I'm going tomorrow morning at 11:45

As mentioned more than once, Baum's books played an important role in my formative years. And even though I think there are better stories in those books, I watch the movie at least once a year as well (the blu-ray release looks freakin' great), usually around Christmas. So, yeah, I'm going tomorrow to see it on a big screen for the first time. IMAX even, just hoping they don't do a shit 3D conversion.

Anybody else going? Planning on going? Thinking about going?

Since writing a review would be an utterly pointless exercise, I'll post my feelings about the experience (and the 3D conversion) sometime over the weekend.

I wanna go, but Oz the great and powerful caused my eyeballs to rip out of my sockets and run away.

lazycrockett said:

I wanna go, but Oz the great and powerful caused my eyeballs to rip out of my sockets and run away.

That's actually one of the reasons I want to go. I'd like to wipe the remaining memories of that movie from my mind.

Hi Cerebus. Buam's books were very important to me as well.

My daughter, mother, and I are going; this was the first movie my mother ever saw at the picture show. I think we are going to the 9:00pm or 11:00PM showing. I'm trying to avoid a lot of little people. Don't get me wrong, I love them dearly but...

shorttrini said:

This is a prefect example of, "If it ain't broke" why mess with it"? They are only trying to capitalize on the 3D movie craze...NOT COOL!!!

I actually think it makes much more sense to do post production 3D conversion on classics like The Wizard of Oz and Raider of the Lost Ark than it does to force so many NEW movies into that format (movies that are actually filmed in 3D are something completely different, though). With new movies, they're clearly trying to gain the extra $5-8 dollars per ticket. With old movies, it's just a way to get them back in theaters, so I don't really care one way or the other as long as the 3D conversion doesn't suck. This re-release in particular seems to be getting a whole bunch of families to theaters together (it is for me), as well as kids to their first full viewing of The Wizard of Oz (rather than it just being used as tv wallpaper), both of which I think is pretty cool.

http://www.imax.com/movies/m/the-wizard-of-oz-an-imax-3d-experience/watch/2663266077001/

Cool little video here about the process and difference in picture quality. Those shoes REALLY sparkle now!

OK, so here are my thoughts, the good and the bad, in a somewhat ramshackle train of thought...


It really does looks incredible, stunning even. However, it's important to note that it doesn't really look any different, it just looks really, really good. And big! That being said, considering it's a movie I've seen, I would guess, at least 100 times, the number of things I noticed for the first time was shocking. More on that in a bit, though.


First, I want to talk about the 3D conversion and overall look of the presentation. I'm going to break this into two parts; the overall look, followed by the 3D itself.


As mentioned, it looks incredible. Almost no grain or blur and incredible color throughout (as you would expect). Just a bit of grain during the very early parts of the first b&w portion and a few seconds of blur here and there inside the Wicked Witch's castle. And the blur could definitely have just been the projection I was watching, not something that will appear to everyone. Along those lines, I experienced an obvious darkening to the overall image quality, no doubt due to the 3D conversion. In a couple places it actually bothered me so much that I took off my glasses to look at the screen without them for a second or two. This was disappointing, but not unexpected, and it didn’t bother me so much that I wouldn’t recommend someone go see it if that’s something they’re considering. If you are, by all means, go.


The 3D itself, the actual depth of field and things coming out of the screen, for me it was VERY minimal. For whatever reason, everyone sees 3D somewhat differently. Some people get headaches, or get dizzy, some don't. Some people really get the "jumping out" effect, some don't. Some people don't see nearly as much across all aspects of the format and some just don't like it, period. For me, the most enjoyable aspect of 3D is the increased depth of field. That's what I liked so much about Avatar, and what I don't like about a lot of the forced post-production 3D conversion to movies that weren't filmed that way to begin with. Unfortunately, I didn't get a lot of increase to depth of field with The Wizard of Oz, and I did notice a slight carsick feeling a couple times when I moved my line of sight to a different part of the screen. Fortunately, it doesn't affect the enjoyment or overall look of the movie AT ALL (other than the slightly darker image), and the dizzy feeling was short lived. Some of the things I did notice and enjoy about about the 3D are as follows:


1. The opening credits made me laugh out loud a little bit. Seeing those ancient b&w titles floating off the screen was a strange experience.


2. The b&w farm scenes at the beginning were some of my favorite parts of the 3D conversion. And it was definitely the part of the movie where I noticed the most increase to the depth of field. When Dorothy was walking along between fences it looked like one of them was in front of her, with her and Toto in the middle, another fence behind her and the matte painting/background even further off. The chickens had great depth of field, too! There's a quick couple seconds where one chicken kind of flaps in from off screen and it did a reverse jump out, where it looked like it flew into the set out of the audience (I know other people noticed this in my theater, too, because it got a laugh).


3. The lead up to the tornado and the first part of it hitting the house was great, what with the dirt, leaves, branches and such flying all over the screen. It definitely ratcheted up the intensity of a scene that had lost all impact, as well. Unfortunately, all the people and animals flying by Dorothy’s window looked utterly ridiculous on that giant screen. But hey, it was 1939 and she had already been bonked on the head, so you can easily accept it as being early special effects and part of her journey to Oz.


4. To me, everything is so much more clearly a movie set. Now, that’s something that has ALWAYS been perfectly clear about The Wizard of Oz, but seeing it projected that large, that clearly, makes it HYPER obvious. And the 3D doesn’t so much increase the depth of field as it does make it incredibly clear that “this is the set”, and “this is the matte painting at the back of the studio where the set ends”. This could easily have been a distraction, or have weakened the overall magic of the experience, but for me the opposite happened. I really got into it and started looking all around the screen, taking in as much of the sets as I could.


5. The small flying monkeys rocked! Not sure if it’s something they worked really hard on, or if the original scene is just something that worked well with the 3D conversion, but for me that was easily the most “3D” the movie got at any point. It looked like they were flying at different distances in the sky, and it looked like they were really flying.
After that I really didn’t notice much of the 3D effect specifically, nor did the people I saw it with. And there were people leaving the theater commenting that it didn’t really have much 3D, which I’ll assume means “jumping out” (although I agree the Witch’s finger did poke out at the audience). But again, for me, this didn’t take away from the experience of seeing The Wizard of Oz on a big screen with an audience for the first time.


Now, on to some random things that I noticed, some of which are likely to make me sound like an idiot, but who cares!


Yes, Judy Garland has freckles. And her shoes are very dirty a lot of the time. Don’t ask me why I was looking at her shoes… I just was.


The burlap on the Scarecrow's face was freakin’ cool. Everyone seems to be noticing that. I also thought the incredibly clear look you get at how his head is supposed to be attached to his scarecrow body was very impressive and just a bit scary looking.


The Tin Man also looks incredible, particularly the rusty body version Dorothy and the Scarecrow first find in the woods. His layers of dirt, grime and rust looked really great on the giant IMAX screen. By comparison, the cleaned version after they go to Oz looks very fake. Also, I never noticed how fake his gloves looked before (in relation to being metal). I probably just wasn’t paying attention, but they look rather silly in a couple scenes. Also, why is his axe handle tin/metal instead of wood? lol


Overall I thought the Dark Forest looked awesome. The lighting was great, you couldn’t see as clearly where the studio ended in the background and the various tree barks and grasses looked real and different. In particular, the apple trees totally made me smile. I realize it’s just some guys hand in there, but that scene still works really well.


Other than that, even though I’ve watched the last blu-ray release a couple times on large televisions, the plastic fakeness of the rest of the foliage throughout the movie was way clearer than I remembered. It’s fine, because it works and you get used to it, but it was a bit jarring at first. Particularly the first long shot through Munchkinland, where the stream actually looks more like a Disneyland ride than a magical movie land.


Glinda’s floating bubble and the fireball the Wicked Witch throws at the Scarecrow from the roof didn’t translate very well to 3D (imo), but the effects look as ahead of their time as ever (particularly the fireball).


It’s awesome how many of the Munchkins look like they have absolutely no idea what they’re doing when they’re projected large enough to look around at them individually. Also, the amount of ADR that is totally off of the mouth movements of the various actors is FAR more than I remember. That certainly has a lot to do with the time in which it was made. But if you go to see this, pay attention to the Scarecrow’s mouth during the scene where he and Dorothy are discussing how to get him off the post. Nothing he says is synced and it totally made me laugh.


The Emerald City looks SOOOO incredibly fake, and just a bit boring. In 1939 it probably looked great, and on a television I never really noticed it. But on that giant IMAX screen it was just a lot of flat green.


Oz’s chamber and all the scenes with the projected talking head, on the other hand, look great!


The Horse of a Different Color was, in fact, several different horses. Maybe everybody else has noticed that before, but I honestly hadn't. Having grown up on horse ranches, when you see them projected that big, as they cut back and forth from the actors talking to the different colored horses, you can quite clearly tell that they used a series of different animals.


Multiple Toto's. Yeah, seems obvious, and I think I even knew they used more than one dog. But you can TELL they used more than one dog when you see it that large. Sometimes it's totally obvious from one edit to the next.


My favorite location was everything to do with the Wicked Witch’s castle. The rocks outside, the castle itself, her chambers inside (the room they’re in repeatedly), the monkeys and the guards. All of it looks great, and I was noticing little things all over the place that I’d never seen before (all of which I’ll leave to the viewer to spot, or not).


The flying monkeys coming in out of the sky and landing in a full run looks as impressive on the big screen as it does at home on a television.


Lastly, for a movie that can sometimes seem like a chore to watch at home “one more time”, or at the very least is easy to walk away from, it went by VERY fast. So fast in fact that I think I might go again. It was definitely a very enjoyable experience overall and I’m glad I went.

[Edited 9/22/13 0:56am]

TD3 said:

Hi Cerebus. Buam's books were very important to me as well.

My daughter, mother, and I are going; this was the first movie my mother ever saw at the picture show. I think we are going to the 9:00pm or 11:00PM showing. I'm trying to avoid a lot of little people. Don't get me wrong, I love them dearly but...

I hope y'all enjoy it as much as we did!

I did a bit of research, though, and it's pretty doubtful there will be very many people at any one showing in any theater. The IMAX I go to is BIG and the theater was basically empyt. I would guess there was probably 80-100 people total, and about 1/3 of them were children. There was so few people that it seemed like pretty much every group had an entire row to themselves. I know we did.

Wow, that was quite the detailed review. Thanks.

Tempest said:

Wow, that was quite the detailed review. Thanks.

You're welcome. If I could have written a traditional review it would have been much shorter. But it's The Wizard of Oz, and most people have seen it multiple times, so I felt like just breaking it down in detail made more sense.

Cerebus said:

TD3 said:

Hi Cerebus. Buam's books were very important to me as well.

My daughter, mother, and I are going; this was the first movie my mother ever saw at the picture show. I think we are going to the 9:00pm or 11:00PM showing. I'm trying to avoid a lot of little people. Don't get me wrong, I love them dearly but...

I hope y'all enjoy it as much as we did!

I did a bit of research, though, and it's pretty doubtful there will be very many people at any one showing in any theater. The IMAX I go to is BIG and the theater was basically empty. I would guess there was probably 80-100 people total, and about 1/3 of them were children. There was so few people that it seemed like pretty much every group had an entire row to themselves. I know we did.

I would have enjoyed the "Wizard of Oz" even more if I hadn't of gotten sick, but I tuffed it out. We had all of 16 people at our IMAX theatre for 9:00PM showing and I don't think anyone came for the 11:00 pm showing.

3D effect? It doesn’t exactly enhance the film, nor does it completely ruin it, although the images are not quite as sharp as in a regular 2D print. From my minds eye the 3D effect worked will in individual close-ups and wide angle lens shoots...in those instances the images "jumped off" the screen, for me. When the filmed moves to technicolor the depth you described does enhances the picture. The Wicked Witch of The West (Margaret Hamilton) character benefited from 3D effect more than any character, she was even more menacing and foreboding. (IMHO) Overall I thought the effect enhanced the movie's texture. I got kick out of being able to see the weave of the burlap sack on the scarecrow's face. The grumpy live apple trees... I noticed the bird that flew about knee level as Dorothy, Scarecrow and the Tin-man walked threw the forest. and the big ass bird in the background... I don't know if that was suppose to be an Ostrich or what.

Next time I go to the movies I'll take some anti-vertigo medication.

[Edited 9/22/13 12:45pm]

TD3 said:

Cerebus said:

I hope y'all enjoy it as much as we did!

I did a bit of research, though, and it's pretty doubtful there will be very many people at any one showing in any theater. The IMAX I go to is BIG and the theater was basically empty. I would guess there was probably 80-100 people total, and about 1/3 of them were children. There was so few people that it seemed like pretty much every group had an entire row to themselves. I know we did.

I would have enjoyed the "Wizard of Oz" even more if I hadn't of gotten sick, but I tuffed it out. We had all of 16 people at our IMAX theatre for 9:00PM showing and I don't think anyone came for the 11:00 pm showing.

3D effect? It doesn’t exactly enhance the film, nor does it completely ruin it, although the images are not quite as sharp as in a regular 2D print. From my minds eye the 3D effect worked will in individual close-ups and wide angle lens shoots...in those instances the images "jumped off" the screen, for me. When the filmed moves to technicolor the depth you described does enhances the picture. The Wicked Witch of The West (Marget Hamilton) character benefited from 3D effect more than any character, she was even more menacing and foreboding. (IMHO) Overall I thought the effect enhanced the movie's texture. I got kick out of being able to see the weave of the burlap sack on the scarecrow's face. The grumpy live apple trees... I notice the bird that flew about knee level as Dorothy, Scarecrow and the Tin-man walked threw the forest. and the big ass bird in the background... I don't know if that was suppose to be an Ostrich or what.

Next time I go to the movies I'll take some anti-vertigo medication.

Grey Crowned Crane

Sounds like you had a similar experience for the most part. Glad you enjoyed it, sorry you got carsick.

Cerebus said:

TD3 said:

I would have enjoyed the "Wizard of Oz" even more if I hadn't of gotten sick, but I tuffed it out. We had all of 16 people at our IMAX theatre for 9:00PM showing and I don't think anyone came for the 11:00 pm showing.

3D effect? It doesn’t exactly enhance the film, nor does it completely ruin it, although the images are not quite as sharp as in a regular 2D print. From my minds eye the 3D effect worked will in individual close-ups and wide angle lens shoots...in those instances the images "jumped off" the screen, for me. When the filmed moves to technicolor the depth you described does enhances the picture. The Wicked Witch of The West (Marget Hamilton) character benefited from 3D effect more than any character, she was even more menacing and foreboding. (IMHO) Overall I thought the effect enhanced the movie's texture. I got kick out of being able to see the weave of the burlap sack on the scarecrow's face. The grumpy live apple trees... I notice the bird that flew about knee level as Dorothy, Scarecrow and the Tin-man walked threw the forest. and the big ass bird in the background... I don't know if that was suppose to be an Ostrich or what.

Next time I go to the movies I'll take some anti-vertigo medication.

Grey Crowned Crane

Sounds like you had a similar experience for the most part. Glad you enjoyed it, sorry you got carsick.

That's what my mother said, that thang looked a lot BIGGER than G.C. Crane. All these years and I never noticed the Crane when OZ is played on TV.

Good grief... if it can happen, it will happen to me.

====================

[Edited 9/22/13 20:42pm]