So... Oz.

Who has read the books besides me? I've read like 5 of them or so. They are a little hard to get my hands on.

I saw Oz: The Great and Powerful, as those who monitored TNO's thread know, and I thought that the adapting from the trivia that can be found in L. Frank Baum's books were pretty good. I hope they press on with sequels, cause Baum's 14 Oz novels hold quite a bit of potential for more movies and I would like to see that potential realized.

I also saw The Wizard of Oz with J. Garland, and I haven't read the first Oz book yet, so I can't really speak for it.

I will say nothing of The Wiz, an more urban adaption of the story from the Broadway hit. I haven;t seen it.

I have not seen Return to Oz, an unofficial Disney sequel (and box-office flop) from 1985, which combines elements of Ozma of Oz and The Marvelous Land of Oz. I've read the former, and I want to read the latter. Has anyone seen it? I do hope the princess who has multiple heads is in it. (She has, like, a whole closet of heads, and can take off one of her heads and put on another one when she likes. I thought it was pretty imaginative.) Hopefully, I'll soon see Return to Oz.

So... Please say what you think of the Oz films.

Ha-ha! Another chance for me to blab about something a talk about a lot! 

I think for me there is only one book movie interpretation I can appreciate, and that's THE PRINCESS BRIDE. I didn't like the TALE OF DESPERAUX, or however you spell it, because the book was much better, and HOW TO TRAIN YOU DRAGON was totally inaccurate compared to the books, which I had read before the movie had come out. THE LEDGENDS OF THE GUARDIANS--THE OWLS OF GA'HOOLE wasn't as good as the books, but it was still good. So that's what I have to say. 

Also, I wonder how many times you have to enter a captcha before you get to enter the same code. 4 to the power of 4? 

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs: This movie was horrible. It was cheesy, unoriginal, and all around stupid. Clutzy scientist falls in love with attractive reporter. Gee, that doesn't sound familiar. *cough, cough* Megamind *cough, cough* The book was original, creative, well-drawn (the art, I mean) and all around a great picture book. I still really like it. The movie and the book had a grand total of three things in common. 1) Food falls from the sky. 2) Town is called Chewandswallow. 3) Food goes nuts and comes in storms. Three things. Excuse me while I go mourn the poor book that suffered in this way. It was never meant to be a movie.

City of Ember: I saw it a really long time ago, but I think it was fairly decent. I liked the mole. Although it didn't make any sense. A giant mole makes me think of the Emberites as Borrowers. Not what the director intended.

Random note on Anne of Green Gables: I've read this several times. I persoanlly dislike the story and the characters, but I like the writing style. 

Where the Wild Things Are: I'm not very attached to this book so it doesn't get a long rant. It just was a very bad movie.

Harry Potter: Ending movies are horrible. They just threw in Bellatrix Lestrange to show off her ridiculous makeup way more than was necessary. First is the best, in my opinion, because they cut the least out. That's because the first book is the shortest. I don't like these movies very much.

Oz: Haven't seen any of these, except for bits of the original. All I can say is this: ridiculous. The Munchkins have an annoying habit of getting thier song stuck in my head.

The Princess Bride: Meh. Everyone around me likes it which means I have to dislike it for some balance. What kind of name is Buttercup, anyway? Buttercup just looks so helpless and stupid throughout the whole thing. 

The Tale of Desperaux: Poor Kate DiCamillo. Her beautiful book thrown in a meat grinder and upchucked out the other side. I love the story of Desperaux and they. Ruined. It.  First off, Chiaroscuro, my favorite character. Why didn't he come from the dungeon? His whole light/darkness thing is crucial to the story! Crucial! And then Roscuro rescues Desperaux! Aargh! Didn't he learn anything with his plunge into darkness? *rages* And they downplay Mig way too much. And the whole Botticelli/Roscuro relationship is ruined. We don't have any of Botticelli's prodding Roscuro. Roscuro is a completely different character. Instead of a character with real depth, he's just a random person who triggers plot points. There is also no bullying Desperaux for being little and for having big ears and appreciating fairy tales. And the ending is horrible. Roscuro goes off to sea (really? really? *rages for ten minutes*), the mice all "try to be brave" *gag* (what about Desperaux making up with Lester?) and Botticelli is eaten by some random cat. That's a stupid ending. And Mig's father is the jailor! We completely lose all of Mig's father losing his daughter, his life, and his cloak because Mig's father is not a prisoner like he should be. Overall, the biggest character they botched was Roscuro.

How to Train Your Dragon: I don't like the book. Or the movie.

Ga'hoole: Haven't watched the movie yet. I have no idea how they will compact down fifteen books into one movie. My best guess is that Soren will be some typical Mary Sue and he will run off to the Ga'Hoole tree and meet his friends and then he (instead of Twilight) will kill Kludd and there will be no Nyroc at all.

The Secret World of Arrietty: Not a bad movie, all things considered. Although it doesn't follow the plot. But it has nice music I must admit. Cecile Corbel is talented.

Howl's Moving Castle: It's a fabulous movie but the book is so darn amazing that even though the movie is that good there is no way it can surpass the book. Very funny book.

And on another note, the Of Mice and Men 1992 film is quite good. I don't like the ending much, though. The book ending is a heck of a lot more deep. I also feel like the characters had lost some of their "spark", they no longer were quite so severe. For instance, Curley's wife is a lot less mean and flirtatious and she is a lot more lonely. George is kinder to Lennie and everyone else for that matter. Lennie is more playful, Candy has a better relationship with his dog and is more lonely after the dog dies. I feel that Sinise (the director) is trying to make the deaths of the characters much sadder. I mean, the first two deaths aren't really that sad in the book (well, some people find the dog's death sad) while in the movie you actually feel bad for these people. And the last one is very sad and shocking. Can you tell I had to write an essay on this movie?

I can feel either way about books with movie adaptations.  Normally, I like them in their own  way, not comparing them, and thinking of them as their own entities.   (PJ movie being separate because even though Logan Lerman is actually like a Greek god they practically murdered the book.)

Let's see... THG movie: Great.  They did change some stuff, but nothing that really took away from the storyline and feel of everything.

Oz:  I haven't watched the new one.  The classic movie is definitely a classic.  It's quirky and sugar-coated, but that's its charm.  And the witch used to scare the heck outta me so it deserves some credit.  I've never watched Return to Oz, but I researched it one day when I got bored and it seems really cool.  Dark, but cool.  And it's Disney.  JDD, she does take off her head.  It's supposed to be super duper creepy.  The Muppets one is hilarious.  Speaking of which, I'm gonna find that tape (We recorded it on our VCR because we were gonna be out when it was on. That was back in the good ol' days, kiddos.) and watch it tomorrow.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs:  It was funny.  They shouldn't have grouped it with the book, though.  It should have been its own thing.  And it came out before Megamind, so blame Megamind for idea theft.

I really, really loved the score to Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, but I had a lot of issues with the changes they made to the plot, especially the total Deus ex Machina ending. It was just so forced. Honestly, though, the score was so good that I felt like it made up for it, although it helped that I was trying as hard as I could to forget everything I knew about the Victor Hugo novel.

I adore the German stage musical adaptation of the movie, though. It kept most of the score (and added amazing new songs!), but the script was almost completely rewritten (by James Lapine! He did the librettos to Into the Woods and Passion and Sunday in the Park with George; he is an amazing writer), and I loved the new version of the script. It also happened to be way more like the book than the movie was. I am currently obsessed with this musical. It's apparently coming to America eventually, but unfortunately, the script is going to be rewritten again... by someone else. :( I guess they thought James Lapine's script was too dark. There was less comic relief, more angst, less of a clear-cut moral, and more death. But it was good...