Oz The Great & Powerful Reviews: Fun for the whole family - and your little dog, too!

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03 March 2013   #16
Here is a set of B-roll clips showing some of how much was actually sets.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #17
Oz made 80.5 million opening.

I called it somewhere on this forum. I was off by .5 mil. Can I call them or can I call them.

Hey is there a job in Hwood where you guess what they are going to make at the box office?
I'm like 90% accurate.

Ideas?

Oh by the way I'm looking forward to this one. Heard it was awesome.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #18
Originally Posted by AangtheAvatar: Oz made 80.5 million opening.

I called it somewhere on this forum. I was off by .5 mil. Can I call them or can I call them.

Hey is there a job in Hwood where you guess what they are going to make at the box office?
I'm like 90% accurate.

Ideas?

Oh by the way I'm looking forward to this one. Heard it was awesome.


Try joining www.the-numbers.com or www.boxofficemojo.com
Those sites though I think get their numbers from estimates of the actual distributor... They may take their word more often than yours.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Old 03 March 2013   #19
Decent enough but bad casting and average VFX.
Weak story but a decent attempt to recreate the scenery and visual vibe
of the original. Good entertainment for little ones mostly.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #20
I really enjoyed it, but of course it was oh so predictable. Were people really expecting it to be a challenging film It was quite effective in 3d, especially the first act of the film. The opening credits were a joy in stereoscopic and made great use of the depth available. Also liked the whole 3:2 aspect/B&W start with a few 3d elements breaking the frame, and was a very effective use of the medium. B&W footage seems to really emphasize 3D depth,as could also be seen with Frankenweenie.

I did have issues with the CG tracking shots when he first lands in Oz and is drifting through the marshes. Everything was very blurry in stereoscopic and was hard to tell if it was motion blur, heavy DOF or just motion strobing. Really think they should avoid those sort of shots for a stereo film unless it is higher than 24fps.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #21
I definitely enjoyed it. I though the visuals were great, and I liked most of the performances. Funny to think Disney's earlier attempt at an Oz movie (1985's Return To Oz) was arguably a failure. Now Warner Bros. may be scrambling to make their own Oz films. And there's already a CG-animated Oz musical in development.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #22
I didn't even realize that animated Oz film was already done! And boy does it looks terrible!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JJFqAODGH8
 
Old 03 March 2013   #23
comment removed
__________________

Last edited by ragdoll : 09 September 2013 at 05:15 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #24
Saw it yesterday and....It was kind of a middling picture. First of all, the praise this picture gets is deserved. That is, when you describe the film as having action, humor, fantasy, and sense of wonder, you'd be right. But the combination of these elements is jarring and undisciplined.

As usual, as I'm wont to do with films I see....

[ SPOILER - Click to reveal ]
Spoiler:

The opening of the film is perfect. The Kansas 1905 setting is very nicely done, and already the film is showing the mix of humor, madcap action, and drama that is going to characterize the picture. The main driver for these in the early going is James Franco's Oscar, who does a spectacular job guiding the curve of the film with his performance.

Everything about Oscar is setup here expertly and the film is very clever in setting up things that will become clear parallels (ie: "Redemption Points") for the rather despicable Oscar when he gets to the land of Oz.

Brownie points for a Dorothy Gale parental reference.

However, the film really loses steam as soon as James Franco is brought into Oz itself. A roller coaster ride in the fallen balloon car goes on forever, and an encounter with piranha-like water sprites proves to be of no consequence. Clever bits that I so wanted to work together are in this film and all the drama is strong. But it seems the film lost pacing (and importantly, James Franco's presence seems to have vanished when overwhelmed by the setting of Oz). The smooth mood-curving that characterized the Travelling Circus opening of the film is replaced by jarring up-and-down type mood changes that really make it feel like someone had jumbled the pages of the script (or wrongly mixed the pages of two different drafts).

For example, Oscar makes an oath (presumably to God) that "I can change! Just don't kill me!" and triumphantly exclaims "You won't regret this!" when he survives the balloon ride. But instead of gradually ramping his change from selfish man to good, it seems to come off as good-selfish-good-selfish-good-horny-good-cowardly-good.... Maybe he shouldn't have promised so much inside the balloon.

Another example is a crowning moment in the film when Oscar is able to help the Chinagirl walk again by use of glue. This is obviously a parallel of when Oscar is approached by a crippled girl at his Travelling Circus show and we can already see how difficult it is for him to turn her away and explain that "He's not that kind of Wizard". But this time he is. It's a powerful moment and Raimi pulls it off like a maestro. But then immediately after that, there is this gag at the crossroad of the Yellow Brick Road and the Chinagirl starts channeling a Shrek-like post-modernism and is bratty and Oscar is back to being nasty.

The film does this again and again. Oscar seems to forget his promise to be a better person when he's swimming in coins in the treasure room. Again, this is supposed to be a parallel to when he's counting around 10 coins or so on a small plate in the Travelling Circus. So there was some thought put into this. But by this time it is just a time-waster because they already introduced the concept of how the framed "Glenda the Wicked" must be destroyed.
It is not that I do not think these parallels were good or that they couldn't be worked together. It just feels like there are bits that don't quite fit in that were forced together, and they affect even the good parts of the picture.

Again, it feels like a jumbled edit.

It REALLY starts to feel jumbled when you are introduced to a totally different place that rivals the Emerald City in the middle of the picture and apparently this is the "Happy Kingdom" that "Glenda the Good" rules. The Dark Forest spoken of so often in the opening of the picture never figures into the plot again. Except that Evanora, who had framed Glenda prior to events in the picture, lays down the story that the King of Oz was killed by Glenda and that Glenda was driven from the Emerald City... so how can wrongfully-accused Glenda possibly hold any official position in such an industrious and happy kingdom if the entire world of Oz believes she assassinated her own father?

The film then suddenly turns into a "War of Two Kingdoms" type of picture. And this feels odd. But not as odd as when Theodora, in a fit of jealousy, accepts to eat a green apple of bitterness from Evanora - and the film ends up with TWO chief villains where only one will do. From this point on, the picture has this odd element where the two big bads literally step in front of each other in alternate to deliver their lines or ultimatums.

There is also some lazy editing going on in this picture. Some cuts, particularly for a typical "Help I'm drowning but the lake is shallow" gag, are so abrupt that the pay-off in some of these gags is missing. One particular cut seemed to actually occur in the middle of a swelling in the music at the end of Oscar's victory over Theodora, and then suddenly you realize that's not the final battle after all - you get a bonus superfight between Evanora and Glenda. There is more Character Power Outtage here because Glenda is suddenly way more powerful than she was earlier when all they could do was "Run!".

That said, there are good things in this film, and while it is not exactly new, the "Redemption Story" is always a good one to pull out. The film though could have used a few re-arrangements. Without ever having read any of the Oz books, I would have tried the following:

1) Before Oz's show at the Travelling Circus, Oscar should put away all the coins first and say "We'll split it up later." And then after the show, the coin-splitting scene occurs and the assistant treats this as a last straw when he only gets two coins, reveals the music boxes to the strongman and becomes the accomplice (in place of the clown) in attacking Oscar. Again, I actually love the entire part as is, but the chemistry between Oscar and his assistant is so good, and the assistant seems to mean so well that it really is not very good that his arc is replaced by Finley's and that it will be left unresolved. Finley's arc though is one of the best of the picture, so probably better to have the assistant's arc closed with him leaving Oscar or getting Oscar into trouble after protesting that Oscar has been a bad boss for so many years.

2) The Emerald City and the Happy Kingdom should be the same place. Again, I don't know if this separate kingdom was made a necessity by the books; but on film, it didn't work for me. They should be the same place. Similarly, scenes of Oscar being introduced to Tinkerers, Farmers, and Munchkins should have occurred earlier along with his entrance into Emerald City. In line with this, Glenda should probably STAY in the Dark Forest, instead of just "stopping over" in it. If she's framed for Royal Patricide, the Dark Forest would be her only refuge.

3) The Crystal Ball should probably be used only once - to reveal the real killer of the King of Oz - and should be made inaccessible, like if it were hidden in some dangerous cave in the Dark Forest or something. The Crystal Ball presents one of the biggest problems of the picture. It was never used in a particularly important way (all the reveals made together with it could have been made with dialogue), and it added this element where the villains seemed to always be able to see the good characters... which leads to incredulity that the two chief villains are unable to foresee the trickery used to fight them.

3) Adjust the use of the three sisters. I'd probably have liked it more that Evanora remains the scheming eldest sister, and hence the audience never trusts her...but that in the big reveal Evanora is NOT the one who killed the King of Oz... She had only been scheming to become the Queen of Oz after the King had died (which explains why Evanora would send Oscar on the mission to kill Glenda - to get rid of those who can still stop her). I'd prefer to reveal that the Crystal Ball - an ancient relic in the Dark Forest surrounded by danger - reveals that Theodora was the King's killer because of a prophecy that she is "Wicked" or whatever... that she is destined to bring the kingdom to ruin. Theodora claims it was an accident or something, but Evanora (seeing a chance to eliminate a competitor for the throne) and Glenda have trouble buying it. Oscar is in the middle, but is partial to Glenda. Seeing Oscar with Glenda and Oscar rejecting her after everything that's been revealed would throw Theodora over the edge and would set off an encounter with all three sisters that proves fatal for Evanora. Glenda would have been exiled in the Dark Forest earlier, a fugitive, and that befriending Oscar is what allows the party to find the Crystal Ball (and bring back a miniature recording fragment of some kind to reveal the truth when they return to the Emerald City). Once this occurs, Evanora MUST be killed off (or rendered powerless and planted "to the East") in a three-way fight and her power absorbed into Theodora or something and it's Theodora's turn to be exiled into the Dark Forest (because maybe she's not strong enough to fight Glenda or whatever) and she becomes the Wicked Witch of the West... and she inherits the use of the Flying Baboons from the now deceased/cast-down Evanora.

4) The final battle must be changed into a siege of Emerald City which Theodora mounts from the Dark Forest (where she gains even more powers) with her minions and the trickery used by Oscar is to thwart the siege. This means the defeat of Theodora is the film's final major encounter and the rest plays out almost the same as in theatrical cut.

5) The gag at the yellow brick road crossroad after the Chinagirl-can-walk scene has to go. This scene is too jarring, and if you leave it out, the trio can immediately go into the Dark Forest. It was a funny gag, but it's got no place in this picture. I'd probably have saved the style for another story altogether.

One final note, the design for the Wicked Witch of the West should really do without the Green Breast Cleavage. It really clashes with who she is that she's still somewhat sultry from the neck down.

__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation

Last edited by CGIPadawan : 03 March 2013 at 03:11 AM.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #25
'Oz' again tops box office with $42.2 million (US)
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
Old 03 March 2013   #26
After finally having seen it, with low expectations too, so not like I was waiting to be blown away, I have to say I really wish I hadn't.

The contrast in quality between elements within the same shot and sequences is jarring.
There are some spectacular bits, and a lot of crud around it that smells of hurried to the point where there was no time left to render displacement or light the shots.

While the art direction was solid and consistent, the look-dev so very often looked like nobody quite cared, or possibly time was too short in the end, that most of the vegetation was some times downright bad, like paintFX mapped planes bad.
Same for a lot of things, you fly from some tastefully shaded and composed emerald spikes to flowering rubies that literally looked like someone forgot to turn creases on the SDS on, and shaded with phong.

The doll was great in almost every shot, or would have been if it wasn't every so often it looked like someone forgot (or again had no time) to create some masks and cards, and the lack of reflection occlusion and the glaringly obvious HDR contributions stuck out like a sore thumb throughout shots that would have otherwise been heart warming.

For this movie Franco goes from his usual four faces (constipated smile attempting to charm, same smile but with the gums out, angry frown, beaten puppy) to just two (smile with gums out, same smile with gums out but a hint of sadness, or possibly puppy, hard to tell them apart).
The guy squints through the entirety of the movie btw. And I don't mean his usual narrowly cut eyes thing, I mean he has this frozen half smile on his face in every shot, and tries so desperately to make it reach the eyes (must have read it in a book somewhere) that he looks stoned out of his mind in every shot he's not giving his back to the camera.

It must be the most absolutely one-dimensional, narrowest range I've ever seen since Eastwood forgot to bring his cigar on set and was stuck with the face without the cigar for an entire sequence (at least he had charisma though).

The costumes design and make-up were downright horrible throughout, the only consistent bit in how cheap they looked (the good witch's crown had the audience cringing every time there was a close up on her face, I'm sure).

It's a potentially good movie, with a director in good shape, a script that was ok or better, let down by constant visual slaps in the face, a colour pass that gives headaches on the best of days (our eyes literally hurt after the movie, and it was a 2D showing), and some of the flattest acting ever, except rare moments when it was way overdone and left you wishing they would have stuck to flat.

All personal opinion, of course, but I honestly can't understand how it's receiving any praise. There is way too much that is way below the expected production value to redeem what little there is that works.

Believe it or not, I normally care little for dissecting the CGI in movies I watch, despite my job, but this was just too much inconsistency to put up with it. It WOULD have induced a sense of wonder in every other shot, but it's way too broken in too many details (beside the irresistible urge to punch the cast in the face every time they open their mouth, that didn't help either).
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles

Last edited by ThE_JacO : 03 March 2013 at 02:55 AM.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #27
Originally Posted by ThE_JacO: For this movie Franco goes from his usual four faces (constipated smile attempting to charm, same smile but with the gums out, angry frown, beaten puppy) to just two (smile with gums out, same smile with gums out but a hint of sadness, or possibly puppy, hard to tell them apart).
The guy squints through the entirety of the movie btw. And I don't mean his usual narrowly cut eyes thing, I mean he has this frozen half smile on his face in every shot, and tries so desperately to make it reach the eyes (must have read it in a book somewhere) that he looks stoned out of his mind in every shot he's not giving his back to the camera.



Having met the guy on a movie set I can tell you he is not acting in any of his movies. He is pretty much the same stoned no expression guy in real life.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #28
Originally Posted by SheepFactory: Having met the guy on a movie set I can tell you he is not acting in any of his movies. He is pretty much the same stoned no expression guy in real life.


Thatīs bc he is. Itīs a well known fact he makes no secret of.
__________________

 
Old 03 March 2013   #29
Originally Posted by CB_3D: Thatīs bc he is. Itīs a well known fact he makes no secret of.

Actually he denied it repeatedly.
He received a Stoner of the Year award, but for his movies, not because he admits to being one. In every interview since he was asked, and made a point of saying he is not.
He sure as hell does look like one though.

Or maybe he since admitted it, and I just don't know about it. Not that into celebrity gossip really.
__________________
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
 
Old 03 March 2013   #30
Originally Posted by ThE_JacO: Actually he denied it repeatedly.
He received a Stoner of the Year award, but for his movies, not because he admits to being one. In every interview since he was asked, and made a point of saying he is not.
He sure as hell does look like one though.

Or maybe he since admitted it, and I just don't know about it. Not that into celebrity gossip really.


Really? I didnīt know that he denies it.

In the actorīs studio interview it was strongly hinted at and he just smiled and let it stand without response, if I remember correctly.

But hey, doesnīt matter, anyway.
__________________

 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright Đ2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.