Ollie in a silent version of "The Wizard of Oz" (1925)

[TJ-BF]

x-no-archive: yes

Ollie plays The Tin Woodsman in a 70 min. (silent, 1925) version of L. Frank
Baum's (May 15, 1856- May 6, 1919) classic 1900 novel, with Larry Semon.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016544

TCM, tonight, 11:30pm CDT


Even further back in time than that, TCM is showing right afterwards a
13-min. (silent, 1910) film on the subject called, "The Wonderful Wizard of
Oz" with 9-yr.old Bebe Daniels playing Dorothy.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0001463

TCM, Tue. morning, 12:45am CDT

[The Space Boss]

Post by TJ-BF
x-no-archive: yes
Ollie plays The Tin Woodsman in a 70 min. (silent, 1925) version of L. Frank
Baum's (May 15, 1856- May 6, 1919) classic 1900 novel, with Larry Semon.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016544

BOY that was a strange film. No semblence at all to the "real" Wizard
of Oz with Judith Garland.

[SO]

Post by The Space Boss

Post by TJ-BF
x-no-archive: yes
Ollie plays The Tin Woodsman in a 70 min. (silent, 1925) version of L. Frank
Baum's (May 15, 1856- May 6, 1919) classic 1900 novel, with Larry Semon.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016544

BOY that was a strange film. No semblence at all to the "real" Wizard
of Oz with Judith Garland.

The 1939 Oz film isn't the "real" Wizard of Oz either.

SO

[TJ-BF]

x-no-archive: yes

Post by SO

Post by The Space Boss

Post by TJ-BF
x-no-archive: yes
Ollie plays The Tin Woodsman in a 70 min. (silent, 1925) version of L. Frank
Baum's (May 15, 1856- May 6, 1919) classic 1900 novel, with Larry Semon.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016544

BOY that was a strange film. No semblence at all to the "real" Wizard
of Oz with Judith Garland.

The 1939 Oz film isn't the "real" Wizard of Oz either.

None are reel. <g>

Did you see it? It was amazing for a 1925 film on the special effects.

[Hal Erickson]

Post by TJ-BF
x-no-archive: yes

Post by SO

Post by The Space Boss

Post by TJ-BF
x-no-archive: yes
Ollie plays The Tin Woodsman in a 70 min. (silent, 1925) version of L. Frank
Baum's (May 15, 1856- May 6, 1919) classic 1900 novel, with Larry Semon.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016544

BOY that was a strange film. No semblence at all to the "real" Wizard
of Oz with Judith Garland.

The 1939 Oz film isn't the "real" Wizard of Oz either.

None are reel. <g>
Did you see it? It was amazing for a 1925 film on the special effects.

Not when you compare it to the wizardry (excuse the pun) of such earlier
films as Doug Fairbanks' WHEN THE CLOUDS ROLL BY and THIEF OF BAGHDAD. Nor,
in my opinion, is the 1925 WIZARD even as impressive as some of Semon's
gimmick-filled two reelers (notably THE SAWMILL).

--Hal E

[Brad Filippone]

The Space Boss (***@aol.com) wrote:

: TJ-BF wrote:
: > x-no-archive: yes
: >
: > Ollie plays The Tin Woodsman in a 70 min. (silent, 1925) version of L. Frank
: > Baum's (May 15, 1856- May 6, 1919) classic 1900 novel, with Larry Semon.
: > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016544
: >

: BOY that was a strange film. No semblence at all to the "real" Wizard
: of Oz with Judith Garland.

The 1939 Judy Garland version had little in common with Baum's book.
However, it did have MORE in common with the book than the 1925 version
did!

Brad

[James Neibaur]

Brad Filippone 7/4/06 4:42 AM

Post by Brad Filippone
: BOY that was a strange film. No semblence at all to the "real" Wizard
: of Oz with Judith Garland.
The 1939 Judy Garland version had little in common with Baum's book.
However, it did have MORE in common with the book than the 1925 version
did!

We are all aware of the 1925 version in which Oliver Hardy appears as the
Tin Man, and the fact that it is one of the worst movies ever made.

Larry Semon can be seen (with Hardy) in much, much better films than this
travesty.

[TJ-BF]

x-no-archive: yes

Post by James Neibaur
Brad Filippone 7/4/06 4:42 AM

Post by Brad Filippone
: BOY that was a strange film. No semblence at all to the "real" Wizard
: of Oz with Judith Garland.
The 1939 Judy Garland version had little in common with Baum's book.
However, it did have MORE in common with the book than the 1925 version
did!

We are all aware of the 1925 version in which Oliver Hardy appears as the
Tin Man, and the fact that it is one of the worst movies ever made.

*Everybody* on this ng has (before last night) seen the 1925 version?
I hardly believe that could be true since:

1. it was a silent film.
2. silent films are rarely seen today anywhere but in special theatre
viewings of 'good/great' silent films or (rarely) on TCM late at
night/early, early morning.
3. it was made 81 years ago, and that usually doesn't spark interest
among most people younger than 40 today; and surely anyone below 30 will
almost automatically dismiss any film made before 1970 at least, if not
1960.

Post by James Neibaur
Larry Semon can be seen (with Hardy) in much, much better films than this
travesty.

I'm sure you are correct in that analysis.

[James Neibaur]

TJ-BF 7/4/06 7:49 AM

Post by TJ-BF
*Everybody* on this ng has (before last night) seen the 1925 version?
1. it was a silent film.
2. silent films are rarely seen today anywhere but in special theatre
viewings of 'good/great' silent films or (rarely) on TCM late at
night/early, early morning.
3. it was made 81 years ago, and that usually doesn't spark interest
among most people younger than 40 today; and surely anyone below 30 will
almost automatically dismiss any film made before 1970 at least, if not
1960.

First of all, how dare you sneak into a NG where I haven't KF'd you!

Second, yeah it is really very well known and well seen around here. It is
public domain and has popped up all over the place for a long, long time.
In this NG it is quite common.

Post by TJ-BF

Post by James Neibaur
Larry Semon can be seen (with Hardy) in much, much better films than this
travesty.

I'm sure you are correct in that analysis.

Yeah, the 1925 Oz is just terrible. Interesting that it exists because of
the cast, but....

[Mister Levity]

Post by James Neibaur
TJ-BF 7/4/06 7:49 AM

Post by TJ-BF
*Everybody* on this ng has (before last night) seen the 1925 version?
1. it was a silent film.
2. silent films are rarely seen today anywhere but in special theatre
viewings of 'good/great' silent films or (rarely) on TCM late at
night/early, early morning.
3. it was made 81 years ago, and that usually doesn't spark interest
among most people younger than 40 today; and surely anyone below 30 will
almost automatically dismiss any film made before 1970 at least, if not
1960.

Not only do I know of this film and have seen it way before "last
night", I have owned my own copy of it for the past 16 years. There
was a time when there wasn't a channel called TCM. That came around
1993-4.

[Paul Holbach]

Post by Mister Levity
Not only do I know of this film and have seen it way before "last
night", I have owned my own copy of it for the past 16 years. There
was a time when there wasn't a channel called TCM. That came around
1993-4.

Semon's Wizard is available on DVD:

--
http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B0001ZWLDS/302-6897585-3393657?v=glance&n=284266

(DVD 3 in this cheapjack 5 DVD box. "Wizard" is without any sound but
watchable.)

--
http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B000ARNXOI/302-6897585-3393657?v=glance&n=284266


(I haven't seen this one)

#PH

[Jim Reid]

If you can bring yourself to buy another copy, the newest WOZ boxset
(which is beautiful) has the restored '25 version as an extra. It's
very nice job of good makeup on a pig.

[j***@joimail.com]

Really, I'd like to know why some here hold the opinion that the 1939
OZ has little to do with the original book. Is it because the film
doesn't follow the book word for word?

No, it is not a strict adaptation of the book, the it does follow the
basic plotline pretty closely. I don't think you could have filmed the
book in 1939. Now these days you could make straight adaptation full of
CGI special effects; I doubt that I'd want to see it.

Have a wonderful Independence Day!
JPL

[SO]

Post by j***@joimail.com
Really, I'd like to know why some here hold the opinion that the 1939
OZ has little to do with the original book. Is it because the film
doesn't follow the book word for word?

I can't speak for others. I said the 1939 movie isn't the "real" Oz either.

Admitting that there are whole scenes, characters, and actions that have
nothing to do with the book on which it was based, the movie is **fairly**
faithful in its adaption of the book's plot.

Insofar as following the book word for word, the movie does use 2 lines from
the book--"I am Dorothy, the samll and meek" and "I'm a very good man--I'm
just a very bad wizard...."

SO

[Hal Erickson]

Post by j***@joimail.com
Really, I'd like to know why some here hold the opinion that the 1939
OZ has little to do with the original book. Is it because the film
doesn't follow the book word for word?
No, it is not a strict adaptation of the book, the it does follow the
basic plotline pretty closely. I don't think you could have filmed the
book in 1939.

You COULD have, but it would have been as long as GONE WITH THE WIND, what
with all those scenes in which Dorothy is forced to be the Wicked Witch's
servant, the journey back from Oz across the vast desert, the introduction
of the Good Witch of the North, the attack of the Kalidahs, etc. etc.

The important thing is that the 1939 version retains the spirit of the
novel. The Semon version does not--not at all. (G. Howe Blacke indeed!)

--Hal E

[j***@joimail.com]

Post by Hal Erickson
You COULD have, but it would have been as long as GONE WITH THE WIND, what
with all those scenes in which Dorothy is forced to be the Wicked Witch's
servant, the journey back from Oz across the vast desert, the introduction
of the Good Witch of the North, the attack of the Kalidahs, etc. etc.
The important thing is that the 1939 version retains the spirit of the
novel. The Semon version does not--not at all. (G. Howe Blacke indeed!)
--Hal E

Bingo! Hal, you are correct on all points!

The most curious thing about the 1925 version is that there's so much
wasted potential. Had Semon and company used the book's plot to a wild,
slapstick adventure, they might have created something that was a lot
of fun!

Have a wonderful Independence Day!
Joe L.

[Mister Levity]

Post by Jim Reid
If you can bring yourself to buy another copy, the newest WOZ boxset
(which is beautiful) has the restored '25 version as an extra. It's
very nice job of good makeup on a pig.

I like Larry Semons two-reelers very, very much. He's one of my all
time favorite comedians. But I can pass on seeing his WIZARD feature
again or buying this new DVD version any time soon. Restored clear
picture quality, tinted scenes and a Robert Israel score can't possibly
make it any funnier.

[Matt Barry]

I've been wondering ever since I finally saw this whether or not it was
intended to be either:
a) a big "special event" family picture (not unlike ALICE IN WONDERLAND,
BABES IN TOYLAND, or the later WIZARD OF OZ) or
b) a bastardization of the classic children's story tailored to fit Larry
Semon's particular brand of humor, not unlike Eddie Murphy's DOCTOR DOLITTLE
--
Matt Barry
Visit my pages at:
http://mbarry84.tripod.com
http://filmreel.blogspot.com

Post by Mister Levity

Post by Jim Reid
If you can bring yourself to buy another copy, the newest WOZ boxset
(which is beautiful) has the restored '25 version as an extra. It's
very nice job of good makeup on a pig.

I like Larry Semons two-reelers very, very much. He's one of my all
time favorite comedians. But I can pass on seeing his WIZARD feature
again or buying this new DVD version any time soon. Restored clear
picture quality, tinted scenes and a Robert Israel score can't possibly
make it any funnier.

[Paul Holbach]

Post by Mister Levity
I like Larry Semons two-reelers very, very much. He's one of my all
time favorite comedians.

Talking about Larry Semon, here's a link to Claudia Sassen's very good
Semon website:

http://www.claudia-sassen.net/Larrygallery

#PH

[Paul Holbach]

Post by Jim Reid
If you can bring yourself to buy another copy, the newest WOZ boxset
(which is beautiful) has the restored '25 version as an extra. It's
very nice job of good makeup on a pig.

I see: http://tinyurl.com/g266b

#PH

[TJ-BF]

x-no-archive: yes

DownsizeDC http://www.DownsizeDC.org

Post by James Neibaur
TJ-BF 7/4/06 7:49 AM

Post by TJ-BF
*Everybody* on this ng has (before last night) seen the 1925 version?
1. it was a silent film.
2. silent films are rarely seen today anywhere but in special theatre
viewings of 'good/great' silent films or (rarely) on TCM late at
night/early, early morning.
3. it was made 81 years ago, and that usually doesn't spark interest
among most people younger than 40 today; and surely anyone below 30 will
almost automatically dismiss any film made before 1970 at least, if not
1960.

First of all, how dare you sneak into a NG where I haven't KF'd you!

You don't *have* to do that because you overlooked this ng. :-)
Can't you just let bygones be bygones?

Post by James Neibaur
Second, yeah it is really very well known and well seen around here. It is
public domain and has popped up all over the place for a long, long time.
In this NG it is quite common.

Post by TJ-BF

Post by James Neibaur
Larry Semon can be seen (with Hardy) in much, much better films than this
travesty.

I'm sure you are correct in that analysis.

Yeah, the 1925 Oz is just terrible. Interesting that it exists because of
the cast, but....

[TJ-BF]

x-no-archive: yes

Post by Brad Filippone
: > x-no-archive: yes
: >
: > Ollie plays The Tin Woodsman in a 70 min. (silent, 1925) version of L. Frank
: > Baum's (May 15, 1856- May 6, 1919) classic 1900 novel, with Larry Semon.
: > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016544
: >
: BOY that was a strange film. No semblence at all to the "real" Wizard
: of Oz with Judith Garland.
The 1939 Judy Garland version had little in common with Baum's book.
However, it did have MORE in common with the book than the 1925 version
did!

The 13-min. 1910 silent TCM showed after (starring Bebe Daniels) was
extraordinary in that it is the oldest of all the surviving 'Wizard of Oz'
movies, although its ending was abrupt.