Merrick here...

The Sci Fi Channel is "reimagining" THE WIZARD OF OZ. You know...because "reimagining" THE WIZARD OF OZ worked out so well with THE WIZ and all. For the moment, it's being called TIN MAN and it's a miniseries.

Here's what they're threatening:

The miniseries is a sometimes psychedelic, often twisted and always bizarre take on The Wizard of Oz. It centers on DG, a young woman plucked from her humdrum life and thrust into The Outer Zone (the O.Z.), a fantastical realm filled with wonder, but oppressed by dark magic. DG discovers her true identity, battles evil winged monkey-bats and attempts to fulfill her destiny. Her perilous journey begins on the fabled Old Road that leads to a wizard known as the Mystic Man. Along the way, she is joined by "Glitch," an odd man missing half his brain; "Raw," a quietly powerful wolverine-like creature longing for inner courage; and "Cain," a heroic former policeman (known in the O.Z. as a "Tin Man"), who is seeking vengeance for his scarred heart. Ultimately, DG's destiny leads her to a showdown with the wicked sorceress Azkadellia, whose ties to DG are closer than anyone could have imagined.

"Glitch". "Raw". "Outer Zone" (O.Z.). I'd like to suggest "B.I." (Bad Idea). Or, perhaps, "F.U." (for...ummmm...."Florida University"). Goofin' with something like GALACTICA is one thing: while the original was obsessively embraced" by some, many folks felt there was room for improvement. In this instance, the masses may be too hardwired to embrace a WIZARD OF OZ rejiggering. The original is on TV too often, it's screened at retro theaters too often, and has been through too many DVD releases (including this fantastic set last year). It's..too immediate. Or, as loyal Talkbackers might decry, "Too Soon!!!"

This feels like one of those hubris projects; filmmakers thinking they no better than whoever did the same project before them. But here's the quandary: the original WIZARD OF OZ movie was, itself, not slavishly devoted to L. Frank Baum's source material - so it's difficult to argue the sanctity of a "classic" that didn't adhere too closely to its progenitor books. None the less, it's not like TIN MAN can (or will) exist in a vacuum...and the public is more closely tied to the 1939 musical than to the books...so comparison between the two is inevitable.

A good rule of "remaking" or re-approaching classic material is to ask whether or not previous efforts were as fully realized as they might have been. Were elements limited by time, technical limitations or social considerations (acceptable content) for example. Will re-approaching a title actually make it more truthful to the intent of a previous film or book? That doesn't sound like what writers Steven Long Mitchell and Craig Van Sickle are doing here -- sounds more like they're going for self-indulgent kitsch. Maybe that's not what SFC intended to convey in its press release; I guess we'll see.

This one's being brought to us by the Halmis, whose list of credits is both enormous and lackluster. They're a few cool ones in there, though...

MORE HERE!!!

This being said, does anyone out there remember RETURN TO OZ? Tik-Tok rocked..