Todd McFarlane cheeses off Wizard of Oz fans

[MonkeyFunk]

turned up an old message board discussion on Google:
http://p208.ezboard.com/fozclubforumsfrm6.showMessageRange?topicID=3.topic&start=1&stop=20

(best to ignore the posters who go off topic and start discussing Iraq)

So, what do you think? How far should an artist go (I'm defining "artist" as anyone involved in imaginitive work - I don't want to discuss the definition of "art") in re-imagining another artist's creation? Are these truly "defiling one of the most treasured and loved aspects of wholesome Americana", as one poster put it, or are even the most contrary re-imaginings just as valid as the originals?

[Bird Boy]

I'll say it's an old thread...those toys came out last year. But it's still a valid discussion...

As for the "defiling" of the characters, there are people out there that bought these figures simply for the weirdness factor. It's called "Twisted Land of Oz" and not for sale for anyone over 17 for a reason.

Obviously people would get upset over such an abstract take on the Oz universe, but that's really what most of McFarlane's toy lines have been since Twisted Souls--demented, one-shot lines taking a crack at culture.

The only real reason I see behind hatred would be extremely morbid and adult take on a movie with PG characters--but, again, the figures weren't intended for anyone below 17 anyway.

Obviously, the lines are so abstract from the original designs that they can't even be considered "Oz" anymore--they're no more Oz than their Six Faces of Madness or Infernal Parade figures are...

-BB

[Silly McGooses]

I am a HUGE Oz fan, both the books and many of the films. I see nothing wrong with Todd McFarlne doing this. I have many of the figures and enjoy the comics. I think that it is nothing more than a tribute to the original Oz stories, and I think that it's very interesting to see a Burtonesque Oz (that Tim Burton Oz TV show never came about). I am not very familliar with any of McFarlne's work, though I have seen and somewhat enjoyed the Spawn movie, so I am not biased in any way. Now the "Wicked" musical: there's a disgrace to all things Oz.

[Enrique]

The thing these Oz fans don't realize is that McFarlane's toys aren't meant for Oz fans, they're meant for comic fans who like dark stuff (with the exception being the sports figures).
As for defiling? That's entirely subjective; yes, an original Oz fan would think it's defiling. I don't think it's defiling, although the Dorothy figure is just plain crass commercialism.
So I just say to original Oz fans, "Just keep living in your nice fantasy world and stick to your pretty and sweet Oz memoribilia and whatnots and let us sickos be have our fun." :evil:

[AF$]

Now the "Wicked" musical: there's a disgrace to all things Oz.
Haven't seen the musical, but the book is very good. Also, since the Oz stuff is all public domain now it really doesn't matter who does what with any of it.

[Carrieattheprom]

:eek: :eek: :eek: FREAKY!!!!!!!!!!! Man, Dorothy in bondage, I don't remember THAT in the movie!!!


Tin Man is pretty cool looking though.


As for the twisted toys, aren't the characters protected by a copywright or something? If they're not, then whoever is making these toys has a right to make these toys. If you don't like them, don't buy 'em.

[Deadly Messiah]

Wow, now if the WofOz was like that, I would actually be willing to watch it.

[Frank Castle]

Wow, now if the WofOz was like that, I would actually be willing to watch it.Ditto.:)

[loyalheart]

i wish the WOZ movie wasnt to so well known lol but, yes it's very annoying, what if they took kermit the frog and did crap like that to him?

[Jade_GL]

Old news. I was talking about this on another forum almost a year ago.

And I still think that they are pretty stupid. I mean, some actually make sense. The lion is one that I remember thinking seemed pretty interesting. However, Dorothy in bondage is pretty lame. I mean, there are some that seem like a good idea and are artist representations of ideas in Oz, but Dorothy and Toto are not really that interesting. Really just to tittilate people.

Anyway, I still feel the same way after a year. Some are cool, some are lame. And it doesn't really matter anyway since they're kind of old anyway. :)

[Silly McGooses]

Haven't seen the musical, but the book is very good. Also, since the Oz stuff is all public domain now it really doesn't matter who does what with any of it.
I enjoyed the book too, and the Musical was watchable untill

They shmaltzied up the ending and made it so that Elphaba actually went under a trap door when she was "melted." It ruined the whole story. I literally was crying when everyone was clapping because it was so bad

[mikestorm]

My girlfriend read "Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West" by Gregory Maguire. She said it was great.

Essentially, Maguire took Baum's well known characters and universe and gave them all very interesting backstories. You discover their motivations for acting as they did in the first Baum book, and consequently they are all much more "human" then Baum could ever write them.

I never read the book, but here's what I remember my girlfriend saying:

The Wicked Witch of the West (names Elphaba) was born to a well-to-do family, but was ostracised at a very early age for a rare skin condition that turned her skin green and gave her a violent allergic reaction to water.

Glinda the good Witch is a vapid "valley girl".

The Tin Woodsman was a victim of domestic violence.

The Wicked Witch of the East had no arms.

That's all I remember :D

[MonkeyFunk]

My personal opinion: if anything gives Oz a bad name, it's Baum's infamous genocide editorials, and those can't be blamed on Todd McFarlane.

[Lachesis]

Uhhh. . . these weren't American McGee's fault? Am I thinking of something else?

[mikestorm]

Possibly, or it's just a coincidence.

However, after reading this article:

http://www.totalvideogames.com/pages/articles/index.php?article_id=6300

I think maybe either MacFarlane is working with McGee, or wanted to beat him to the punch.

[Eddie G.]

The Dorothy sculpt is pretty good, but the concept is lazy. I honestly don't mind the bondage take, like I said the sculpt is good. It is meant to be creepy and it is, but that woman isn't Dorothy. The other figure (except Todo) are takes on the original characters but still look like the original characters. However Dorothy justs looks like a generic super model in bondage. I like the Wizard.

Frankly I think Todd should work on more original projects than playing with something already established.

[Alex Toon]

Frankly I think Todd should work on more original projects than playing with something already established.Does he stil have Spawn to work on or did it end?

[LightShadow1890]

I actually clicked the link at the Google forums w/o knowing what was I about to see.

Now I know why it's unsuited for kids under 17.

Don't just pounce on me quickly. I'm not really used to these things, and again, it's unsuitable for kids under 17. You can guess.

LightShadow1890

[The Master Con]

Great stuff. People need to get a sense of humor.

[Jade_GL]

Great stuff. People need to get a sense of humor.

Sorry,but I don't see it like that.

McFarlane could have done some pretty inspired work on these, and on a few he did, namely the Wizard and the Lion.

However, Dorothy is pretty lame. Oh, a woman in bondage, how unlike his other works... And it really doesn't reflect the character at all, unlike the other figures. It just takes an idea and runs with it. It's n amazing sculpt, and it was done by a talented guy, it just lacks the punch and commentary of the others. It goes for the childish cop-out idea. At least, that's what I see when I look at it.

And it's disappointing when looking at the Wizard, for example, that looks pretty darn cool and at least has someting to do with the character from the book or movie.

Not saying I think they suck, they obviously show craft. I just think Toto and Dorothy lack vision and are just kind of lazy in execution.

[The Master Con]

Sorry,but I don't see it like that.

McFarlane could have done some pretty inspired work on these, and on a few he did, namely the Wizard and the Lion.

However, Dorothy is pretty lame. Oh, a woman in bondage, how unlike his other works... And it really doesn't reflect the character at all, unlike the other figures. It just takes an idea and runs with it. It's n amazing sculpt, and it was done by a talented guy, it just lacks the punch and commentary of the others. It goes for the childish cop-out idea. At least, that's what I see when I look at it.

And it's disappointing when looking at the Wizard, for example, that looks pretty darn cool and at least has someting to do with the character from the book or movie.

Not saying I think they suck, they obviously show craft. I just think Toto and Dorothy lack vision and are just kind of lazy in execution.
I agree with Dorothy and my comment was about MacFarlane taking the wrap in general.

[Obi]

That Lion looks pretty cool, and it actually makes his cowardice even funnier now. There's this giant, hideous, battle scarred lion...and he's a coward.


Comedy gold.

[Duke]

Toto looks like a Star Wars reject. Is that supposed to be a munchkin riding him?

The Wizard looks like he was taken right out of The Nightmare Before Christmas.

[mayonaisequeen]

:ack: :mad: :eek: How dare someone say that about Oz?

[Bird Boy]

:ack: :mad: :eek: How dare someone say that about Oz?

Please don't bump near two year old threads unless you have something of relavence to add to the conversation.

-BB