Talk:Wizard of Oz
I wrote on this topic as early as 1971 and developed most of the visual links. I originally wrote this article for Wikipedia as RJENSEN; this is a revised version. Richard Jensen 06:26, 17 November 2007 (CST)
- I think there is a potential here for a subpage regarding the metaphors and interpretations of the Wizard of Oz; mostly because there is so much about the Wizard of Oz in terms of the story, the movie, the production behind the movie, the plot, and the recurring themes which could be discussed in the main article space. Also, it doesn't seem appropriate that there should be conjecture and "potential" analysis in the main article space at all, as it's not factually representative, but interpretive. --Robert W King 08:58, 17 November 2007 (CST)
- the article now covers the plot and main characters and illustrations, as well as a little on adaptations. The movie should get a separate article of its own. We're bold at CZ, which means we can talk about fictional characters without asking for primary sources (Dorothy's letters home?) Actually lots of scholars have covered these points--please read the bibliography. Richard Jensen 09:08, 17 November 2007 (CST)
The russian Author Alexander Melentjewitsch Wolkow (the name is germanized) (1891-1977) took the Story from "The wizard of Oz" and wrote his own Stories of the "Zauberland".
The titles are:
- The Wizard of the Emerald City (Волшебник Изумрудного города, 1939, revised in 1959) - Wikipedia
- "Goodwin der Schreckliche"
- The Seven Underground Kings (Семь подземных королей, 1964)
- Urfin Jus and his Wooden Soldiers (Урфин Джюс и его деревянные солдаты, 1963)
- The Fiery God of the Marrans (Огненный бог марранов, 1968)
- The Yellow Fog (Желтый туман, 1970)
and at last
- The Secret of the Abandoned Castle (Тайна заброшенного замка, 1975, published in 1982)
--arbol01 09:05, 17 November 2007 (CST)
This is an excellent article, but I was wondering on the nature of the passage here:
The musical comedy version of 1902-3 was a rewritten version for an adult audience, with many sexual innuendos and a very sexy Dorothy.
I'm not sure if a 'very sexy Dorothy' sounds right? Denis Cavanagh 08:31, 13 April 2008 (CDT)
- Why not just end it at "with many sexual innuendos". --Robert W King 08:39, 13 April 2008 (CDT)
- the reviews say it was a very sexy Dorothy (in contrast of course with the book and the 1939 movie). I think the description falls within the "family friendly" ground rules. We don't say what the dirty jokes were. Richard Jensen 09:00, 13 April 2008 (CDT)
- Thats OK then. I'm just finding it hard compromising my conception of Dorothy in the film with that description! Denis Cavanagh 09:21, 13 April 2008 (CDT)