Die-hard Wizard of Oz fans have noticed an inconsistency while watching Wicked which landed in UK cinemas last week, but it turns out there’s a good reason that stretches back beyond both films.
Bizarrely, the iconic ruby slippers that lead character Dorothy famously tapped together to escape from Oz in the original 1939 movie have changed colour entirely, and in the new blockbuster, they’re an ethereal shade of silver.
One of the most legendary storylines included in the Judy Garland movie was that her character, Dorothy, could only return home to Kansas by knocking her gorgeous red shoes together three times.
Remember? They were originally spotted on the Wicked Witch of the West’s feet at the beginning of the film, when she was discovered having been crushed by the house that landed upon her?
Well, the poignant addition was cleverly included by Wicked producers in the magical new flick, which centres on the ‘Bad Witch’s’ (known as Elphaba) relationship with ‘Good Witch’ Glinda when they were in high school – basically, a prequel to the events in the original movie.
Naturally, therefore, fans of the vintage blockbuster were delighted to see Dorothy, the Tin Man, the Scarecrow, and the Cowardly Lion appearing before the Wizard at the very end of the movie.
Many were baffled after noticing, however, that Dorothy could be seen wearing silver slippers, instead of the famous ruby ones from the OG film.
“Now why couldn’t they just make the shoes Ruby,” one begged on social media afterwards.
Dorothy’s slippers were shown as silver in Wicked (Universal)
“Okay but how magical would it be if they actually did license the Ruby Slippers for the Wicked movies…” another added.
And after a multitude of others wondered why the decision had been made, one devoted fanatic of the franchise spilt the tea.
In fact, the Twitter user – who goes by the username @gothspiderbitch online – crafted a lengthy thread of tweets in order to explain the ‘real reason’, revealing ‘there are actually multiple’.
The long history of Dorothy’s ruby slippers
She began with the first and ‘most obvious’ reason, revealing that the original book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz – written by L. Frank Baum back in 1900 – contains both illustrations and descriptions of a pair of pointed white shoes with a Mary Jane-style buckle.
The fan then reminded viewers that the Judy Garland film was the very first movie to feature colour, and that this served as one of the reasons why producers wanted to include as much of it as possible.
“For the debut of this revolutionary Technicolor technology, MGM was pulling out all the stops,” she explained, adding that The Wizard of Oz was ‘their most expensive film to date’.
Frank Baum’s original book described the slippers as silver (George M. Hill Company)
“[They] wanted to showcase as much color as possible, and use it to the very best of their ability. Each individual hue was painstakingly selected, with the set designers spending over a week just deciding which precise shade of yellow paint to use on the brick road.”
Sharing a snap allegedly of the original 1939 script, the picture showed that the shoes were originally intended to be silver, but that producers had crossed out the colour and penned ‘ruby’ over it.
“In a film made to introduce the world to the magic of Technicolor, silver would look far too similar to black-and-white,” the fan went on.
“So to make the slippers stand out onscreen, they were later changed to ruby.”
She then went on to note that the Wizard of Oz’s costume designer Adrian Adolph Greenburg had originally crafted a pair of red shoes that were similar to that in those in the book, but that these were rejected by movie bosses, who reportedly wanted a ‘more “American” style’.
There’s another reason for Wicked producers’ choice, which the Twitter user described as ‘way less exciting’, though.
Dorothy wore red slippers in the original film (MGM)
You guessed it, good ol’ copyright.
She added that though Baum’s novel has been in the public domain since the 1950s, the 1939 film remains copyrighted until 2035.
“In 2011, a court ruling determined that while the story and characters created by L. Frank Baum are technically public domain, any aspects of those pre-existing characters that were created specifically for the film (or any other work) are protected by copyright.”
She continued: “Because the film isn’t an entirely faithful adaptation of the books, all those nifty little changes that I mentioned were made during production — like the choice to make Dorothy’s slippers ruby, or the ‘simpler’ style of the shoe — are protected under the film’s copyright.”
All of these reasons summarise why Wicked bosses changed the colour of Dorothy’s infamous shoes at the end of the movie.
The more you know, eh?
Featured Image Credit: Universal
Following the release of Wicked last week – which is actually a prequel to the 1939 fantasy flick – viewers were surprised to see just how many references there were to the original version, and how many modern day changes were made by director Jon M. Chu.
For those out of the loop with the film’s origins, Wicked is a loose adaptation of the 1995 Gregory Maguire novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, and an on-screen version of Stephen Schwartz’s Broadway banger of the same name.
As we say, the cinema success only bares a handful of resemblance to its predecessors.
The main difference is the sage green witch herself, of course, with a young and loveable Elphaba being the central character in Cynthia Erivo’s portrayal, and the evil antagonist in the older version.
Alternatively, where the actual Wizard hints at being slightly on the naughty side when he’s played by Frank Morgan, he’s actually full blown corrupt in the latest version which stars Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard.
Other changes were made due to copyright restrictions – like Dorothy’s famous slippers being silver in the new production, compared to the ruby pair that Judy Garland wore way back when.
The Munchkins in the Wizard of Oz (Warner Bros)
Unusually, however, viewers of Wicked and nostalgic fans of the Wizard of Oz will have noticed when watching the new movie that a conscious change has also been made to the portrayal of the Munchkins.
Throughout the award-winning franchise – which also includes the unofficial, controversial and downright eerie 1985 sequel, Return to Oz – the Munchkins had played a key role in the plot.
In the 1939 version, they assist with Dorothy’s search for the Wizard, and in Wicked, they’re predominantly represented by Boq, an attendee of the same high school as Elphaba and Glinda, the latter of whom he falls head over heels for.
What is most surprising about Boq is how different he appears compared to the actors from the 1939 movie, all of whom were played by actors with dwarfism.
Instead, the Munchkins in Wicked are based on Boq actor Ethan Slater’s likeness.
But why?
Well, the film’s director explained the decision: “We wanted [Boq] to come from a culture, and so we were trying to reinvent what a Munchkin is.”
Boq is played by Ethan Slater (Universal)
He went on: “In our eyes, Munchkin was not a size. We built the Munchkinland look around him, in a weird way—like this red-haired, fair-skinned type of character.”
Portrayed by Ariana’s real-life love interest, Boq’s character is seen becoming close to Nessarose in the new producion, Elphaba’s younger sister – who eventually becomes the Wicked Witch of the East. You know, the one that gets squashed by the falling house in the Wizard of Oz?
In Wicked, Boq becomes Nessarose’s assistant, who acts as a leader for the munchkin people and is later – spoiler! – goes on to become the Tin Man, who helps Dorothy to escape Oz in the Judy Garland version.
See, it all makes sense in the end.
Featured Image Credit: MGM/Amazon/Universal
The cinematic release of Wicked has plunged some viewers into a pool of nostalgia, with a handful claiming that the magical musical reminded them of a different, slightly more unnerving movie.
Part of the Wizard of Oz film series – despite being released almost a century later – the Cynthia Erivo/Ariana Grande hit serves a prequel to the events of Judy Garland’s 1939 original, in which the late Hollywood veteran plays Dorothy Gale.
Wicked centres on misunderstood schoolgirl Elphaba and her relationship with blonde beauty Glinda, who form an unexpected friendship when bunking together in boarding school.
Though Glinda frequently defends her friend when she is judged over the colour of her green skin, and Elphaba sees the heart behind her pal’s popularity, tensions eventually reach breaking point, and the duo go on to become Glinda the Good Witch, and the Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Oz.
The former assists Dorothy, the Tin Man, the Scarecrow, the Cowardly Lion’s, while the latter torments the foursome.
The Wizard of Oz was released in 1939 (Warner Bros)
Throughout the latest star-studded production, there are several references to events that are – chronologically – to come, including Dorothy’s slippers, bicycles and wheat fields.
What producers may not have expected, however, was that Wicked would also bring attention to another, largely unknown film from the series, which was released in 1985 as a sequel to the original flick.
Titled Return to Oz – and like the Judy Garland hit, was based on L. Frank Baum’s early 20th century Oz novels – the dark fantasy follow-up sees a Dorothy returning to Oz from Kansas to discover the kingdom has been conquered by the evil Nome King.
With the help of some newbies – including a chicken named Billina, a walking-talking clock called Tik-Tok, a fruit-headed being known as Jack Pumpkinhead and a creature called the Gump, the group eventually restore peace in Oz.
Return to Oz took on a whole new cast – with Fairuza Balk replacing Garland as Dorothy – and it utterly bombed when it came to its critical reception, having included several sinister features to its storyline.
Return to Oz came out in 1985 (Buena Vista)
Dorothy begins the film being taken to an insane asylum – with the events from the first film having sent her loopy – where she receives electric shock therapy, and later, she encounters some downright eerie looking critters.
Particularly horrifying were the Wheelers, creatures covered in wires who wheeled around spooking Dorothy.
There was also Mombi, who had an unnerving habit of swapping her head for one of the dozen or so she kept alive in glass cabinets.
That said, however, many Wicked viewers now claim that the new blockbuster contains aspects that remind them of the controversial Wizard of Oz sequel.
The Wheelers spooked a fair few kids (Buena Vista)
“All this talk about Wicked reminds me of how Return to Oz scared the living hell out of me as a kid. Anyone else?” one viewer penned on social media this week.
Another explained: “Sat here rewatching the Return to Oz and I don’t think we talk enough about how terrifying this film is – Why did my mum let me watch it at such a young age?”
“This film scared me as a child, I refuse to watch it as an adult bc of how much it traumatized me, lol,” a third confessed.
Mombi liked to swap heads (Buena Vista)
Another explained which elements really set them off: “A psychiatric hospital, a manic gang that are ‘the wheelers’ and a headless princess that keeps children’s heads.
“This ‘kids’ movie certainly isn’t for kids. I still find it absolutely terrifying, and I’m 29. Anyone find this film a scary ride?”
“Great horror movie,” another commented. “I saw this in the theaters in 2nd grade, and loved it. I was a sucker for horror even then and it blew my young mind how dark it was.”
“The gnome King who was terrified/ allergic to eggs was pretty scary,” another added.
Some Wicked viewers say it reminds them of the Return of Oz (Universal)
One viewer also continued: “I forget how creepy Return to Oz is, the wheelers!”
“Scares me witless but I also absolutely love it – The Wheelers especially freaked me out but I was kind of confused because my surname is Wheeler and I thought somehow that meant I was related to them,” another went on.
Maybe not one to show the kids, then.
Featured Image Credit: Universal/Buena Vista
Cameron Diaz is Back In Action – literally.
Alongside Jamie Foxx, the four-time Golden Globe nominated actress stars in Netflix‘s latest spy-comedy-thriller, which landed on the streaming service just last week – marking her first movie in over a decade.
But why did 52-year-old Diaz take such a lengthy step back from showbiz? And more importantly, what prompted her decision to come back?
Both of these questions the Hollywood heroine answered this week during an exclusive chat with Tyla, where she also spilt the tea on her personal life.
Prior to her latest project – in which she stars as a mother-of-two, who, with her husband, gave up a previous career as a CIA spy after becoming pregnant – Diaz’s last film was released in 2014.
That year, she featured in family musical Annie alongside Foxx – as well as romantic-comedies Sex Tape and The Other Woman – before seemingly disappearing until 2025.
It turns out that, during this time, she and her husband, Good Charlotte‘s Benji Madden, welcomed two beautiful babies in 2019 and 2024.
Apparently, it was the combination of motherhood, as well as the Covid-19 pandemic which gripped the world in 2020, that prompted Diaz to place her movie career.
After a while, she became complacent with the idea of turning down long hours on set, red carpet appearances and award shows.
Speaking to Tyla about her new project Back In Action, and why it served as the perfect opportunity to re-enter the film biz, she explained: “I had legit been taking 10 years off – wasn’t really thinking about doing a film.
Cameron Diaz previously took a 10-year-long break from showbiz (Tristar Media/WireImage)
“But after Covid and wanting to switch things up a little bit, when this script came to me via Jamie’s ask, my husband and I were like, ‘Maybe it’s time to have a little switch up’.
“And I thought, if I’m doing to do any movie at all, it would be with Jamie. Because talent, unmatched. Professionalism, unmatched. Partnership unmatched.”
Adding of the project, Diaz went on to confess: “And if I’m going to leave my house, and leave my family for 10 hours out of the day, I have to have guarantee that it’s going to be with somebody who is worth it.
“So, I said yes.”
Her explanation coincides with a statement she previously made about the gap in her resumé.
Speaking at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women Summit last year, she admitted: “It felt like something I had to do to reclaim my own life. And I just really didn’t care about anything else.
“Nobody’s opinion, nobody’s success, no one’s offer, no one’s anything could change my mind about my decision of taking care of myself and building the life that I really wanted to have.”
Diaz is also set to appear in Shrek 5 later this year (Tristar Media/WireImage)
The spy comedy isn’t the only project on Diaz’s roster this year, however, and it has since been confirmed by Dreamworks that she’s set to reprise her role as Princess Fiona for the fifth Shrek movie in the coming months.
Asked about her involvement, the actress told Tyla: “I mean, it’s Shrek 5. I don’t even know what the script is – I haven’t seen it, I don’t know what we’re doing – I’m just going to go back and be Fiona.
“I don’t say, ‘No’, to Fiona! Right?”
And spilling some behind the scenes goss, she went on to admit: “I’ve never known what the script is. I go in on the day that I’m recording, they give me a bunch of lines, and they say, ‘This is what you’re saying today’, and I go, ‘Oh, okay’.
“Honestly, the first Shrek, I just said the lines as they were. I didn’t even know what the story was. I never read the script. I never saw – all the way until the end. I think probably the first three recordings I made were, like, the film.”
Featured Image Credit: LADbible
Wicked fans are debating whether or not a ‘scratch’ was intentionally left in a song from the movie’s soundtrack, with some claiming they ‘can’t stand’ listening to it anymore.
Last November, the first part of Jon M. Chu’s seminal Wicked adaptation, starring Cynthia Erivo, 38, and Ariana Grande, 31, premiered in cinemas.
The fantasy film adapts the first act of Stephen Schwartz and Winnie Holzman’s award-winning stage musical, which in turn draws inspiration from Gregory Maguire’s 1995 novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the East, and of course, the Oz books series.
Wicked follows Elphaba Thropp, the Wicked Witch of the West (played by Erivo), and her unlikely friendship with Galinda Upland (Grande), who is set to become Glinda the Good.
One poignant scene in the movie musical sees Glinda cementing her friendship with Elphaba by promising to make her popular.
She believes that if she can make her new-found friend conform to established ideas of beauty, she will become more liked by her peers at Shiz University.
This heartfelt scene is captured through a comedic song aptly named ‘Popular’, and sees Ariana yodelling the title word, an ode to original Glinda actress Kristin Chenoweth, 56.
However, some people have expressed disappointment over Ariana’s version of the song, claiming they can’t help but hear a mistake ‘every single time’ they listen.
Comments came after a musician named Nicki Tedesco shared a clip of voice coach Tim Welch discussing the song in his recent YouTube video, titled ‘Let’s CELEBRATE & COMPARE ‘Popular’-WICKED: Ariana Grande and Kristin Chenoweth’.
The snippet sees the expert criticising editing software for impacting Ariana’s vocals during the song.
.jpg)
Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo performing ‘Popular’ during Wicked (Universal)
“Wait, there was something fishy in the jump up to ‘Popular’,” he began.
“It sounded like somebody messed up on the pitch-correcting and left a little scratchy digital artefact in there.”
After rewinding and playing the moment again, Tim called the peculiar sound a ‘scratch’ before claiming Ariana didn’t make the sound herself.
“Her chords don’t make that sound… they didn’t clean up that spot—her sound engineer missed that moment,” he explained.
“There is a little catch. That’s the sound that your pitch-correcting software makes when it doesn’t quite grab the note that it’s trying to correct accurately.”
Tim then branded the noise as an example of ‘bad sound engineering’, before praising the ‘warm quality’ Ariana brought to her voice in the musical film.
Nicki has shared Tim’s clip with her 3,497 Instagram followers, adding: “Thoughts on pitch correction? I’ve started veering in the opposite direction and trying to be ok with leaving my slightly flat notes because it’s NATURAL for me and I’m not a robot (sadly..) maybe someday.
“I still use it! But I’m not as mad about not being ‘perfect’.”
Her query has seen hundreds of Instagram users flocking to the comments to have their say, with some claiming the so-called scratch was ‘intentional’.
“Imagine saying that an intended yodel was an editing error,” one responded.
A second echoed: “You’re wrong. From someone who has tuned vocals for 20 years using pretty much every tuning software out, that is not what a tuning transition sounds like… that’s a yodel or as others said when your voice passes passagio (switch from full to falsetto).”
“The whole movie and soundtrack is polished with pitch correction software from Ariana, to Cynthia and everyone in between,” replied a third.
Others have been praising Tim for catching the blip, with another Instagram user typing: “Yes I have heard this every single time I hear the song and I’m surprised nobody else comments on it.
Some people believe the ‘scratch’ in the vocals was intentional (Universal)
“Same with when she does the aggressive ‘RIGHT’ the book slam is off beat and randomly pauses the sound.”
Someone else penned: “No need to replay I hear it every time I listen to the song. It’s like designing a flawless gown then spilling wine down the front.”
“So 11 instead of 12 Oscars?,” joked a third user.
“Yeah, I can’t stand every time I hear It too,” wrote someone else.
