c17db

In school we had a debate after watching the movie, weather The Wizard of Oz was a good adaptation of the book or a bad one. The class was divided into sides NOT dependent on what we thought. I was on the side that said the movie was a bad adaptation so here are my reasons: first, I think that MGM didn’t want to spend too much money so they cut out a lot of scenes and objects important to the book like: the golden cap which you can use three times to summon the winged monkeys who will obey your command without question. MGM also merged the two good witches into one because they didn’t want to spend the extra money having two actresses playing the two different parts. I think that’s bad because the witches have two totally different roles. The witch of the north is supposed to be short and stubby and protects Dorothy with her kiss. The witch of the south is the one that explains the power of the SILVER slippers as they are in the book and she doesn’t come to Dorothy as the merged witch does in the movie. The movie is also a bad adaptation because in the book, Dorothy is 6. In the movie, Dorothy is 16. MGM did that because it was easier to have a 16 memorize the lines than a 6 year old. My conclusion is that if your going to make a movie where all the details of the book that you’re basing it off are cut out to save money, don’t make a movie at all.