1.) Present the follow-up story in a completely different way from the first one, usually in a darker light.
The original full length movie filmed in 1925 - 1939 version wasn't the original. Return to Oz, at best, is a unofficial sequel of the 1939 movie.
2.) Use completely different actors from the original film (to be fair, this was filmed over 40 years after the original, so most of the original cast was either old or dead).
They can't do anything about that.
3.) Relating to #2, make it many years after the original.
It is an unofficial sequel, so it doesn't attempt to continue in the spirit of the original film.
4.) Kill off all the supporting characters from the previous story and bring in new ones nobody likes or cares about.
It's a matter of opinion, but fans of the ROT, myself included, find the supporting characters intriguing and exceptionally original.
5) Make all things the heroes worked hard for in the previous film completely irrelevant.
You can give example?
7.) Make sure to ingest lots of drugs and alcohol while writing the story (L. Frank Baum, I'm looking at you!)
The movie is actually more faithful to the original book than The Wizard of OZ.
8.) Use the dumbest Deux ex Machina you can think of to kill off the bad guy.
I actually find the ending to be better than the "it's all just a dream" conclusion in the original movie.
10.) Relating to the author, try to write the story when all your creative energy was drained away writing the original, so you have nothing left for the sequels.
The complete opposite. In fact, it stands as one of the most creatively imaginative fantasy films ever. While it's understandable if you don't personally love the movie, asserting that it lacks creativity is far from accurate.
reply
share
Popcorngal (4937)
2 years ago
Both sequels are OK. Many fans panned the third movie of Anne of Green Gables in 2000,since the plot was very different from the first two movies in the 80's. But over 20 years later, some have softened towards the film. Eventually I want to read the books.
reply
share
AmeriGirl26 (15100)
2 years ago
It's RTO, not "ROT."
Let's think about this: they got rid of the Wicked Witch of the West, brought peace to Oz, Dorothy's 3 friends are allowed to rule the Emerald City after she and the Wizard leave, and all's right with the world. In the sequel, she comes back to find the place has been devastated by the Nome King, and her friends' bodies are lying around in the street in the ruins of Emerald City. How lovely.
So you're not bothered by using a chicken egg to kill the bad guy? Seriously?
reply
share
Boromir (10130)
2 years ago
In Baum's book "Ozma of Oz," which serves as the primary source material for the movie, there is a scene where Dorothy and her companions encounter the Nome King, a villainous character. In the book, the Nome King is vulnerable to eggs, and Dorothy uses this knowledge to her advantage.
reply
share
AmeriGirl26 (15100)
2 years ago
The problem with Baum's books was, all his creative energy was used up in the first book, and all of his sequels stank as a result. I sometimes think he only wrote the later books to keep earning money. I read a few of them and they sucked.
reply
share
StrongRex (1319)
a year ago
I don't think even the first Wizard of Oz book stands the test of time. There were lots of great ideas that weren't executed well but I loved the world-building. The 1939 movie was, in a lot of ways, an improvement over the book.
reply
share
Kowalski (78914)
2 years ago
BASED ON WHAT YOU WANT US TO BELIEVE YOU ARE...THIS FILM SHOULD BE RIGHT IN YOUR WHEELHOUSE...PERHAPS WORK HARDER ON YOUR GUISE?🫤
reply
share
vilafire (660)
7 months ago
Were you bothered the Wicked Witch of the West was killed with a splash of water? Moronic. The Oz books are absurd and whimsical. That’s the joy of them.
reply
share
AmeriGirl26 (15100)
7 months ago
Everyone knows about the water. The chicken egg is still stupid, as were all the sequels. Get over yourself.
reply
share