Okay, I'm not sure if this little example actually works in the context it's been placed.
"Arguably the case with Return to Oz. It is, by far, the truest Oz movie ever (truer than the 1982 movie), but it also lacks the enduring charm of the 1939 movie."
This was pasted under the example for The Wizard of Oz, comparing the 1982 animated version and the 1939 classic. I'm not sure if it fits, because Return to Oz isn't an adaptation of the original book, but combines elements from the second and third Oz books, The Land of Oz (also called The Marvelous Land of Oz) and Ozma of Oz. (Return to Oz, while it deviates greatly from both of those books, is still Truer to the Text than the animated film Journey Back To Oz with Liza Minelli as Dorothy, which also draws heavily from The Land of Oz). However, due to my uncertainty over whether or not it fits, I'm leaving it there unaltered (though whether it's the truest Oz movie ever is, of course, a very subjective point). Chris Lang (talk) 11:34, July 19, 2019 (UTC)
Being an upset 'Return to Oz' fan does not give one the right to disqualify all Oz examples[]
I've put back the 1982 animated Wizard of Oz example, as it IS a valid example of this trope. This trope is about a 'Truer to the Text' adaptation of a work that isn't as beloved as a previous adaptation that wasn't quite as true to the text.
The stated reason for removing it is NOT a valid reason. Let me quote the stated reason below.
[quote] "Return to Oz" is the truest of ALL Oz adaptations, obscure animated adaptations included. If you are not allowing "Return to Oz" in this page, then don't bring up Oz adaptations at all [quote]
As stated previously, Return to Oz is NOT an adaptation of 'The Wizard of Oz'. It's an adaptation of its SEQUELS. So therefore if it's to be included on this page, it must be compared to another adaptation of 'The Land of Oz' and 'Ozma of Oz' that came before or after it.
Just because one editor is a huge fan of 'Return to Oz' (and don't get me wrong, I liked the movie even though it DID take a lot of liberties with the original books), that doesn't give them the right to disqualify Oz examples from this page just because they were upset at their example being questioned and/or removed. Examples should ONLY be removed if they're not valid examples of the trope and/or are inaccurate. Your removal of the 1982 Wizard of Oz example was clearly a knee-jerk overreaction. Chris Lang (talk) 02:36, November 26, 2019 (UTC)
You are being overly pedantic here, and focusing on the details rather than the big picture. Return to Oz, in EVERY single other part in the internet, and in real life, gets compared to the 1939 movie. THAT is the issue here. I don't care about semantics regarding its status as a sequel, I only care that the more well known adaptations of Oz are Return to Oz and the 1939 movie. No one knows about Journey Back to Oz, and it's not gonna come up in casual conversation.
Point being: if Return to Oz is gonna be in this page, the comparison HAS to be to the 1939 movie, pointless pendantry be damned.
King Phelous (talk) 17:06, November 26, 2019 (UTC)
I'm bringing back your changes just to avoid another shitstorm, like the one that happened over Newcomer Scrappy originally being named "The Captain Marvel". This issue is OVER.
King Phelous (talk) 17:39, November 26, 2019 (UTC)
Trope Name?[]
The name of this trope requires the browser to know offhand/recognize two actors by last name only, connect them to the book adaptations they have in common, that the Gene Wilder Charlie is considered a better movie than the Johnny Depp Charlie (which, YMMV, I agree but Depp's no doubt has followers), and understand that "Wilder Over Depp" is related to a Truer to the Text adaptation being viewed as inferior as an earlier, more independent version. That is a LOT of burden for three words to carry.
A better name for this trope would be something along the lines of "Better Than The Text," to make its name reflect the trope it's the opposite of. Other suggestions are welcome. The current name is just too non-indicative; as it is right now, it sounds like it's about two actors playing the same character and one being better than the other.
- I agree. This is a case where naming a trope after a specific piece of media is too narrow, the Willy Wonka movies are obviously just one of many examples. It'd be like calling it "2003 over Brotherhood" or "Kubrick over Mick Garris". User:CykesWoods 20:16, March 8th, 2025 (EST)
- Seconded. This is a textbook case of Trope Namer Syndrome. But I think a trope named after an opinion is also a really bad idea. What happens if public opinion shifts in favour of the 2005 film? Does the trope get renamed or does it reflect those who preferred the original adaptation? TimeLord11 (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. This is a case where naming a trope after a specific piece of media is too narrow, the Willy Wonka movies are obviously just one of many examples. It'd be like calling it "2003 over Brotherhood" or "Kubrick over Mick Garris". User:CykesWoods 20:16, March 8th, 2025 (EST)