This Disney film is a sequel to the MGM film The Wizard of Oz (1939). Unfortunately it demonstrates how an excellent sequel to an excellent film can flop if it it does not fully cater to viewers' wish for just more of the same.
The two most obvious changes compared to the original film were more or less unavoidable given that the sequel came out 46 years later.
* In 1939, making all Kansas scenes black and white to stress how bleak life in the real world is for Dorothy was a very natural trick, created a nice surprise when the film finally switches to color (and a nasty one at the end when it switches back to black and white), and reduced production costs considerably because Technicolor was still a very new and very expensive technology. In 1985 it would have been weird to try the same trick. Black and white in cinema had become weird.
* In 1939, musical films were all the rage. In 1985, a musical film for the entire family would have been unusual, very expensive, and a great risk.
There were two changes, however, that seem to have been caused by artistic decisions that likely made the film better, but also made it defy expectations.
* Unlike the original film, the sequel presents very real dangers in a very realistic, threatening manner. Some reviewers here have called this a horror film for children. I think this goes a bit too far, but for the first two thirds or so of this film I wouldn't outright reject this description, either. Unlike the original film, this one is definitely not for the youngest cinema goers.
* Dorothy's original companions in Oz appear, but only very briefly. The other, secondary, characters generally do not reappear at all. Instead we get a new cast of characters. We see some of the old places, but also not to the extent many viewers will hope.
For the last third or so, the sequel returns to the genre (except for the singing) and voice of the original film, but at that point it is too late for those who expected the entire sequel to be like this and is a disappointment for those who preferred the beginning and don't like artificial sweetness.
This film is not for everyone and particularly not for the youngest children. But for the right audience it is a worthy sequel to The Wizard of Oz, maybe even better than the original film. In particular, the imagery for Oz is sufficiently congruent with the original. It is unfortunate that this film flopped because of the artistic decisions, but I can't be unhappy about the artistic decisions themselves.
The two most obvious changes compared to the original film were more or less unavoidable given that the sequel came out 46 years later.
* In 1939, making all Kansas scenes black and white to stress how bleak life in the real world is for Dorothy was a very natural trick, created a nice surprise when the film finally switches to color (and a nasty one at the end when it switches back to black and white), and reduced production costs considerably because Technicolor was still a very new and very expensive technology. In 1985 it would have been weird to try the same trick. Black and white in cinema had become weird.
* In 1939, musical films were all the rage. In 1985, a musical film for the entire family would have been unusual, very expensive, and a great risk.
There were two changes, however, that seem to have been caused by artistic decisions that likely made the film better, but also made it defy expectations.
* Unlike the original film, the sequel presents very real dangers in a very realistic, threatening manner. Some reviewers here have called this a horror film for children. I think this goes a bit too far, but for the first two thirds or so of this film I wouldn't outright reject this description, either. Unlike the original film, this one is definitely not for the youngest cinema goers.
* Dorothy's original companions in Oz appear, but only very briefly. The other, secondary, characters generally do not reappear at all. Instead we get a new cast of characters. We see some of the old places, but also not to the extent many viewers will hope.
For the last third or so, the sequel returns to the genre (except for the singing) and voice of the original film, but at that point it is too late for those who expected the entire sequel to be like this and is a disappointment for those who preferred the beginning and don't like artificial sweetness.
This film is not for everyone and particularly not for the youngest children. But for the right audience it is a worthy sequel to The Wizard of Oz, maybe even better than the original film. In particular, the imagery for Oz is sufficiently congruent with the original. It is unfortunate that this film flopped because of the artistic decisions, but I can't be unhappy about the artistic decisions themselves.
