It covered the first, second, third, and sixth books, though as it went along it got farther and farther away from the source material. It was still fun, though.

Yeah.

​@@MaskedMan66I'm pretty sure the 1910 Verison also did that but is now lost

@@haziqhakim5995 The 1910 movie mostly covered the first book; there were one or two elements of later books, but then there were only five books at that point. And we do still have the first reel.

Their Glinda was my favorite

does anyone know where you can download the score from 🥲

The Canadian score is fun too.

Eddie Miller my first anime was Kirby: Right Back At Ya

The 1986 and 1982 and 1991 is kinda creepy but I like the 1932 so much effort that one

Same but it was 1986, it was my first anime but I don't remember how old I was, I had the dvds

And you are old LOL

Actually, I turned 6 years old in 2001.

The animated versions were being true to the book, in which the Good Witch of the North was a sweet little old lady and Glinda, the Good Witch of the South, was beautiful and graceful. What they really did in the MGM film was to flip-flop the two.

Not funny, they were based on the book, the 1939 version was mainstream garbage simplified for idiots...

live action glinda is so unhelpful. “Haha lesson of the day learned through a journey and friends along the way” SHE LEARNED HER LESSON THE MOMENT SHE SAID “i want to go home”! JUST SHOW HER HOW TO USE THE STUPID SHOES. the 1986 version is mischievious in a good way, the fitst time we meet her she is a divine beautiful figure then later dorothy asks her for help with general gingivitus and mombi. she all like “you two are being very naughty cease your actions at once.” “oh yeah what are you gonna do about it” then she turns into a bunch of storm clouds with an evil maniacal villan laugh and scares the piss out of them

​@@JohnnyProctor9 The book's main problem is that Dorothy is a Mary Sue, given how she's 100% perfect and has no emotional core or cohesive whole to tie her ends together in the end. The 1939 version developed her character by expanding on Kansas, eliminating the unnecessary and overtly-long filler trek to see Glinda (which having that bit of filler be part of the plot makes no sense film-wise because Dorothy's obstacle in the book is getting home whereas in the movie it's the Wicked Witch of the West, and if they had the second trek in the movie, it would add an unnecessary second obstacle), and giving Dorothy an emotional core and making her friends in Oz and family in Kansas tie her ends together in the end.

@@JohnnyProctor9 Troll.

The version that I have is a bit rushed though because it was originally a TV series but was shortened to feature film length for the home video release...the show is longer and contains much more material from the books, it's available free with ads on the Cocoro app! Or here: kzfaq.info/sun/PLwHT6S3CnpERlkHxl-PpLafhwrlvCgTsV

In the book, the "Emerald City" was really just plain white. It was given the illusion of being "emerald" because all the occupants were forced by the Wizard to wear green spectacles, which were locked onto their heads day and night. The '86 anime got the white part right, but curiously omitted the green spectacles part.

@@wesltall1 Ah, another mystery solved. Thanks!

@@JohnnyProctor9 Yes I know they made a shortened rushed version as well. But I already have the original series. Thanks anyway.

@@asthemoonturns - That's cool...is there a legit way to purchase the TV series now? Oh...maybe only in Dutch then?

"More faithful" does not always equal "better". Look at The Shining mini series, for instance.

@@OzMunchkinJames At what point did I say this?

@@OzMunchkinJames "Better" than what? A faithful adaptation can be brilliant if done right.

Mine as well, though of these four it's actually the least accurate to the book.

@@MaskedMan66 For the most part, the 1939 version's mostly accurate to the first half, except the Kansas beginning, which expands on it to give Dorothy an emotional core to her character, which Baum's Dorothy did not have. Also, Dorothy in the end of the movie realizes that her family and the farmhands in Kansas give her a cohesive whole, which is something that Baum's Dorothy also lacked. Plus, the 1939 version makes the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, and Lion's rewards make more sense, since in the book, they already had what they were wanting, so why give them fake versions of what they already have when you could give them things to show what they already had in the first place? Also, Dorothy is a Mary Sue in the book, given how she's 100% perfect and has no emotional core or cohesive whole to tie her ends together in the end.

@@OzMunchkinJames "Emotional core?" "Cohesive whole?" All Baum was after was telling a good story, not providing grist for a literary consortium. Dorothy was just a good girl, that's all, a model for good behavior for his readers, though hardly perfect; the reason she threw the water at the Wicked Witch was that she lost her temper when the Witch nabbed one of the shoes. As for the Wizard's gifts, he gave them to the three companions because they insisted he give them something. And since the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman were manufactured in the first place, their manufactured brain and heart were scarcely "fake." As for the literary Lion, he would not have been satisfied with a medal; he wanted the kind of courage that made one forget he was afraid, and having taken the drink of "courage," he believed, at least for a time, that he had that kind of bravery. Nevertheless, when he made his second appearance in the Oz canon (in the third book), he was cowardly again, though still possessing that inner courage he always had-- and which sometimes did make him forget his fear.

@@coryjamieson3171 And?

@@OzMunchkinJames "Emotional core?" "Cohesive whole?" What word salad is this? The gifts given by the Wizard in the book are on point, especially the Scarecrow's brain. There's nothing fake about his brain or the Tin Woodman's heart; since they're artificial themselves, it stands to reason that their gifts also be manmade. The Lion's gift is a straight-up pun; I expect you've heard of "Dutch courage." Dorothy is an ordinary girl who is sensible, but in no way perfect. A perfect character would not need any help, but Dorothy would have had to turn back at the first chasm on the Road of Yellow Brick if the Cowardly Lion hadn't been there to carry her over it.

The '82 version is very cute, and for once, Dorothy has her proper hair color.

@@MaskedMan66 So Dorothy had blonde hair in the book? In the other adaptations Dorothy had brown or red hair. Dorothy in the 82 version looks like Alice kinda.

@@coryjamieson3171 That is because a lot of adaptations take their cues, not from the books, but from the MGM movie. In the illustrations by W.W. Denslow in the first book, Dorothy's hair color is indeterminate because none of the pictures is in full color, but from the second book onward, the art of John R. Neill left no doubt that Dorothy was a golden haired child. The funny thing about Alice is that her real-life inspiration, Alice Liddell, was a brunette.

Oh, by the way, the MGM movie isn't the original, it's the third movie version of the first Oz book. The first was in 1910, and the second one in 1925.

To the first book, certainly. But as the series went on, covering the second, third, and sixth books, it started straying from the source. It was still a fun show, though.

@@MaskedMan66 - Still the closest film adaptation though, compare it to that "Return to Oz" or "Journey Back to Oz" garbage some time...the Marvel graphic novel version is spot-on though if you want something in between, I wish that they'd animate it.

@@JohnnyProctor9 Neither of those films is garbage, and RtO is in fact the closest anyone has got to Oz as created by L. Frank Baum, right down to the character design and architecture, which was all based on the illustrations of John R. Neill. RtO is also not meant as a straight adaptation; it combines elements of the second and third Oz books. Baum did that sort of thing himself when he made a movie called "His Majesty, The Scarecrow of Oz," which was a mashup of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" and "The Scarecrow of Oz."

@@MaskedMan66 - I disagree, RtO combined Mombi and Languidere into one character and made Ev into Oz...the anime just tamed down Languidere and the Wheelers to make them less scary for kids. Also the character design of the Nome King was closer to the books in the anime than in RtO...and Ozma was originally Tip in the anime too, and the anime had General Jinjur and her story arc as well.

@@JohnnyProctor9 It's Langwidere, and what are you "disagreeing" with? I didn't say anything that wasn't factual. And... "tamed down Languidere (sic) and the Wheelers to make them less scary for kids???" Kids had no problem with the characters as depicted in the books, so why would a cartoon have bothered them?

It's remastered in HD many times so that explains the astounding quality of the movie. :3

Tanmay Patel you can watch it in 4K 3D IMAX in some theatres

Probably still had a bigger budget than the others.

no

@@JonCombo Close to 3,000,000 bucks.

That wasn't the original. That was the third big-screen version of the story, and the eighth Oz-based movie.

I want a Silver Shoes emoji for fans of the original books...

MGM basically just flip-flopped the regions of Glinda and Tattypoo. Since America was still Oz-savvy in 1939, audiences most likely figured that Tattypoo ran the South in MGM's version of Oz.

But not the most faithful to the source material. The two animes came a lot closer.

Yup except it is very old probably made before the war if I’m mistaken

@@createmakeandplay7008 What's that got to do with anything? I mean, the very first movie version of "Wizard" was made in 1910.

@@MaskedMan66 Actually The Muppet version is the most accurate.

@@forrestdupre9916 I wouldn't say so, especially given that it's set in the modern day and takes the MGM "dream" tack. The two anime productions are very close in narrative to the book.

Yeah.

The OP explains everything in the description. 🙂

Is it on KZfaq? I'd like to see that.

@@MaskedMan66 - Same here, got it on video? Could you rip it and upload it?

@@MaskedMan66 Here you are.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a9h_eZuQqJ7amI0.html

@@kacmac2340 Thank you! It looks like a lot of fun. 🙂

I've seen the whole series.

@@MaskedMan66 - I own the whole series on DVD...

@@JohnnyProctor9 Where did you get it from? I recorded it all on VHS when it ran on T.V. a few years ago, but just at the moment I've nothing to play it on.

@@MaskedMan66 - Okay, sorry...let me clarify, I have the feature-length home video releases of the series in the DVD boxed set. It's sadly abridged, but all I could find on Amazon...I've seen pirate copies of the TV series floating around here and there though, but I just watch it with ads on Cocoro or KZfaq. My daughter's only 3, so she prefers the abridged version anyway...she doesn't have the patience to binge-watch much yet besides Steven Universe, Peppa Pig, Miraculous Ladybug, or the Super Mario Bros Super Show.

@@JohnnyProctor9 Ah, so you have the movie compilings; yes, that was my intro to the series. I got those from the library and enjoyed them. I've also seen an episode or two of the series in the original Japanese. Regarding "Peppa Pig," years before that show was made, I met one of its cast members, namely Brian Blessed, who plays Grampy Rabbit. :-)

The cyclone scene in the 1986 version was pretty intense, looking back at it gives me nostalgia.

Would it be this one? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oqqin9mKm6_ekqM.html

@@MaskedMan66 it is! Thank you very much!

@@sopadepulpo4113 You're welcome! :-)

@@MaskedMan66 - OMG that one is HORRIBLE quality AND SHORT!

@@JohnnyProctor9 It's just fun, that's all, and of course it's short; it's from a series that told fairy tales very briefly.

The MGM film isn't the original; that honor belongs to the Selig Company's feature film _The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,_ made in 1910 and starring Bebe Daniels as Dorothy.

I'd call it 100% rotten personally...

@@JohnnyProctor9 You clearly have no taste in good Oz movies if you think that the 1939 version is garbage. Comparing and contrasting the book from the movie is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

@@OzMunchkinJames He's a troll; just ignore him.

So?

And the Muppet version

I don’t think the Tom and Jerry version counts since it’s basically an abridged animated version of the 1939 movie.

I don't think this person forgot anything; the purpose was to compare these four specific versions. Let's face it: there are dozens of adaptations.

@@MaskedMan66 what about The Wiz?

@@forrestdupre87 What about it?

"Handsomeback??" What are you talking about?

@@MaskedMan66 I'm talking about Golden Films' terrible adaptation of Hunchback in which they decided to make the titular character handsome.

@@ExtremeWreck Not as hideous as usually depicted, but still deformed, and therefore in that time and place, an outcast.

@@MaskedMan66 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jrClY86Cx7qyeZ8.htmlm52s

Directed by:Sam Raimi and Jon M.Chu

And really in the first book as well; there are no color images showing otherwise.

In the original 1900 1st edition of "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz",Dorothy is a brunette.WW Dennslow is the original illustrator.After that 1st book & from then on, Dorothy is drawn as a blonde.John R Neill illustrated the next 35 books in the Oz canon.And most Oz fans consider John R Neil's illustrations as to what the Oz characters actually look like.With 35 books to his credit,his illustrations have become synonymous. Interesting note;MGM actually tested Judy Garland in a blonde wig,before deciding to go with her more natural look,which would better resemble the original WW Dennslow illustrations.

@@charlesarnold1953 Denslow didn't do any full-color pictures, just tinted ones, so Dorothy's hair color wasn't 100% determined. The reason they chucked the blonde wig (which Judy enjoyed wearing) was so that Judy would look like herself, this being her breakout role and all. 🙂

THE MUPPET VERSION IS MOST ACCCURATE

It still got further and further from the material as it progressed. The book's main problem is that Dorothy is a Mary Sue, given how she's 100% perfect and has no emotional core or cohesive whole to tie her ends together in the end.

@@forrestdupre9916 Wasn't 100% accurate. Read the replies to your previous comment on that one other comment.

@@forrestdupre9916 Not by a long shot.

@@OzMunchkinJames Will you quit it with the "Mary Sue" garbage? Dorothy was just a good, well-behaved child Baum presented as a role model, that's ALL.

The most faithful is the anime series.

You make the choice.

Oz is all about being forever young. 🙂

They chose four out of dozens.

Finally someone said that her dress in 1982 looked like Alice I thought I was the only one

Dorothy is blonde in the books.

That one is a sequel to these the ones shown here are from the original book

Oh

This is a comparison of four specific versions; nothing was forgotten.

1885-1905

That's because Toto was the one who revealed it in the original book.

Tom and Jerry are not part of the actual story.

@@MaskedMan66 - It was a pretty good adaptation for kids though, as was the Tom & Jerry Willy Wonka adaptation...

“For those who own ‘Dark side of the Moon’ press ‘play’ now”

It's the 1982 Annie actress

Aileen Quinn, who played Annie Warbucks in the 1982 movie _Annie._

@@curtthegamer934 Fun Fact: Just as the movie Annie, Aileen Quinn, played Dorothy in the anime movie, Broadway's original Annie, Andrea McArdle, played Judy Garland in a T.V. movie!

That’s because it’s basically an animated version of the 1939 film

There are dozens of adaptations.

MaskedMan66 damn I hated the wiz anyway

@@nolife719 Your loss, mate; stage and screen it's a great adaptation.

@@MaskedMan66 - Well, it's better than that Sci-Fi Channel Tin Man rubbish anyway, and better than the 1939 musical IMO...

U mean cartoon u 6 year Old

SamAM16 true should’ve been somewhere over the rainbow

It's good, but it's too "Harry Potter" in my opinion. I watched this with the sound off and listening to Lisa Lougheed's song "Run With Us."

@@maxmusic5380 "Over the Rainbow" is too short for this video, I think.

I personally think the score is beautiful.

Probably because people are trapped in the MGM paradigm. The Dorothy in the lower right hand version even sounds like Judy Garland.

Because it's garbage and not true to the books...

@@JohnnyProctor9 ok, L.Frank Baum made stage plays about his books and most of them strayed very far from the source material 😪

@@issabustamante6749 Well said! His widow certainly enjoyed the 1939 movie.

There was a comic book crossover which took place across three issues of the DC comic "Captain Carrot and His Amazing Zoo Crew." It was called "The Oz - Wonderland War," and featured characters from both Alice books and many of the Oz books. Alice herself wasn't present, because her adventures had taken place 45 years before Dorothy ever went to Oz, so she was grown up and out of the picture, though the creators realized after the comic story was completed that they could have used Mary Ann, the White Rabbit's housemaid, who looked like Alice.

@@MaskedMan66 Ok.

I still wonder if Alice and Dorothy will be friends or enemies, probably more likely to be best of friends.

@@coryjamieson3171 Oh, friends, without a doubt! 🙂 Dorothy makes friends wherever she goes. The thing is that Alice is considerably older than Dorothy; her adventures in Wonderland and Looking-Glass Land happened 45 years before Dorothy made her first journey to Oz. But I'm sure they'd like each other, and probably have a grand time telling each other about their adventures.

Only the 1991 version was lower quality...

What That From?

This was made to compare these four specific versions.

It's just a retread of the MGM version, so it would be redundant.

@@MaskedMan66 - Pretty much, they did the same thing with Willy Wonka.

No Dorothy

👏👏👏🤩😍🤩

Not the same story.