Talk:Return to Oz

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Return to Oz given the go-ahead by the Oz Production Company? And weren't the aforesmentioned company the copyright holders for the Oz series at the time?
--Jb-adder 04:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, while MGM held the movie rights to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Disney held movie rights to most of the later Oz books, so thus no approval by MGM or anyone was needed. --— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permissions 

message: Was the theatrical ending different than the one currently available on VHS/DVD?  In the video version, there is nothing in the end about socks, and Dorothy's feet don't turn red.  Were there two different endings, or is the wiki page incorrect?
: It's incorrect.  It's fixed now. --Bishop2 12:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary Corrections

message: :Image:Returnoz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Returnoz.jpg

message: :Image:DorothyFairuzaBalkFeetandShoes.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:DorothyFairuzaBalkFeetandShoes.JPG

message: I'm wondering how much of the original story section is accurate. While it is true that "Return to Oz" went through several drafts in conceptualization, this sounds like nothing I've heard of. (A good bit of actual, proven information is online at http://www.waltdisneysreturntooz.com.) In addition, it references it's information from a Special Edition DVD, when the DVDs that have been released discuss no such thing, and, in fact, there has been no "Special Edition" release.
I'm wondering if this may be some irrelevant vandalism here.
EDIT - This has been changed to "Production," which is an inappropiate title.
-Jared Davis
Since so many movie entries have comments about inconsistencies or inaccuracies, it would be interesting to see a section devoted to the issues with this movie as a "sequel" to the 1939 movie.  I'm hardly an expert on either, but my impressions are that Dorothy seems several years YOUNGER in this movie (possibly more accurate to the books?) and there are time references in "Return" that put it in the late 1800s, but I think the 1939 movie was free of hard time references -- as if it were happening in 1939 -- right? (I could be wrong here, but the only place I can think of that there MIGHT be a hard time reference is when the Wizard is exposed as a fraud, and explains how he came to OZ; however in "Return" the doctor clearly states that the coming 20th century will be the century of electricity -- or something to that effect.)  ... I'll leave this discussion to people much smarter than myself to finish ... thanks. - C. Parker  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.54.171 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Story 

message: As has been previously noted, the reception section contains a lot of information that cannot be sourced and as such must be considered speculation. I'm removing a good deal of it especially some of Harlan Ellison's allegations since some of them can be outright disproven.
"...the studio deliberately sabotaged the film's success. Since they consider the film "underrated" or "underappreciated", they discouraged positive reviews, minimised advertising and limited its theatrical release to less than a week."
There is no evidence for any of these claims and a simple search of Box Office Mojo shows that the film was actually in release for three weeks.
S. Luke 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: Granted, I don't remember much of the plot but I do know Oz as a place where reality is fluid. So might the detailed error of if Dorothy is wearing anything on feer be completely irrelevant? Lots42 (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoes 

message: Having watched this film literally dozens of times, I can say that most of the plot section seems to be accurate.  But the article could certainly use a reference or two; currently there are none.  Clearly somebody spent a lot of time writing this article, but that person or persons might want to take a look at WP:NOR for guidance.  Just a friendly suggestion.
—BMRR (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: this should be moved to Return to Oz (1985 film). Anyone agree? — Supuhstar  * § 20:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: :Category:Media franchises
75.80.129.37 (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 1 June 2014 

message: I only note this , as the current version of the article notes the Oz related scene added to the Paris Disneyland storybook boats ride. At the Disneyland park in Anaheim,California ; the 1985 version of the Main Street Electrical Parade included a "Return To Oz" float. This float , and it's characters , have not appeared in the parade since that initial appearance. 75.104.174.49 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another "Reception" Related Item 

message: These links here:https://www.eightieskids.com/12-fantastic-facts-you-wont-believe-about-return-to-oz/, I think are reliable enough for this article of cast members that were considered for these roles. There's no other links out there that's more reliable enough besides just this one. 2600:1000:B01D:62F6:DC6B:AE6F:544:9C3D (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like a clickbait tabloid site. If you disagree you could post this at the talk page on WP:FILM and get more opinions. If the stuff you want to add is indeed true it will be covered in other, more reliable sources (because eightieskids.com sure isn't getting this information through its own hardworking investigative journalism). Popcornfud (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casting 

message: I have spent quite some time over the past few days (as well as sporadically before that) building this article up from archive newspaper sources, surprisingly which offer considerable in-depth content. Hopefully the referencing of the article is now in the 'B' class, as well as the structure  (I have restructured sections, adding and renaming some) as well as rephrasing parts (still work to be done there). Still copy-editing needed, perhaps on the recently added prose. Although I wasn't actively working towards getting this to a recognised "good" standard, I would welcome views on what it may take to push it that bit further. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification and improvements