gregory5@garfield.UUCP (Greg Case) (12/10/84)
I saw 2010 last Friday night and thought about the time since the
first movie 2001 and its sequel 2010 ,about 16 or 17 years (I forget
what year 2001 was released . Was it 1968 ?). Any way what I was
wondering was what is the longest time between a movie being released
and its sequel . The biggest gap I cold think of was between Psycho
and Psycho II , does anybody out there know if these movies hold the
record or not .
Ever Curious,
GREG CASE
(gregory5@garfield)
{akgua, allegra, dalcs!dreacad, ihnp4, utcsrgv}!garfield!gregory5fishkin@ucbvax.ARPA (Ken Fishkin) (12/12/84)
In article <2179@garfield.UUCP> gregory5@garfield.UUCP (Greg Case) writes: > >what is the longest time between a movie being released >and its sequel . The biggest gap I cold think of was between Psycho >and Psycho II > it was roughly 40 years from "Wizard of Oz" to "The Wiz". Purely speaking, though, I guess that was a remake rather than a sequel. -- Ken Fishkin Berkeley Computer Graphics Lab ucbvax!fishkin fishkin@berkeley
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (12/13/84)
Well, a sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" was being made this past year.
It is a real sequel, not a remake.
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmarecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) (12/14/84)
REFERENCES: <2179@garfield.UUCP> <3768@ucbvax.ARPA>, <3302@mit-eddie.UUCP> > Well, a sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" was being made this past year. > It is a real sequel, not a remake. No, not really. It's a movie based on a couple of sequels to the book that the first movie was based on, but Kurtz et al emphasize that it's not a sequel to the 1939 WIZARD OF OZ (or to THE WIZ. for that matter). I think that JOURNEY BACK TO OZ (made in 1964, released in 1974) *was* a sequel, though. (1964-1939=25 years; PSYCHO difference was 23. Close.) As Mark points out, what is a sequel? Is INCHON a sequel to TORA TORA TORA? Are they both sequels to BEN HUR? Films based on literary works or on history can't be categorized as sequel/non-sequel that easily. By the way, HIS MAJESTY THE SCARECROW OF OZ was made in 1914, and there were other Oz movies in 1924 and 1930. So we have: WIZARD OF OZ book --> WIZARD OF OZ movie (1939), WIZ, etc. | v LAND OF OZ book -- | \ _ OZ movie (1985) (I think) v / OZMA OF OZ book -- | v DOROTHY AND THE WIZARD IN OZ book | v ROAD TO OZ book . . . Evelyn C. Leeper ==> Note new net address: ...ihnp4!ahuta!ecl (Mail sent to my old address will be forwarded temporarily.)
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (12/17/84)
> Well, a sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" was being made this past year. > It is a real sequel, not a remake. > -- > Barry Margolin > ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics > UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar Return to OZ is not a Sequel to the "The Wizard of OZ" that has Judy Garland in it. Return to OZ distinguishes itself in that it tries to be an accurate reproduction of the story in Baum's book, rather than a made over for Hollywood musical like its predecessor. The technology necessary to make a lot of what happens (like making the characters actually look like the illustrations in the book) is fairly recent stuff. -Ron
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (12/17/84)
> In article <2179@garfield.UUCP> gregory5@garfield.UUCP (Greg Case) writes: > > > >what is the longest time between a movie being released > >and its sequel . The biggest gap I cold think of was between Psycho > >and Psycho II > > > it was roughly 40 years from "Wizard of Oz" to "The Wiz". > Purely speaking, though, I guess that was a remake rather than a sequel. > -- > Ken Fishkin Berkeley Computer Graphics Lab > ucbvax!fishkin fishkin@berkeley You forgot the "Wizard of OZ" cartoon with Liza Minnelli's voice as Dorothy's.
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (12/18/84)
In article <217@ahuta.UUCP> ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) writes: >REFERENCES: <2179@garfield.UUCP> <3768@ucbvax.ARPA>, <3302@mit-eddie.UUCP> > >> Well, a sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" was being made this past year. >> It is a real sequel, not a remake. > >No, not really. It's a movie based on a couple of sequels to the book that the >first movie was based on, but Kurtz et al emphasize that it's not a sequel to >the 1939 WIZARD OF OZ (or to THE WIZ. for that matter). Seems to me it's a sequel! It is a movie based upon sequels to the book from which the original movie was made. You might as well say that return of the Jedi is not a sequel because it was based upon a different script... The Wiazard of OZ movie is in general an improvement over the book. I wonder if the new movie will do as well? - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) {allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robison
urban@spp2.UUCP (12/18/84)
In article <6613@brl-tgr.ARPA> ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: >Return to OZ is not a Sequel to the "The Wizard of OZ" that has Judy >Garland in it. Return to OZ distinguishes itself in that it tries to >be an accurate reproduction of the story in Baum's book, rather than >a made over for Hollywood musical like its predecessor. The technology >necessary to make a lot of what happens (like making the characters >actually look like the illustrations in the book) is fairly recent >stuff. I've read a draft of the script for Return to Oz; how close it is to what eventually hits the screen is anyone's guess. However, it is clear that the film is an amalgam of the second and third Oz books ("Marvelous Land of Oz" and "Ozma of Oz"), with some clear changes that are based primarily on the MGM musical. For example, Dorothy's Ruby Slippers figure heavily into the plot; in the original book, they're Silver Shoes (MGM thought that ruby slippers would be better in Technicolor), but their function in the new story derives from a different artifact from the books, the Nome King's Magic Belt. There are a couple of other oblique references to the MGM film, especially in the Kansas scenes. Some of the story emendations are a little strange if you grew up on the Oz books (as I did). For example, the characters of Mombi and Princess Langwidere are fused into one, and it's Dorothy who brings the Gump to life. Imagine Dorothy, Tik-Tok, Billina, and Jack Pumpkinhead fleeing from the Emerald City in the Gump, and you begin to get the idea. If you haven't read the books, of course, none of this should bother you. Rather more disturbing is that the draft that I read seems to imply that Disney is going to attempt to continue the "it was only a dream/hallucination" approach of the 1939 film, though somewhat more ambiguously. I'm unable to determine if this element was retained in the final film. On the other hand, he publicity on the film at the Worldcon convinces me that the film is going to be visually fabulous. You'll believe a Gump's head can talk. We'll just have to wait and see whether or not the elements can all come together and make "Return to Oz" a complete delight, or a stultifying disaster. Mike trwrb!trwspp!spp2!urban
ted@usceast.UUCP (Ted Nolan) (12/21/84)
In article <1299@eosp1.UUCP> robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) writes: >In article <217@ahuta.UUCP> ecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) writes: >>REFERENCES: <2179@garfield.UUCP> <3768@ucbvax.ARPA>, <3302@mit-eddie.UUCP> >> >>> Well, a sequel to "The Wizard of Oz" was being made this past year. >>> It is a real sequel, not a remake. >> >>No, not really. It's a movie based on a couple of sequels to the book that the >>first movie was based on, but Kurtz et al emphasize that it's not a sequel to >>the 1939 WIZARD OF OZ (or to THE WIZ. for that matter). > >Seems to me it's a sequel! It is a movie based upon sequels to the book from >which the original movie was made. You might as well say that return of the Jedi >is not a sequel because it was based upon a different script... > >The Wiazard of OZ movie is in general an improvement over the book. I wonder >if the new movie will do as well? > > - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) > {allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robison This brings to mind an (I hope) interesting observation. When the movie Moonraker came out, the story was so utterly unlike Felming's original book, that instead of rereleasing the book as a movie tie-in - they had a novelization of the script done instead, so you had a book based on a movie based on a book, something that I can't think of having happened before. Now, if someone would just make a tv show from the book...and if it were picked up as a comic... Ted Nolan ..usceast!ted -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Nolan ...decvax!mcnc!ncsu!ncrcae!usceast!ted 6536 Brookside Circle ...akgua!usceast!ted Columbia, SC 29206 ("Deep space is my dwelling place, the stars my destination") -------------------------------------------------------------------------------