New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Max Braden: I've never read any of the novels, so I don't know the plot directions they would pick from. But I do get a Land of the Lost (Lozt?) vibe from it, in that the land of Oz has plenty to offer for episodic treatment. I'm not sure I would predict an Oz series making more than the Pirates of the Caribbean series, but it could be a close call. I'd expect critic reviews of Oz sequels to be stronger than the ones for Pirates.

Kim Hollis: I've read four of the books (I've been visiting the Land of Oz lately) and while I will always think Ozma of Oz is a special story, overall the books really just have the characters wandering around from place to place, seeing weird and wonderful things. Sort of like Lord of the Rings without the intrigue, I suppose. It makes for fine family fare, but I'm not sure that the stories really lend themselves to easy - or worthwhile - adaptation. They're not as timeless as you might think. Anyway, I'm curious to see where Disney takes the franchise, but since the first film is already of dubious quality, they're going to need to step it up.

Edwin Davies: I think things are a little bit shaky, to be honest. Disney will probably be happy that they haven't got another John Carter on their hands and they're probably going to be flush with Avengers cash for a while yet, but $315 million is a hell of a gamble on a property that, historically, hasn't done terribly well at the box office. Famously, the original Wizard of Oz was a middling success at best on release, only really becoming a classic once it became a TV favorite, and Return to Oz was basically a non-starter. In short, I think it's a property that everyone knows but which not that many people are wildly passionate about. That's not the worst basis for a franchise, but they're going to have to scale the budget back considerably for future films, especially if word of mouth proves to be only so-so. I think, ultimately, the main reasoning for making it a franchise will be very similar to that which created Cars 2; not because audiences will turn out for it, but because there are so many branding opportunities that it might be worth taking a hit to get some new toys or rides out of it.

David Mumpower: I see both sides of the argument. People hold such a soft place in their hearts for the land of Oz that return trips are warmly welcomed. As has been noted, L. Frank Baum crafted 14 stories set in this realm. There is ample opportunity for additional visits. The problem is that the same was true of Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter series yet consumers passed on the opportunity to watch any such films. Oz the Great and Powerful has debuted at a large enough level that the possibility of a sequel is viable.

Yes, I recognize that Disney has already stated their intention to create one but plans such as this can change quickly. I still believe that international revenue and the toy sales mentioned by Edwin will go a long way toward determining the fate of Oz sequels. The one aspect that Disney could control was the quality of the first (well, first of the 2000s) Oz movie. Instead, they delivered another mediocre, expensive title that could prove to be grand folly.

Effectively, this may yet prove to be another mistake like John Carter in that the first film is not the primary goal to measure success. Viable franchises are the primary goal of every movie studio right now. If Oz does not prove to be such a situation, a second opportunity has been missed by Disney. Even if there is another Oz film, I worry that the franchise will follow the path of Narnia, earning less revenue with each new release.

Continued:       1       2       3       4