Don't Fast Forward This One: How The Wizard of Oz Can Settle Some Movie Debates

Escape from Reality

A few years ago, I was talking to an old high school friend - one I had a huge crush on while in school, but have remained good friends with since - who at the time had never seen any Star Wars movies.
Claiming she only enjoyed westerns, she argued that Star Wars wasn't based in reality, so watching it would be a complete waste of time.
As ridiculous a statement as that is, I was baffled by it. Movies are meant to pull audiences out of reality and into a fictional (to some degree or another) story. It's why people go to the movies. Everyone needs a pause in life. Everyone wants to just escape reality and put their worries aside, even if just for an hour or two. Movies are a great, imaginative, and intriguing way to do just that.
"Well, The Wizard of Oz certainly isn't based on reality, either. But I wouldn't dare throw that movie away," I said.
The fact that Oz strays from reality is what makes it remarkable and enjoyable. It's what gets people watching again and again 80-years later. It's an absolute masterpiece. I think of it as one of those movies that everyone has to see at least once, like E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and of course Star Wars: A New Hope.
If movies were supposed to be based completely in reality, they would have died as a trend long ago.

Good Witches vs. Bad Witches
Now, I'm not much of a Harry Potter fan. I have read all but one of the books. Despite the story being imaginative, original, and clever, the writing is rather poor. But that's beside the point.
As for the movies, I've watched each one of them.
The first of the series was fun and enjoyable, but each sequel gradually grew worse than before. I can't even remember the last four or so.
Nevertheless, I appreciate and respect the fanbase behind Harry Potter. When author J.K. Rowling was pounding out those books, and Hollywood was making millions upon millions off her work, a lot of arguments surfaced, and stuck around to this day, among critics, especially the religious ones.
There's claims that the Harry Potter stories were "evil" due to the use of magic, wizards, witches, and the like within the stories.
There are good witches and wizards, and there are bad ones in Harry Potter. It's pretty easy to distinguish the good ones from the bad ones. Same with the spells they cast- bad spells, and not-so-bad spells. But their presence in the story is somehow evil altogether according to the Christian standpoint.
Well, if that's the case, then I guess The Wizard of Oz is evil, too.
In Oz, there's a (ahem) "good" witch and a wicked witch. Both of whom cast spells. And that's pretty much what's taking place in Harry Potter, but on a dominant scale.
So, if one is o.k., why isn't the other? Is it because one's old, and one's currently popular?
The good and evil is distinguishable in both stories. Neither is depicted as the opposite (i.e. good is evil, and evil is good). I'd have an issue with that if such was the case.
When it comes to the Harry Potter spells in themselves, some critics claim they're real spells actually used in black magic thus making the books and movies off limits to Christians and other religious folks.
Despite that claim being completely untrue as the words are based on ancient languages, especially Latin, to sound real and old, and stuff, people still throw it around. Those spells are completely fictitious, just like the spells used by the Wicked Witch in The Wizard of Oz. 
But some religious individuals might still claim the story glamorizes and encourages black magic. I guess imagination and creativity to tell a story can take a hike. Are fiction writers never to use witches, wizards, magicians, etc., in their stories? L. Frank Baum did.
They're simply tools used to tell a story. Nothing more.

"But it wasn't like the book!"
That classic, yet unsavory, argument is always, always brought up when a movie based on a book is released. It's nails on a chalkboard with me.
Of course, a movie should respect the source material, but the quality of a film shouldn't be judged on how closely it follows the book.
Normally, the author of whatever book a movie is based on isn't sitting in the producer nor director's chair. Maybe they'll join in the production as an adviser, like Roald Dahl did for Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or Stephen King for a ton of movies based on his books. But with movies, someone else is telling the story.
The Wizard of Oz was written by L. Frank Baum. The movie was directed by Victor Fleming, and strays quite a bit from the book. So, in reality the movie should be called The Wizard of Oz as told by Victor Fleming.
This is true for any movie adaptation. The Lord of the Rings as told by Peter Jackson. Breakfast at Tiffany's as told by Blake Edwards. Mary Poppins as told by Walt Disney.
And though such movies are never exactly like the book to some degree or another, they still work and are deemed movie classics.

The Wizard of Oz film changes the silver slippers as seen in the book to the famous ruby slippers for production's sake.
If I were to ask 50 random people what color Dorothy's shoes were in the story (not distinguishing movie or book), I'm willing to bet more people would say "red" than "silver."
Also in the movie, the Wizard appears in the same form when Dorothy and the gang all visit him at the same time rather than one at a time, on consecutive days as depicted in the book. He takes on different forms for each character.
And no one in the movie is required to wear green shades when entering the Emerald City like they were in the book.
The books are more imaginative and creative than the movie lets on. But overtime, it seems audiences are o.k. with that. I know I am.
There's a lot of changes between the book and the movie, but it doesn't matter much. The movie respects the source material, and that's the most important thing. In other words, the message of the author still manages to come through in the movie no matter how much movie writers try to make the story their own.
This is always the case in Disney animated adaptations of books. When someone says "Pinocchio," how many people think immediately of Carlo Collodi before thinking of Walt Disney? My guess is not many. Disney managed to tell a lot of stories written by various authors, and make so many his own. Pinocchio, and pretty much all those other Disney animated classics bear the label "Walt Disney's Masterpiece." Wow! Masterpiece! The definition of masterpiece is "a work of outstanding artistry, skill, and workmanship." With Pinocchio, Disney's version barely resembles Collodi's original story. Yet... "masterpiece!"
What's kind of funny is that no one ever complains when a novelization doesn't quite follow a movie.
The novelization of the 1989 movie Batman has a scene with Batman riding a horse! That part isn't in the movie. And that's just one example. Imagine if the movie had Batman on horseback. Epic! Maybe? It certainly would have changed Batman's persona a bit.
Nevertheless, The Wizard of Oz is proof a movie adaptation doesn't need to precisely follow the book it's based on. And why should it? How many book lovers are fully satisfied with a story's movie version?
Movies such as Chitty Chitty, Bang Bang and Who Framed Roger Rabbit barely resemble the books they're based on, and yet, they're fantastic and held in high regard just like The Wizard of Oz.
Even the movie The Ten Commandments strays from the Book of Exodus found in the Old Testament. Is that a bad movie?
Movies are a different medium than paper and ink. That's why movie makers often don't bother retelling the story the same way the author did it first. So, they just throw some book references towards the audience, and still wind up with fantastic, spectacular films...like The Wizard of Oz, with its good and bad witches, and the way it pulls the audiences out of reality.