I found this on wickedonbroadway.net. According to this news article, Spielberg has contacted Katherine McPhee (of American Idol fame) about being in a Wizard of Oz "Remake." The article speculates that this might have something to do with Wicked. Also, according to this article, Spielberg has the rights to make a Wicked film, something I've never heard.
Anyway, in my humble opinion, I'd love to see McPhee tackle Elphaba and I'd really love to see Reese Witherspoon take on the role of Glinda (this article says nothing about that, it's just something I'd like to see.)
But Spielberg needs to stay way away from anything Oz-related.
And a remake of "The Wizard of Oz"? Dreadful idea.
Almost as bad as the proposed "The Sound of Music" remake.
"You just can't win. Ever. Look at the bright side, at least you are not stuck in First Wives Club: The Musical. That would really suck. "
--Sueleen Gay
Whenever the Wicked movie is made, Idina Menzel needs to Elphaba, or I will be an angry, depressed little girl. :P Unless by the time its made, she's too old. At that point I'd say go for McPhee. I think she'd be great.
No need to remake either. They'll both get bashed. And McPhee needs to work up some credientals before she goes about making a remake of a classic. And Reese can't sing the part. She said she doesn't want to be IN the movie, but would like to produce it.
Katharine McPhee has a lovely voice and her "Over the Rainbow" was beautiful but she is not a belter. I will never for the life of me figure out how people think she can play Elphaba. She failed miserably everytime she tried a belty song because she has a soft, jazzy, more Norah Jones type voice. If she were going to do a Broadway musical, she'd be good in something Rodgers and Hammersteinesque and not "Wicked."
A question, or maybe a clarification. Will this be a remake of the classic "Wizard of Oz movie" or a movie version of the book, or a movbie version of the broadway show?
"All I ask of you is one thing: please don't be cynical. I hate cynicism -- it's my least favorite quality and it doesn't lead anywhere. Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you're kind, amazing things will happen."
Conan O'Brien
There's nothing about this anywhere else, so I wouldn't worry about it at all. Even if there is talk, it's just that, talk. Many things are talked about and never developed more then that.
Wizard of oz does need another film version that will actualy follow the book, but there is no reason for it to be a musical. I have always been a fan of the 1939 film, but do favor a new version. Also remeber it is only a remake if they literaly remake the 1939 film, otherwise it is a new film version of the book, which does not constiute a remake.
Actually, Spielberg has a long history with Universal Pictures, who owns the rights to WICKED; his last film MUNICH was distributed by them in fact, so it is not at all out of the question that he could be involved with some producing aspect of a planned film of WICKED. Not out of the question at all.
I don't, however, think Spielberg would do a remake of the WIZARD OF OZ, unless it were a very different retelling of the story.
i've always thought that there should be a new movie of The Wizard of Oz that follows the original book with original visualizations... and no songs. it's been a LONG time since i read it (and i really do need to go back and read it again), but imagine how dark it would be!
Well, RETURN TO OZ was much closer to the spirit of the original Baum books and audiences stayed away in droves.
Perhaps in a post LOTR/NARNIA film world, however, there would be more of a place for a movie adaptation that stays close to the original novel. It could be really wonderful in the right hands.
lol - I was just talking about about the film with a friend today. It's funny how 1985 produced all these "childrens" movies like RETURN TO OZ and YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES that as a small child scared the crap out of me.
I actually love RETURN TO OZ now, even the bizarre prologue in which Dorothy is sent to get a labotomy...
No. Just No. I love Spielberg, he's wonderful, brilliant, whatever. Let's see how he'd like it if Brett Ratner re-did Jaws with the cast of Dawson's Creek. Psssttt...Got a Crush on a Broadway Actor/Actress?
I don't know which is worse, the thought of a "Wizard of Oz" remake, or that McPhee girl getting a role in ANYTHING, let alone "Elphaba." The girl's voice is okay for local talent shows and community theater...nothing more.
RETURN TO OZ I could see them remaking if they thought there was an audience for it (although really, at this point, any market for an OZ flick is going to be a film adaptation of WICKED, IMO.)
But a FILM remake of THE WIZARD OF OZ? Arguably one of the most recognizable and perfect and beloved films of all time? I personally think it would be DISASTROUS--both creatively and financially. It might do well for a grand total of 5 minutes and bank off of consumer curiosity, but after 5 minutes, it would TANK. Because there isn't a single thing that a remake could bring, musically or narratively, that would be either superior--or at least as worthy--as the original film. Even a straight-adaptation of the WIZARD OF OZ novel would STILL be a film adaptation of THE WIZARD OF OZ, and the film industry has already done those characters and that plot as good as it can possibly get. And so I? would boycott a remake to infinity. INFINITY.
However, not against producers creating movie versions of the other OZ novels (and there are many --at least 20 of them, I believe). So with all of those creative possibilities for adaptation for book to film (using the OZ world), I say leave the original OZ alone. For the love of Dorothy, let something be sacred!!!!
(And I shall chant "Remember the remake of PSYCHO!!" like others might chant "Remember the Alamo!!"--till I am blue in the face.) Updated On: 6/5/06 at 03:32 AM