There's an AWESOME new trailer for this film over at iTunes. I didn't even know the first one was out, but whatever, this one is the more extended one, and has more stuff.

And there's a lovely high-res version of the film's triyptych poster here.

The poster does not exactly fill me with confidence. Along the edges there are some traditional Oz elements, like a wicked witch, some flying monkeys, and the wizard in his balloon. But who are those four people in the center of the poster suppose to be? The MGM musical merely took liberties. I've got a feeling in my gut that this will be something worse.

Regarding who those people are, watch the trailer.

I saw it yesterday, and wasn't terribly impressed with it. It was an okay way to spend a couple of hours, but wasn't that big a deal. From Sam Raimi's previous work and the subject matter, I was hoping for something a bit more epic, or at least a bit deeper--hell, I would've settled for something better-acted--but this hovered just a bit over mediocrity. I didn't think that Evanora or Theodora made credible or worthy villains, nor did I think Theodora's character arc, or what was presented as one, made any sense at all. (Why did she initially deny being wicked? Why did being duped by Oz over such a superficial dalliance cause her to snap? As prequel/origin stories go, this wasn't much better than Anakin's in the Star Wars prequel trilogy.) I also didn't think that Mila Kunis, who is good in the right roles, was believable in this one. Her voice when screaming sounded like a little girl's. Oz's character arc involving a con artist learning to be a good man and a hero has been done before, and better. It also made no sense to me that only the Master Tinkerer know about Oz's plan with the balloon, much less why Oz had to fill it with gold. The conflict just wasn't that compelling, and the climax, while straightforward and logical, just didn't have that satisfying feeling, having suffered from the limitation of the creators' desires to end everything to be consistent with the classic film.

My problem with the film is How can it be a prequel to The Wizard of Oz? According to the 1939 film, all events that took place in Oz were part of a dream Dorothy had when she was knocked out by the cyclone. In other words, the whole Oz sequence really didn't happen in The Wizard of Oz. So if it didn't happen, how could there be a prequel? Or at least one that takes place in Oz?

Because the 1939 film is just one of the many adaptations that have been made of the L. Frank Baum book and is not a particularly faithful one either. In the book, Dorothy's journey to Oz was real. As I understand it, the "it was all a dream" concept was shoved in because studio suits at MGM thought that moviegoing audiences were too sophisticated to accept a place like Oz being real.

Didn't they realize that the whole point of going to a movie like that is to suspend disbelief and enjoy the fantasy at face value?

The 1939 film may be "one of the many adaptations", but it's the one EVERYONE has seen. The rest have mostly passed EVERYBODY by. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that people are either familiar with only the original novel or the Judy Garland motion picture. And of the two, it is the '39 movie they are most likely to know. This makes all other adaptations irrelevant. And, since "I'm I nitpicker, I don't deal in reality", why MGM foisted the "it was all a dream" onto The Wizard of Oz is not what counts. It's what's on the screen. And what's on the screen is Dorothy dreamt all of Oz. The logical solution (not necessarily the smart one) is to follow Oz: The Great and Powerful with a more faithful (and more in-line with the prequel's conceits) adaptation of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

Having worked my way through several Oz books (and still slowly going through them), I'd be happy to see a remake of the original book, provided it leads to films of the later books.

But the China village would have to rebuild itself since it was destroyed in the movie prequel but features prominently in the first book. (True it can be removed without affecting the plot much, but it would be wise to include elements in the book and not in the famous movie just to distinguish itself.)

One thing I liked about the new movie is that even though it was not a dream, people from Kansas also appeared as characters in Oz. It can't be explained with a 'and you were there, and you, and you...' line, but it doesn't need to be explained. A nice nod to the '39 film.

The voice of the monkey was driving me crazy throughout the film because it sounded so familiar. When I got home, I looked the actor up and it turns out I haven't seen him in anything.

I think this was my first Disney film since I was a child.

Just because an adaptation is particularly ingrained within the popular imagination does not mean any further adaptations must be a slave to its conceits. Especially something as inane as the It Was All a Dream concept. Ultimately, the source material is what should be drawn from primarily. And in the book, Oz was a real place.

Kevin: The voice of the monkey was driving me crazy throughout the film because it sounded so familiar. When I got home, I looked the actor up and it turns out I haven't seen him in anything.

Luigi Novi: Aside from the beginning of the movie, when he plays Frank, right?

The original Planet of the Apes book was made into a well-known movie, but that didn't stop them from

Ok, bad example.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was made into a well-known movie, but that didn't stop them from remaking (or re-sourcing) it into another decent movie.