Full Version: Tin Man
I adore Zooey Deschanel, so when a friend of mine sent me these pictures from the set (a park near my friend's house), I had to post them at my blog. (If they don't reproduce below, it's because the Google/Blogger/Picasa combine doesn't like it when non-G/B/P sites use their photos, I guess.)
IMDb lists this as a TV miniseries...
Yeah, that's why I planted this thread in "Television." The trailer concludes with text that says "A SciFi Original Miniseries."
Gotcha. Next time I'll stay for the credits.
Stumbled across the DVD to this over the weekend, and stayed up well into the wee hours watching the whole thing in one sitting. It's presented in a 2-disk "collectors edition" with parts 1 and 2 on the first disk, part 3 and bonuses on the second.
Anyone else see it? Comments?
"Tin Man" retells the story of Baum's "The Wizard of Oz" in a semi-modern, sci-fi setting. It does not try to be a straight adaptation, but rather a translation - taking a familar story and setting in different visual and narrative language. So, for example, "Scarecrow" is not actually a scarecrow, but a man who had part of his brain removed (magically/alchemically). The Tinman is not a man made of tin, but rather a man who's heart has been broken and hardened by tragedy. And so on.
There are multitudes of references and homages to the original story (and to the great Oz musical film that everyone knows). But the story told is a different one, and as things progress the parallels to the original get fewer. The presentation is also darker and more twisted - similar to the Disney film "Return to Oz", and perhaps even more "adult" in some places.
Part 1 completely drew me in. I was captivated with the twist on the story itself, waiting for each new character to appear, and to see how the familiar story would be made new. The overlay of memory and dream with D.G.'s quest for answers (and home) was well executed, with plenty of creepy foreboding. Part 1 ended with a huge cliffhanger, and I had to immediately go into the next episode.
Part 2 and 3 blend together in my mind. As the story went on, it got a little more predictable, a little less surprising in it's translation of the Oz story. It also seemed to get a little more caught up in the "travel to this place next for your next clue" kind of plotting. Not that it was not interesting. The reveal of what actually happened to D.G.'s sister, for example, was frightening and heartbreaking, even though I saw it coming a mile away.
Acting was fine for a TV production. Sometimes Zooey seemed a little too accepting of all the weirdness, and her predicament. (Oh, and don't watch the interview with her, if you treasure a fantasy of her as a well-spoken intellectual...). Production values were good - the only CG animation that stood out to me as awful were the orchard creature/hunters.
Something I would watch again, I think, with my older kids. I just wish the film makers had been able to maintain the creative re-invention of Part 1 throughout the remainder.
Anyone else see it? Comments?
"Tin Man" retells the story of Baum's "The Wizard of Oz" in a semi-modern, sci-fi setting. It does not try to be a straight adaptation, but rather a translation - taking a familar story and setting in different visual and narrative language. So, for example, "Scarecrow" is not actually a scarecrow, but a man who had part of his brain removed (magically/alchemically). The Tinman is not a man made of tin, but rather a man who's heart has been broken and hardened by tragedy. And so on.
There are multitudes of references and homages to the original story (and to the great Oz musical film that everyone knows). But the story told is a different one, and as things progress the parallels to the original get fewer. The presentation is also darker and more twisted - similar to the Disney film "Return to Oz", and perhaps even more "adult" in some places.
Part 1 completely drew me in. I was captivated with the twist on the story itself, waiting for each new character to appear, and to see how the familiar story would be made new. The overlay of memory and dream with D.G.'s quest for answers (and home) was well executed, with plenty of creepy foreboding. Part 1 ended with a huge cliffhanger, and I had to immediately go into the next episode.
Part 2 and 3 blend together in my mind. As the story went on, it got a little more predictable, a little less surprising in it's translation of the Oz story. It also seemed to get a little more caught up in the "travel to this place next for your next clue" kind of plotting. Not that it was not interesting. The reveal of what actually happened to D.G.'s sister, for example, was frightening and heartbreaking, even though I saw it coming a mile away.
Acting was fine for a TV production. Sometimes Zooey seemed a little too accepting of all the weirdness, and her predicament. (Oh, and don't watch the interview with her, if you treasure a fantasy of her as a well-spoken intellectual...). Production values were good - the only CG animation that stood out to me as awful were the orchard creature/hunters.
Something I would watch again, I think, with my older kids. I just wish the film makers had been able to maintain the creative re-invention of Part 1 throughout the remainder.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.