations include "Frozen" (from the fairy tale "The Snow Queen," which borrows only the Snow Queen character) and "West Side Story" (loosely adapted from "Romeo and Juliet," which borrows the concept of star-crossed lovers from dueling houses). In both those examples, very little of the original plot or characters remain except for the small borrowed elements. See also the following excerpt from a textbook on literary adaptation where the author states explicitly that a "close" adaptation keeps most characters and story elements, drops few, and adds little (Krebs, 2014). This film keeps much of the characters and the narratives from both books and what little is dropped is actually done for the sake of combining elements to still tell the same (but condensed) story. https://books.google.com/books?id=2TxtAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=film+adaptation+loose&source=bl&ots=_SrpVxIGEn&sig=I0rCpY6GJ9xOvX7M8xEEjvtD0rA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEltaCqv7ZAhVNhuAKHfP1Bk04ChDoAQgoMAA#v=onepage&q=film%20adaptation%20loose&f=false.

If anything, it is an "intermediate" adaptation, but certainly not a "loose" one (Krebs, 2014).

QED. 68.33.78.179 (talk)

I find your response both rude and ignorant.Heathcliff (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Reception

As has been previously noted, the reception section contains a lot of information that cannot be sourced and as such must be considered speculation. I'm removing a good deal of it especially some of Harlan Ellison's allegations since some of them can be outright disproven.

"...the studio deliberately sabotaged the film's success. Since they consider the film "underrated" or "underappreciated", they discouraged positive reviews, minimised advertising and limited its theatrical release to less than a week."

There is no evidence for any of these claims and a simple search of Box Office Mojo shows that the film was actually in release for three weeks.

S. Luke 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It says it didn't receive an international release. I saw it at the cinema in Brussels, Belgium at the time as a seven year old. Maybe we could say it didn't receive a wide international release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.218.138 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Shoes

Granted, I don't remember much of the plot but I do know Oz as a place where reality is fluid. So might the detailed error of if Dorothy is wearing anything on feer be completely irrelevant? Lots42 (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

References?

Having watched this film literally dozens of times, I can say that most of the plot section seems to be accurate. But the article could certainly use a reference or two; currently there are none. Clearly somebody spent a lot of time writing this article, but that person or persons might want to take a look at WP:NOR for guidance. Just a friendly suggestion.

—BMRR (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Move?

this should be moved to Return to Oz (1985 film). Anyone agree? — Supuhstar * § 20:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Electro-shock therapy had not been invented in 1900

This line needs to be changed:

• "The two decide to take her to see Doctor Worley, known for his electro-shock therapy treatments"

In the electro-shock therapy article, there are citations that point to it being created around 1930, but in the Return to Oz movie Doctor Worley states "we're at the dawn of a new age, in just two months it will be the year 1900". I have watched this movie extensively and the newspaper clipping Dorothy's uncle Henry is holding, talks about Electric Healing; which of course is something completely different. In the movie, a headphones set was placed on Dorothy's ears, but in electro-shock therapy, electrodes are applied to the cranium, and sometimes hair shaving is necessary. To be more specific, and since I can't upload the image to Wikimedia, here is the image I took from the movie I own: http://oz.wikia.com/wiki/File:Electric_healing_news.png

I would definitely change it, but I wouldn't want my edit to be questioned (if that's the case). --Molokaicreeper (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an example of information about electric healing and how it was performed and dates back to biblical times when electric eels were used to heal ailments. In the 1900's electrical machines were administering electric healing but it wasn't until later that they were improved and approved as an official way of healing. more information here and in this cached pdf article...

• "Although mainstream science didn’t support it, from the late 1700’s to the early 1900’s medical electricity became quite popular. Several electrical healing machines were created and were widely used by Physicians for treating a range of illnesses"

• "By 1900, a wide variety of electrical and magnetic healing devices were on the market, providing therapies for every disease and problem"

I hope this clarifies things, my research concludes that the real name for the apparatus used by Dr. Worley points to the description of an Electrotherapy device and it would be fair to change the article to point to that description instead. --Molokaicreeper (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why this wasnt done, or was reverted. This explanation is completely true and accurate.75.61.142.156 (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cult following?

There is no WP:RS citation for it having a cult following, let alone the WP:PEACOCKy claim "strong" cult following: The only mention of it is by the anonymous owner of a fan site, hardly a disinterested, authoritative film critic or film writer. Wikipedia prefers journalistic or scholarly sources, and a fan's personal opinion on an anonymous self-published site is not a useable citation.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Did this article get this information from what was written on Wikipedia? [1] Irishlady85 (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sort of looks like it. Just speaking for myself, I'd like to see a reference in a more credible source that Daily Mirror, which is a sometimes-scandalous tabloid. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, a quick search for "Return to Oz cult following" turns up dozens of sources, including this from Entertainment Tonight. It is a frequent entry on lists of cult films, so I see no reason to doubt the validity of the claim. oknazevad (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there you go!

I've got to confess, after reading about it, now I'm dying to see it! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Variant of

I have removed this from the lead sentence again. I'm well aware of who Janet Maslin is; but the truth remains it is undue weight given to an uncommon descriptor from one review. And what does it mean to be called a "variant of" a movie? "Unofficial sequel" is pretty obvious and accurate; it's a sequel in that it is based on and continues the story of a previous work, but is unofficial in that it is produced by a different set of creators. Seems that Maslin was calling the movie a retread of the original. But just because a prominent critic says that it copied the original as part of her criticism doesn't mean we should put it in the first line. Especially when no one else has ever seemed to call it that. (PS, I've never actually seen the film, so I wouldn't call my edits "fan" edits. Just a case of seeing a meaningless term used by one person being used to define the film in a way no one else does.) oknazevad (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not just one esteemed critic. Here's another major newspaper, Newsday. At the end of the sidebar to the article "James Franco is the wizard in new Oz film, 'Oz the Great and Powerful'" by Frank Lovece, Newsday, February 26, 2013 5:54 PM, it says: "Return to Oz (1985) -- Walt Disney Pictures' critically and commercially disappointing hybrid sequel to / retelling of the 1939 film."

And actually, this Wikipedia article already says, long before I came here, "Return to Oz is considered by fans as a more faithful adaptation of the novel than its 1939 predecessor." If it's an adaptation of the same material, then it's a variant, not a sequel.

But I have a compromise idea. Since the term "unofficial sequel" is POV anyway (especially given that there's already a 1974 sequel) it won't hurt the article not to characterize it as either sequel or variant. The most strictly factual and noncontroversial thing to say is "a 1985 fantasy adventure film based on characters from the L. Frank Baum Wizard of Oz books." Does this sound like a way to make it plain-vanilla neutral while still factual? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good, but there is a link for unofficial sequel there, and that section of the article specifically cites this film as an example, so I'm a little reluctant to remove it entirely. oknazevad (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Good eye. And actually, you uncovered a section in that article that's unreferenced OR, so I tagged it and, in light of both the lack of reference and our discussion, removed this as an example. I wouldn't want to streamline the description here as we spoke about, though, before hearing from you again, just to be sure we're OK. BTW, it's very nice to be collaborating with a fellow editor capable of give-and-take and calm discussion. I certainly respect and appreciate that. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

So after waiting five days, I'll go ahead and make it the compromise version that's neither of us finds contentious. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked it a little to make it less wordy and to finish the removal of the redundancy carried over from the reference. But it looks pretty good. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that this is no longer considered a sequel. It is like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, which is not a sequel, even though Alice went to Wonderland before in it.[2] Irishlady85 (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The article states that Disney paid MGM a "large fee" for the one-time use of the ruby slippers in Return to Oz. Since the ruby slippers were specifically created for the 1939 film, and are considered one of its central iconic images, couldn't it be argued that their inclusion provides a sort of narrative link between Return to Oz and the 1939 film? I have no doubt that the makers of Return to Oz wanted to tie the film to its precursor, but it's difficult to quantify the exact nature of that connection in fictional canonical terms. —Flax5 21:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting points all, but as "couldn't it be argued that" and "I have no doubt that" indicate, this would be POV / OR synthesis. And you're right: Its specific connection in canonical terms is difficult if not impossible to definitively state. --Tenebrae (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 June 2014

Category:Media franchises 75.80.129.37 (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Another "Reception" Related Item

I only note this , as the current version of the article notes the Oz related scene added to the Paris Disneyland storybook boats ride. At the Disneyland park in Anaheim,California ; the 1985 version of the Main Street Electrical Parade included a "Return To Oz" float. This float , and it's characters , have not appeared in the parade since that initial appearance. 75.104.174.49 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Casting

These links here:https://www.eightieskids.com/12-fantastic-facts-you-wont-believe-about-return-to-oz/, I think are reliable enough for this article of cast members that were considered for these roles. There's no other links out there that's more reliable enough besides just this one. 2600:1000:B01D:62F6:DC6B:AE6F:544:9C3D (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me like a clickbait tabloid site. If you disagree you could post this at the talk page on WP:FILM and get more opinions. If the stuff you want to add is indeed true it will be covered in other, more reliable sources (because eightieskids.com sure isn't getting this information through its own hardworking investigative journalism). Popcornfud (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Classification and improvements

I have spent quite some time over the past few days (as well as sporadically before that) building this article up from archive newspaper sources, surprisingly which offer considerable in-depth content. Hopefully the referencing of the article is now in the 'B' class, as well as the structure (I have restructured sections, adding and renaming some) as well as rephrasing parts (still work to be done there). Still copy-editing needed, perhaps on the recently added prose. Although I wasn't actively working towards getting this to a recognised "good" standard, I would welcome views on what it may take to push it that bit further. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)