Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Here's Some Amazing Pics Of Sam Raimi's OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL!

Nordling here.

I don't know about you, but the OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL trailer kinda blew me away.  It looks... elegant, for want of a better word, and not that Sam Raimi can't be elegant, but this certainly doesn't look like it was made in some backwoods cabin in Michigan, either.  Some of the imagery was just jawdropping, and it seems that Raimi has decided to just grab as much from the 1939 film as he possibly can.  It may be a prequel, but it looks like a reverential one.

So, here's some lovely shots of the movie, and as you can see (click to embiggen) this is a lot wider in scope than perhaps many believed.  Anyone else get that old fashioned Albert Whitlock matte painting vibe?

OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL opens next Spring.

Nordling, out.  Follow me on Twitter!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • July 17, 2012, 12:27 p.m. CST


    by Charles


  • July 17, 2012, 12:27 p.m. CST

    here's hoping Sam bounces back.

    by Stifler's Mom

    I'm still smarting from SPIDERMAN 3.

  • July 17, 2012, 12:28 p.m. CST

    From The Producers Who Fucked Alice in Wonderland...

    by Crow3711

    Comes another CG eye-rape fest, full of over stylized and under developed characters. I was excited for this movie…until I saw the production stills. It's that goo-ey, candy land look Alice had…and the producers of that (billion dollar making) piece of shit clearly have a lot of weight to throw around now…and it shows. this looks gross.

  • July 17, 2012, 12:31 p.m. CST

    If by amazing you mean

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Looks like a video game. Ready for Sonic the Hedgehog to run around in picture number 2, and that scary windmill village looks like something out of a JRPG.

  • July 17, 2012, 12:31 p.m. CST


    by slave to the one

    Looks like a terrible SyFy movie!

  • July 17, 2012, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Crumbled teapot village looks cool...

    by truedog67

    Otherwise... agreed, similar to the Alice production stills that came out early. At least this hints at some darkness... Still think Mel Gibson would've been the best choice to play the wizard...

  • July 17, 2012, 12:34 p.m. CST


    by NightArrows

    Yes, God™ forbid there is any colour, or stylization to the proceedings. It should all be bland. Call it the Wonderful world of Beige™.

  • July 17, 2012, 12:36 p.m. CST

    teapot villageexactly like madcap village in Alice: Madness Returns

    by chronicallydepressedlemming

    bit cheeky, tbh.

  • July 17, 2012, 12:37 p.m. CST

    ...because as we all know...

    by NightArrows

    ...Oz was supposed to be representative of someplace in this world. You know, documentary-like and such...

  • July 17, 2012, 12:41 p.m. CST

    @stifler's mom funny, me too

    by Anthony Torchia

    and I wish him just as much luck, he has greatness in him, we've seen it, he just needs to find it again Oz is a great place to look

  • July 17, 2012, 12:41 p.m. CST

    But The Trailer Looks Awful

    by WriteFromLeft

    Yet another excuse for green screen in place of what Hollywood used to excel at: charm.

  • July 17, 2012, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Ready for WoW

    by RichardLuzT

    We'll see if audiences can swallow the more fantastic scenery of warcraft with this movie

  • July 17, 2012, 12:49 p.m. CST

    I cant wait to eat magic mushrooms

    by Micah

    .... and go see this shit at the theater in IMAX 3d....... if no mushies, then copious amounts of Ganj........... never grow up cowboys and cowgirls.

  • July 17, 2012, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Sam Fulmer, thanks!

    by SergeantStedenko

    Now, I wish this WAS a Sonic the Hedgehog movie that was coming out instead.

  • July 17, 2012, 12:51 p.m. CST

    does catwoman defeat bane? or does batman?

    by Creative

    Is there a coffee shop involved too?

  • Is there a coffee shop involved too?

  • Is there a coffee shop involved too?

  • Is there a coffee shop involved too?

  • Is there a coffee shop involved too?

  • July 17, 2012, 12:52 p.m. CST

    from the virtual sets that brought you alice in wonderland...

    by Jubba

    looks the same

  • July 17, 2012, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Looks like Wonderland, not Oz

    by Prior Walter

    But what do I know, I really liked Return to Oz. Michelle Williams looks really good, though.

  • July 17, 2012, 12:55 p.m. CST

    killer_instinct liked his post so much he hit submit 3 more times

    by David_Denmans_Beard

    Franco cast as the wizard is ballsy, because from the trailer alone he looks like he fits into the role about as well as Danny McBride would. Once the trailer gets beyond the black and white portion, and as seen in these images, it looks like someone stuffed the CGI machine full until it threw up this stuff. Visually impressive, maybe but is there any portion of it apart from the goddamned ground that's real?

  • July 17, 2012, 1:01 p.m. CST

    I prefer "The Wiz"

    by torpedoboy

    Much more inventive, and scary as HELL!!! This crap looks like Burton leftovers.

  • July 17, 2012, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Looks just as or even shittier than Alice

    by disfigurehead

    Return to Oz kicked ass.

  • Going into it, I thought it’d be all blue and green screen and it wasn’t. The sets were built and they were tangible. Glinda’s castle was there, Emerald City was there, the Whimsical Woods were there. It was magical going to work. [...] Walking into Glinda’s castle was one of the most magical experiences of my life.

  • July 17, 2012, 1:04 p.m. CST


    by Creative

  • July 17, 2012, 1:04 p.m. CST

    i cant type...

    by Creative

  • July 17, 2012, 1:05 p.m. CST

    ... and that was a quote from Mila Kunis

    by SirKicksalot

    This shitty comment system needs an upgrade.

  • July 17, 2012, 1:07 p.m. CST

    SAM RAIMI (noun). Definition: shit.

    by bs9999

    His whole career is one consistent shit pile

  • July 17, 2012, 1:10 p.m. CST

    Oz in book-form has a very reach history...

    by Jay

    If they can tap into any of that, I'm game.

  • July 17, 2012, 1:11 p.m. CST

    All CG landscapes are boring.

    by kevred

    I first realized it while watching The Phantom Menace, and it's held true ever since. Boring, bland, lifeless, video-gamey.

  • July 17, 2012, 1:16 p.m. CST

    the best I can say

    by where_are_quints_hobbit_set_reports

    is that I hope this makes enough $$$ for Raimi to continue on to other films

  • July 17, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Looks like a cross between Avatar and Alice In Wonderland

    by kwisatzhaderach

    which is what happens when you hire the production designer of Avatar and Alice In Wonderland.

  • July 17, 2012, 1:29 p.m. CST

    oversaturated, artificial, CGI-borefest

    by aphextwin

  • July 17, 2012, 1:41 p.m. CST

    Re: Yes, of Course, CGI Is Sooooooo Bad ...

    by ArmageddonProductions

    It's nowhere near as rich or believable as those matte paintings Whitlock used to do that looked like people were walking around in giant fucking PAINTINGS, or, even better, like what they did in the original WIZARD OF OZ and just have the actors walking around on a soundstage with a semi-realistic, yet extremely obvious painted backdrop. Or maybe you think they should just build ten million dollar standing sets and wait for days, weeks or even months for the sky to turn just the right way to get the shot they envisioned? Fuck, let's just bring back stop-motion or rear projection while we're at it, because every time I see EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS, or any movie pre-1995 where people are driving, it takes my breath away at how realistic and "in-the-moment" all those shots looked. I actually BELIEVE that an out-of-scale, herky-jerky flying saucer with giant fingerprints all over it is attacking D.C., or that two people having a conversation in a car are driving down a road as seen in their rear window that barely matches what's happening anywhere else in the shot.</p><p> You guys are a pack of whiny assholes. Oh, also, they're NEVER, EVER going to stop using CGI. EVER. Let that haunt your fucking nightmares and AICN Talkback posts.

  • July 17, 2012, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Looks exactly like that Maud Dib

    by Smartacus

    Avatalice in Pandoraland. Surely they've made room for Johnny Depp somewhere in there.

  • July 17, 2012, 1:55 p.m. CST

    Who kills Uncle Ben in this one?

    by buggerbugger


  • July 17, 2012, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Though I should add that I really want to like this

    by Smartacus

    I do. I want it to be good. I think most everyone does. I don't think people want a stream of shitty movies to constantly come out so they can bitch about something (queue the "You must be new here" comments in 3... 2... 1...) but it's hard to keep my hopes up. These look so much like Alice in Wonderland which most decidedly did not deliver.

  • July 17, 2012, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Wow, they made an entire movie from fantasy screen savers!

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    That's a whole lotta fake! Nevermind casting the world's most vapid actor as its lead! Look Ma, digital sepia tone photography -- just like my Sony handycam had in 1995! Ah, but at least we get the pleasure of watching its cheap digital paper cut-out 3D through murky sunglesses! -- The gimmick that keeps on giving! I guess it's just too much to ask that a movie be shot properly with FILM cameras and a little imagination and ingenuity -- on actual locations with production designed physical sets and practical effects all interacting with a plausible cast. -- That might require Sam Raimi to get out of his high chair, take off his dinner jacket, losen his tie, roll up his sleeves and expose his fair skin to actual sunlight and perspiration. This joint looks like it's made for SyFy.

  • July 17, 2012, 2:08 p.m. CST

    armageddonproductions with the win!

    by Nice Marmot

    Now I gotta go home & watch Airplane just for the scene where Robert Stack is being driven to the airport.

  • July 17, 2012, 2:15 p.m. CST

    It was shot at Raleigh Studios, newly built near Detroit (Raimi's home state),

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    with 7 soundstages ranging from 6,000 to 30,000 square feet in size. So, I believe, there is a lot of practical sets with CGI expansion.

  • I looked at the guy in the top hat and thought he should have a giant snail with a saddle to ride on.

  • July 17, 2012, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Nothing wrong with utilizing gobs of CG strategically and intelligently.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    But this movie is obviously relying on CG as the crutch for the whole affair! It's having the FX team direct the movie in post essentially. Placing actors into an animated movie, where nothing seems truely believable. Shouldn't a true fantasy world or dream FEEL real and tactile and effect your senses beyond sight? One sure fire way to set a belivable scene of characters roaming in fantastical sunlit nature is to stage them in actual heat of the sun and wind, amongst the scent of trees and pollen with worm-rich soil beneath and birds and insects a flutter. Not only is the plastic diconnect of cold clinical studio-bound digitally shot greenscreen boring -- it's just lazy and disheartening and truely feels oppressive.

  • July 17, 2012, 2:29 p.m. CST

    Is it tiring hating everything?

    by Jon Forbing

    I feel like it must be. Just waking up every morning, logging onto Ain't It Cool, and clicking through 20 articles you hate, about movies that you think look terrible, by creators you can't stand. I hate to keep asking this question, but why do you guys keep coming here? Is it some far-off hope that someday someone will make the completely impossible flawless movie that would be required for you to not have anything to talk shit about? Or is it that bitching about other people's hard work, and telling other commenters that their opinions are stupid, and writing in a haughty, I'm-smarter-than-all-of-you tone about literally everything somehow sustains you? I'm gonna guess the latter.

  • July 17, 2012, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Nice to see they're using the China People Kingdom.

    by cookylamoo

    A neat concept from the book that gets left out of all movie adaptions....and even wicked.

  • July 17, 2012, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Raimi >>> Burton by 1000x

    by Torgo2020

    Please disassociate any connection between Raimi and Burton. So they used some of the same production people... who cares? The difference is: Sam makes films that look good, are mostly clever, and he is capable of adding a heart to the film. Burton accomplished this ONCE with "Edward Scissor-Hands" and failed at it massively w/ "Big Fish"...and, well... everything else since ESH. I (like most) Dug "Ed Wood" (and Demon Barber was fun)... but Tim Burton ain't no Sam Raimi folks. Sam will slam-dunk this Oz pic into yer eye-holes, and flyin' monkey-fuck yer brains... and you will see who da man is. GO SAM!!! (from your LOYAL subject: ToRgO)

  • July 17, 2012, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Photography is dying.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    And Digital is the prime source of the poison! There was a time when the aesthetic technology of filmmaking was constantly being refined and improved. That time is now gone. Go watch a real FILM and then compare it to this trash and then rightly lament the impending tragic loss. Once there was a dream called Film.

  • July 17, 2012, 2:57 p.m. CST

    but is it a musical? Can Osborne even sing?

    by cozy

  • July 17, 2012, 2:58 p.m. CST


    by Simpsonian

  • July 17, 2012, 3 p.m. CST

    I will always give Raimi and John Carpenter the benefit of the doubt.

    by MrEkoLetMeLive

  • July 17, 2012, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Yea that Hitchcock used a LOT of matte work and rear projection,

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    that hack. And I believe that Hitch would have embraced digital technology, if he was alive to use it; but yes, he would have used it as the spice of the meal, not the entire entree.

  • July 17, 2012, 3:06 p.m. CST

    thank you tjcoolguy, thank you

    by Magic01273

    for saying what I was thinking - but could hardly be bothered to type. What a surprise... AICN talbackers hate something. Who'd 'a thought... A film about the Wizard of Oz dares to contain fantasy landscapes and special effects? Gasp! And the land of Oz is "oversaturated"? REALLY?? Jesus-tap-dancing-Christ, what IS the world coming to!? The hillarious bullshit some people come up with. If they'd have filmed this on location in the ACTUAL land of Oz you people would still find something to moan about.

  • Disney, with a few different hic-cups cropping up in diff. attempts usually related to marketing in someway, have still somehow put together some pretty singularly great & favorite modern fantasy films over recent times. Pretty high chance this will be another, i'll be there in 3d sunnys & pop-corn (probably not a drink though, too much multi-tasking).

  • July 17, 2012, 3:17 p.m. CST

    @ openthepodbaydoorshal - As Kubrick would have gladly told you...

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    THAT'S what was wrong with Hitchcock! Not that Hitch didn't have a lot going right, but studio bound substituting matte work and rear projection for location shooting was not among the Masters virtues. I'm not going to look up the source, but when asked about comparrisions between the two filmmakers Kubrick had a go at Hitch for the imposed artifice of Hitch's photagraphy. And surely Hitch would have indeed embraced digital, and he would have been wrong to do so, just as Lucas, Cameron and Fincher are. -- Because it's ultimately an inferior aesthetic.

  • July 17, 2012, 3:24 p.m. CST

    I want to live in this world for two hours.

    by Sprell

  • July 17, 2012, 4:07 p.m. CST

    @kildeer1 - I'm speaking about digital camera photography and cg shortcuts

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    NOT digital effects per say -- which of course are infanity useful when utilized correctly. Kubrick was pro formalism, but anti artifice. He was against using easy technology in lieu of striven authenticity, unless the style specifically called for it. In other words, whatever you're doing should not betray the authenticity of the piece, especially for mere purposes of convenience.

  • July 17, 2012, 4:08 p.m. CST

    journey 2 Oz,

    by IamHERE

    This looks like a green screen CGI fest in the same vein as journey 2 the Mysterious Island. It will be a distractingly fake world i bet.

  • July 17, 2012, 4:22 p.m. CST

    The Wizard of Oz

    by Jason

    has stood up better than any movie in HISTORY based on longevity. Of course the effects are now ancient looking, but you find yourself not even caring. It really is an amazing feat for the movie to captivate this long...these new shots while technically more brilliant just do not get me worked up. It really is the magic of the story that makes the movie, why is there any question still about this?

  • July 17, 2012, 4:45 p.m. CST

    OT — Some new Blu-rays:

    by justmyluck


  • July 17, 2012, 4:49 p.m. CST

    Spider-Man 4...

    by Dilox Esp

    as it is called at a local drive-in, is still on list of movies to see some day. How quickly the wind went out of SP4's sail. Box Office Budget: $230,000,000 (estimated) Opening Weekend: €383,255 (115 Screens) Gross: $137,022,258 (USA) (8 July 2012) Weak for a Spiderman movie, IMO. I am sure Raimi's would have been double that.

  • July 17, 2012, 4:52 p.m. CST

    @kildeer1 - very carefully.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Just like Kubrick did everything.

  • July 17, 2012, 5:20 p.m. CST

    @kildeer1 - I don't think we're even talking about the same things.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    I'm in favor of cg as a tool. "A" tool. Not necessarily "THE" tool. But when it is the tool of choice, it should be used with discretion, intelligence and artistry. Discretion, intelligence and artistry are the very bedrocks of Stanley Kubrick as an aestheticist -- of course he would have used cg to its maximum potential. My qualms are with using the wrong tools out of sheer laziness when you have the budgetary luxury of attaining the correct tools. Kubrick was waiting for the correct tools to be honed for the very reason that he did not want to compromise his vision. He was waiting becasue he didn't want to be rendered obsolite five years down the line by superiorly crafted tools. And unfortunately he died just on the cusp of the availible realization of the tools of his specification, and thusly bequeathed A.I. into the capable hands of his friend and confidant Spielberg. I'm at odds with uneeded compromise. Digital CAMERAS (NOT "GC"), are an aesthetic COMPROMISE! Using CG to approximate something that can be shot in reality is usually also a compromise -- unless there is a deliberate reason for it that is informed by the style and substance of the story. Using cg as a tool to accomplish something that could otherwise not exist is completely valid, however it should not be the be-all end-all solutuon to every problem. That's the crux of my entire stance on the subjects.

  • July 17, 2012, 5:24 p.m. CST

    @kildeer1 - Yeah, now we're speaking the same language

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    I was composing my last before noticing your reply. Now we are talking about the same thing.

  • July 17, 2012, 5:39 p.m. CST

    I just can't see that title....

    by Chuck

    ...without thinking of the Great and Powerful TRIXIE! Meaning that if I did see this movie, it could only end in disappointment.

  • July 17, 2012, 6:06 p.m. CST

    Kubrick was the greatist..still.

    by TheAwareness

    the man faked the moon landing....what more needs to be said.

  • Marketing twats don't care about quality, so don't assume that connection between both films is a creative one. I've got faith in Raimi; I think these shots are beautifully designed. You can see practical elements in amongst the CG. It's only total blue-screen/green-screen stuff that tends to lead to dead-eyed performances from the actors. A mix of techniques should still be fun.

  • July 17, 2012, 7:10 p.m. CST

    CG when used properly can be great...

    by gary_buseys_upper_half

    but it's very hard to trick the human brain. It knows what real looks like and even the slightest bit of spatial unreality can give it away. As soon as your brain gets clued in that what you're watching isn't real it pulls you out of the movie and makes it less engaging. I also think the fact that the same software tools are used by everybody in the cg industry lends a certain "sameness" to everything. Pre-cg, an artist had to come in and physically make everything in the film from scratch and that gave every film it's own look and feel. Movies were idiosyncratic then and better because of it. Now they all feel like they're churned out of the same factory.

  • ASSHOLE!!!!!! :p

  • July 17, 2012, 8:30 p.m. CST

    I don't know about of this "hater" crap...

    by MovieManStill

    ...but I disliked the trailer. I hope the film is much better than it implied.

  • July 17, 2012, 8:31 p.m. CST

    *all of*

    by MovieManStill

  • July 17, 2012, 8:41 p.m. CST

    That's some gawdy shit!

    by Queefer Sutherland

  • July 17, 2012, 10:12 p.m. CST

    Someone went nuts with their Saturation control

    by Obi Wanna Cannoli

  • July 17, 2012, 10:29 p.m. CST


    by krabklaw

    Some people just like to complain. The art direction for this one looks absolutely phenomenal.

  • Instead of traveling to Oz via a tornado in her uprooted house, Dorothy could be in a starship that gets sucked into a wormhole. Her ship damaged, Dorothy has no choice but to attempt an emergency landing on the nearest world, the strange planet of Oz. Of course, during her emergency landing, Dorothy accidentally splatters an alien sorceress on the underside of her ship. She then finds a village of strange little aliens, later on meets a stranded robot (Tin Man), a lion human hybrid native to the planet, and a creature that is part plant/part man (Scarecrow). Everything pretty much falls into place. There is a green skinned female sorceress that takes on the role of the Wicked Witch. Flying monkey creatures can be another form of indigenous alien animal. They get to Emerald City, which is a giant high tech metropolis. The wizard is revealed to be an seemingly god-like AI, or just some asshole of an alien that crashed there a long time ago and used his fancy alien technology to gain power over the planet and become its ruler.

  • Noomi = Dorothy David's head = Toto Juggernaut = Dorothy's house (which already squished a witch when it crashed) The whole lion, tin man, scarecrow angle could be tweaked to just having two factions of engineers. Those that create, and try to help Noomi, versus the biomechanoid destroyer types. Just think of a Gigerized biomechanical Emerald City.

  • July 17, 2012, 11:41 p.m. CST

    I heard if you sync this up with Justin Beiber's Believe....

    by Azby

    you'd be total cunt.

  • July 17, 2012, 11:43 p.m. CST

    @lv_426: Ever see the McFarlane/Spawn TWISTED LAND OF OZ line?

    by justmyluck

  • July 18, 2012, 2:09 a.m. CST

    Regardless of CGI, that's pretty gawdy

    by starlesswinter7

    Way too much going on in these landscapes, and it really is derivative of Alice in Wonderland, right down to the curly-cue plants.

  • July 18, 2012, 2:11 a.m. CST

    It should look like frontier America. Not a Thomas Kindade

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks


  • July 18, 2012, 3:06 a.m. CST

    Why the fuck should Oz look like frontier America?

    by Dr Eric Vornoff

    The '39 movie was pretty gaudy too, it's supposed to be fantastical. It shares an art director with Alice in Wonderland so of course there's going to be some superficial similarities but Raimi and Burton are very different directors and I think Raimi is much more suited to this than Burton was to Alice. That film was an insult to Lewis Carroll, this actually seems pretty respectful to Baum.

  • July 18, 2012, 3:27 a.m. CST

    I didn't say it can't be fantastical, but it should look

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    palpable, and considering it is a fantasy reflection of its place and time. Making it too unreal destroys immersion. Sort of like those crappy medieval fantasy console games with cities that reach up three times the height of modern skyscrapers, and everything else --characters, creatures and objects in their respective milieu -- is exaggerated. Fantasy is fantastical if it isn't contrasted with the mundane. In that case, the mundane is the fantasy. That's why the fuck.

  • July 18, 2012, 3:30 a.m. CST

    Made by foreigners, for foreigners

    by Jared Bond

    ...well, primarily, anyway. They still make a lot of money on the Americans who haven't noticed that there's no more authenticity in their movies.

  • July 18, 2012, 3:55 a.m. CST

    that old fashioned Albert Whitlock matte painting vibe?

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    Is NOT POSSIBLE when you have 15 people in a room pushing mouse pads around to simulate art. Look at the fake representation of fantasy in these pictures.... Now look at the Original Oz sets. Shit, look at Return to Oz, maybe. STOP SUCKING THE DICK OF THE COMPUTER ANIMATION INDUSTRY. They are manipulating you. Movies since the original Clash of the Titans, Star Wars, Dragonslayer ARE NOT AS GOOD. Admit it. And join me in fighting this bullshit. Activists for handmade art. Right For Cartoons on Facebook.

  • July 18, 2012, 4:01 a.m. CST


    by KelseysNuts

    "....Walking into Glinda’s castle was one of the most magical experiences of my life."... That was a quote from Mila Kunis? More magical than having her face buried in Natalie Portman's crotch?

  • July 18, 2012, 4:12 a.m. CST

    I agree - CGI snoozefest

    by deathletter

    Plus, whenever they encounter a CGI creature, they have to stop to film it in full-on, frame-filling close up so it can LEAP OUT THE SCREEN IN 3D. And 3D is total shit. A money-grabbing gimmick forced by studios onto a public who doesn't want it. No-one I know likes 3D.

  • July 18, 2012, 4:27 a.m. CST

    Meant to write, "Fantasy isN'T fantastical" damn typo

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

  • July 18, 2012, 6:24 a.m. CST

    lv_426 , the movie you seek is called ZARDOZ

    by Spandau Belly


  • July 18, 2012, 6:26 a.m. CST

    and CGI is awesome it makes anything possible.

    by Spandau Belly

    Don't blame the tool, blame the artist.

  • July 18, 2012, 7:26 a.m. CST

    It took courage to attempt this project.

    by Jeff

    He's in a tough spot, no matter what he does people will cry foul. It won't lessen the first tale and if they don't want a classic to be addressed ever again, then simply stay away. I say congrats to Sam for having the courage to take a huge leap.

  • Oh WAIT nevermind, that's EVERY movie nowadays. And every movie they're sequel-izing, remaking and rebooting. Except those movies every yuppie exec is falling over themselves to pay homage to- they employed model-makers, craftsmen, and had actual rebellious artists at the helm, people like Ray Harryhausen. And that Redbox machine, too, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, there, either.... Or fact that one of the last bastions for free thought and expression in the film industry, the VIDEO STORE, has been chucked into the post-apocalyptic Walking Dead rubble heap with all the rest of the old warhorses. Cartoons, too, yeah, sorry guys, we've got no jobs here for all you cartoons and puppets... Keep marching Grapes of Wrath-style, until you hit Canada, or the UK, or France.... PIXAR kool-aid indeed. Everybody's drinking it now.

  • July 18, 2012, 8:11 a.m. CST

    An example of a real matte painting painted by an artist-

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

  • July 18, 2012, 8:12 a.m. CST

    An example of a real matte painting painted by an artist-

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    Compare the two. Please. Look at the above photos and then tell me that the computer monopoly isn't a demoralizing crime against cinema.

  • July 18, 2012, 8:18 a.m. CST

    So, where's Raimi's Olds Delta 88?

    by Scott

  • July 18, 2012, 8:21 a.m. CST

    An example of a real matte painting painted by an artist-

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch Will someone explain to me why CGI has to be so fuckin brightly lit?? Like breakdancing dinosaurs in a Capri Sun commercial??

  • July 18, 2012, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Jobs The Great and Powerful

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch


  • July 18, 2012, 9:27 a.m. CST

    (yawn) Who fucking cares? (yawn)

    by GreenSkinFlatHead

  • July 18, 2012, 10:24 a.m. CST

    In the Wizard of oz..

    by Sirius_crack

  • July 18, 2012, 10:25 a.m. CST

    Damn it!!!!

    by Sirius_crack

    In the wizard of oz, everything was real. They even painted a huge backdrop to show what they were running into....

  • July 18, 2012, 10:38 a.m. CST

    fuck raimi

    by animas

    even if mila kunis gets raped by a tree, I won't be seeing anything made by this incompetent loser.

  • July 18, 2012, 10:46 a.m. CST

    idiot raimi still doesn't understand evil dead

    by animas

    he thinks people only enjoyed the campy parts so he thought... hey lets make THE WHOLE MOVIE campy and cheesy. And that is his approach to every movie since....what a moron.

  • July 18, 2012, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Definitely remake ZARDOZ!

    by zinc_chameleon

    With these kinds of production values. The Wizard, complete with rape, incest, murder, and illegal drugs!

  • But I'll reserve judgment until I see the trailer. Raimi deserves that much.

  • July 18, 2012, 12:28 p.m. CST

    tjcoolguy, you're wrong.

    by Kytas

    Thanks for pontificating to the rest of us. Your condescending words really do change people. Except they don't. And there's nothing more annoying than a person who preaches AND is dead wrong. Look deeper. There is plenty of love on this site for movies that deserve it. It's just so incredibly frustrating for hardcore movie fans to sit through 10 shitfests to discover the occasional gem. We wish the ratio were different. Most of the "HATE" on this site is really just honest criticism and is heaped upon movies that frankly deserve it. So before you preach next time, consider 3 questions: (1) Could it be that Hollywood is currently putting out a disproportionate number of crappy projects? (2) Could it be that AICN talkbackers care (and are more savvy) about movies than those people who don't frequent movie sites? (3) Might this explain why there is a lot more criticism on this site than love? Think before you post, preacher.

  • July 18, 2012, 1:08 p.m. CST


    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch


  • July 18, 2012, 1:14 p.m. CST


    by flax

    True, but considering that "American McGee's Alice" owes a heavy debt to "Return to Oz", I think we can cut Raimi some slack.

  • July 18, 2012, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Return To Oz is a masterpiece.

    by sasquatch_with_a_swatch_watch

    One thing that I did love about Burton's version of Alice was that it reminded me of groovy early-80's Disney when their films were moodier, steered by artists as opposed to execs, and weren't dumbed down for kids.

  • July 18, 2012, 2:47 p.m. CST


    by ArmageddonProductions

    It's like bitching about digital audio recording into computers. Sure, analog tape was great for its time, but they were also incredibly expensive, hard-to-maintain machines with finite track counts, built-in noise (both machine and format) and the capability of only being edited with a razor. You have your purists who refuse to have anything to do with a computer and will only record to an analog 8-track "like the Beatles". Trust me, if the Beatles had had access to ProTools back in the Sixties, they would have been all over that shit. And, to date, not one fucker who has declared they will only ever work on 8-track tape with vintage Fairchild compressors and a spring tank reverb has EVER made anything that sounded like the goddamn Beatles. Same goes here.</p><p> You're blaming the wrong guys for what CGI has become. It's no accident that the effects in BATTLESHIP, THE AVENGERS, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN and PROMETHEUS are virtually interchangeable. It's simply because ... THEY ARE. Studio A sees that STAR TREK made X-amount of dollars at the box office. Okay, they say, our movie's gonna look just like fucking STAR TREK. Thats what the kids want. So, that's what happens. There's likely 700 CGI artists out there right this minute gritting their teeth as they're forced to add one "slightly blurry laser spikeball lens flare" after another to a shot they know damn right well they could do better or more subtly or even just differently if it were actually up to them. They ain't running the show. Sam Raimi ain't running the show, either. Everybody working on a big movie gets their orders from the top. The "creative force" in Hollywood today is a room full of sadly-"hip" thirty-somethings with a B.A. in marketing that have, collectively, probably never sat through a movie made before 1997 or have a reading comprehension higher than the average ninth-grader.</p><p> Meanwhile, RETURN TO OZ wasn't all that bad of a movie. Unlike WIZARD OF OZ, it actually stuck to the source material (though they changed a few things around, like having Dorothy go to a mental hospital instead of being washed overboard on a ship during a storm; I guess that was a way to continue having Oz "all in her head"). It mainly didn't do well because a) making a sequel to THE WIZARD OF OZ is akin to trying to make a sequel to GONE WITH THE WIND, which also didn't exactly set the world on fire and b) because Baum's books were a hell of a lot freakier than the original WIZARD OF OZ movie decided to be. I got a feeling this new one won't be sticking too close to the books, either, but I do think it'll do ALICE IN WONDERLAND numbers. Most of its target audience probably never even saw THE WIZARD OF OZ.

  • July 18, 2012, 3:47 p.m. CST

    no nicetrylaoche, you're wrong

    by Magic01273

    Your entire response is based on the fact that movies that deserve it SHOULD get the hate they have coming. That shitty projects should get the "healthy criticism" they receive. Which would be fine. Except... errrr, noone has actually seen this movie yet. In typical AICN-style people are writing off the movie as an "over-saturated CGI shit-fest" with the "dullest actor on earth in the leading role , which is apparently nothing more that a carbon-copy "rip off of Alice in Wonderland". All of that - based on a 1.30 teaser trailer and a few screen grabs? That a depiction of one topsy-turvy, larger than life fantasy land has some basic similarities to ...another film about a topsy-turvy, larger than life fantasy land? Even though you could argue that this is a dumb as pointing out that sometimes Star Wars looks kinda like Star Trek, because you know, they are both set in Space? Or that this particular fantasy land - which has always been depicted (in both literature and film) as brighter and more vivid than our world - is "over-saturated"? Because apparently Sam Raimi really should have done a better job of ensuring that the Land of Oz looks more like the regular world... Or that this James Franco is shitty and dull? Even though, I'd point out that - prior to his Joker role - Heath Ledger was also considered a pretty dull actor too. In fact, hardly a blip on the radar. But, no. For many, all of this has been conclusively decided based on a 1.30 teaser trailer? I don't have a problem with genuine criticism. For example; the entirely valid (and very interesting) debate on the use of CGI in these kinds of movies, that is also going on. But as always, there is also the usual crowd of "cool kids" that never fail to swing by every talkback, seemingly just to remind the world how shitty everything is, on the basis of some bullshit, childish observation they have pulled out of their ass, based on a few seconds of footage - normally delivered with all the intellectual insight of a 6 year old. I usually don't give a shit, to be honest. In fact, I find that this phenomena is both the worst and best part of AICN. But don't try to defend the large number of posters on here that literally do nothing but bitch and moan about every single movie that comes out. And I laugh in the face of anyone that tries to imply that every nugget posted here is always 100% justified. Seriously. So, why don't YOU think before you post? Thanks.

  • Won't be the same without that distorted braying increasing in pitch and intensity as it gets closer and closer to...I guess...the Emerald City gates. Bruce Campbell has cowardly lion written all over him too.

  • July 18, 2012, 5:54 p.m. CST

    He lost me at the casting level. Bunch of young morons

    by chien_sale

    no talent, nothing interesting

  • July 18, 2012, 11:27 p.m. CST

    Looks like 'Bioshock Infinite' meets 'Alice Returns'...

    by BiggusDickus

    Nice, but I'd rather see some originality in the form of a movie of either of those games...

  • July 19, 2012, 3:10 a.m. CST

    Rick Heinrichs should have worked on this

    by starlesswinter7

    His production design for the Lemony Snicket film was brilliant....whimsical and fantastical, with just the right amount of darkness, but done very old-fashioned with painted backdrops and forced perspective. It's the perfect example of adapting traditional techniques for modern production design.

  • I am so sick of hearing that phrase. But this was a well-thought out argument and intelligent. Thanks. As far as blaming the wrong people for what CGI has become, dig this- Directors are the rock stars of the film world. Actors, writers- same. Those names are still what gets movies made. If those people had the fucking balls to form a unified front, one that said the truth, THE NEW STAR WARS MOVIES SUCKED AND HERE'S WHY as well as WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY MOVIES FOR AWHILE UNTIL YOU GIVE THE PUPPETEERS WHO MADE STAR WARS AND THE MUPPET SHOW THEIR JOBS BACK. Things would change in the film industry. As far as an argument that goes "well its like the Beatles, it's analog recording or digital". as far as an argument about MEDIUM a. Indie rock has been a sonic fucking goldmine for the past 25 years, with at least eight dozen albums released that could easily stand toe-to-toe with the Beatles. many of those made, by choice, on tape. Purely for the fidelity and the soul those mediums provide. the difference is, people stopped giving a fuck about requesting the DJ play a new song on pop radio since around the time of Alanis Morrissette's third record.... So you, and most people, will have never heard these mysterious new "White Albums", thereby solidifying their obscurity for all time. People care even less now about what goes into their movies, so long as they have some sort of Franco/ Depp quotient and 90 feet CGI octopi. And if you want to carry on as though digital effects aren't lessening the impact of movies, think about it like this- A girl you love is moving away to Ireland, never to be heard from again, and you want a lock of her hair to remember her by, but instead she Skypes you a photo on the plane, and then your friend scans it into his hardware and then he faxes you over that scan, which you then edit on your computer because the color was slightly off in the first place. CINEMA (not "target audience" crap- is a woman I love. And she is moving away.)