McFarlane Talks “Wizard of Oz” Remake and Willingness to Cave to Studio Demands

The green-faced Wicked Witch of the West and flying monkeys weren’t too bad in the scary department. Top that, McFarlane.

Empire magazine talked to Todd McFarlane about his proposed new adaptation of “The Wizard of Oz” (calling it a remake doesn’t really fit to me, because it’s not like he’s making a new musical). And what we learn from this interview is that McFarlane wants to be really daring and completely reinvent the story…until the studio tells him not to.

First off, progress? They have a second draft of a script–the first one was dismissed by Warners for not being sexy enough. They would like to start filming early next year, but McFarlane seems to have a “who knows?” attitude towards that, so don’t count on it. He can’t even begin to think about whether they will film in Britain, as has been rumored.

Speaking of rumors, how about those rumors that Dakota Fanning will play Dorothy? McFarlane says:

I haven’t heard that. If we just do a sugary sweet Dorothy that everybody has seen over and over for 50 years, as far as I’m concerned, that’s too obvious. I’m happy to go with whoever will get the most people in the seats, but sometimes that can change from month to month.

“I’m happy to go with whoever will get the most people in the seats”? That’s standing up for an artistic vision.

Speaking of that, he discusses his concept for the film and how he will go to the mat for it…or maybe not.

I think my “Twisted” version is a little scary for Warners to embrace. I essentially pitched Lord of the Rings. It was big, it was bold and it wasn’t a very pretty place. It was badass! There’s no Baum in it at all. When they bought it from me, my thing was, turn off the MGM mindset. It’s a public domain property, let’s go invent some cool new ideas, which basically will surprise people. What’s going to get a new generation to go look at Oz is if you reinvent it on some level. Not every single level, but some of them have to be new. Shut down your preconceived notions. For me, you should be looking at an isolated movie, that, oh, by the way, happens to be Oz. To get the new audience you’re going to have to put some edges on this thing. My version would rock! But they’re all like, “We’re spending $100m here, we can’t go totally nuts, Todd!” So I’ve told them that the movie I like is the one they’re willing to make!

Look, I understand that every artist wants their work to be seen, to be read, to be heard. But come on, Todd, stand up a little. If you’re going to reinvent this thing, go for it at least a little. I have no desire to see a film that’s been focus-grouped to death.

And by the way, I always have been a big fan of the Oz books–yes, that’s books. L. Frank Baum wrote (I think) thirteen total, and numerous other authors wrote dozens more. The most memorable were the group written by Ruth Plumly Thompson, which were supported, like the Baum books, by the magnificent illustrations of John R. Neill. And if McFarlane thinks that the books–including the first one–were all sweetness and light, he either hasn’t read them or is a terrible reader. “Wizard” has plenty of dark elements in it and as the books went on they became darker and often creepier. He’d be smart to take a look at them.