On March 21, as a “comment,” post your response to the film The Wizard of Oz. Make your response a thoughtful two paragraphs. This will be your class journal, so also put a copy of your response in your journal document. Make in-depth comments (of at least three sentences) on at least three other entries from this class before March 23.
In the cover note section, in your “collaboration” page, note whose responses you replied to for The Wizard of Oz blogging. If you have not done so, also note whose responses you replied to for your previous film replies.
anne f walker 
The Wizard of Oz is a movie that I enjoyed. I like the change in color from Kansas to Oz. There were many details added and taken away from the original story. The changes took away from the original story line, while other changes were natural due to the fact that they were taking a fictional story and having people perform parts. There were some added characters that were not in the book (the tree farm hands). In the book the shoes were silver but in the movie the shoes were red. There were songs in the movie that were not part of the original book, either. In the movie they did show the golden cap but it was not a big part of the story.
The movie did not show the second half of the book, which upset me. The movie also called the witch of the North Glinda but that is not her name in the book. The wicked witch sent the red poppies, lit the scarecrow on fire, and flew over the emerald city, which was mentioned in the book. The good witch saved Dorothy and her friends. The wicked witch was killed in the same way (by water) but, she was only killed because Dorothy was trying to put out the fire (the wicked witch lit the scarecrow on fire). The wizard also gave different gifts to the group. The ending of the movie made the venture to Oz seem like a dream, because she had hit her head. The people in Oz seem to be the same people in Kansas but that was not how it was in the book.
I enjoyed it too, however, a little disappointed. You caught the shoes which changed color from the book to the movie, I didn’t caught that. As you mentioned, the golden cap was not a big part and Dorothy did not even use it nor the good witch; but the broom did take a bigger part than the golden cap. At the end you said that the venture seem like a dream, wasn’t it a dream?
I noticed it also how they tried making it look like a dream in the movie. Which I think they should have kept it like it was in the book. They connected all the characters in the movie to look just like the ones in Oz to show how she must have been dreaming. I was upset that they took out the second half also. I liked that part of the book and I didnt like what they did in the movie.
I enjoyed the movie as well. I saw that they made the whole world of Oz seem like it was just Dorothy’s dream and am interested in why the makers of the movie chose to portray it that way. In the book Dorothy’s Aunt’s feelings change dramatically with the ending; however, in the movie it is Dorothy who has a new appreciation for home. I feel that they most likely cut out the second half of the book to save on time. Also, I thought it was interesting that Dorothy seems to be portrayed as a much younger girl in the book than in the movie.
I enjoyed the movie but yes it definetly had its ups and downs in comparison to the book. Yes, I did notice the change of shoes from the book and the movie. Also, the tree man he came in out of nowhere and he was never mentioned in the book. I like the fact that they actually kept the witch and fear of water. I am actually surprised that they kept that in the movie and in the book. I would imagine the movie producers changing it up.
It was particularly annoying that the movie was so different from the book. You mentioned that the movie showed the golden cap, but I do not remember seeing that in the film (I must have missed it) but I didn’t like that the witch summoned the monkeys with the crystal ball instead of that cap. Also the movie did take away from the books storyline, I believe that it even gave a different message than the book’s intent.
I found the different gifts that the wizard gave to the group interesting as the gifts he gave in the movie seemed to have more value than those in the book (diploma instead of bran, heart-shaped pocket-watch instead of a stuffed heart, and a medal instead of liquor). Additionally, I found it interesting that he had the gifts with him when they showed up for their rewards. It is almost as if he was expecting the group to succeed in their task of returning the witch’s broom. Although, this could just be to show that the wizard is resourceful and intelligent in being able to present such logical gifts in the short amount of time. Do you think the timely manner in which the wizard presents his gifts suggests something about his character or instead was quickly presented to get on with the movie?
I believe the change from silver slippers to ruby slippers takes away the interpretation of the gold vs silver standard that was going on during that time period. The golden cap did not play a major role in the film. I also noticed the film did not show the second part of the book, which shortened the film drastically.
Yeah, I’m glad you mentioned that. The movie rendition to me was more of a creation to please the tastes of people. It was solely for entertainment while the book itself had a deeper meaning than what it is on the surface. If the second part of the book was in the movie though, I feel it would have been too long, but it would have been cool to see some of the parts incorporated.
If you read Hearn’s preface and annotations, he treats subliminal Populist undertones (the move from the Gold to Silver Standard) as something of a myth. Hearn brings it up in the preface, only to dismiss it so quickly that I can’t even find it. But it’s somewhere in there.
The movie was interesting and hilarious, but I felt that like you said had WAY to many changes from the book. Or had a lot of the major scenes missing. The whole getting attacked by the witch was very different. They didn’t get attacked by the wolves, then crows, bees, winkies, then the winged monkeys which I thought would have been particularly interesting scene.
Good catch on the red slippers from the silver ones. I didn’t really think much about it until later in the movie.
The movie was decent; it was not bad it keep track to the book in a way. In the movie, characters were introduced, but I assumed they were introduced because in the Land of Oz they appeared as the scarecrow, the tin woodman, the cowardly lion, and the oz himself. There were some changes, however. For example, the wicked witch appears along their journey and before she starts her journey. When they get to the Emerald City they sees oz as a big head, in contrast with the book, which each one enters alone and oz appears to each of them in a different form. Also when they went to the wicked witch of the west, wolfs, crows, and bees never attack them nor the winged monkeys destroy the tin woodman and nor they capture the lion. Also they never traveled to the south, the good witch of the north comes to Dorothy in the Emerald City to tell her how to get back home. I was kind of disappointment because everything was just a dream which I suspected at the beginning. When I first saw she got hit in the head with the window, I thought it was going to be just a dream; which came to be true. But it was an enjoyable movie; I like how the movie was also a musical movie.
Ya I didn’t noticed that the people on the farm were the same as the characters in Oz till the end of the movie. I dont know why the movie wanted it to seem like a dream so much . I think it would be a better story if they made Oz a real place that Dorthy ended up in.I wish they added the 2nd part of the book into the movie and I would have enjoyed it a little more.
I agree, with your response it was more of a music but they made it short. If the movie was longer and it had the socond part of the book I am pretty sure that it would be better. Also, the part where Dorothy is in the room and all of a sudden she ends up in the OZ was unexpected thry could of done a better job.
Although they could have done a better job, think about the time it was made. Technology was still advancing and such, but I do agree that they could have done better. I like the fact they added some of the musical elements because it made it pretty cool. After that, I’d love to see a musical/theater rendition of it.
I think that the people making the movie took away some of the violence to make the movie more family oriented. I was also disappointed in the ending of the movie, because they added the part about the whole event being a dream. I think it would have been cool if they had made Oz a real place.
The wicked witch not attacking the group of friends was really disappointing. I thought it would be really interesting to watch but was really sad it wasn’t part of the movie.
The whole movie being a dream really was kinda disappointing like you said. It really took away from the fact that she learned so much during her journey and how much she had grown as an individual.
The Movie of Wizard of Oz was very different then the book. It almost seems like a different story altogether besides a couple of general details that happend. I guess they must have changed a lot of it so the movie wouldn’t be so long, but they seemed to have added a lot to the begging of the movie that wasn’t in the book. They should have used that time to have more movie parts of them in Oz. One big part they changed right from the beginning of Oz was the color of the shoes on the witch. They were now red instead of silver. Why they changed something like that I dont know. After that happened he story just kept changing and changing. The plot of getting home was still the same but how she got home and the things she does changed a lot.
I accidentally just clicked enter in the middle of my writing but I’ll just continue writing on reply. When I was younger I really remember not liking the movie to much. Today I still dont like the movie very much. I found all the songs to be annoying and the characters in it I didn’t really find interesting. The movie took out a lot of the interesting things that the book had. Thats why I like the book a lot more. I enjoyed reading the book more then watching the movie which is unusual for me because I always like watching the movie over the book.
To answer your question about the shoes; on page 39 of the book, annotation 9 tells of how Margaret Hamilton asked a producer why the slippers had been changed, “He told her simply that in Technicolor, red stood out better against the Yellow Brick than silver would have,”
Same here, I like watching movies instead of reading the book. However, in this case I prefer the book. I really enjoyed the musical parts in the movie, why didn’t you? I agree with you, the book was different from the movie; but it wasn’t that big of a change though. About the shoes, in my opinion, they changed the color because I guess they looked better red than silver. But it should symbolize something, which I don’t really know.
They did in fact shorten the film in order to make it more interesting and not too boring. The plot did stay somewhat consistent to the book’s plot, which is nice. Unlike the translation between Breakfast at Tiffany’s, which changed the whole meaning of the book.
There was a great deal of the story that was lost in the translation from the book to the movie, but I think that the general story and moral were left intact. Many elements were changed, you are right, but many also stayed the same. The color of the shoes is just a tiny detail compared the the whole story, but you are right that a lot of it was changed. The characters were interesting in the book and the movie as well. Very different, but still somehow the same. It is interesting how a book and movie can be so similar yet different. 🙂
If I had to choose the better plot between them, the MGM film wins hands down. This is what screenplay writers do. They take a narrative and make it as succinct and efficient as possible. A faithful conversion from Baum’s original work simply would not have worked. But aside from superior organization, the film is also far more intelligent and witty than the book.
A few examples:
The introductory scenes in Kansas provide excellent foreshadowing for the Oz story.
The introduction of the Wicked Witch of the West provides tangible conflict and stakes to the plot.
Having Glinda come to Dorothy in the Emerald City shortens the plot significantly (but raises the question of why she didn’t tell Dorothy about the power of the slippers—her excuse sounds like a cop-out).
Revealing the story to have been a dream in the end has become something of a cliché today, but it works perfectly for this film.
Juxtaposed against the musical extravaganza The Wizard of Oz (1902) spoken of in the preface, it seems that this story was destined for the silver screen at its very conception. If only Baum had begun as a playwright or screenwriter, he might have been a greater success. Perhaps I just cannot see its charm, but compared to the film and stage adaptations, the book is slow, dull, and unrefined. Not that I was expecting the humor to still be fresh after a hundred years, but this is supposed to be a timeless classic. Yet I find myself agreeing with the book’s critics. If not for the amazing success of adaptations like the MGM film, the whole Oz saga might have been forgotten.
I agree with you about how if it wasnt for the movie, very few people would have heard of the book today. The book is nothing special and I have noticed a lot of people do love the film. I have never even seen a copy of the book of Wizard of Oz till this year and the movie has been around for a long time, its used as a children’s movie more then a children’s book I feel.
I really agree with you on the idea that the MGM film really made the Wizard of Oz what it is today. I had seen the movie multiple times before this class but had never actually read the book itself. After reading the book I see that there is really a huge difference between the two and honestly I do prefer the movie version. I believe that the screenwriters took a great deal of time in deciding exactly what they would take from the book and what they would adapt for the big screen to make the movie as enjoyable as possible. If it were not for their fantastic work in adapting this novel I may have never known about the “wonderful wizard” and the great Land of Oz.
The shortening of the film did make it a whole lot better compared to the book. I am sure if they made the film’s translation true to the book, it’s success would not be the same. The appearance of the Wicked Witch in the beginning of the film did make it more interesting since there was a tangible danger present right away.
I agree with your statement that the dream ending of the movie has become a bit cliche. Many movies have used the same ending but I feel like the Wizard of Oz is the original. It was made in 1939 after all. I also agree that without adaptions, the Oz saga may have been forgotten. I know that I did not read the book when I was younger but I definitely saw the movie and my idea of the story is heavily tied to the movie itself. I don’t think even now the book version will come to mind when I think about the Wizard of Oz.
I have always really loved the movie the Wizard of Oz. I watched it a lot when I was a kid. It was interesting for me while I was reading the book version to see all the minor and large details that were added or taken away. The detail change that always interested me the most was the difference between the shoe colors from the book to the movie. In the book the shows are silver while in the movie the shoes are ruby red. When I wondered about this I found out that the Wizard of Oz was one of the first few color movies. People were so excited about color they changed the shoes to become more vivid. In my history class during my junior year of high school we covered the gold standard and silverite. This debate covered the value of gold versus the value of silver. My teacher at the time brought up the interpretation that the yellow brick road represented this gold standard and the silver slippers the silverite. During the time where the Baum wrote the Wizard of Oz, farm workers preferred silver over gold. It has been interpreted that the yellow brick road (gold) leads to the Emerald City which represents the greed of large business. I have always found that interpretation interesting; however, the switch to ruby slippers in the film version shadows over this possible interpretation.
Aside from that possibility the Wizard of Oz film covers the important details of the book although a good portion of events from the book are left out. The message of the Wizard of Oz is a great one; good triumphing over evil. A classic theme for movies and books aimed towards the younger audience.
I have never heard of this movie or the book before, probably a couple of times during high school; but I didn’t really knew about it nor went over it in high school. However, while reading through your blogging, now I have a good idea why the change in color. I agree with you about the “good triumphing over evil” also in most movies this always happens. For the first time watching the movie, I thought it was a good and enjoyable movie.
It was my firt time watching the WIzard of OZ the movie and it was a good movie. They could of added more to it. Also, the movie is not that off in comparison of the book. I am quiet intersted on watching a play now and see what that is like and comparing it to the book and the movie.
Wow, I didn’t realize that even Dorothy’s slippers, in the book, represented a political aspect of the time period. That is very interesting to think about. Also, the good triumphing over evil, I believe, was the ‘hollywood’ idea set into the movie instead of the book. Yes, Dorothy did win over the wicked witch, but I think the moral of the story was to show that all the qualities each character was looking for, they had all along and just need a little push to bring them out.
I would never have thought that shoe color in a children’s book could have been written as so in order to make a political statement. Come to think of it, actually, many children’s books have double entendres that are simple overlooked, but when taken out of context have a much deeper meaning. For example, my high school chemistry teacher once explained to us that “Alice in Wonderland” is a gold mine for mathematical references, mostly because Lewis Carroll (the author) was a mathematician himself.
Oh my gosh, that is a complete new way of interpreting the book. I never really thought that the silver slippers and the yellow brick road had that kind of meaning to it. That makes it even worse that they changed it to “ruby”. In all honesty though it would make sense since like you said it was one of the first colored movies. Red is MUCH more vivid than silver.
I thought that the Wizard of Oz movie was pretty accurate to the original when you consider the main aspects of the plot. However, many small details were changed in between the larger plot aspects and Oz was depicted in a much more romanticized view than it was portrayed in the book. For example, one of the details that were changed in the making of the movie was that the Emerald City really was made all of an emerald green color unlike it was in the book. In the book they were tricked into thinking the city was an emerald color by the emerald colored glasses that were locked onto their heads when they entered the city. In my opinion, this detail really added to showing how much of a humbug the wizard really was in the end. Additionally, they left out many of the dark parts that were present in the novel. In the novel, Dorothy’s stay in Oz was over a period of a couple of days where the night forced them to find shelter and temporarily halt their journey. Many of the struggles Dorothy faced during her journey were also omitted such as the Kalidahs, river, wolves, crows, and bees. These struggles helped to emphasize Dorothy’s desire to escape from Oz and return to her safe home in Kansas.
Another small detail that was missing was the wicked witch of the west’s umbrella which aided as a foreshadowing to her weakness and death. Instead this was replaced with a normal broomstick which I think is due to the fact that movies are portrayed through pictures rather than words. If the witch instead used an umbrella, people might get the idea that the witch was some sort of joke instead of the wicked witch that she really was in the book. By conforming to a more traditional witch look they managed to portray the wicked witch in a more serious fashion. Overall, I would say that the movie conformed pretty well to the big details of the original plotline and even made the movie quite a bit more enjoyable than the book itself. They changed many minor details but added quite a bit of humor and lots of nicely written songs that added to the overall experience of the Land of Oz. In my opinion, one of the best additions to the movie was the scene before Dorothy arrives in the Land of Oz which provides a nice foreshadowing into the events that will take place as she makes her Journey through Oz.
Personally, I feel that these minor changes were acceptable, considering the overall improvement of the plot. Minor experiences such as the encounter with the Kalidahs can be replaced by the threat from the Wicked Witch herself. In the book, the central conflict is Dorothy wanting to go home. Not very exciting. But in the film, the Wicked Witch is introduced early on. Now there is an active force seeking to destroy Dorothy. Suddenly she has a definite reason for wanting to go home. It makes everything fit together much better.
I agree with what Nathan says in relation to the Witch being introduced earlier on in the story. I remember thinking and learning about the idea of Good vs. Evil within the book and with the early introduction, it definitely made it an obvious point which made it more enjoyable to me.
As to what was said about the wizard’s trickery being toned down, I too was a bit disappointed because it definitely would have been funnier. But other than that, the movie was good in itself.
You definitely came across a lot more of the minor changes between the movie and the book. I did not notice half of these. I agree that the main plot of the book and movie stay pretty true to what Baum wanted. I also agree that the overall experience of the Land of Oz was improved with humor and nicely written songs. I mean who doesn’t know “We’re off to see the Wizard”. Classic songs through the movie. I enjoyed them very much. I believe the filmmakers did a good job translating the book into film.
Even though small details were missing, I still enjoyed the movie. I do agree that some of the foreshadowing (like the umbrella) were missing, but I did not think that those small details made a difference on the plot. What did make a difference to the plot what that a lot of the second half of the book seemed to be missing. All of the songs that the movie had made the movie better. The musical pieces made the movie funny and interesting.
I agree that the witch was a bit more intense than the novel version and there were only a few minor changes with respect to the integrity of the characters themselves. I also disliked how they took out some important parts to the movie, but supplemented it with adding foreshadowing details to it instead.
The movie Wizard of OZ was different than the book The Wizard of OZ. The movie kept the idea but the details change from the movie and the book. But a transition that got my attention was the fact that it was a black and white film when Dorothy was in Kansas. One is able to see the difference from Kansas to OZ. Also, the way that they did the movie is shorter than the book they cut out a lot of parts from the book. But, the movie has the same idea where Dorothy escapes Kansas because no one understands her and that is exactly what happens in the movie. Once she had disappear from Kansas she realized that she want to go back because her aunt is sick. Throughout her journey in her way to Emerald city she finds the scarecrow and the tin woodman and also the lion. They all help her through her journey and eventually they get the piece that they are missing. But the OZ put them through the test before he gave the scarecrow his brain, the heart to the tin woodman, and courage to the lion. He asked them to bring back the witch’s broom. On the other hand, through the journey Dorothy wants food and all she sees is an apple tree. But little did she know that it was a person. In the book the tree was not a character. The movie is never the same as the book but it keeps the same idea.
I agree that there were differences that were noticeable between the book and the movie, but I don’t think the movie portrayed the overall idea of the book’s theme. In my other posts I explain why. I, too, liked the transition from black and white to color. I think it represents the dull atmosphere she views her home has and shows what color environment Oz has. This was also done in the book as well, which was my favorite part about the movie’s similarities to the book.
This is most definitely true in the sense that the book and movie are similar but not exact. This was probably done to save time and still end up with a movie that was watchable but it changed the perspective by changing little things here and there. I feel that the translation between the two was a let down and the movie did not give the same meanings as the book.
At the beginning of the movie the scene is set on a ranch in Kansas, the director sets this scene as black and white. I thought this was interesting because the book also compared Kansas as a dreary, gray place; black and white was a perfect portrayal of the author’s true intentions to show the difference between Oz and Kansas. The other similarities between the book and the movie were minor and had the same outcome –the wicked witch’s death. What annoyed me most of all was how long the book was, while the movie shortened the story plot.
The differences between the book and the movie were many, one of which was Dorothy herself. Her image in my head after reading the book was of a little girl, maybe ten, that gets swept away to Kansas. While in the movie, Dorothy appears to be around the ages of seventeen to twenty. The magic of the book, I feel, was minimized. The lion, tin woodman, and scarecrow didn’t get to show their smarts, hearts, or courage throughout the adventure, this made the overall message of the story change. In the book the characters had the three qualities all along and did not need an object to prove it. However, the movie actually pointed out that the items did alter their personalities when they came into contact with the items. The items themselves were considerably different. The Lion’s “courage” in the book was liquor, while in the movie it was a pin of pride. The Tin Woodman’s silk, sawdust filled heart was replaced with a clock heart in the film. And the scarecrow’s Bran-brains in the book was a diploma. I also felt I wasn’t completely into the movie’s plot as I was the book’s, the adventure wasn’t so thrilling and the obstacles in the travelers’ ways weren’t substantial. Overall the book ruined the movie for me because I really enjoyed the book’s plot more.
I think the biggest change between the book and film is the changing of the balance between the plot before meeting the Wizard and that after meeting him. Baum took care to characterize the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, and Cowardly Lion by introducing obstacles before they met the Wizard. In the film, by contrast, the characters show that they already possess their desired traits after Dorothy is captured and they must infiltrate the Witch’s castle. It’s all very subtle, of course, but almost every line of dialogue between Dorothy’s capture and the Witch’s death hint that the three already possess what they want from the Wizard.
The book’s plot did seem to have a lot more detail in character development than in the movie. In the book each of the characters that Dorothy meets gets to show their development toward their desire (whether it was brains, heart, or courage) multiple times as the story continues. In the movie this character development is minimized as there is only one particular instance that I remember where the three get to show their brains, heart, and courage. This instance was attempting to save Dorothy from the wicked witch of the west and, even so, their efforts leave them cornered by the witch and her army which is then defeated by Dorothy alone. In my opinion, the characters in the book developed much more than they did in the movie.
I agree that the change from black and white to color was really cool. It added to the contrast of the two places that Dorothy was in. I was sad that the scarecrow, tin man, and lion did not show the things that they desire, because that was an import theme through out the book, but the wizard did have a few lines toward the end of the movie that presented this theme.
I also found the movie disappointing because the directors chose to remove many of the motifs the book had. The motifs, I believe, are important for the overall understanding of the story because we can understand that the characters already had what they were hoping to attain from the Wizard Oz; they just needed a push. I think only having the field of poppies and the killing the Wicked Witch of the West eliminated chances for the Scarecrow and the Tin Man to indicate this. Although it was clear that after Wizard Oz acknowledged their desires, they did not significantly change their behavior. Wizard Oz only boosted their self-esteem. In the movie, we do not see the significantly altered behaviors of these characters.
Regardless, I appreciated that the directors used a sepia color for then the movie showed clips of or when the movie took place in Kansas. It really brought out the “dull and gray as everything else” (Baum 18) of Kansas and when it transitioned to the World of Oz, we got to see the contrast between the two worlds.
The Wizard of Oz film was a shortened, but pretty accurate plot of the book. There were some minor details which were different from the book. Dorothy’s slippers are red in the film where in the book they are silver. During this time period, there was dispute on which currency should be used, silver or gold. The silver slippers in the book can be interpreted as the silver standard and the yellow brick road as the gold standard. However, this interpretation no longer holds in the movie since they changed the color in order to increase the contrast of red with yellow. Another difference was the addition of the tree farm hands, which were not mentioned in the book. The Wicked Witch makes her appearance early in the film in order to present danger and make the film more interesting instead of them wandering for awhile like in the book. The overall plot was very alike, Dorothy ends up killing the Wicked Witch and ends up home, even though the film makers portrayed it as if the whole journey was a dream. The movie was much more interesting than the book since it was shortened and did not seem like a drag.
Yeah although some of the details were different from the book, it kept true to the original plot of the book. I really enjoyed the fact the Witch was introduced early on because it solidified the theme of Good vs. Evil. I also like how you mentioned the currency issue that the book was written about. Although it’s a deeper meaning int he book, it still made for a good story enjoyable by everyone.
The early presences of the Wicked Witch of the West introduces the good versus evil battle. When Dorothy meets the Good Witch of the North and the Munchkins, everyone is only concerned with whether Dorothy is a good witch or a bad witch. It’s interesting how they are so concerned about this distinction, especially when the Great Wizard Oz considers himself a good man, but a bad wizard. If the citizens of Emerald city found out he was not an actual wizard, would they consider him to still be an evil wizard or a civilian?
It was definitely shortened and it failed to give the full picture. Although some things were changed, the stories were quite similar. I do feel that they did not do a good job as far as missing of some very crucial details as it took away from the story and made it incomplete. The part about Dorothy dreaming about everything in the movie was there to make it seem more realistic (as in that it could actually happen…dreaming about the things that happened) but that was obviously not an accurate translation of the book.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen this movie originally, however, it was pretty cool watching it again after learning about its meaning during my U.S. History class. Besides that point, I really enjoyed the fact that Dorothy’s life in Kansas was black and white while all the color and vibrancy was in Oz. It really hammered down the fact that she wanted to get away from her boring life in Kansas and just find somewhere new. Although some of the elements within the book are different, the plot still stayed true to its roots. To me, it made it a bit more enjoyable because while reading, I felt really really bored at times. I really enjoyed the fact the WIcked Witch early on because it solidified the theme of Good vs. Evil which was a big factor as to why the movie was successful.
Going back to the book, as everyone says, the second part of the book was absent. Although it would have been A LOT more entertaining with it incorporated, I feel it was appropriate for them to remove it because the movie would have dragged on. It was enjoyable on its own as was the book. To me, the book had more detail (obviously) but was more boring. The movie was more enjoyable but some of the details that made the book awesome were somewhat absent or non-existant. One thing that bugged me was the fact the slippers were red (but this happened when I learned about the book during my U.S. History class). It took away from the deeper meaning of the book but it showed that technology was advancing with the technicolor technology.
I also thought that the book moved at a slower pace compared to the movie due to more details and what not. But I didn’t think that it was boring because readers got more background information. For instance, the characters were more developed because the readers knew more about their personal background.
Like the large amount of us who has seen this movie before. I remember when I was a very young kid having seen snippets of this alongside some of younger cousins. In comparison to the book however, the book seems to provide much more detail and a sense of adventure in the amount of detail of the world that is given. I understand that certain sections out of the book had to taken out to reduce the amount of time given the fact that it is a feature film but I still prefer the book.
The book and it’s simple picture help to spark your imagination and think about what actually occurs in this world. The black and white, contrast with different colors of each chapter and certain parts do make sense. In fact, I liked the ending part of the book which helped to bring about full circle of each of characters and how they learn to use each of their gifts responsibly.
Just like most other books, the movie version only gives the story of the book and they lack the background of the story. This move was a great example of this because we didn’t learn anything about the characters background. The tin man’s reason for finding a wanting a heart was rather lackluster and this was the same for the scarecrow. The lion barely show his courage throughout the movie. Dorothy was the only person I think had the most lessons learned.
The book does seem to provide a lot more detail and adventure, in comparison to the movie. I also watched this movie when I was younger, and I loved it, but did not get all the messages that I did when a read the book. The book is very good, and this is why it made such a good movie! It is shortened a great deal, and many scenes are taken out, but I think it was a good representation of the book. I think that all the lessons are learned in both the original and the translation.
The movie The Wizard of Oz was a very entertaining movie with amazing special effects for its time. The only problem I had with this movie was the fact that it did not completely go hand and hand with the book “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz”. There were many changed, deleted, and added scenes which made the movie it’s own thing compared to the story. The biggest differences came from the beginning and end when Oz gives the three companions what they had wanted. In the beginning Oz was supposed to be shown as different creatures, objects, and people; instead the movie depicted him as just the floating head. At the end, when receiving their rewards the Lion got a medal, the Tinman got a clock heart, and the Scarecrow had received a diploma which was completely different from what they actually should have received. There were many other changes made by the director, some of which was apparently to showcase the vivid colors that they were capable of showing during that time period. Another rather large difference between the two would be the fact that this had all been a dream and not a real adventure she had really gone on. The movie had hinted that it was a dream by having the same characters who she lived with as the scarecrow, lion, tinman, and witch to name a few. It had also hinted this by trying to over exaggerate the fact that she had been hit in the head by the window. In the book, Dorthy “actually goes on an adventure” and spends her days actually in the colorful world; where she then learns valuable lessons whereas in the movie it takes away from this feeling. There were many other scenes which were cut which would have shown that the Lion actually did have courage and bravery, that the Scarecrow actually did have the smarts, and the Tinman actually did have more heart than any other character in the story. Overall the movie rendition of the book had missed many key points to the meaning behind the book.
It seemed as though the cinematic rendition of the book had been made to please the eyes of the viewers and not to actually show the deeper meanings that could be seen while reading the story. Personally speaking I did not really enjoy watching this film as a translation from book to film. This does not mean that I did not enjoy the movie. The movie itself had many great qualities which makes it a classic American classic. The special effects were amazing for its time and the fact that it was one of the first few colored films makes it an amazing film for its time. I enjoyed the fact that the munchkins were actually decently small. I could not tell whether or not they were little children or actual short people, and the fact that their voices were altered to sounds very high pitched made me chuckle every time they spoke or sang. The music was amazing also; each song was very catchy and brought out the fact that this land was different from Kansas a lot.
I agree with you that the movie did not do a good job of portraying all the meanings that were the basis of the story to begin with. Many of the key points were missing as you mentioned and other things were added to shape the story differently. Things like the characters backgrounds was also missing which I feel is a big part of the story to be missing. The movie was fun to watch but did not give the entire picture and failed to do what the book did.
I agree with the fact that the movie didn’t do a thorough job of portraying the morals that were characterized in the novel, however I think they did a good job of capturing the main moral of the story. I also agree that adding song and dance to it helped the film seem more captivating to a larger audience.
Not sure I agree at all. What morals were present in the book that are not present in the film? Good is good and evil is evil. Badguy dies. Happy ending. Intelligence, empathy, and courage are still the central virtues of the story. Granted, the fact that the characters already possessed them was not as in-your-face as it was in the book, but that’s artistic license.
Certainly, the film was not as deep as the book, but are you sure you are not confusing plot elements with morals? The movie switches a few things around, drops a few things that did not work, and shortens the plot to just over ninety minutes. As for the whole thing being a dream, well, consider it a new direction. Oz becomes less of a place and more of an idea. Plus, it ties everything into a neat and self-contained story (where there is no room for sequels).
The Wizard of Oz is a fun movie to watch. It is really old but is still a good story and shows many lessons. The movie was short compared to how long the book is and some parts have been left out to save time. If the whole story was told, it would be a really long movie so things such as the flying monkeys are left out in the movie. The movie can be scary for little kids at times but is for the most part, very family friendly. Little details have been changed with some things being added and some things that have been cut out. I enjoyed both reading the story and watching the movie but the reading was much more detailed. I also felt that the reading gave a better and fuller picture of what was going on. Since I have watched the movie before, I was surprised when I paid attention to many smaller details than I had before, partly because it was not the first time that I was watching the movie. The movie is also missing crucial background on the characters and this is shown by the absence of how the tin man, scarecrow, and lion were made. This again connects back to the fact that the movie was missing certain things that were present in the original story.
Dorothy’s character is also different in that the actual story portrays her as being courageous and strong but the movie portrays her to be weak. The representation of the other characters is also not to par as what it is in the book. The other characters are much more meaningful in the story and I feel that the movie was not able to show the same meaning. Although the characters don’t show the same amount of meaning, in both the book and the movie the characters are extensions of Dorothy and in some way connect to her. The singing in the movie is helpful because it is meant to be a children’s movie so that gives the audience a way to relax while watching the movie. Even though the movie was good, I still feel that the translation was not done well and that many of the deeper meanings were lost as a result.
I totally agree with you in that the movie didn’t interpret the characters as they were from the book. You make a good point in that, the movie edited down might have changed them. The lack background story for each of the character was not included in the movie for space reasons. But without those, the characters didn’t feel as important to the story.
I totally agree that, especially with this movie/book transition, it would be very difficult to fit in all of the small details from the book. The characters were portrayed slightly differently, but I think that the overall message was the same. It is a good children’s movie, but some of the deeper meaning were lost 😦 I also enjoyed the book and movie a great deal!
Everyone knows that the film “The Wizard of Oz” is an American classic. It stars Judy Garland, one of the most iconic American movie stars to date. There are many ways in which the film differs from the book, however. I admired the filmmakers’ attention to distinguishing the colorful land of Oz from the vapid land of Kansas. I thought it was interesting how the movie changed how Dorothy killed the witch, most likely to make it more age appropriate in making it seem like an accident. I couldn’t figure out why the movie would change the color of the silver shoes from the book, but after reading my peer’s explanations, I now understand that it could have been interpreted as a political statement. I noticed that there was a lot omitted from the movie that may have been crucial to understanding what the purpose of it all was, such as the Tin Woodman’s story. Also, the Great Oz did not reveal himself to each of the characters in the same way he did in the book. Also, his gifts were different.
I found the movie to be entertaining more than anything and relevant to every age group. It was great to see the characters of the tale come to life in film and I feel it added depth to each character, especially Dorothy. I thought Judy Garland’s performance added personality to the rather static figure in the novel. At the same time, I felt the omission of the background stories of the other character detracted from them becoming more transparent. I see the logic is doing that, however, because in order for a film to flow smoothly it might have been necessary to do so.
I also like how how Kansas didn’t have any color and Oz was bursting with colors. However, the movie didn’t do a very good job translating why the two places were so different. You would of had to read to book to have a very good understand between the two places and their relationship to Dorothy’s life.
I also do agree that the movie was entertaining, but when compared to the book, the book gave a lot more to the reader other than a story.
In the movie, Dorothy’s character does seem more developed than the other characters. But I don’t think that this affects their purpose in the movie because the audience can see that they make a great team because of their combined strengths – just as how they make a great team in the book.
The movie – “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” – was quite different from the book. The main story was the same but it lacked some of the morals Dorothy learned throughout the journey. The movie introduced some new characters and contained many songs and dances. Additionally, the part of the movie that bothered me the most was that everything Dorothy went though was a dream.
What changed the movie from the book was that the movie eliminated the tasks Dorothy went though. Dorothy and her friends did not have to face challenges such as the river, the attacks by the witch and the hammerheads. The movie basically was Dorothy going on a journey and running into friends that will occupy her as she meets the Wizard. In addition, by removing the challenges the group faced, we the audience don’t see the characters change. However, the movie does put more emphasis on Dorothy instead of the rest of the characters because she had to learn what the rest of the group had to learn. This might be the reason why the farm worker was introduced. The people she met in Oz all relate to the people from her barn.
Overall, I think the movie was okay. They changed a lot from the book but the morals and the theme was almost the same. I would recommend reading the book before seeing the movie because the book makes the audience feel more into the story.
I also didn’t like how there weren’t as many obstacles in the group’s journey to the Emerald City; it made the journey less dangerous. But I think that the danger lied in the wicked witch. Her presence throughout the movie “compensated” for the lack of danger in the omitted obstacles, such as the river and hammerheads.
The movie and book of the Wizard of Oz had many translations. I thought that the producers did a great job at portraying Kansas as a dull place through the “black and white” screening, and then portraying Oz as a vibrant place through colored screening. In this aspect, my image of Kansas and Oz is similar in both the book and the movie.
The wicked witch of the west stood out most in my perspective. She was more wicked in the movie than I had imagined from the book. I think that her presence throughout the movie brought a greater sense of danger. She also carried a broom instead of an umbrella. The umbrella represented her weakness of water, but because it was replaced by a broom, it was almost as if she didn’t have any noticeable weaknesses.
The Wizard of Oz, the move and the book, were both amazing! The novel went much more in depth and explained a lot more about the characters and the situation than the movie did, but doesn’t the book always?! The move was an interesting visual, compared to the book. In my mind, I had the characters act and be a certain way, and in the movie it was completely different. Dorothy was meant to be a young child who has gotten lost, but in the movie she was almost a full grown adult. It threw the entire story off. The lion, scarecrow, and tin man were also very different than what I imagined. The Lion was meant to be a secretive hero, but continually disappointed me with his lack of “take charge” attitude, as he showed several times in the book. The scarecrow was meant to be the smartest out of the whole gang, which he did show several times in the movie, but not as much as I had hoped. The tin man was meant to have the largest heart of them all, but I barely noticed it. When I watched this movie before I had read the book, I barely noticed the actual characters each of them were playing. I did not see what they were meant to represent or how this reflected on Dorothy at all. When I read the book, some of the dots connected, but re-watching the movie showed me that many of the circumstances did not appear in both. I love the movie though, and the book made it even better. Now that I know how things were meant to happen, it helps me appreciate the film makers and the way they portrayed the characters better.