Archive for September, 2009
September 30th, 2009 | 
Author: 
This week, fans get to celebrate almost a century of “The Wizard of Oz” with a 70th Anniversary DVD/Blu-ray release of the 1939 film. It’s fitting then that we have some exclusive new information to share with you on the screen adaptation of Todd McFarlane‘s “The Twisted Land of Oz” toy line.
MTV Splash Page editor Rick Marshall spoke to the man himself recently, and he was more than happy to delve into the project’s genesis, some basic story elements and what the future holds. There’s new stuff in here, things you haven’t heard yet. The short version: this ain’t your granddaddy’s “Wizard of Oz.” “Spawn” creator McFarlane has some dark ideas kicking around in his head, and they mesh very well with the inherently creepy qualities of “Oz.”
Just coming to the point we’re at today has been quite a ride for McFarlane. The “Twisted” line of toys performed well enough that McFarlane received a call from “Hollywood” asking if there was a story to go along with the action figures. There wasn’t one at that moment, though he had a pitch prepped in the space of a week. Warner Bros. bit and Michael Bay was attached… but only until “Transformers” stole him away. And we all know how that turned out.
More recently, “A History of Violence” writer Josh Olsen stepped up to pen a script. McFarlane’s chief concern is delivering an Oz that is darker than what people know. As he told execs during pitch meetings, “Number one: you have to turn off the switch to the [1939] MGM movie. If you don’t turn off that switch, almost everything I’m about to say will not make sense to you.”
See, what makes a man like Todd McFarlane so successful is an understanding of his audience. He’s not out to bring “Oz” author L. Frank Baum’s words and world to the silver screen; he simply wants to be inspired by it. “Basically,” McFarlane reasoned, “what do I have to do to sell a 22 year old kid going to college [to come] see something called ‘Oz’?”
“There’s a lot of wink wink, nudge nudge stuff, so ['Twisted Land' isn't] completely devoid of what we’ve come to know,” McFarlane said. It may not sound like it based on the story’s setup, but the parallels are there.
“In mine, [Dorothy is] up in the Antarctic, and there’s bad weather,” McFarlane said. “The point is that when you’re in bad weather in a s–tty place up north, it is completely gray. That would be our ‘black & white [sequence].’ Then she falls into her Shangri-La, called Oz, where suddenly everything’s in color.”
As anyone who knows the toy line is already aware, familiar characters aren’t left out. They look a bit different, but all are present and accounted for. The biggest of the changes, in more ways than one, is to Dorothy’s lovable dog.
“There’s still a thing called Toto, except its the biggest thing in the movie and not the smallest thing. [The beast called Toto] basically ate the first dog, and it’s this big thing that [the inhabitants of Oz] ride. They’ve given this generic word… so instead of horses, [people] ride Totos.”
Unfortunately, Olsen’s script did not deliver in the way that McFarlane had hoped. “Josh came in and I read the first draft. I told [Olsen] I was curious about how we went from what I pitched to what I called ‘Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.’” Hollywood apparently agreed.
“My understanding is that [the studio] thought we went a little too conservative, so somebody else is taking a crack at [the script] now. We’re never going to get as crazy as I wanted, so I have to accept that. My pitch is fairly radical, if you will. If you’re 22 years old, it’s not radical. If you’re an executive, it’s radical.”
For any changes being made to his original idea, McFarlane isn’t terribly troubled. “I think there will be a compromise,” he said. “I’ve told [the studio] that it’s okay, I understand the business side.” Which isn’t to say that he’s totally on board.
“I just found it odd that they bought that cool, creepy ['Twisted Land of Oz' pitch] and now they’re taking a step back.” Not a big one, mind you. Remember, the Olsen treatment is still out.
“I think the first script was just a little soft for them,” McFarlane explained. “I’ve always been a believer that the reason remakes don’t work is that they stay too true to the source material. Hopefully we’ll have a new script in the next month or two, and then we’ll be a lot closer to seeing whether it will grab some true momentum or whether we’re heading into development hell here.”
Time will tell. I’m certainly hoping that momentum gears up on this project soon, as the land of Oz is ripe for the “darker” treatment that McFarlane’s envisioned.
Posted in 
Due to the unending nature of real life, sequels to non-fiction films should be more common than they are. Documentary sequels do occasionally exist though, and the most necessary of these are the follow-ups to films involving inconclusive or controversial legal cases. Must-see examples include Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky’s “Paradise Lost 2: Revelations” and Nick Broomfield’s “Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer.”
We may have another to add to that group now that Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski (“Chinatown”) has been arrested and faces extradition on 32-year-old statutory rape charges. Filmmaker Marina Zenovich, whose brilliantly constructed 2008 film “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” shed new light on the 1977 trial, has reportedly gone to Switzerland to further document the case. It’s not clear if she is interested in making another feature doc or simply looking to supplement “Wanted and Desired” with new footage in the form of an epilogue.
If Zenovich is interested in making “Wanted and Desired 2,” she may have some competition from “Rush Hour” director Brett Ratner. Coincidentally, just prior to Polanski’s arrest, while a guest on BlogTalk Radio’s “Movie Geeks United” show, Ratner discussed plans to produce a sort of sequel to “Wanted and Desired.” Unlike Zenovich’s original film, Ratner’s doc would feature an interview with Polanski, who also appeared as a detective in Ratner’s “Rush Hour 3.” Ratner recently produced the acclaimed documentary “I Knew It Was You: Rediscovering John Cazale.”
Could this be the first time there’s been dueling documentary sequels? And might it cause double trouble for Polanski despite the fact both films would likely be more favorable to his side in the case? Zenovich’s film did lead to a new attempt to have the case dismissed (the motion was denied), yet ironically “Wanted and Desired” could also be blamed for influencing Polanski’s recent arrest since it brought renewed attention to the case as well.
Documentaries aren’t necessarily good for helping a cause, nor should that be their purpose, in my opinion. So, regardless of what influence either of these two potential films have on Polanski’s legal matter, given the quality of Zenovich and Ratner’s past non-fiction work, I’d be interested in seeing both of their perspectives if they do simultaneously end up with their own Polanski docs.
Would you like to see a sequel to “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired” that follows these current and whatever future events? Would you rather see Zenovich’s or Ratner’s follow-up, or might you be interested in both?