Talk:Return to Oz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Oz Portal This article is part of WikiProject Oz, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Oz and Wicked series. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project.

Contents 1 Permissions 2 Budget 3 Summary Corrections 4 Fair use rationale for Image:Returnoz.jpg 5 budget 6 Fair use rationale for Image:DorothyFairuzaBalkFeetandShoes.JPG 7 Original Story 8 Reception

[edit] Permissions

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Return to Oz given the go-ahead by the Oz Production Company? And weren't the aforesmentioned company the copyright holders for the Oz series at the time? --Jb-adder 04:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, while MGM held the movie rights to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Disney held movie rights to most of the later Oz books, so thus no approval by MGM or anyone was needed. --[[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Budget

Why are there two budgets mentioned for the film?, one mentions "$25,000,000" and the other "$35 Million" Does anyone know which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.100.179 (talk) 04:26, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary Corrections

Was the theatrical ending different than the one currently available on VHS/DVD? In the video version, there is nothing in the end about socks, and Dorothy's feet don't turn red. Were there two different endings, or is the wiki page incorrect?

It's incorrect. It's fixed now. --Bishop2 12:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Reception" section ends with a lot of opinion with nothing to back it up

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Returnoz.jpg

Image:Returnoz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] budget

The widget at the top of the page notes the budget as $25M, but the reception section refers to a $35M budget that was overdrawn. Did the film go $10M overbudget (from $25M to $35M) or is one of the listed budgets incorrect?

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DorothyFairuzaBalkFeetandShoes.JPG

Image:DorothyFairuzaBalkFeetandShoes.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Story

I'm wondering how much of the original story section is accurate. While it is true that "Return to Oz" went through several drafts in conceptualization, this sounds like nothing I've heard of. (A good bit of actual, proven information is online at http://www.waltdisneysreturntooz.com.) In addition, it references it's information from a Special Edition DVD, when the DVDs that have been released discuss no such thing, and, in fact, there has been no "Special Edition" release.

I'm wondering if this may be some irrelevant vandalism here.

EDIT - This has been changed to "Production," which is an inappropiate title. -Jared Davis

[edit] Reception

As has been previously noted, the reception section contains a lot of information that cannot be sourced and as such must be considered speculation. I'm removing a good deal of it especially some of Harlan Ellison's allegations since some of them can be outright disproven.

"...the studio deliberately sabotaged the film's success. Since they consider the film "underrated" or "underappreciated", they discouraged positive reviews, minimised advertising and limited its theatrical release to less than a week."

There is no evidence for any of these claims and a simple search of Box Office Mojo shows that the film was actually in release for three weeks.

S. Luke 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)