Disney General - The saddest fandom on Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter KO 864
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Which is Better

  • Chicken Little

    Votes: 433 27.4%
  • Hunchback 2

    Votes: 57 3.6%
  • A slow death

    Votes: 1,088 68.9%

  • Total voters
    1,578
For what it's worth, most people only know Oz as the Judy Garland movie and don't particularly know, or care, about the books. I think this is why it did so poorly at the box office, adults were expecting more Judy Garland-tier Oz material, and got something book accurate, which they found off-putting.
I've heard that book Oz is completely different to MGM Oz. I've also heard from those same people that book Oz is painfully boring compared to MGM Oz, so I never got around to reading it because I don't particularly care enough about Wizard of Oz to learn the deep lore from the books.
 
I've heard that book Oz is completely different to MGM Oz. I've also heard from those same people that book Oz is painfully boring compared to MGM Oz, so I never got around to reading it because I don't particularly care enough about Wizard of Oz to learn the deep lore from the books.
Yes, it is completely different, and no, it's not painfully boring. If anything, it's a hell of a lot more interesting.

(And the Oz books and "deep lore" do not mesh; very few things are consistent in the books.)
 
Please, tell us, I need to see how cringy it is.
Apparently Stitch was waiting for lilo to appear on the beach before she left for college only for her not to show up. Later it turns out because Nani was having a baby and Lilo miss Stitch because of that.
Yeah the explanation doesn't really make sense since I feel Stitch wouldn't just give up on Lilo like that especially not that easy.
 
Apparently Stitch was waiting for lilo to appear on the beach before she left for college only for her not to show up. Later it turns out because Nani was having a baby and Lilo miss Stitch because of that.
Yeah the explanation doesn't really make sense since I feel Stitch wouldn't just give up on Lilo like that especially not that easy.
It really doesn't, since he lived with them.
 

We wuz mermaids n shiet. I hope this movie bombs so studios will get the message that minorities don't want white people's hand-me-downs, but I'm scared it won't since Disney's fanbase is filled with retards who'll eat anything Disney shits out no matter how bad it is.
 

We wuz mermaids n shiet. I hope this movie bombs so studios will get the message that minorities don't want white people's hand-me-downs, but I'm scared it won't since Disney's fanbase is filled with retards who'll eat anything Disney shits out no matter how bad it is.
I read this as Halle Berry at first and was like isn't she old to play the little mermaid.

But anyways someone should tell the actress that little black girls already have a black princess name Tiana to look up too who everybody loves. Also someone should also bring up to her about "shouldn't gingers have a princess to look up to and aren't you taking that away from them".
 
For what it's worth, most people only know Oz as the Judy Garland movie and don't particularly know, or care, about the books. I think this is why it did so poorly at the box office, adults were expecting more Judy Garland-tier Oz material, and got something book accurate, which they found off-putting.
Yeah, I can definitely see that; I’m also pretty sure Disney was making a lot of grittier/darker films in the 80s so this movie in particular was no exception.

I‘ve always found it weird that everyone nowadays only really knows Oz from the MGM movie. The fact that the books are considered obscure by most is even stranger to me, because if I’m not mistaken they were massively popular all throughout the 1900s (there were plenty of plays/adaptions, merch, and even a theme park planned at some point), and have only recently faded from public view. I guess the MGM film was so popular it overshadowed its own source material.

But again, maybe that’s a good thing that no big corporation has successfully gotten a hold on the book IPs and run them into the ground, like say, Star Wars or Marvel.
 
Yeah, I can definitely see that; I’m also pretty sure Disney was making a lot of grittier/darker films in the 80s so this movie in particular was no exception.

I‘ve always found it weird that everyone nowadays only really knows Oz from the MGM movie. The fact that the books are considered obscure by most is even stranger to me, because if I’m not mistaken they were massively popular all throughout the 1900s (there were plenty of plays/adaptions, merch, and even a theme park planned at some point), and have only recently faded from public view. I guess the MGM film was so popular it overshadowed its own source material.

But again, maybe that’s a good thing that no big corporation has successfully gotten a hold on the book IPs and run them into the ground, like say, Star Wars or Marvel.
Sometimes the orginal source material not being popular may be a good thing
 
Yeah, I can definitely see that; I’m also pretty sure Disney was making a lot of grittier/darker films in the 80s so this movie in particular was no exception.

I‘ve always found it weird that everyone nowadays only really knows Oz from the MGM movie. The fact that the books are considered obscure by most is even stranger to me, because if I’m not mistaken they were massively popular all throughout the 1900s (there were plenty of plays/adaptions, merch, and even a theme park planned at some point), and have only recently faded from public view. I guess the MGM film was so popular it overshadowed its own source material.

But again, maybe that’s a good thing that no big corporation has successfully gotten a hold on the book IPs and run them into the ground, like say, Star Wars or Marvel.
In the case of Oz, there are three adaptations that people are familiar with: the 1939 MGM film, the Wicked musical, and the Sam Raimi film that is spiritual prequel to the MGM film (which was produced by Disney). Given the source material is in public domain, it's surprising Disney hasn't made a move to acquire the rights.
 
In the case of Oz, there are three adaptations that people are familiar with: the 1939 MGM film, the Wicked musical, and the Sam Raimi film that is spiritual prequel to the MGM film (which was produced by Disney). Given the source material is in public domain, it's surprising Disney hasn't made a move to acquire the rights.
Disney’s probably too busy milking it’s other IPs to start on any others right now, but i wouldn’t be surprised if they eventually do.
Another thing to note is that all 3 adaptions you listed are more or less all in the same universe (well, wicked is there by technicality). The latter two are just alternate takes on the 1939 film rather than the books.
 
Disney’s probably too busy milking it’s other IPs to start on any others right now, but i wouldn’t be surprised if they eventually do.
Another thing to note is that all 3 adaptions you listed are more or less all in the same universe (well, wicked is there by technicality). The latter two are just alternate takes on the 1939 film rather than the books.
If the books are PD, well, someone should do them.

The recent WB animated series based off the MGM film actually did use a lot of the characters from the Baum books to flesh out the supporting cast, however.
 
Disney’s probably too busy milking it’s other IPs to start on any others right now, but i wouldn’t be surprised if they eventually do.
Another thing to note is that all 3 adaptions you listed are more or less all in the same universe (well, wicked is there by technicality). The latter two are just alternate takes on the 1939 film rather than the books.
And now I'm thinking of anime adaptations like these (god sakes the forum is buggy)...
 
I've heard that book Oz is completely different to MGM Oz. I've also heard from those same people that book Oz is painfully boring compared to MGM Oz, so I never got around to reading it because I don't particularly care enough about Wizard of Oz to learn the deep lore from the books.
Yes, the books are wildly different in tone. Boring is a matter of personal preference. Tin Woodman's backstory is that he was once a normal human man, until the Wicked Witch of the East cursed his axe, which caused it to chop him up bit by bit. And since people can't die under normal circumstances in Oz, this meant he had to replace the missing parts with tin ones so that he could still be "whole". And it caused his girlfriend to leave him. I don't think that's particularly boring, but like I said, personal preference.

Yeah, I can definitely see that; I’m also pretty sure Disney was making a lot of grittier/darker films in the 80s so this movie in particular was no exception.

I‘ve always found it weird that everyone nowadays only really knows Oz from the MGM movie. The fact that the books are considered obscure by most is even stranger to me, because if I’m not mistaken they were massively popular all throughout the 1900s (there were plenty of plays/adaptions, merch, and even a theme park planned at some point), and have only recently faded from public view. I guess the MGM film was so popular it overshadowed its own source material.
Yeah, Oz was huge in the first half of the 1900's, but it's popularity declined after that. I do believe that particular adaptation is the main reason why. It's not at all particularly accurate to the source material, but it became so beloved and well regarded that interest in the books waned significantly because of it. And it's not at all uncommon for fans of a movie adaptation to snub the book it was adapted from for being different.
 
In the case of Oz, there are three adaptations that people are familiar with: the 1939 MGM film, the Wicked musical, and the Sam Raimi film that is spiritual prequel to the MGM film (which was produced by Disney). Given the source material is in public domain, it's surprising Disney hasn't made a move to acquire the rights.
>The Disney Oz film was made by Sam Raimi.
>TheMoreYouKnow.gif
 
Yes, the books are wildly different in tone. Boring is a matter of personal preference. Tin Woodman's backstory is that he was once a normal human man, until the Wicked Witch of the East cursed his axe, which caused it to chop him up bit by bit. And since people can't die under normal circumstances in Oz, this meant he had to replace the missing parts with tin ones so that he could still be "whole". And it caused his girlfriend to leave him. I don't think that's particularly boring, but like I said, personal preference.
And don't forget the later book where we see that the Tin Woodman's severed head is still living in a closet, and his girlfriend is now dating a guy made up of parts of him and another guy.
 

We wuz mermaids n shiet. I hope this movie bombs so studios will get the message that minorities don't want white people's hand-me-downs, but I'm scared it won't since Disney's fanbase is filled with retards who'll eat anything Disney shits out no matter how bad it is.
My girl Tiana is literally right there and deserves SO much more love than she gets. By her saying this, she's saying that Tiana isn't a real princess or good enough because she's not ridiculously popular like Ariel, and instead of working to increase Tiana's popularity and give her the attention and love she deserves, they will instead just give little black girls the sloppy seconds of more popular characters because they don't actually give a shit about them.
 
Back
Top Bottom