Jump to content


What Do You Wish Was Different In The Mgm Movie?


15 replies to this topic

#1 ozfan95

    Royal Historian

  • Members
  • 125 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 20 February 2016 - 02:16 PM

Here are some of the things I wish were different.

1. To have Dorothy's adventure have been real, and not a dream.

2. To have done better with the Miss Gulch subplot. It was never resolved.

3. To not have combined Glinda with the Witch of the North. It made her a jerk.

4. I would have liked the shoes to be silver, but that's forgivable.

5. I wanted to have the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman's back stories in the movie. It gives them more depth.

6. I wanted to see an actual Lion. Not a guy dressed up as a Lion. Sure it probably was too expensive, but they could have had a Lion suit that made him look like a real Lion. The BBC miniseries of Narnia had Aslan be a guy in a mechanical Lion suit, and it looked just like a real lion. Even the Lion costumes from the silent Oz films were better than this one.

7. Since they couldn't have the field mice in the movie (due to technical restrictions) they should have chosen a different obstacle for the travelers in this movie. When you make Glinda rescue them, it literally makes it so that the companions do nothing. If I could only choose one obstacle to put in the movie, it would be the Kalidahs. The friends all work together to get away from them. The MGM movie could have had the Witch create the ditch that the companions have to cross, or send the Kalidahs after them, or maybe even both!

8. They should have had the companions go into the throne room one at a time and see the Wizard in his various forms.

9. They shouldn't have made Dorothy a damsel in distress in this movie (though I like how they actually did something with the "fire is Scarecrow's weakness" thing).

10. They should have had the various enemies the Witch sends out to the companions (except for the bees, which I would cut out because it makes it so that the Tin Woodman gets to fight two groups of enemies instead of one).

11. They should have had the Witch call the monkeys with the golden cap, and given the monkeys the personality they had in the book.

12. They should have kept the Scarecrow dance sequence.

13. They should have had the changing of the guard gag ("That's what the other guy said!").

14. They should have had the reprise of "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead!"

15. They should have had the Wizard actually tell the companions to kill the Witch (what could he possibly want with her broomstick?).

16. Rather than having Glinda appear at the Emerald City at the end, they could still have avoided having the journey to Glinda by having the monkeys take them to her.

17. They should have chosen a younger actress to play Dorothy. Judy Garland has that charm, but Dorothy should really be younger.

18. They should have had the Lion actually be brave. In the movie he really is a coward!

19. If they wanted to cut a song, hey should have cut "If I Were King of the Forest." That song adds nothing to the story (I sometimes fast-forward through that song).

20. Probably the biggest one: the movie should have been animated!

Those are some of the things the movie should have done.

#2 Dave T. Rocket

    Royal Historian

  • Members
  • 154 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 21 February 2016 - 02:54 PM

Geez, with a list that long, you might just as well wish they'd made a completely different movie.What do I wish was different? Short answer? Nothing! Okay, maybe a couple of those ideas from the OP are worthwhile, like not editing out the Scarecrow's dance. A reprise of "Ding Dong, The Witch is Dead" at the end might not have been bad either. If I have to think about it, I kind of wish the moral of the story was different. Telling someone to not to look beyond their own back yard for their heart's desire is not necessarily the best message for everyone. On a nit-picky level, it would have been nice if the Wicked Witch's line about sending a little insect to take the fight out of Dorothy and her friends could have been removed, since without the "Jitterbug" number, that line makes no sense anymore.If I could change just one thing, though, it would be the very end. After Dorothy delivers the final line, I would have had the camera tilt down to reveal the ruby slippers at the foot of her bed, suggesting that maybe it wasn't a dream after all.

#3 ozfan95

    Royal Historian

  • Members
  • 125 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 21 February 2016 - 03:05 PM

View PostDave T. Rocket, on 21 February 2016 - 02:54 PM, said:

Geez, with a list that long, you might just as well wish they'd made a completely different movie.What do I wish was different? Short answer? Nothing! Okay, maybe a couple of those ideas from the OP are worthwhile, like not editing out the Scarecrow's dance. A reprise of "Ding Dong, The Witch is Dead" at the end might not have been bad either. If I have to think about it, I kind of wish the moral of the story was different. Telling someone to not to look beyond their own back yard for their heart's desire is not necessarily the best message for everyone. On a nit-picky level, it would have been nice if the Wicked Witch's line about sending a little insect to take the fight out of Dorothy and her friends could have been removed, since without the "Jitterbug" number, that line makes no sense anymore.If I could change just one thing, though, it would be the very end. After Dorothy delivers the final line, I would have had the camera tilt down to reveal the ruby slippers at the foot of her bed, suggesting that maybe it wasn't a dream after all.


There actually are rumors that the movie was originally supposed to have a scene like that at the end where the camera pans down to the ruby slippers at the foot of the bed. But that rumor has never been confirmed, and is most likely false.

I do like to think that the adventure in this movie actually happened, though, and that the shoes made it seem like a dream when they returned her, so as not to confuse anybody. But I know that wasn't the filmakers' intentions. If you consider "Return to Oz" a sequel to this movie, though, it's very possible that it really wasn't a dream! That's why I liked "Return to Oz" so much. It took all the flaws from the MGM movie and tried to fix them. Or, at least, most of them.

#4 fawfulmark2

    Wanderer

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 17 January 2017 - 03:15 AM

the removed 20 minutes from the original theatrical showing restored, I was always curious about those moments(only ones left in existence are scenes from The Jitterbug, an extended dance number with The Scarecrow and audio of the 2nd singing of Over the Rainbow :( )

#5 Eric Gjovaag

    Royal Historian

  • Members
  • 216 posts
  • LocationWashington State

Posted 17 January 2017 - 05:34 AM

View Postfawfulmark2, on 17 January 2017 - 03:15 AM, said:

the removed 20 minutes from the original theatrical showing restored, I was always curious about those moments(only ones left in existence are scenes from The Jitterbug, an extended dance number with The Scarecrow and audio of the 2nd singing of Over the Rainbow :( )


We don't even quite have "The Jitterbug". All we have is the audio, and Harold Arlen's home movies taken during rehearsal.

#6 WTalespinner

    Magical Creature

  • Members
  • 79 posts
  • LocationRichmond Hill, Queens, NY

Posted 17 January 2017 - 05:05 PM

- I would have wanted to see Dorothy played by Shirley Temple, as the original plan had established before MGM politics put Judy in the role. Shirley was the perfect age for the character at the time.

- Gotta agree about that terrible ending. I would have wanted to see the film end the same way the book did. Fever dream, my foot.

- Agreed on needing two good witches as well as the two evil ones. I think they could have played with that whole business of "Locasta was not as strong as the East Witch, but more powerful than the West Witch" dichotomy from the books.

- Leave in all of the witch's summoned creatures...even the bees...during the witch hunt. In the book, everyone gets a chance to shine whether it's during the witch hunt sequences or not. No bad thing, IMHO, to let Nick Chopper have more than one chance to show off his skills.

Most of Ozfan's points I concur with, although I didn't mind that it wasn't animated. It showed off the extent of how much a live-action film can emulate a fantasy story, dream or not. I didn't really care much for the Gulch subplot UNLESS it had been a confirmed conclusion(it's ambiguous given the "it was all a dream" denouement) that Gulch was actually the West Witch in disguise.
The Wandering Talespinner
Exile from the Land of Oz

#7 Eric Gjovaag

    Royal Historian

  • Members
  • 216 posts
  • LocationWashington State

Posted 17 January 2017 - 05:34 PM

View PostWTalespinner, on 17 January 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

- I would have wanted to see Dorothy played by Shirley Temple, as the original plan had established before MGM politics put Judy in the role. Shirley was the perfect age for the character at the time.


Nope, that's not how it worked. It is well documented that The Wizard of Oz from the beginning had always been meant as a Judy Garland vehicle. It's the suits in New York who got nervous, and asked about the availability of Shirley Temple, but her studio wouldn't loan her out. Plus, Shirley herself (a big Oz fan) said that she didn't want to play Dorothy, she wanted to meet Dorothy! I seem to also recall her saying that she thought Judy was perfect, and had no regrets not getting it.

#8 WTalespinner

    Magical Creature

  • Members
  • 79 posts
  • LocationRichmond Hill, Queens, NY

Posted 17 January 2017 - 06:06 PM

Be that as it may, I maintain that Shirley would have been a better choice. :)
The Wandering Talespinner
Exile from the Land of Oz

#9 SamofOz

    Royal Historian

  • Members
  • 140 posts

Posted 18 January 2017 - 03:26 AM

I always wish the MGM Movie:

* had been Edited better (some scenes are choppy, like the SPLASH/Melting),
- keep the "Over the Rainbow (reprise)" and "Ding-Dong! Emerald City" scenes for the Low and High moments the films needs.

* retain some of the better Cyclone/Twister shots, like when it's REALLY CLOSE to the house and the other shot of the falling house

* Glinda having a different, better, maybe more white dress (instead of recycling a previous gown and changing it) ... something more "goddess" or Disney Pinocchio's Blue Fairy design (even if that one was years later)

* maybe remove "If I were King of the Forest"

#10 Eric Gjovaag

    Royal Historian

  • Members
  • 216 posts
  • LocationWashington State

Posted 18 January 2017 - 07:17 AM

View PostWTalespinner, on 17 January 2017 - 06:06 PM, said:

Be that as it may, I maintain that Shirley would have been a better choice. :)


There are many, many, many people who would completely disagree with you on this point.

#11 WTalespinner

    Magical Creature

  • Members
  • 79 posts
  • LocationRichmond Hill, Queens, NY

Posted 18 January 2017 - 04:02 PM

Those many, many people are entitled to their opinion. :)
The Wandering Talespinner
Exile from the Land of Oz

#12 Jay Davis

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 494 posts

Posted 18 January 2017 - 10:48 PM

If Shirley Temple had been cast, you'd see a very different Wizard of Oz. You'd likely have more of Shirley dancing and singing, and I'm not sure if she could have pulled off "Over the Rainbow" in a better way than Judy did. Judy was known for a "big voice," while Temple did these little cutesy songs. (Her later work showed she had more vocal range.)

Slightly OT, when I saw the film Captain January, I couldn't help but think of Temple as Trot and the title character as Cap'n Bill. If they'd attempted a Sea Fairies with Temple back then, that might've actually worked.

#13 Dave T. Rocket

    Royal Historian

  • Members
  • 154 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 19 January 2017 - 03:23 PM

I like Shirley Temple, but you make a good point, Jay; I cringe when I try to imagine the "Over the Rainbow" scene with her instead of Judy.

This is completely OT, but has anybody seen Shirley Temple in The Blue Bird? I watched that movie for the first time a year or so ago. Man, is that movie unpleasantly strange and morbid. They were obviously attempting to imitate The Wizard of Oz, but not very successfully. I found it totally without charm or entertainment value.

#14 Jay Davis

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 494 posts

Posted 20 January 2017 - 12:17 AM

View PostDave T. Rocket, on 19 January 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

I like Shirley Temple, but you make a good point, Jay; I cringe when I try to imagine the "Over the Rainbow" scene with her instead of Judy.

This is completely OT, but has anybody seen Shirley Temple in The Blue Bird? I watched that movie for the first time a year or so ago. Man, is that movie unpleasantly strange and morbid. They were obviously attempting to imitate The Wizard of Oz, but not very successfully. I found it totally without charm or entertainment value.


I have, actually. Someone suggested the 1918 silent film to me, and after enjoying it, I watched the Shirley Temple version and another live action version featuring Elizabeth Taylor and directed by George Cukor.

The Blue Bird, like Peter Pan, began as a play and was later adapted into a book. It had a couple silent film versions (only the latter one from 1918 still exists). The 1918 film works because to depict the strange characters they had to go for something like what they did onstage, but also used simple trick photography and craft to make a nice looking fantasy film. For an Oz fan like me, it was impossible to not think of the Oz Film Manufacturing Company films, since they were from about the same era, and the same lavish set design can be seen.

The Blue Bird is far more heavy handed in moralizing than Oz, though. Though it's clear message of "happiness is found at home" definitely feels echoed in "If I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I'll never look further than my own back yard, because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with."

#15 theozian1

    Wanderer

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 11:27 AM

honestly, if i could change one thing in the 1939 movie it would have been the circumstances by which lead to the melting of the witch of the west, i mean, seriously, the slippers not being able to come off...i mean sure magical protection and what not, but seriously, would have been nice to see them try to pull off an invisible iron bar...though i imagine it woul be like one o'them ole dotted line things that kinda flashes so that the audience knows its there but the actor is really trying to figure it out for themselves

#16 ozfan95

    Royal Historian

  • Members
  • 125 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 15 May 2017 - 01:34 PM

View Posttheozian1, on 17 March 2017 - 11:27 AM, said:

honestly, if i could change one thing in the 1939 movie it would have been the circumstances by which lead to the melting of the witch of the west, i mean, seriously, the slippers not being able to come off...i mean sure magical protection and what not, but seriously, would have been nice to see them try to pull off an invisible iron bar...though i imagine it woul be like one o'them ole dotted line things that kinda flashes so that the audience knows its there but the actor is really trying to figure it out for themselves


I actually remember the first time I watched the movie as a kid, I found the whole "shoes can't come off" thing quite odd. That would really suck for whoever is wearing them.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users