Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to The Man Who Saved Christmas - Return to Oz Fan Reaction

Transcript

Prequel to The Man Who Saved Christmas - Return to Oz Fan Reaction · This Film is Lit

• 0:10
  Speaker A: On this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our return to Oz listener polls and preview the man who Invented Christmas. Hello, and welcome back to this film is lit, the podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. It's a pretty cool episode. We actually got quite a bit of feedback this week. Plenty of stuff to get into. So we'll jump right into our patron shoutouts. I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons. That's why one new patron this week joining us at the $15 Academy Award winning level, Amanda. Thank you. Amanda. I think this is. This.
• 0:48
  Speaker B: I think this is one of my. Amanda. One of your friends, Amanda.
• 0:51
  Speaker A: I think it is, but I'm not entirely sure. So let us know, Amanda, if that's who this is. But also make sure you get that patron request in. So what you get at that $15 a month level, if there's something you would really like for us to cover, you can request it and we will add it to the queue as soon as we can. As always, we would like to thank the rest of our Academy Award winning patrons. And they are. Amanda Nicole Goble, Harpo Rat, Nathan Vic Blofeld, Mathilde Cottonwood, Steve Ben Wilcox, Teresa Schwartz, Ian from Wine Country, Kelly Napier Gratch. Just scratch Shelby says help me raise money for Palestine with Arctic Fox copywriting on Instagram and that darn skag. Thank you all for your continued support. We really appreciate it. Now it's time to see what the people had to say about Return to Oz. Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man. Excited for this feedback to hear what people have to say. I haven't actually read any of it.
• 1:51
  Speaker B: We got quite a bit of feedback. We have quite a few long comments.
• 1:55
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 1:55
  Speaker B: So strap in on Patreon. We got three votes for the movie and two for the books. Paige from a book said this movie was creepier to me as an adult than the Never Ending Story was to me as a kid. The dark scared me as a child.
• 2:14
  Speaker A: The dark of the.
• 2:15
  Speaker B: Like the dark is the. The thing in the. That's like the void in the movie. Yeah.
• 2:20
  Speaker A: Because I think I'm thinking of the second one where the emptiness is.
• 2:26
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 2:27
  Speaker A: Like the main thing.
• 2:28
  Speaker B: I don't really remember the second one.
• 2:30
  Speaker A: So the second one was. I think we talked about this on the episode. The second one was the one I mostly watched as a kid. It must have just been the one we had on VHS or whatever of the Neverending Story. And I think in that one. Cause I remember like part of it and I think this is in the second one where they run into like Rock Biter and he's trying to eat the rocks. That's not in the first one, right?
• 2:48
  Speaker B: I have no idea.
• 2:50
  Speaker A: It's been so long. But he's trying to eat the rocks and there's the baby who's eating the rocks. But they're all like empty. So the baby can't get food out of the rock. Like nutrients from the rocks because it's all empty. And I think they call it like the emptiness or something like that, but I guess it could be the dark. I can't recall. Anyways, I don't know. Just a never ending story tangent.
• 3:13
  Speaker B: Continuing Paige's comment, the fact that Aunt Em, the fact that Aunt Em was just like, yeah, let's electrocute Oz out of her head instead of being like, you're so imaginative. Really sells the time period this was written. Written in.
• 3:27
  Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely. I will say though too, on top of that, that her insistence that it's real, I think even today would be a thing that less they wouldn't shock it out of her head.
• 3:40
  Speaker B: Right. But it would probably land you in.
• 3:43
  Speaker A: Some kind of therapy or something.
• 3:45
  Speaker B: Counseling.
• 3:45
  Speaker A: Yes. Also, I just wanted to say it has always given me an issue or every time I read it, it feels wrong. Just Aunt M. It's Auntie M. Right? Like that's how the. In the movie. Sorry, doesn't she always say Auntie M like Auntie M, Auntie M maybe like Dorothy Does. Does that not ring a bell in the first mov, like in the original? Now I'm not sure because just the phrase Aunt M sounds really wrong to me. And I know I'm. I believe that in the books, like that's how she's referred to, but I swear in the 1939 movie she is almost exclusively referred to as Auntie M. And so my brain has so like that is so lodged in my brain that hearing just Aunt M sounds like horribly wrong to me.
• 4:33
  Speaker B: I, I feel like you're right, but I'm like second guessing myself now because it's been so long since I've seen that movie. I would have to watch a clip of it.
• 4:42
  Speaker A: Yeah, I don't know. I'm pretty sure that that's the case. But yeah.
• 4:47
  Speaker B: Continuing again with Paige's comment, I will say I've never read the source material. I've gone full Brian on this one. Love the pan out scene when Dorothy is on the chicken coop and now she's somehow in the Ocean and not a lake. The fact the chicken is on the chicken coop with Dorothy, I feel like it would have made more sense to have a chicken. Dorothy had never met it. Being a chicken from her farm and not even being by the farm at all doesn't make any sense to me.
• 5:16
  Speaker A: I agree. It doesn't make sense. I don't care for things. Details like that, personally. When it was like, why would Belina be there? I was like, well. Cause that's her chicken. And that's like, whatever. Like that kind of thing. I'm fine with which those little details are gonna hit different people differently. There are little things like that that will annoy me. I don't know. Sometimes in a story like this, that just in particular, something like that, I'm like, yeah, whatever.
• 5:39
  Speaker B: Yeah. And it is a chicken that she's never met in the book. So I'm sure the filmmakers just wanted to introduce Bellina before the fact.
• 5:49
  Speaker A: Yeah. Oh, right.
• 5:50
  Speaker B: That's right.
• 5:50
  Speaker A: I forgot you said that in the episode. That in the book, it is just.
• 5:54
  Speaker B: Like a random chicken. A chicken she. She's not previously acquainted with.
• 5:57
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 6:00
  Speaker B: When we first see Oz, the yellow brick road reminds me of the photos I've seen of the abandoned one in Disney. I think I know what you're talking about. If we're thinking of the same thing. I think it's somewhere weird, though. I don't think it's in Disney. There's like. Because there's like an old abandoned. And it's in.
• 6:19
  Speaker A: I think that's in, like, China or something. I thought it was overseas.
• 6:23
  Speaker B: I thought that was in, like, one of the. Like one of the Virginias or.
• 6:27
  Speaker A: Oh, it could be. Yeah, there is. There's like an abandoned.
• 6:29
  Speaker B: Yeah, like an abandoned wizard of Oz. Like, park.
• 6:31
  Speaker A: Yeah, park somewhere.
• 6:33
  Speaker B: And. But yes, I agree. The photos that I've seen of that. It totally does look like the yellow brick road.
• 6:38
  Speaker A: Yeah. And just all of, like, kind of the way. Because it's all, like, decrepit and like, when she gets to the Emerald City and it's, like, overgrown and like, it's like, very similar to that.
• 6:47
  Speaker B: They could reopen it as a return to Oz.
• 6:50
  Speaker A: True.
• 6:50
  Speaker B: Yeah. All of us millennials and Gen Zers go get traumatized.
• 6:57
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. I don't think it's related to Disney. I think you're right. But I think that, yeah, there is some park somewhere that I have also seen those photos on Reddit or something.
• 7:07
  Speaker B: Oh, not Gen Z. I meant Gen X. Yes, Gen X. Yeah.
• 7:12
  Speaker A: Gen Z.
• 7:12
  Speaker B: The names are too Similar. Too similar. Some of this will just be my reaction to the backgrounds as I watched because the words in my head at that moment sounds more natural and real. Dorothy looking at the desert. Ah, gone are the days of shitty green screen. Now we have questionable cgi.
• 7:31
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. This is that period where it was transitioning to some more digital effects. Some digital effects. Because it's not really. It depends on what you mean by digital. But. Yeah, but this, this is one of those things. This movie's full of gorgeous practical effects. The green screen in that shot, I would argue, looks worse than any most 90% of modern digital effects.
• 7:51
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 7:52
  Speaker A: So.
• 7:54
  Speaker B: Beware the Wheelers. What the hell are Wheelers? Oh, just creepy men with wheels for hands and feet. That's fine, except I could do without the added jump scare of that mask.
• 8:04
  Speaker A: I did see a thing of. I watched a video, a YouTube video about return to Oz after we recorded our episode. And I think it was in that that I saw some clips of some people from the time period, like, on the production, retrospectively talking about it. They're like, the wheels are Wheelers are very creepy until you, like, think about it for a second. Because you're like, what could they even do to you?
• 8:26
  Speaker B: Yeah, like just chase you.
• 8:28
  Speaker A: They can chase you, but like, they can't grab you. Or like, they don't. Like, if they don't have hands.
• 8:33
  Speaker B: Or like, I guess if they got close enough, maybe they could bite at you.
• 8:35
  Speaker A: They could like, bite at you. Yeah. Like, yeah.
• 8:40
  Speaker B: Meeting Tick Tock was cool. I love how he seemed to say, what took you so damn long? Princess Mombi is definitely main anime villain coded.
• 8:50
  Speaker A: Okay. I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking that.
• 8:52
  Speaker B: I remember thinking, wow, she's pretty. Then immediately going, holy shit, that's a hall of Heads. Idk how I feel about her anymore. I don't like the inclination of who needs to change dresses when I have different heads? Like, how stinky are you?
• 9:08
  Speaker A: True. I mean, I guess I didn't think about that. I assume that there was some magic going on keeping her dress.
• 9:14
  Speaker B: I mean, she is a princess, so like, presumably somebody's. Yeah, she probably has a whole, like, wardrobe of the same dresses or something and she just changes them out every day, I guess.
• 9:23
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 9:25
  Speaker B: Jack Pumpkinhead equals Best Boy. Can't change my mind. Bellina equals Sass Queen. Easily one of my favorite characters.
• 9:32
  Speaker A: She was. She was probably one of my favorite.
• 9:34
  Speaker B: Favorite character in both the books. The book and the movie. Honestly, the flying Gump sofa was a nice touch on both how clever Dorothy is and on how they were going to get out of Princess Mombi's castle. Halfway through the movie, I realized the only Oz lore I know is from the book Wicked. I knew Ozma's name and felt really good that I had some lore to know about who she is. Too bad the movie doesn't really do the same until the end. Is the gnome king just a sentient mountain? He mentions that he was able to take over Oz by getting the ruby slippers. But before that he was just a mountain that became sentient because of the slippers. Question mark. Then just decided to take his emeralds back because they were stolen from him. The gnome king in the movie didn't quite do it for me as an antagonist.
• 10:24
  Speaker A: I agree. They didn't do it for me as an antagonist. I will get to. Somebody had a comment later that I want to talk about an angle on the gnome king that I got from this video that I want to discuss. But I did not interpret the movie as that he was just a mountain that became sentient because of the slippers. I always interpreted him as like this physical manifestation within the mountain. Seemingly trapped within the mountain or somehow stuck within the mountain or rock or something like that. Who managed to get the slippers. But that before that he was still. Which I assume is in the book kind of the idea because he doesn't have the slippers.
• 11:04
  Speaker B: He doesn't have the slippers in the book? Yeah, he has a magic belt in the book. But he's also not like a rock creature. And like he's not made of rock in the book.
• 11:13
  Speaker A: Like what is he?
• 11:14
  Speaker B: He's a gnome.
• 11:14
  Speaker A: Oh, like.
• 11:15
  Speaker B: Yeah, they also.
• 11:16
  Speaker A: The word is spelled differently, but it's.
• 11:17
  Speaker B: The word is spelled differently in here. It's spelled like gnome, Alaska. Yeah, but they're gnomes with a G. So like.
• 11:24
  Speaker A: Yeah, like the traditional depiction.
• 11:26
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 11:26
  Speaker A: They also kind of similar to munchkins.
• 11:28
  Speaker B: Yeah, he's like. He's like a little dude.
• 11:31
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 11:32
  Speaker B: They also call them rock fairies.
• 11:34
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 11:34
  Speaker B: In the book.
• 11:34
  Speaker A: Which they could basically. Yeah. Kind of. You could maybe equate them to something like dwarves or something.
• 11:39
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 11:39
  Speaker A: They tend to live in mountains or whatever.
• 11:42
  Speaker B: I'm not sure what's more creepy. The scarecrow looking like he's made from a sack of sewn together skin. Or how ungodly the gnome king looks when he's about to eat Jack. He unhinged his jaw like a snake. I did think that was a pretty creepy scene. Yeah, like that probably would have scared me a lot. If I had seen that as a really small child, the move, this movie was unsettling. And my biggest takeaway was, well, at least I know why she did the craft. Years later, this oz movie was 10 times more creepy than a feminine rage witch movie. All in all, this movie was pretty good, despite the things that didn't really add up in the end. Like, why are eggs poison to the gnomes?
• 12:24
  Speaker A: I will say that. Little details like that, like, why are the eggs poisoned to the gnome? I don't really care, personally. Like, I don't need an explanation of why eggs are poisonous to the gn. Wish the movie had seated it better.
• 12:35
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 12:36
  Speaker A: And like, set it up a little bit more.
• 12:38
  Speaker B: If the movie had done that, you probably wouldn't be asking that at the end, right?
• 12:44
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Like, yeah, because I'm like, I'm not particularly worried about why that's the case. Like, sure, whatever. But like, for me. But what was an issue to me in the movie was just like, it just kind of comes out of nowhere at the end and you're like. And again, I think it was. It was a little bit set up. I just don't know if the movie would. Did it as good of a job setting it up as maybe it thought it was doing.
• 13:04
  Speaker B: Yeah, for sure. The darkness and unsettling nature of this movie is exactly what I was into as a kid. And even now I am glad I watched this particular movie as an adult and not a child, though. Yeah.
• 13:19
  Speaker A: Yeah. I don't know how I would have. I don't know. I think I would have liked this movie as a kid, depending on how young. Because the. The main thing for me, and I think I've mentioned this before, really the only thing in movies as a kid that would like, make me not watch them was like, animal cruelty of any sort. And not even animal cruelty. Like, I've mentioned this before, like, I could not watch Gremlins because in the second half they start killing all the gremlins, even though they are evil at that point. Even still, for me, they look like little cute animals. And I was like, fuck this.
• 13:47
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 13:48
  Speaker A: And so that's really the only thing that, like, I'm trying to like, generally there was probably scary stuff that I would have been creeped out by it as a kid. But I don't know if this movie would have necessarily because, like, I watched Labyrinth and I don't remember being scared watching Labyrinth, which has, I think, equally creepy stuff in it.
• 14:06
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 14:06
  Speaker A: To this movie, at least some equally creepy stuff to it. As in as this movie. And I don't remember finding Labyrinth. Like, I can't think of any movies that were super creepy to me as a kid. Like I said, the only movies that, to me that, like, scarred me was, like, animal stuff.
• 14:19
  Speaker B: Yeah. I do think I saw this movie. I was a little bit older, so I was like. I was still creeped out by it a little bit. Like, I was like, oh, that's weird and creepy.
• 14:30
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 14:30
  Speaker B: But I wasn't, like, young enough to.
• 14:32
  Speaker A: To where you, like, had to turn it.
• 14:34
  Speaker B: Yeah, to where I had to, like, turn it off or, like, I was going to get nightmares from it or something. Okay, our next comment was from Diane Takaki, who said, Return to Oz is one of the first movies I remember from my childhood that felt like it was dealing with trauma and depression.
• 14:54
  Speaker A: For sure. Yeah.
• 14:54
  Speaker B: At the time, I didn't know how to articulate those feelings, only that it was an ache I could feel in my bones. The ache I felt when Dorothy is lying in her bed thinking about Oz when her aunt and uncle decide to send her to a sanitarium felt so real. I knew what Dorothy had experienced was true. Why does no one believe her? I knew that all Dorothy wanted to do was go back to Oz. But would that ever happen? All I wanted was for Dorothy to go back to Oz, the same way I wanted Alice to go back to Wonderland, the same way I wanted Bastion to get back to the human world, but for Fantastica to be a real place that he spent time in.
• 15:31
  Speaker A: Is that what it's called?
• 15:32
  Speaker B: Fantastica?
• 15:33
  Speaker A: And that doesn't sound right in my.
• 15:34
  Speaker B: Head, for some reason, I can't remember if they. Maybe they changed it for the movies. I don't remember.
• 15:39
  Speaker A: Yeah, I wonder if they did, because in my head, there's a different name for the world. I can't remember, though. So it very well could be it's.
• 15:48
  Speaker B: The four hobbits of the Shire sitting around a table in front of their ale at the Green Dragon, knowing that their surroundings are just as they've always been, while their shared experiences and individual journeys are not. But they had each other. Dorothy was all alone. And knowing that just made me feel so sad. I'm sure these feelings I felt have a lot to do with my own past anxieties, but I still feel them when I watch these movies today.
• 16:13
  Speaker A: Oh, yeah. Like, I like, for me, genuinely the first act of the movie or the first, you know, 15 minutes or whatever when she gets to, like, all the stuff where they're taking her to the sanitarium. And all of the stuff at the sanitarium I found very affecting in a similar way of. It does trigger my, like, I don't know the right word for it, but that. That empathetic, like, God, that would suck to be that child and not be believed. And like. And in particular, the moments that really get me in the movie are the scene where they have her. The thing in particular that gets me in the movie that still I find very affecting is when they have her strapped to the bed and they're about to do the electroshock therapy and they're assuring her everything is fine and you know it's not. And you can see that she trusts her. Them and that she's just trusting them. That I find wildly devastating, like emotionally devastating to imagine that scenario being real. Luckily, I'm at an age and I think that would have been the kind of thing as a kid I could see that part really getting to me in the beginning. I don't think any of the other creepy stuff necessarily, but that I think I could see getting to me because my brain now, I'm just very. I'm very able to go, well, it's a story. Like, it's not real. It's not happening to an actual person. So, like, I'm able to divorce myself from it. Whereas I think as a kid I would not have been able to divorce myself from the reality of it or appreciate it as much as a story. And so those feelings of like, God, that sucks. And I hate the way she would. I hate the way this. That she is trusting them. And the look on her face as they're gonna like, electrocute her is like. But. Yeah, but. So I get what you're saying, I guess is my point.
• 18:09
  Speaker B: The Oz books are fun, but that's all they are. Yes. There's some political satire within the dialogue of the characters. Baum not hiding his feelings of the turn of the turn of the century America at all. And General Ginger is a really fun addition. But I love the changes that the movie made. I love that we see the aftermath of this traumatic event from the first book and movie. Because even though the original movie had a happy there's no place like home ending, how could Dorothy ever feel the same way again? So even though I enjoy the books, the movie gets my vote every time. The original movie from 1939 is Untouchable. But I love the risks taken with its sequel. Risks we don't often see in kids movies today.
• 18:51
  Speaker A: Yeah, no, I mean, I agree with that. I'm glad they Did. I'm glad that, you know, every time I see a movie, I can appreciate, even though the end doesn't hold together, I can appreciate what they. They were trying to do.
• 19:02
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Shelby who said, now that I've seen the movie, I just gotta ask, what was the thought process here? How do a group of people come together and accidentally make a kids movie this scary? It's literally in everything. The performances, the plot, the way it's shot, lit and scored. I'm not some great creative, but as someone who writes horror, it would be so nice to make something like this without even trying.
• 19:29
  Speaker A: I will say I think they were trying.
• 19:31
  Speaker B: Yeah, in a lot of ways.
• 19:32
  Speaker A: Like, I don't know if maybe they wanted it to be as scary as some kids found it, but they were definitely going for creepy off putting. Like that's the arc of the story.
• 19:42
  Speaker B: Yes. And also it was a very common.
• 19:47
  Speaker A: Genre for the time period, as we've talked about before. It was not uncommon for first stories from this time period to be intentionally.
• 19:54
  Speaker B: Came out before Labyrinth. But what did come out before this one that I feel like they might have been trying to go for? Kind of a similar vibe. The Dark Crystal.
• 20:04
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, like the Dark Crystal and my favorite obscure movie that nobody's ever seen, the Peanut Butter Solution has a very similar kind of vibe. I believe Red Letter or somebody put out a video about it, but there's a. I think it's Canadian I found out from the Red Letter review. But it's a movie I watched as a kid called the Peanut Butter Solution that is this weird, wild, dark kids like fairy tale kind of thing. That is. I has some very, very creepy moments in it. And yeah, it's definitely not that they're not trying. They are trying to make it creepy again. Maybe it comes off a little creepier than they were going for, but it was their goal for the beginning of this movie to be creepy and off and unsettling. Like that was the goal for sure.
• 20:52
  Speaker B: I never saw this movie as a child and I wouldn't have gotten far with my electrophobia. I would have turned that shit off when we got to the asylum. Between the old timey mental health and the mirror stuff, this movie just feels like another retelling of Alice in Wonderland to me. The Alice in an Asylum plot is pretty common in Wonderland remixes, but I can't tell if those stories were inspired by this movie. Yeah, yeah. I don't know. I don't know how far back that particular type of retelling goes, considering how the original Oz movie borrows. This was all a dream from Alice in Wonderland. These two universes just get more and more muddled in my head. I'd love to learn from people who are really familiar with both properties what makes Oz unique from Wonderland. They're both portal fantasy worlds. They both have magic talking animals and fantasy creatures. Wonderland is often portrayed as having a dreamlike quality that's both outrageous and hostile. For another example, there's Narnia with its Bible undercurrents to set it apart. What makes something Ozian? What's distinct about this universe? So I wouldn't consider myself an expert on any of these three properties that you named here, Shelby, but I have read all of them.
• 22:10
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 22:10
  Speaker B: So here's my two cents.
• 22:13
  Speaker A: I guess I mentioned this here because I have. I have a take on what. Yeah. I have an idea, not remotely expert opinion on kind of what. How they're different, at least.
• 22:23
  Speaker B: So Narnia, I think we could kind of set aside right off the bat because Narnia to me, is a very different type of fantasy world in that it is much more interested in trying to appear as like a fully fleshed out universe that's like, grounded and realized.
• 22:46
  Speaker A: Like in a realized world.
• 22:47
  Speaker B: That realized world that is grounded in rules that are very close to real world rules.
• 22:54
  Speaker A: Yeah. There's a magic system within it, but it's. It's more like something like Lord of the Rings or whatever, where it's. It's a fantasy world that is similar to ours with some extra weird stuff, like some extra layers on top of.
• 23:07
  Speaker B: That, but it's much closer to like a high fantasy.
• 23:10
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 23:12
  Speaker B: So Wonderland and Oz. I think you hit the nail on the head by describing Wonderland as hostile. Yes. It is a hostile world. As soon as Alice gets there, she only encounters beings that maybe don't necessarily want to harm her, but certainly are not interested in her, well, being. Right. Oz, I think the stakes are much lower.
• 23:44
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 23:45
  Speaker B: Oz is a far friendlier world. Dorothy makes friends everywhere she goes in Oz. The stakes are very, very low in Oz. You never really feel like Dorothy's in actual danger.
• 23:57
  Speaker A: Yeah. The closest it gets is the very end of just Talking about the 1939 movie, the end with the confrontation with the witch and stuff. There's a little bit of danger feeling there, but not a ton.
• 24:11
  Speaker B: The other thing I think is that I think there was a conscious effort on the part of BAM to make Oz like a fairy realm. And Dorothy does describe it as a fairy world multiple times in Ozma of Oz. I can't remember if she does in the first book or not, but in Asma of Oz she talks quite a bit about how Oz is a fairy world because animals can talk there.
• 24:41
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 24:41
  Speaker B: And you can do all kinds of different things there. So I think that's pulling from folklore and like kind of these ideas of these other worlds that are a little bit older.
• 24:55
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 24:55
  Speaker B: Whereas Wonderland is not that really.
• 25:01
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. My, my not not remotely expert, but also like I have not read the wizard of Oz books and I have not read Alice in Wonderland, but just going on the movies, purely. The vibe I have always gotten is that Oz feels like almost somewhere between like a Narnia, like a more grounded fantasy world and the nonsense upside down chaos of Wonderland.
• 25:30
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 25:30
  Speaker A: Wonderland feels like there are basically no rules at all. And yes, it's just non. It's just kind of. It's just non stop, non stop nonsense leading into other non stop nonsense that a loose narrative follows through. Oz has elements of that like topsy turvy chaotic nonsense world.
• 25:50
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 25:50
  Speaker A: But it still feels like a little bit grounded in like a reality that feels vaguely similar to ours. Like there are like cities where people live and like communities of countries that have rulers. Yeah, exactly, exactly. And like, and, and, and like in Wonderland it's like. Well, there's a queen who's like but what. She rules over all of Wonderland Maybe. But like not really. And like what is like the Mad Hatter is just like this guy in his own little. Like it just feels way more chaotic and sort of. Yeah, I guess chaotic and, and ridiculous. Intentionally ridiculous than Oz does. But Oz has a little sprinkling of that compared to something like Narnia, which I think has even a little sprinkling of that compared to something like Lord of the Rings. But it's kind of almost like this again to me is a completely non. Expert observer of it from the movies. It's almost like this kind of spectrum of like how strange and non. How strange and how few rules there kind of are to the world kind of goes up as you go from like Lord of the Rings or other high fantasy like that to Narnia to Oz and then to like Wonderland and other stuff like that, you know? Yeah, that's kind of the. And again, that's, that's how they're distinct in my head is like. No, I, I don't expect almost any rules in a Wonderland story. I expect a little bit of kind of normalcy in Oz, but with some weird wacky stuff that doesn't really make Sense. And you don't. Don't think too hard about it. You know, like, whatever. Narnia. I'm expecting it to hold together a little bit more and kind of make sense. And when you get to something like Lord of the Rings and other high fantasy and stuff like that, I'm expecting that all to very much hold together in, like, a narrative sense where you're like, okay, I understand I'm in a world building and in a world building, since I understand how this world works and, like, how the causality works and why the narrative events are happening the way they are in Wonderland. I'm fully like, the narrative order of this. The narrative events don't necessarily have to follow from A to B to C. It can be like, we can jump from A to F and then back to B and then go to A again. And A is different now. A is blue now. Like, you know, like that. And. And I think there's a gradation between those two different worlds or those two different types of kind of like the way the world is built that I think Oz kind of falls somewhere in the middle.
• 28:20
  Speaker B: Yeah. The other thing that I find really interesting about comparing Oz and Wonderland is that both were written during the Victorian era, which spans a very long period of time. But Wonderland was written, like, mid Victorian era. It's like 1860s. Oz is, like, squarely right at the tail end. Published 1900. And if you know anything about, like, the history of that era, childhood underwent a major rebrand during the Victorian area era. We basically got our concept of childhood as we have it today.
• 29:05
  Speaker A: It's when we started coming to coming up with, like, child labor laws and stuff. Right. They weren't remotely in place, you know, like in their fully intact, informed version then. But it's when we started kind of, I think.
• 29:16
  Speaker B: But like, the concept that we have of childhood now.
• 29:21
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 29:21
  Speaker B: A lot of that comes from the societal changes that the Western world went through during this period of time. And I do think it's really interesting to look at something like Alice in Wonderland. That's from, like, the middle of that era where, you know, she gets sent to, like, this kooky fantasy world, but she's not having fun there.
• 29:44
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 29:44
  Speaker B: Homegirl is stressed out the entire time.
• 29:47
  Speaker A: Right.
• 29:47
  Speaker B: But then you move forward 40 years and you get Oz. And the Oz books are plot driven in the sense that there is a story.
• 29:58
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 29:59
  Speaker B: But beyond that, they're more like fun driven.
• 30:02
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 30:03
  Speaker B: Like. Like Dorothy is there to have a jolly good time with her friends.
• 30:07
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 30:08
  Speaker B: And she is like at the end of Osma of Oz, they're like, do you want to go home? And she's like, maybe.
• 30:13
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's interesting. I think that's really interesting. For sure.
• 30:22
  Speaker B: All right. I hope we answered your question at least a little bit. Shelby, anybody else who wants to chime in on that, feel free.
• 30:32
  Speaker A: Feel free.
• 30:34
  Speaker B: Our next and I think. Yes. Last comment on Patreon was from Nathan, who said this one goes easily to the books. They are written for kids, but are still fun and engaging. I love the whimsical and kind of wandering narrative. It's not clear what the end goal of either story will be till well into the story, but it's still fun to just follow Tip. Dorothy wandering around, stumbling into diversions. I can see why they would be difficult to adapt because they are so indirect in their story. The movie's choice to add the sanitarium scenes was a terrible one. They cut so much from the first book with Tip and Saw Horse.
• 31:16
  Speaker A: Sorry.
• 31:16
  Speaker B: They cut so much fun from the first book with Tip and the Sawhorse. In a movie that was always going to struggle to fit things in from two books, it made no sense to add a plotline, especially one that is so dark. Maybe if the movie stayed dark the whole time, it would have paid off, but since they gave up, it's really frustrating that it's there at all.
• 31:36
  Speaker A: I. I disagree with that. I think I know what the movie was.
• 31:39
  Speaker B: I think this movie is dark the whole time.
• 31:41
  Speaker A: Well, it's dark the whole time, but also I think it what it's trying to do the meta narrative and thematic thing of the film. So this video I watched, I might as well get you now. I. I had it in direct response to a specific thing later, a comment later that I saw on like Facebook or something. But I. I watched this video called Return to Oz is shockingly nice by a channel called Bmask B Mask on YouTube. I have no idea. I've not watched any of their other content. I have no. So if they suck in other ways, I have no idea. I got recommended this one video. Watched it. I didn't notice any red flags of like, oh, this person secretly sucks or has bad opinions. The video seemed mostly pretty good. I didn't entirely agree with it in a way I'll get into. But what I think the movie is very and the argument that this video lays out that. That I saw in the movie and we kind of discussed. But I think this video lays out in a way that I was like, oh yeah, that's Definitely what the movie is trying to do. The movie, this video argues that the movie does it successfully. I think the movie maybe doesn't do it as it's as successful as this person argues is that the whole point and arc of the story is. And then why the beginning and the sanitarium is so important is it's a story ultimately about holding on to your dreams and your imagination and your whimsy and your. And all of that sort of stuff. Because obviously at the beginning, Dorothy is talking about Oz, this place full of joy and whimsy and all these magical friends that she made. And everybody is telling her, no, that doesn't exist. What are you talking about? That's not real. To the point where they take her to a place where they're going to electrocute it out of her head because it's not real. And the gnome king, cutting way, way, way forward, her then ending up in Oz and realizing that it's different and, and it's has. It has lost it's. It's. Something bad has happened to it. All of her friends have been turned into stone. The city is. The Emerald City is ruined. All of this sort of stuff is kind of reflective of the real world. Telling her this fantasy isn't real does not exist. The gnome king, as we see later, we talked about this briefly in the episode, is played by the actor who plays the doctor, quote, unquote doctor in the before in the Kansas segment. And he is the one who is insistent that she has to leave this delusion behind and that he's the one who's going to remove it from her brain. And he plays the character in the Land of Oz that is turning her friends. Getting rid of her friends is, Is. Is. Is turning them into ornaments or whatever, and also has stolen the ruby slippers from her, essentially. Like he has the ruby slippers now and he is giving her. And he even makes it very clear and I talk. We talked about this in the episode a little bit. He gives her the option of like, do you want to go home or do you. And. Or do you want to go save your friends? Like you. I'll send you back home right now with the ruby slippers. Like, I'll let you forget all of the. And he says, like, you'll forget all of this, but you'll be, you know, you can be saved or whatever. And so the movie is presenting this out for her of like, give up on these dreams. Give up on this fantasy world. Give up on your. Your whimsy, whatever. That sort of thing your, your childhood wonder and she chooses not to ends up saving her friends. And that is when at the very end Oz becomes, when we have the big parade and everything at the end becomes colorful again, becomes more reminiscent of the Oz of the previous movies. Where I think the movie fails is that I don't think it executes that third act in that kind of where that all goes as effectively as this video argues that it does. But that is like what this, this, this video essay was saying. And I, I generally agree that that's what the movie is trying to do. And so I think that the, the beginning part with the sanitarium actually could work really well. And I think it does set up something very compelling and interesting. I think it could be really good. In fact, like I said, I liked it a lot. It's just that in my opinion the movie doesn't quite stick the final act, which would bring it all together in a way that really makes sense and tracks and like, oh this. Yeah, it just feels a little scattershot in that third act and a little disjointed in a way that I just don't think. And I think the overall kind of tone and look of it like when she does save Oz doesn't quite transform enough from the rest of the kind of weird off putting look of the movie. Like even, even during that big parade scene, it still feels kind of weird in a way. Like it's fun, it's interesting to look at kind of creepy, still kind of creepy and weird because of the architecture choice. Like it just doesn't quite have the feel of old Oz and the magic and you know, I think that's what it's going for. I just don't think it quite achieves that. So I don't think the movie is like the masterpiece that this, this argument, this video kind of argues. But I, I do agree with that was what the movie was trying to do and kind of succeeded at just not like, I think they succeeded like 60% of the way there. And, and this video essay kind of argues that it was like 100% of the ways there. So I, I, like I said, I just kind of disagree that I think you can add that dark opening and I think it can be a really interesting, compelling way to make a point about Dorothy recapturing that magic, refinding that magic, holding on to the things that matter to her, to the friends that she loves and not letting mean old cynical people steal that from you. Like I think you could do that. I just again, I Just don't know if the movie sticks the landing entirely, in my opinion, from the one time watching it. So.
• 37:25
  Speaker B: No, yeah, no, I would agree with that. I think that is what the movie is going for. I think you could also read it as like a metaphor for growing up.
• 37:33
  Speaker A: Yeah. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, 100%.
• 37:35
  Speaker B: Losing that childhood, kind of.
• 37:37
  Speaker A: That's what it's. And that's what I'm getting at. Yeah, like that. That's part of the narrative that I was talking about. And, and, and so to get back to what your comment, the last sentence there says, they gave up, but since if the movie had stayed dark the whole time, it would have paid off. But since they gave up, it's really frustrating. It depends on what you mean by but they gave up on where you think that happened, because I don't think they really did. To me, it stays pretty dark until the ending where things get happy, when she does save the day and choose to stay and rescues her friends and returns Oz to the glory of Oz. But that's only the final five minutes. So I wouldn't really say that they gave up on it at that point. So you must be talking about an earlier segment where they. I don't know. I just. I don't know. It's interesting. It's always interesting to hear the different ways we perceive movies. Please don't. Again, please don't interpret any of this thing like you're wrong. Just. It's so interesting to see how differently. Different people kind of feel again. And comparing it like to that video essay I was talking about, that person had a. A much different experience watching the movie. Not a much different, but, you know, they liked it a lot more than. Than I did. But I also kind of got why they liked it. I just. It just felt like they were glossing over some of the shortcomings of the film.
• 38:55
  Speaker B: Continuing with Nathan's comment, Ginger and the army of Revolt were my favorites, and I think they are the worthy leaders of Oz. Ginger and Jaleah Jam would have. Would have had the perfect ruling pair as Jaleah has the common sense needed to rein in Ginger's crazier plans. Okay, that's the Oz adaptation we need. Yeah, Ginger and that whole plotline is in the marvelous Land of Oz. And I wouldn't personally consider this movie an adaptation of both books. Yeah, I would consider it more to be an adaptation of Ozma of Oz that incorporates a handful of elements from the Marvelous Land of Oz. Even though I did really like the General Ginger and the army of revolt.
• 39:43
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 39:43
  Speaker B: Storyline the gnome king does say to Mombi, soon there will be no one left who remembers Oz and I will be completely human. So the movie definitely acknowledges the king's transformation, but it is not particularly well established.
• 40:00
  Speaker A: I might have met. I remembered the soon there will be no one left who remembers Oz part. I don't know if I remember the and I will be completely human part of that line.
• 40:08
  Speaker B: For some reason, the movie also does not get, like, why does he want to be human? What does that get him?
• 40:13
  Speaker A: Yeah, what does that get him? Again, I think it's. If you go back to the idea, which is one of the future comments. If you go back to the idea that if you don't think about the gnome king's motivations in the context of his motivations within the narrative, but within the context of the meta narrative about. If you interpret the gnome king as the representation of the Doctor in the real world.
• 40:39
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 40:39
  Speaker A: And his desire to eliminate the magic in whimsy. Him. His. His motivation is to become human so that he can become that, like, character from the beginning, kind of. Again, it's not really established within the narrative of the story of, like, why the gnome king in Oz wants to do that. Which. But if you don't think about it that way, but instead think about it, what is the motivation of the gnome king slash the Doctor guy?
• 41:07
  Speaker B: Right.
• 41:08
  Speaker A: It's to get rid of Oz, to destroy, you know, all the people in Oz and to be. He wants to become human because he. The, like, natural order. That's how it's supposed to be. Like. And Oz is kind of this weird manifestation that is abhorrent, not abhorrent. What's the word?
• 41:31
  Speaker B: An aberration.
• 41:32
  Speaker A: Aberration. Aberrant. Yes, aberrant. Not abhorrent. That's the. This aberration that is, you know, kind of goes against the natural order and is, like, wrong. And so the gnome King, his motivation wanting to become human kind of works in that way, if you think about it through that lens, I guess, as opposed to, like, why would the gnome king truly want to do that? It doesn't really work as well. Yeah.
• 41:57
  Speaker B: I love the constant worry by Jack about spoilage and think it was done naturally enough that it didn't get old in the book. That being said, overall, I found Jack to be whiny and annoying, so I would have preferred the sawhorse to be the character in the film. I liked. I liked Jack fine in the film.
• 42:14
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 42:15
  Speaker B: I did also find him kind of annoying in the book, but I also Would have loved to see the sawhorse. So.
• 42:23
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 42:24
  Speaker B: In response to Katie's point about Glinda being overpowered, I will say that I didn't get that feeling. In fact, Glinda specifically says she can't do transformation spells like Mombi. Okay. So I know what you're talking about. I interpreted it differently, though.
• 42:46
  Speaker A: Oh, okay, Interesting.
• 42:47
  Speaker B: So at the end of the marvelous Land of Oz, when they're gonna transform Tip back into Ozma.
• 42:53
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 42:56
  Speaker B: Tip says I might try it for a while just to see how it seems, you know? But if I don't like being a girl, you must promise to change me into a boy again. Really? Said the sorceress. That is beyond my magic. I never deal in transformations, for they are not honest. And no respectable sorceress likes to make things appear to be what they are not.
• 43:18
  Speaker A: So who's Is that, Glenda?
• 43:20
  Speaker B: That's Glinda. Yes. So I definitely think you can interpret that as her saying that she can't do transformations. When I read it, I interpret it as her saying I can, but I won't because they're beneath me.
• 43:36
  Speaker A: Yeah, well, and. Cause isn't she the one who transformed.
• 43:40
  Speaker B: No mom be transformed. I gotcha to Ozma in the first place.
• 43:45
  Speaker A: Yeah. You could read it as her being, like, spiteful, or not spiteful, but her being. She can't do it. And so she's like, casting aspersions on it to say it's like, right. Bad. A bad form of magic or whatever. Or it could just be genuinely that she doesn't want to do it because she thinks it's bad or something. I don't.
• 44:10
  Speaker B: Yeah. Like, I just. Like, when I read that, I interpreted her as saying, like, I won't do that.
• 44:16
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 44:16
  Speaker B: Not I can't do it.
• 44:17
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 44:18
  Speaker B: But you could definitely.
• 44:19
  Speaker A: Either way, you could read it.
• 44:20
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 44:20
  Speaker A: Yeah. One thing I thought was interesting that I didn't realize, and I don't know if you noticed this or at all, but one of the little details in the. That video that I watched is that they mentioned that in that parade scene at the end, there's, like, an insane amount of book characters in that scene.
• 44:37
  Speaker B: Oh, I would have to go back.
• 44:39
  Speaker A: Glinda, apparently, is in that scene.
• 44:41
  Speaker B: Interesting.
• 44:42
  Speaker A: But, like, a bunch of. I think the sawhorse, there's. He. He. He named a bunch of characters and said if. Look, there's like, dozens of, like, the different book characters who don't make an appearance anywhere else that just show up in that scene, like, in. As part of the. The entourage or Whatever. Which I thought was interesting.
• 45:00
  Speaker B: Yeah, that's fun. Finally you mentioned the wizard of Oz might be the best known film of all time. It actually made a premiere in a. No, Womack, Wisconsin, which is where I went for Thanksgiving because my parents live there. Apparently it went on a Midwest tour before debuting in Hollywood. They have an annual celebration on that date.
• 45:29
  Speaker A: Well, there you go.
• 45:31
  Speaker B: Honestly, that tracks. I feel like with like the. The wizard of Odd. Like people who are big fans of the movie the wizard of Oz, I feel like that's a very midwestern vibe.
• 45:45
  Speaker A: But I think that was a pretty common thing back then is that in the early period of movie premieres there weren't theaters everywhere. So.
• 45:52
  Speaker B: Right.
• 45:53
  Speaker A: They would travel around like a projector with the one. And also there weren't that many reels of the film. Like you know, they would have a handful of reels of the like of the finished film. And so they would travel them around and. And do like shows around the country.
• 46:11
  Speaker B: All right. Over on Facebook we had four votes for the movie and two for the books. Ian said books. They didn't terrify me as a child or less. So anyway, yeah. Sarah said the movie. Matt said Return to Oz. A lovely childhood fever dream. Haha. Austin said movie return to Osmosis. My very first time reckoning with the theme of this film is lit. A very perspective. A very perceptive aunt gifted me the entire box set of the Oz books when I was three or when I was four or five years old. And I was beginning my second read through of them at age six when this movie came out. Since the title of the movie was different from the books, I didn't expect it to be a perfect representation of the stories. The thing I was hoping for and was overjoyed to see was the accurate representation of character illustrations brought to life on the big screen. The books will always have a special place in my heart. And the magical world Baum created remains my favorite fantasy setting to this day. But movie magic, translating that to the screen and giving me the amazing experience of seeing and hearing characters that had previously only lived in my head means that my vote goes to the movie.
• 47:34
  Speaker A: Interesting. I thought that was going to go a different direction. Yeah, I thought that was going based on how you were setting that up of like first time reckoning with the theme of this film is lit. And having read the books I thought it was definitely going to go the direction of. And so I was wildly let down by the. All the changes and you know, like, because that's. That was how I Always as a kid reading books, then watching the movies that I think it's a very common thing when you're younger. Not necessarily exclusively when you're younger, but just whatever. I think for children it's very common to be like. I want it to be like. Just like the book. And then when it's not to be disappointed. But it is interesting to hear.
• 48:11
  Speaker B: I mean, I. You're right. The characters are like.
• 48:14
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 48:15
  Speaker B: They're carbon copies of the illustrations.
• 48:17
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 48:18
  Speaker B: So I mean, I guess if you're six years old. And that's what's important to you, you know.
• 48:22
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 48:24
  Speaker B: P. S. Regarding the scary. Yes. Wheelers and sure. Disembodied screaming heads. All of the. No, thank you. But for my money, seeing the movie as a small child, for me, the most terrifying scene in that movie was the bit in the real world where Doro is strapped to a table in an asylum. She was sent to by people who were ostensibly her protectors. About to have her brain permanently damaged via electrocution.
• 48:48
  Speaker A: Yes. So that was what I was saying earlier. Yes. I agree that that scene is by far the scariest. It's maybe not like the. It's not a jump scare. It's a different type of scary. But then some of the other things which are more like visually scary or creepy or the things that you tend to have that. Yeah. That are jump scares or that. That you have, like nightmares about. But that is absolutely the most horrifying scene in the movie by far.
• 49:16
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Tom, who said I didn't reread or rewatch either before the episode. However, I remember reading all the Oz books as a young child. And honestly, aside from the wizard of Oz, I barely remember any of the plots to the other books in the series. However, this movie is such a core memory for me. My sister is two years older than me and this was one of the few movies that we both loved. Slash, were absolutely terrified of and as a result was one of the only and handful of films that we would watch together. We still talk about it regularly, although I probably haven't seen it in over 30 years. I remember every scene vividly. My vote goes to the movie.
• 49:58
  Speaker A: Get that. We all have those movies.
• 50:01
  Speaker B: And our last comment on Facebook was from Jeremy who said, gotta give it to the books. I think the movie has some great visuals, but the end is a mess. The Gnome king doesn't have any motivation in the film beyond being generically evil. In the book, he bargained with the King of Ev and gave him immortality in exchange for his family. So he's got this kind of sinister deal making devil vibe going on that makes his deal with Osma to play his game make sense in a way the film version doesn't. And the book properly sets up Bellina's eggs as a danger and makes the saving of the prisoners not just random luck, just overall, the feels the film feels like it was underdeveloped compared to both books.
• 50:44
  Speaker A: Yeah. Like I said, I. I already addressed the part with the gnome king earlier kind of. I think if you do. Like I said, if you do watch it through the lens of his motivation makes sense as a metaphor, but not. Doesn't necessarily make sense as within the strict narrative of the film. It works a little better if you kind of watch it with that in mind. That being said, I think you can pull off both and like, I think it would have been possible for the movie to also. For that to still be the case, that metaphor to be there, but to also give the character some concrete motivation in universe Universe that makes it feel like it makes a little more sense. Sense. So that it's. Yeah, I think you could do both, but. And so I think it's still a fair criticism and I think that is partially why the end doesn't work for me as well. But it did help a little bit, like I said, to view it through that lens. It did. It did make me appreciate it a little bit more than I did on viewing, but just a little bit.
• 51:42
  Speaker B: All right. Over on Instagram, we had three votes for the movie and one for the books. And a socially awkward butterfly said, katie is right. No notes. Thank you, Jasmine. I appreciate your support. If you all ever want to explore the topic again. I also love the Tin man miniseries with Zooey Deschanel.
• 52:06
  Speaker A: What is this?
• 52:07
  Speaker B: I think.
• 52:08
  Speaker A: Has someone mentioned this before? I feel like I've heard of this.
• 52:10
  Speaker B: Yes, we. I feel like we saw something about this in like a video essay maybe.
• 52:19
  Speaker A: Yeah. Or something.
• 52:20
  Speaker B: It was.
• 52:21
  Speaker A: It might have been when we watched Lindsay Ellis's full plate on like the Wicked Witch of the West. I'm pretty sure she did.
• 52:29
  Speaker B: I think you're right.
• 52:29
  Speaker A: I'm pretty sure she did a Wicked Witch of the west full plate, which is where she just covers like every adaptation of a character. And I think that might have. That would be my guess.
• 52:38
  Speaker B: I think you might be right because. Yeah, I remember like hearing about that series, but like a. Like a post apocalyptic kind of.
• 52:46
  Speaker A: It looks like. It looks like. Yeah, it's like a sci fi.
• 52:48
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 52:48
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 52:50
  Speaker B: Could be interesting.
• 52:52
  Speaker A: Apparently Dorothy Just goes by dg.
• 52:56
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Ashley with an I, who said, never read the books, but I must vote for the movie for selfish nostalgic reasons. The way this movie was the most horrifying viewing experience of my childhood. I saw it for the first time when I was like four or five. Yeah, yeah, that's too young.
• 53:14
  Speaker A: Way too young.
• 53:15
  Speaker B: On vhs, likely from my local video store, the Wheelers. I remember genuinely believing adults could change their heads and was worried I would find spare heads in people's closets. Of course, by the time I was a goth teen in the mid aughts, this movie became practically my personality. I haven't seen it in years, so I don't have much more to add Besides, I loved the episode.
• 53:39
  Speaker A: Well, thank you. That was. Yeah. But yeah, it's, yeah. Four or five. Four or five.
• 53:43
  Speaker B: That's, that's, that is rough.
• 53:45
  Speaker A: I, I, I think you could, I, I'm not a parent, so I don't know. But the vibe I get is you could probably start thinking like around 7 or 8. Maybe a kid could handle this a little bit more. Probably when they're getting close to the age Dorothy is in the movie. But four or five? It's just gonna be creepy as hell, I feel like. Yeah.
• 54:03
  Speaker B: And we do have a comment from Tim Wahoo. I don't always include his comments because they always say the same thing, but I thought, why not? And Tim Wahoo said, any movie is always better than a book, which I.
• 54:15
  Speaker A: Guess that's true if you can't read, I guess.
• 54:17
  Speaker B: So over on Threads, we didn't have any comments, but we did have one vote for the books, zero for the movie. And on Goodreads, we had one listener who couldn't decide.
• 54:33
  Speaker A: And then I wonder who that was.
• 54:35
  Speaker B: That listener was Mo, who said so. I also read and watched the Wonderful wizard of Oz for the first time for this. And oh boy, the difference between that and Return to Oz. Easy to see why it terrified kids.
• 54:51
  Speaker A: It's fascinating that seeing the first wizard of Oz for the first time.
• 54:56
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 54:56
  Speaker A: In the year 2025. And I don't think Miko's like super young or anything. I don't know how old Mikio is, but I haven't gotten the vibe that they're like 19 years old.
• 55:06
  Speaker B: I think Miko is also not from Not America.
• 55:09
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 55:10
  Speaker B: So that probably has.
• 55:11
  Speaker A: I'm sure that plays in. But like I said, wonderful Lizard of Oz. It's got to be up there with Star Wars.
• 55:16
  Speaker B: Sure.
• 55:17
  Speaker A: Among, like, most famous viewed Movies of all time, I would think.
• 55:22
  Speaker B: But based on your description of the voice of Tick Tock, it seems I listened to the same audiobook shout out to Project Librivox and their free public domain audiobooks. Despite the voice being a bit annoying, TikTok was easily the best character in the books. Who doesn't like an ass kicking clockwork robot?
• 55:43
  Speaker A: I mean, you're not wrong.
• 55:45
  Speaker B: After finishing the 3oz books, I was left wondering why I liked them more than the Narnia books. With Narnia I was annoyed by the mishmash of stuff. But here it didn't really bother me. I think it's because the Oz books can get really insane without worrying about the themes or anything really, and just have fun. While the Narnia books try to form a somewhat orderly world, but with Santa and lion Jesus thrown in. I have no clear answer.
• 56:11
  Speaker A: So this kind of goes back to what we were saying is that maybe there's this idea that you like something like Lord of the Rings that has pretty strict rules about like what it's doing and that sort of thing. And like I could also imagine. And if you like that, you might not love the complete nonsense of like Wonderland and like just. Just making no sense at all. And so Oz being like kind of makes sense with a little bit like. Or comparing Narnia and Oz. I think the fact that Narnia tries to be closer to what Lord of the Rings is.
• 56:50
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 56:51
  Speaker A: While still having some of the wacky stuff. I could understand that being something that a person would go. It just doesn't.
• 56:57
  Speaker B: Right.
• 56:58
  Speaker A: Because that's kind of how I feel.
• 56:59
  Speaker B: Honestly. And especially if you're like coming from Lord of the Rings.
• 57:04
  Speaker A: Yeah. Or similar stuff like I could imagine being like. It's like it feels like it's trying to be that, but then it has this wacky shit thrown in. Whereas Oz. It doesn't really feel like it's trying to be Lord of the Rings. It feels almost like it's more like trying to be the Wonderland. Except it like this goes okay, but let's have a little bit of sense in this story. And I think that can be something for somebody who does like. And I think Mikko's a pretty like from my memory is like a sci fi kind of enjoys sci fi and stuff like that because I think they're an engineer or something like that. So their brain probably works fairly like, you know, logically and likes things to kind of make sense. I could see because I think I'm kind of similar to that depending on, you know, the. How it's executed. But I could totally buy and see the idea of being like, look, Wonderland is a little bit too much nonsense. Give me a little bit of something I can hold on to. But also, you don't have to take it so seriously that it. But while still having this ridiculous stuff, like, it rides like Oz does kind of feel like it rides that. That. That line of, like, if you're looking for a certain type of story, you can.
• 58:15
  Speaker B: It kind of hits a no for sure. And I will say, too, like, on the subject of comparing all of these different, like, properties and worlds and what different people enjoy, if you, like me, are somebody who, like, really, really, really wants to love Wonderland, but just finds it a little annoying. Yeah, Oz is for you. Yeah. That's your jam. That's where you should live. Oz.
• 58:43
  Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, you were saying as you were finishing up the books that you might read the rest of them.
• 58:49
  Speaker B: I did.
• 58:50
  Speaker A: You weren't sure.
• 58:50
  Speaker B: I set the two. Well, I don't like to commit to outside of podcast reading because I usually don't do it. But I put the two books down in our little book bin under here because I usually donate them after we're done. But then I turned to you and I was like, I don't know, I might fuck around and read the rest of the Oz books.
• 59:11
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 59:11
  Speaker B: Because I really did, like, have a good time reading those two books.
• 59:15
  Speaker A: Yeah. It seemed like they had a combination of. And, like, similar to what. What Mikko is saying here of an actual narrative that you can kind of follow and enjoy mixed with the. Just the silly. That is fun. And, like.
• 59:30
  Speaker B: And there are a lot of, like, legitimately very good jokes.
• 59:34
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 59:34
  Speaker B: In these books, at least the two that I read this time. Miko's last comment here was, I think I liked the movie more than the Marvelous Land of Oz, but less than Osma of Oz. Due to this, I have to say I cannot decide.
• 59:51
  Speaker A: There you go.
• 59:51
  Speaker B: So fair enough. So our winner this week was the movie with 10 votes to the books 6. Although closer than I might have guessed.
• 1:00:02
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:00:03
  Speaker B: With our one listener who couldn't decide.
• 1:00:05
  Speaker A: There you go. Thank you for all that feedback. Love that we got.
• 1:00:08
  Speaker B: So, yeah, that was great.
• 1:00:10
  Speaker A: Especially on Facebook. We're trying to figure out if it's because of how you posted it.
• 1:00:13
  Speaker B: Yeah. So I did a different format this time.
• 1:00:16
  Speaker A: We're trying different formats on Facebook specifically, to see. I say we. You're trying different formats on Facebook specifically.
• 1:00:22
  Speaker B: And I. I don't know. This was probably not A good litmus test for it because I don't know if it was the format or if it was the, the subject matter.
• 1:00:30
  Speaker A: I don't know though, because I didn't. It's. I, I, I wonder because we were talking about a lot of times is we feel like for some of, like Hellraiser, I think an example where it felt like we got in the lead up, we got a lot of people saying they were interested in it and then in, in the post reaction, we didn't get as much as we like, thought we were going to based on how much. And whereas this one, I don't know if I saw a ton. I saw, I guess there was a fair amount, so maybe. But the fact that it continued through, like people excited for it and then commented on it, I think probably we'll have to see, really. It's only one data point. So really it's just a matter of we'll have to see if it continues well.
• 1:01:04
  Speaker B: And our next thing I think will be a better test because I don't think, I'm not sure we have anyone who's like, this is a beloved book and movie that, yeah, I need to give my opinion on.
• 1:01:15
  Speaker A: Yeah. But I just felt like we saw some comments on, especially on Facebook from some people that I don't know if I've ever seen comments from before. So I thought that was if that was one of you. Thank you and we appreciate it and hope you keep commenting. Obviously, we're not expecting everybody to comment on every episode. I listen to tons of podcasts that I love and I do not comment on every episode, so I get it. But it is, like I said, it is always fun and we love having these conversations and talking about the stuff that we cover. So, yeah, make sure if you want to keep doing that. Katie, it's time now to preview the man who Invented Christmas. The book. So he's had a couple of flops. Well, who hasn't? You have a new book in mind? Of course he does. My lamp's gone out. I've run out of ideas.
• 1:01:58
  Speaker B: Are we in trouble?
• 1:01:59
  Speaker A: No, of course not. I have told you not to disturb me when I am working.
• 1:02:07
  Speaker B: On Christmas Eve, the spirits pour into the night.
• 1:02:12
  Speaker A: Look here, Mr. Diggings, pickpockets, street walkers, Humbug. Those people don't belong in books.
• 1:02:17
  Speaker B: Charles, I have very few things to say about this book, and you didn't.
• 1:02:25
  Speaker A: Answer the one question I have. I hope you can answer it when I ask you.
• 1:02:29
  Speaker B: Okay, I'll do my best.
• 1:02:31
  Speaker A: I feel like. Okay, Go ahead.
• 1:02:34
  Speaker B: The man who.
• 1:02:35
  Speaker A: I'm worried that you don't know what the question is.
• 1:02:37
  Speaker B: I don't think I do right now.
• 1:02:39
  Speaker A: All right, we'll see.
• 1:02:41
  Speaker B: The man who Invented Christmas Colon. How Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol Rescued His Career and Revived Our Holiday spirits is a 2008 novel by American author and historian Les Standiford.
• 1:02:57
  Speaker A: I in there.
• 1:02:58
  Speaker B: I know.
• 1:02:58
  Speaker A: Messing with. I didn't even see it until you just read it. Wait a second.
• 1:03:02
  Speaker B: For me, it's the first D. Oh, well, yeah.
• 1:03:06
  Speaker A: Well, I think either way, either if the D was. Or the I was.
• 1:03:09
  Speaker B: Well, there's just a lot of. There's a lot of letters going on in here. Penguin Random House lists the novel under biographies slash memoirs. And I. I do think that this is.
• 1:03:22
  Speaker A: This was my question.
• 1:03:23
  Speaker B: I thought that might have been your question because we talked about it at the end of the last.
• 1:03:26
  Speaker A: That's why I was most curious.
• 1:03:28
  Speaker B: I still haven't started the book, so I cannot say from, like, reading it myself, but the vibe that I got from, like, looking at different sources when I was researching this is that it.
• 1:03:41
  Speaker A: Is.
• 1:03:43
  Speaker B: Maybe more grounded in, like, actual historical research than I previously might.
• 1:03:48
  Speaker A: So it may very well to be an attempt to be. Or it is like a biography. Like an actual biography, not like a fictionalized accounting or anything like that.
• 1:03:57
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think so. Okay. Because the vibe that I have gotten is that it's like one part story, one part history lesson.
• 1:04:07
  Speaker A: Okay. Interesting.
• 1:04:08
  Speaker B: Interesting. And that is the vibe I kind of get from the author. Like, the author is. I mean, he is a historian.
• 1:04:13
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, I saw that he said historian, but so that was like. Okay, so maybe it is a. Like a biography. Like a non fiction book. Which biographies, memoirs fall under non fiction, correct?
• 1:04:23
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 1:04:23
  Speaker A: I mean.
• 1:04:23
  Speaker B: Yeah, a little bit more about the author. In addition to being a writer and historian, Standerford has been the director of the Florida International University's Creative writing program since 1985. So a good long chunk of time. And I did go and check to make sure his. Wikipedia. I checked the Florida International University's website to make sure he's still.
• 1:04:50
  Speaker A: He still is.
• 1:04:51
  Speaker B: He still is.
• 1:04:51
  Speaker A: There you go. The random connection. When I was in college at Southeast Missouri State University, Our band director, Dr. Bernhardt, I think was his name, right after I graduated, he left Simo and became the band director at Florida International University.
• 1:05:12
  Speaker B: Maybe they know each other now.
• 1:05:13
  Speaker A: Maybe they do.
• 1:05:16
  Speaker B: Stan Deford has been awarded the Frank o' Connor Award for Short Fiction, a Florida Individual Artist to Fellowship in Fiction, and a National Endowment for the Arts Fellowship in Fiction. And his other novels include Last Train to Paradise, Meet yout in Hell, and Washington Burning, which I believe are all like, similarly, like, kind of like one part story, one part history.
• 1:05:43
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:05:44
  Speaker B: Novels, huh?
• 1:05:45
  Speaker A: Interesting.
• 1:05:47
  Speaker B: And that's really all, because the only other thing that I could find were, like, a couple review poll quotes, but I'm pretty sure they're the pull quotes that are, like, on the back of the book. So, like, not that interesting. There was a New York times review from 2008 that I couldn't access because it was paywalled. Thanks. New York Times of an article. I know, right? Just let the people read your review from 2000. Like, come on. Like, that stuff should.
• 1:06:15
  Speaker A: Should get like a five.
• 1:06:16
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:06:16
  Speaker A: Like on some of that stuff, it feels like. I feel like it would drive more traffic to your page. Yeah. I don't know. I'm not the budget person at the New York Times, but it does seem like. Yeah. All right, let's go ahead now and learn a little bit about the man who Invented Christmas. The movie. It's about a miser, and on Christmas Eve he meets some kind of supernatural guides.
• 1:06:39
  Speaker B: Does it have a title? Humbug.
• 1:06:40
  Speaker A: A Miser's Lament, Christmas Ghost story, Christmas Song, Christmas ballad, something like that. Get the name right and the character will appear. Scratch Scrounger. Come on, Scrooge, Shut the window. You think I'm made of money? Mr. Scrooge, how delightful to meet you, sir. The man who Invented Christmas is a 2017 film directed by Bharat Nalluri, who is Primarily a British TV director. He directed the film MI5 that stars Kit Harrington, which is a. Looked like a film, like a film based on a TV show. Like a British TV show that was called MI5, its original title, which. Which is Spooks, but like the spy kind, like you're a spook, like. Or whatever. That was the original title and that everything on IMDb it said it had been all like, the show and the movie were titled MI5. Like, the movie was originally titled Spooks, Secret War or something like that.
• 1:07:42
  Speaker B: Interesting.
• 1:07:43
  Speaker A: Anyways, it looks like a mission impossible style TV show.
• 1:07:46
  Speaker B: But MI. That's their.
• 1:07:47
  Speaker A: Like MI6 is the James Bond one, I think.
• 1:07:51
  Speaker B: Yeah, British spies.
• 1:07:53
  Speaker A: So MI5 is just, I assume, a different. Yeah, but anyway, so. Yeah, but it looks like from what I saw, I watched the trailer for the movie that Kit Harington was in, and it looked like Mission Impossible, basically. So he also directed an episode of Torchwood, the Doctor who spinoff, an episode of the TV show the 100 and quite a bit of other TV, again, primarily in the UK, but also some in Australia and a little bit in America as well. This does appear, though, to be the biggest movie that he was a director of.
• 1:08:22
  Speaker B: Okay.
• 1:08:23
  Speaker A: The film was written by Susan Coyne, who wrote the TV show Slings and Arrows, which I have heard very good things about. It is a short British TV series. It's like two seasons. Never heard of that. It's about. We should probably try it sometime. I've heard, I believe Aaron from Philosophers in Space has talked about it before as being a really good show. It's about, like, theater. It's about, like, live theater. It's like a comedy about, like, yeah.
• 1:08:49
  Speaker B: I'll fuck with that.
• 1:08:50
  Speaker A: A theater troupe in England or something in modern times. And so she wrote that TV show. She was like, the creator of it. I think she starred in it as well. And then she also wrote a handful of episodes of the TV show Mozart in the Jungle, which I've never seen. She also wrote the 2016, I think, BBC adaptation of Anne of Green Gables, among a handful of other things. But those are Slings and Arrows is the big one that also won. It was kind of critically acclaimed and was her big thing. The film stars Dan Stevens, Christopher Plummer, Jonathan Price, Miriam Margulies, and Morfid Clark, among others. Young Galadriel herself, by the way, in the Rings of Power series, Morfin Clark there. It has a 79% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 60% on Metacritic, and a 7 out of 10 on IMDb. It made 8.1 million against a budget of 22 million. And then, I think, made a little bit at home video and stuff. But, yeah, not. Not very successful. I never even heard of it. So I. It was, I think, like a. It's a British production. It stars entirely like, BBC people, for the most part, which I'll touch on a little bit here in a second. So on the topic of historical accuracy, we talked about whether or not the book is a. It looks like it's a biography. The movie. Dan Stevens, the guy who plays. Dickens, Dickens, Scrooge, is in this movie. Yes, but. Which we'll get to. But, yeah, yeah, he plays Dickens. Said, quote, frankly, whether it's historically accurate, I'm not that concerned about. He's, again, he's the actor. He didn't write the movie.
• 1:10:25
  Speaker B: Right.
• 1:10:26
  Speaker A: I was interested in that moment of the creative process, watching a great man struggle. To me, that's dramatically and comedically interesting. Certainly I was keen not to play Dickens. As a bearded old sage. End quote. So he's like, I don't know how, like, accurate it is, but that's not what I was concerned about. Which, again, as an actor, I don't. I guess you could maybe be a little concerned about it, but I could also be like, I'm here to do this performance and capture this, like, kind of emotional thing.
• 1:10:53
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:10:53
  Speaker A: A Time magazine review that I found mentions that, quote, some major plot points are the product of dramatic license. But they concluded, quote, the film does provide viewers with a fairly accurate sense of how Dickens successfully changed the way Christmas is set. Celebrated, end quote. So ultimately said, it's fairly accurate with some little things, you know, for dramatic or drama's sake. And then a couple of IMDb trivia facts. At 87 years old, Christopher Plummer is the oldest act. Was. It says, the oldest actor to ever play Scrooge, which I thought was fascinating. I would have thought. I guess I could see.
• 1:11:29
  Speaker B: Yeah, 87's up there, so pretty old rip.
• 1:11:32
  Speaker A: But, yeah, plumber plays Scrooge in this one. And, yes, you do. See, I don't know how the device works. I have not watched the trailer for this, so I'm not really sure, like, if we watch scenes from the. I don't know how it works, but I'm interested to see, like, why Scrooge is a actor in this, but we'll find out. So filming for this mostly took place in Ireland. And I thought this was kind of funny that some of the sets that they used were the same ones that they had used for Penny Dreadful TV show that we've watched.
• 1:11:58
  Speaker B: We liked that show.
• 1:11:59
  Speaker A: Good show.
• 1:11:59
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:11:59
  Speaker A: This was also interesting. Simon Callows, I didn't mention him in the credits, but he is in this movie, and he had previously played Charles Dickens, who is obviously the main character in this in episodes of Doctor who.
• 1:12:11
  Speaker B: I liked those episodes.
• 1:12:12
  Speaker A: Yeah. In the episodes of Doctor who where they run into Dickens, he plays Dickens in those, but he's in this as a different character. And then finally getting to a few reviews that I pulled from. I believe I pulled some of these from Red rotten tomatoes. Peter DeBerge or Debruge, writing for Variety, said, quote, in addition to being a rather fine addition to the Christmas movie canon, Canon, the film marks a useful teaching tool, a better option for classroom skating screenings than any of the previous Carol adaptations once students have finished reading the novella, end quote. So saying this is actually a good movie. Like a. You could show this in class and it would be a good.
• 1:12:50
  Speaker B: I guess I would. I Would.
• 1:12:53
  Speaker A: It depends on what you're teaching.
• 1:12:54
  Speaker B: Yeah, it would depend on what you.
• 1:12:55
  Speaker A: Were teaching because, like, you're not watching the story.
• 1:12:58
  Speaker B: Yeah. For a history class.
• 1:13:00
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:13:00
  Speaker B: Yeah, for sure. It sounds like for a literature class, it's like, I don't know. I would. I would say let's read a Christmas Carol and then watch a Muppet Christmas Carol or something.
• 1:13:11
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 1:13:11
  Speaker B: Because that's obviously the most.
• 1:13:13
  Speaker A: Yeah. I don't know. We haven't watched the movie, so who knows? Maybe we'll feel differently. But writing for the Guardian, Peter Bradshaw was less impressed. He gave it one star, said, quote, it's a kind of wacky and saccharine mutton chop whisker. God bless your fantasy comedy. And this entire terrible film feels about as Christmassy as watching England go out of the World cup at the group stage. End quote. Okay, so not a fan. It was offended on half on behalf of England, I think it seems like it's like it. He also thought that Stevens was miscast and that, quote, not even a good cast could help a film as tenured as this. End quote. I had to Google 10 years.
• 1:13:55
  Speaker B: And what. And what did that mean?
• 1:13:57
  Speaker A: I already forgot. But I did look it up and. Oh, good. My search on my phone was Tin man, so I only had to change one word. It's an idiom for someone who is insensitive to or unable to appreciate music, verbal nuance or other. Other subtleties. So it's like, oh, not a Luddite.
• 1:14:16
  Speaker B: But something adjacent to that.
• 1:14:19
  Speaker A: Yeah, I wouldn't say adjacent to a Lite Luddite. Somebody who doesn't want to use technology or has. That's a whole thing. But no, somebody who's. Yeah, you're basically just saying you're dumb, uncultured. Uncultured or has bad critical media literacy maybe would be like the. Yeah. Another way to say it. Basically saying the movie is very brash and not subtle and is made for.
• 1:14:40
  Speaker B: Idiots is kind of his point, is.
• 1:14:43
  Speaker A: What he was saying.
• 1:14:43
  Speaker B: We'll find out.
• 1:14:44
  Speaker A: Yeah. So a couple other reviews that I found. This one just cracked me up. I found this on Rotten Tomatoes. Joanne Laurier, writing for this is the name of the. That it said on Rotten Tomatoes as her byline. Writing for world socialist website.
• 1:15:05
  Speaker B: What?
• 1:15:06
  Speaker A: I don't know, but the review, the little. The little popped out line on Rotten Tomatoes was, it got a rotten score. And she said the simplistic, unnecessarily slight film makes only insubstantial passing references to poverty among children a major issue. Then as it Is today. End quote.
• 1:15:28
  Speaker B: Okay, so she. Okay, so. But she was clearly, like, specifically looking at this through the lens, through the lens of class and societal issues. I don't, I mean, I would question if that's like, the right takeaway for this.
• 1:15:48
  Speaker A: I don't know. Like, sure. It seems to me like it's specifically a story about storytelling probably, and like the creative process.
• 1:15:55
  Speaker B: Right.
• 1:15:56
  Speaker A: And like, maybe that story should or could touch on class and poverty in a way that was interesting, but also doesn't necessarily have to. I don't know. I haven't watched the movie. Maybe I'll agree that it like, yeah. Papers over it in a way that feels gross or something. Yeah, I, I don't know. We'll see once we watch the movie, but I just thought that was particularly funny. All right, sure. Yeah. I just love makes only an insubstantial passing reference to poverty among children, which is a major issue then and it still is today. It's like, yes, okay. Yes. I, I, you're not wrong, I guess. I don't know. Another review here, the final one that I had writing for Empire magazine, Dan Jolin gave it three out of five stars, saying, quote, a lightweight, tinsely film with some nice touches and appealing performances, though it never lands its darker moments, end quote. So I think that kind of jives with that review earlier that called it tenured of just maybe not having the subtlety or nuance or layers that it kind of surface. Yeah, just kind of a surface level, like feel good film that maybe. Yeah, lightweight, tinsely. I, you know, they did get it. They gave it a three out of five, which on Rotten Tomatoes does qualify as fresh, so. But yeah, those are all that was all I had. As always, you can do us a favor by interacting with us, following us on Facebook, Instagram threads, Blue Read good. Blue read, Blue Reads, Blue Sky, Goodreads, all of those places. We'd love to hear from you. As we talked about earlier, you can also help us out by heading over to Apple Podcasts, Spotify. Wherever you listen to our show, drop us a five star rating, write us a nice little review that helps out and is always appreciated. And you can Support us@patreon.com ThisFilmIsLit get access to bonus content. We just put out, I think a pretty good discussion on the film Revenge 2017 film by Coralie Farjeet, the director, writer and director of the Substance first feature film. If you want to hear our discussion on that, you can get that@patreon.com thisfilmislit Katie, where can people watch the man who Invented Christmas? I forgot what it was called for a second.
• 1:18:06
  Speaker B: Well, as always, you can check with your local library or a local video rental store, if you still have one, you can check with them.
• 1:18:14
  Speaker A: Or if Peter de Bruges is gonna be trusted. Maybe your local high school English teacher, perhaps.
• 1:18:20
  Speaker B: Perhaps. Or if failing those three things, you can stream this with a subscription to hbo Max Hoopla or Canopy, or you can rent it for around $4 from Amazon, YouTube, Apple TV or Fandango at home.
• 1:18:39
  Speaker A: I don't know if I'd say I'm excited for this, but I am interested to see what the heck.
• 1:18:43
  Speaker B: I am interested to see, like, exactly what this is and, like, how. How it's set up.
• 1:18:47
  Speaker A: Yeah. And like, what. What it's doing. Like, I just have no idea. I've never. Because I hadn't heard of it. I still. I. I'll have watched the trailer after, you know, when you're listening to this after having edited the episode. But yeah, I. Until that time, I literally have no idea, like, what the heck. The premise, other than I know it's about Dickens writing. Yeah, A Christmas Carol. Other than that, I don't really know, like, what the point of it is, what we're doing or whatever. So I'm interested in. Interested to see. So, yeah, that should be fun and a good little setup for our second Christmas episode later this month. But we'll be back in one week's time to discuss the man who invented Christmas. Until that time, guys, gals, non binary.
• 1:19:27
  Speaker B: Pals, and everybody else keep reading books.
• 1:19:29
  Speaker A: Watching movies, and keep being awesome. Sam.