‘Oz the Great and Powerful’ Sequel Already in the Works

Published 2 years ago by

Oz the great and powerful Oz the Great and Powerful Sequel Already in the Works

Whenever a studio attempts to reboot or revisit a beloved classic, there’s always some trepidation on the part of audiences, actors, and filmmakers. After all, no one wants to see a pale imitation of a masterpiece. But from the studio’s perspective, rebooting an already recognizable film usually means there’s a built-in audience ready to fork over some dough.

In the case of Oz the Great and Powerful, the stakes are even higher. The Wizard of Oz is not just a classic, it’s a film considered by many to be one of the greatest movies ever made. Disney isn’t worried about failure, though. In fact, the studio is so confident that moviegoers will embrace the pseudo-prequel that it already has a sequel in the works.

Variety is reporting Disney commissioned Oz the Great and Powerful co-writer Mitchell Kapner to pen the sequel several months ago. There are no plot details at the moment, but Kapner will have free reign to pull any inspiration from Frank Baum’s novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. However, he will not be able to draw from any of the unique elements of The Wizard of Oz’s, as Warner Bros. owns the rights to the 1939 film.

Disney didn’t comment on specific sequel plans, but the fact that the studio already has a writer drafting a script – who is one of two writers responsible for the film hitting theaters this weekend – shows that it’s probably confident it has a winner on its hands. And with Sam Raimi at the helm and likable stars such as Mila Kunis and James Franco leading the way, why shouldn’t it be?

045 WH0100 cdl v1196 1075 R Oz the Great and Powerful Sequel Already in the Works

Disney has to also be licking its chops when looking at the relatively weak competition Oz will be up against during its opening weekend. Dead Man Down is the only other new film opening wide this weekend and holdovers such as Jack the Giant Slayer, 21 and Over and Identity Thief should see business slowing down. Considering all the factors, Oz the Great and Powerful is expected to reel in $80 million in its first weekend.

Since Oz had a $200 million budget, the studio definitely needs to see it do well, but if it hits slightly below that projection, don’t expect Disney to hit the panic button and abort the plan for a sequel. Now, if it hits way below that mark, then Mickey Mouse and Co. might need to start worrying.

Be sure to check out Oz the Great and Powerful when it hits theaters on Friday March 8th, 2013.

Source: Variety

Follow Daniel Johnson on Twitter @UODanJohnson
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. There already is a sequel. It’s called The Wizard of Oz.

    • On the nose! A sequel to OZ is like THE LAST EXORCISM 2….

      Not only logic seems to go out the window with this sequel-crazed drive to make what are regarded as movies, but movies which increasingly are more like TV “series”.

      Given this serious dirth of imagination in Hollywood, one can understand (perfectly) why the studio system is playing it safe; but, like OZ and EXORCISM, they starting to play it stupid.

      Bankruptcy of imagination will always precede…bankruptcy (or buyout).

      Is it even possible on any studio slate for there to appear a roster of films proposed, in development or in production not followed by a number?

      • There already is a sequal to Wizard of Oz, and it sucks balls. It was made in the 80’s. It had a robot that was a 1 unit army that somehow defeated the thugs by spinning, thugs with roller skates for hands and feet. A rock monster king that likes wearing women’s slippers (Dorty’s ruby slippers to be spesific), a wierd witch that was headless and took other people’s heads for her own…and finally a weird, talking, flying, moose headed couch. And the whole plot was to save the Scarecrow who somehow through his newly gained brains, became King of Oz.

        • “Return to Oz” is an underrated gem. Much truer to the Baum books than any Oz movie to date. Dark and gorgeous.

    • Lots of ways they can go with this. One key point of interest might be dealing with exactly how Dorothy got to be orphaned.

      We’ve met her mother in Oz the great and powerful, and since she bears an uncanny resemblance to Glinda – it may be that she is transported to Oz,mistaken for her by one of the witches and summarily killed. I suspect that Theodora might temporarily be turned back to her pretty prior self – either as a disguise or as part of a spell that cannot last long.

      I enjoyed the first film, although I felt there wasn’t enough story to last the length of it. Very interested in seeing what they do with the follow up.

    • Please make more we love it

  2. The real problem with trying to reboot an older film or making prequels to it is the huge difference between technologies, audience tastes, and director’s views. The original Wizard of Oz would not be popular today…it is not dark or serious enough to keep today’s audience engaged. As you can see by the scenes released (the movie tomorrow) and the trailors, this Oz reboot is not fun, but a dark take on Oz also. Again, I will point out that the Oz staring Julie Garland would not be popular if it were made the same way today.

  3. I rather go see Dead Man Down then go see a below average Disney movie.

    • If a movie is G or PG then it ain’t for me.

      • Life of pi was rated pg and its phenomenal

      • @Norin Radd – So you didn’t watch Apollo 13 because that was rated PG. You’ll miss out on some really great flicks by limiting yourself like that.


  4. just came back from seeing it, the movie was alright, but I expected more, it started kinda interesting but then went on to become almost like a cartoon not in the sense of the visuals but the acting and everything just felt like i was watching a cartoon but with real people, know what i mean?
    the visual aspect of the movie is itself kinda fantastical and don’t look real at all but that was to be expected because it’s the land of OZ, it just kinda bothered me the tone of the acting and the plot just felt like I was a little kid, i enjoyed it though, it was good

    • Well, Oz was originally intended for kids. And most of the things from the past, and “family friendly” movies are for kids. And it IS Disney. So why do you sound so surprised?

  5. four people walked out in the middle of the movie by the way, and it was only like 10 people including me

    • Thats not good… but at least you could sit wherever you wanted :)

  6. I’d like them to actually remake the original Wizard of Oz for a modern audiance. Because even though the 1930’s film with Julie Garland is like a national treasure today there’s one clear point that I keep thinking of. After looking at what the actual book of the Wizard of Oz is like I think the movie was just made at the wrong time because according to the book Dorothy is supposed to be a strong female character not the crying child in an adults body that Julie Garland played her as.
    Plus I doubt the author of the original book would have liked this portrayal at all mainly because of the 1930’s Hollywood attitudes towards women.

    But my point is it’s been 80 years since the original film. Can’t we have a new film version of actaul the Wizard of Oz story instead of made up prequels that try to emulate something made in the 1930’s.

    • Remake the original Wizard of Oz for a modern audience?! Ah, that movie is absolutely timeless! I loved it 35 years ago, and my kids love it today. I believe you would be among the minority that think it should be remade.

      • Ah…I just reread your comments, and I am discerning that there is more of an “agenda” to them. People see what they look for, and apparently, you saw a “crying child in an adult body”. OMG, man…give the political correctness a rest. The Wizard of Oz was an amazing and timeless film, and many people’s hearts have been touched by both the movie and Julie Garland’s performance in it.

        • If you start down this road of “remakes”…well, it’s a pretty slippery slide that (already) has film studios colliding into classics.

          To extend this theory about remaking “old movies” for modern audiences, naturally these would be popular films like, well, GATSBY is already in the can. What audience today wants to see such a remake? Doesn’t really seem to matter, does it? It’s done. Ok, what about Citizen Kane? Remake the original 1988 DIE HARD to reboot the franchise, now that Bruce Willis is becoming too “decrepit” to play John McClane.

          Let’s see, what else? Because, frankly, we don’t have an original thought (or a brain, for that matter) in our heads.

          Enough! Take a time out…for a paradign shift.

    • I think your right but your also wrong because obviously if it was good enough then it wouldn’t be such a classic. Classics are calle classics for a reason. But I get what you mean by re making it cuz id love to see a darker version such as Snow White and the huntsman and I’d actually love to see Mila Kunis play Dorthy because I think she could do justice to the character from the original story because like you said dorthy had quite a different personality in the original story.

  7. Saw it last night and despite my doubts it was a fantastic movie, right up the with The Wizard of Oz.

  8. Wait, can someone explain to me how Disney made THIS film in the first place if Warner Bros. owns the rights to The Wizard of Oz?

    • Warner’s owns the 1939 film not the books therefore Disney could make a film based on the books so don’t expect the ruby slippers they were silver in the book

    • The Wizard of Oz story is one of the most iconic in history. It’s also one of the few franchises I know of that can have books made by anyone, movies made by anyone, and any form of media made by anyone. I forget the term for it but some series are free market (not the correct term for it I forgot it lol) and anyone can make anything related to Oz. It’s a free license. I think that’s what they call it. The original film is owned by Warner Bros., or at least the rights to it are. Just like Fox owns Star Wars Episode IV until the end of time and the other films for a short time. Warner Bros. owns distribution rights to The Clone Wars film. Disney owns Star Wars now and will release their movies. Think of it like that. Except Oz is a free license, anyone can make something based on it. It’s quit cool actually.

      • Um, anything that has passed into the public domain can have movies/plays/etc made about them. That’s thousands upon thousands of stories. Just look at all the different versions of Les Miserables (I’ve seen at least 10 different movies), Phantom of the Opera (again dozens of movies), Sherlock Holmes (more movies than can be counted), any thing by Jules Vern, HG Wells, the Brontes, Shakespeare, the Bible.

        Basically there are 20+ movies of any thing you read in highschool.

        There are other Oz movies: I remeber seeing a blacka nd white silent film based on the scarecow as kinf of Oz. And Disney already made a Wizard of OZ sequel, called Return to OZ, based more on Baum’s world. It was dark as hell and scared the crap out of me as a kid. They had to depart substantially from the production design of the 1939 film, but this new movie, LOOKS like the film with Judy Garland, even if they don’t have the Ruby Slippers.

      • The word your looking for is public domain.

    • Disney bought the rights from Warner Brothers a few years ago, before they announced this movie. They also own Star Wars now too.

  9. Looking forward to this one,and first in line as soon as it plays here in China ! Guess this means long long waiting time :(

  10. What they should do is make films of all of the 12 original Oz books that Baum wrote. There are some wonderful stories in there, with wonderful characters, and some truly dark moments for the modern theater goers who want their fantasy movies to be serious. The Oz books are the first truly original American fantasy series, and I just hope Hollywood doesn’t cack it up.

    • I keep meaning to check out all the original OZ films from 1910 on youtube.

    • I would love that!These books have been around for over a hundred years-it’s time they all made their big screen debut!

  11. Yeah if Warner bros owns the wizard of oz, why didn’t they make a movie with the property? It’s like Warner brothers hates making movies. Who the Hells running that monkey farm anyways?

  12. I’m fine with a new series, there’s tons of stories Baum left behind that could develop into a “Wonderful” Oz franchise :)

  13. Oz The Great and Powerful sucked!

  14. WHY??
    Why would they make a sequel to this film???

    • If Walt Disney continued to pour huge amounts of money into the production of JOHN CARTER during principal photography, knowing the film was beneath the studio’s requirements, then the prospect of turning the Baum anthology of OZ stories into PG-rated films for an 8-year-old demographic is surely a walk-in-the-park.

      • @ Freddrick……
        Good point. This movie was just bad though……….why make more?????

    • You seriously think evil is gonna stop? SPOILER ALERT!: Scaring away evil is only temporary. He somehow comes up with a solution to keep the witches away until Dorthy finishes them off.

    • Because there are alot of loose ends that need to be tied. They left A LOT of cliff hangers such as what happens to theadora.

  15. I went to see it today in theatres it was brilliant. I think the sequel shall be titled

    OZ: The World’s Great and Powerful Wizard
    (a,k,a The Wonderful Wizard of Oz)

    Casting Call:
    Dakota Fanning as Dorothy Gale
    Ewan McGregor as Scarecrow
    Ryan Reynolds as Tin Woodman
    Matt Damon as The Cowarldy Lion (CGI voice)
    Michelle Williams as Glinda The Good Witch
    Rachel Weisz as Evanora the Evil Witch
    Mila Kuniz as Theodora The Evil Witch
    Patrick Dinklage as Mayor of Munchkin City
    Warwick Davis as The Munchkin (Unconfirmed)
    Bruce Campbell as The Winkie Guard
    Gary Oldman as Henry Gale (Uncomfirmed)
    Diane Lane as Emily Gale (Unconfirmed)

  16. So soon, I’m surprised, it just came out today. I just got out of the theaters an hour ago watching this movie with my brother for his birthday today. I’m not sure how a sequel would work since the film by itself didn’t need a sequel. It told the story it needed to tell. Just like the Star Wars prequels. They’re essential parts to the story. However, when it comes out I will see it. Since I love this movie. This is a great film. But does it really need a sequel. We’ll see. :) I look forward to it.

  17. I would love to see another version of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The book is much more interesting than the Warner classic. I would love to see a more faithful adaptation with the people made of cracked china and the silver slippers, all of it.

    • I think the origin of the Tin Man might have to be toned down a little bit. You know: chop chop, slice slice :( its a really interesting story that he shares, but it seems really dark for a Disney movie.

      I could be wrong, but thats how I see it.

  18. I wish they’d just remake the Wizard of Oz and make it decent. I hate the original musical- after seeing Return to Oz as a kid and loving it, the 50’s “classic” is just dreadful.

  19. The movie didn’t feel done, but I didn’t really think it was thrilling in any way. I thought Jack the Giant Slayer was better.

    • LOL Jack and the Giant Slayer was absolutely horrible. They could’ve done something special with the story and instead decided to make it into a typical, over-produced CGI banger with no depth whatsoever.

      • I thought it was good. How are you going to do a story about giant vines and giants without CGI? At least be a little logical in your thoughts. When you do a Jack and the Beanstalk movie, you are either going to have a cartoon, or lots of CGI. And I didn’t think the movie was terrible. I’ll admit it was longer than it could have been, and seemed like the writers didn’t know where to end it. But, it was not terrible. It was very entertaining.

  20. They are going to make a sequel, but can’t use any of the elements of the old Wizard of Oz movie? I would ask how they they would even be able to do that, but I forgot. Money makes strange things happen.

    • They had plenty of elements to the original in this last movie…didn’t you see the Yellow Brick Road? Oz was still a bunch of green towers, they had that red flowery field that puts people to sleep, references to the scarecrow, and possibly the cowardly lion, even the baloon was following the storyline. Even the black and white begining was the same as the classic. I don’t see where you get the “can’t use any of the elements of the old Wizard of Oz movie”, because they had more than enough.

  21. What really bothers me is that whenever hollywood studios think of the Wizard of Oz, the first and only thing that seems to come to mind is that stupid musical that i don’t think did the book justice one bit. There is so much more to the book than there ever was to that movie. It’s like they forgot it was based on a book in the first place. hello. With computer generation and all that, i really do want to see a movie that is truly based on the original book by L. Frank Baum. It’s crazy, they’ll do prequel and a sequel (Return to Oz), but they won’t do the original story.