AHC and WI: No Wizard of Oz?

With a PoD no earlier than October 13, 1938 (the day shooting commenced) how does production on The Wizard of Oz get derailed so that an adaptation of the book is not released prior to 1945?

When would the first adaptation then come out? And what would be the effects (culturally, cinematically, and otherwise) of this change?
 
There had already been adaptations of Baum's book before the 1939 movie, that movie was simply more memorable because the earlier adaptations were silent black and white films of the kind that were quickly forgotten by the late thirties.

If it comes out later, there is a chance the movie won't be a musical, which will have a distinct cultural impact. Also, if it comes out at a time when the studios no longer feel that color film is something of a novelty, the shoes will be silver instead of Ruby, like in Baum's books.

I'd expect a film sometime in the fifties. It isn't going to be made in the forties because of the war effort and the drain on actors that resulted.
 
Oh, the vomit inducing pop culture assimilation of moments that never comes to being.


  • "I'm melting! Melting!!!". Not anymore
  • "Lions and Tigers, and Bears!". Oh no.
  • "We represent the lollipop guild". Your charter's been revoked.
Take everything you've seen parodied, and quotes you've heard said in a situation in your life, and remove them. I think you'll find surprisingly a lot of it. The film is just so entrenched in our culture.
 
Oh, the vomit inducing pop culture assimilation of moments that never comes to being.


  • "I'm melting! Melting!!!". Not anymore
  • "Lions and Tigers, and Bears!". Oh no.
  • "We represent the lollipop guild". Your charter's been revoked.
Take everything you've seen parodied, and quotes you've heard said in a situation in your life, and remove them. I think you'll find surprisingly a lot of it. The film is just so entrenched in our culture.

It really depends where, tbh. In some places it's not hard to find people who are only dimly aware of it at best.

Anyway, I'd still expect it to have some sort of musical element, as IIRC the book itself contained some songs.
 
Good answers :)

There had already been adaptations of Baum's book before the 1939 movie, that movie was simply more memorable because the earlier adaptations were silent black and white films of the kind that were quickly forgotten by the late thirties.

D'oh :eek: OK, first well known, talking adaptation
 
Delaying wouldn't be that hard.

Say have the accident that injured Margaret Hamilton be more serious, then have the studio suffer some financial losses, so they decide to put things off.

Film comes out in 40's.
 
With a PoD no earlier than October 13, 1938 (the day shooting commenced) how does production on The Wizard of Oz get derailed so that an adaptation of the book is not released prior to 1945?


As the others have pointed out, the 1939 musical was not the first or only adaptation of the book. Baum himself directed a few silent versions. What the 1939 production did was prevent any future adaptations apart from low budget, narrowly distributed "re-imagined" versions or parodies.

As for delaying or preventing the 1939 version, actual cast and crew deaths would be a good start. The original Tin Man, Buddy Ebsen, nearly died thanks to inhaling the powdered aluminum in his make-up for only a few days and Wicked Witch Margaret Hamilton was badly burned when some SFX reacted with her copper-based make-up. Kill off a few people on the set and production will be shut down.

Considering how tightly scheduled stages, actors, crafts, writers, directors, and the like were under the studio system, delay the production long enough and everyone is going to be off doing something else very quickly and therefore next to impossible to reassemble.

Also, the name escape me, but didn't the fellow who finally finished direction of Gone With The Wind spend a few weeks filling in as a director on the Oz before moving on to GWTW? If memory serves, he made some substantial and in retrospect important changes too, among them removing the blond wig Garland had been wearing.

Prevent his appearance as a pinch hitter and the studio might be so disappointed in the rushes that the film is never released.

When would the first adaptation then come out?

The early 1950s when Hollywood was looking for any gimmick to "fight" television. We'd see a mega budget, cinemascope, technicolor, Cecil B. Demented extravaganza with oodles of star power, stunt casting, and every other trick up the studio's sleeve. Think Dorothy & Co. given the Ben Hur/Ten Commandments treatment and you won't be too far off the mark.

Like the others, I'd bet the later version won't be a musical.

And what would be the effects (culturally, cinematically, and otherwise) of this change?

Profound and widespread, as EN1 correctly pointed out. References to the film's dialog, scenes, characters, all of it are embedded in our culture down to the level of our language.
 
It sits long enough, and the rights elapse. Walt Disney gets his hands on it, and makes it a cartoon. The Wicked Witch of the West becomes one of the favorite villans of Disney fame.
 
Oh, the vomit inducing pop culture assimilation of moments that never comes to being.


  • "I'm melting! Melting!!!". Not anymore
  • "Lions and Tigers, and Bears!". Oh no.
  • "We represent the lollipop guild". Your charter's been revoked.
Take everything you've seen parodied, and quotes you've heard said in a situation in your life, and remove them. I think you'll find surprisingly a lot of it. The film is just so entrenched in our culture.

The first one might still be in a later film, considering the fact that the witch dies from water being thrown on her in the book to begin with, and as such that's probably going to be in the movie. Of course the performance will be different and the lines themselves could be altered. But the point is that the witch will still die from water being thrown on her.
 
Thanks to all responses -- I'm actually intrigued by the idea of Disney making an Oz movie; but I also really like the DeMille style epic image of Oz. Tough call there... :rolleyes:

How long would MGM have the rights to a movie based on Baum's work if they didn't make or release the film in 1939?

I actually don't know, and would like to know myself, if anyone does...
 
... I'm actually intrigued by the idea of Disney making an Oz movie...


So am I! Disney cranked out their first full length, wholly live action feature in 1945 with the release of Treasure Island so the idea of their filming another children's story, complete with the potential for built in TV/movie sequels as with the Davy Crockett property, looks like a no-brainer.

Hopefully someone knows about the "whens" of the movie rights; when MGM's option runs out, when Disney might be able to get their hands on it, etc.

Any Disney production after a failed 1939 attempt is going to be after WW2 too, which neatly fits your original question. What with the animation strike and Disney's war work, they aren't going to touch big project until after that date.

... but I also really like the DeMille style epic image of Oz. Tough call there... :rolleyes:

It would "interesting" in the same sense a horrific train wreck involving people you don't know is "interesting". ;)

After all, Cecil cast Edward G. Robinson is The Ten Commandments...Where's your Messiah now? :D
 
Because it's a children's book, I really doubt that a technicolor panorama epic like the Ten Commandments would be made out of it. The story just doesn't lend itself to that, in my opinion. And as it would be a children's movie, it's not going to be longer than an hour and a half or so.

In the '50's it might be more comparable to some of Disney's early live-action pics, such as 20,000 leagues. Some great special effects for its time, but not a biblical epic.

It probably would still be a musical, unless it isn't made until the late 1960's. In fact, it's a distinct possibility that it's a hit production on Broadway before its made into a film. Baum had already produced numerous musicals based on the books into the 1920's.

Really, I think that the Disney idea is probably very likely if no one makes a live action. Or, if not Disney, perhaps MGM invests in their animation studios enough to produce a more serious, feature-length cartoon of Disney quality. If that happened, and it worked, you could easily have a successful Disney rival very early on. I'm going to try to avoid thinking about Warner Bros. taking it on. Disney's manglings and sequels would be bad enough, without having non-sequiter Bugs Bunny cameos popping up in it.

The best source of information I know of for Oz on the web is found at http://thewizardofoz.info. If the answer isn't found there, the site owner may have some resources that would help.

I suspect that the movie rights didn't have a real expiration date. They'd already passed from Baum to his son (after having been briefly held by someone else who got them while Baum was bankrupt) to Samuel Goldwyn to MGM.
 
I hope this was not mentioned.King Vidor finished Wizard of Oz . Victor Fleming went to GTTW.What Vidor finished was the black and white sequences including Somewhere over The Rainbow!Damn!Oliver Hardy was the Tin Man in s silent 1920s version.
 
The early 1950s when Hollywood was looking for any gimmick to "fight" television. We'd see a mega budget, cinemascope, technicolor, Cecil B. Demented extravaganza with oodles of star power, stunt casting, and every other trick up the studio's sleeve. Think Dorothy & Co. given the Ben Hur/Ten Commandments treatment and you won't be too far off the mark.

Like the others, I'd bet the later version won't be a musical.

I would pay good money to see Cecil B. DeMille's Oz: A great, heroic epic centered on the Wizard, legions of flying stuntmen, massive plywood Emerald City sets!
 
If Sam Goldwyn does not get the rights to the Wizard of Oz, MGM likely looks elsewhere for material. There is a chance that the story fades into obscurity. Since it can be acted, Disney might not consider it for animation. Any silent film versions will quickly disappear.

The original story had a political message that virtually disappeared when Dorothy's slippers turned red for impact in Technicolor. The issue was hard and soft currency. The yellow brick road is depicted as a reliable path in a color that represents gold. It ends at Emerald City. The green color of Emerald City suggests unreliable paper currency (American greenbacks). The wizard is a fake who can not send Dorothy home. But the slippers of silver (hard currency) can.

The movie fixed the story into what it is. Depending on the quality of competing material, interest in the Wizard of Oz might fade.
 

katchen

Banned
If Sam Goldwyn does not get the rights to the Wizard of Oz, MGM likely looks elsewhere for material. There is a chance that the story fades into obscurity. Since it can be acted, Disney might not consider it for animation. Any silent film versions will quickly disappear.

The original story had a political message that virtually disappeared when Dorothy's slippers turned red for impact in Technicolor. The issue was hard and soft currency. The yellow brick road is depicted as a reliable path in a color that represents gold. It ends at Emerald City. The green color of Emerald City suggests unreliable paper currency (American greenbacks). The wizard is a fake who can not send Dorothy home. But the slippers of silver (hard currency) can.

The movie fixed the story into what it is. Depending on the quality of competing material, interest in the Wizard of Oz might fade.
Naturally MGM killed the Silver Slippers idea for a show made during the height of the New Deal.:rolleyes: Free Silver was too fundamentalist an economic message for the Roosevelt years. (Though expansion of silver currency instead of Federal Reserve Notes WOULD have been a shot in the arm for Western mining states like Idaho, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada. Montana and Alaska (still a territory) too.
 
Top