I find Gone With The Wind better. I think it was well made and had excellent cast members and supporting cast. The characters were very well done also. Could you imagine how long it took to make Gone With The Wind? A long time.


The Wizard Of Oz on the other hand, I don't like. I just don't.

I'm a WIZARD OF OZ fan!

Once again I can't answer because I've never seen Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz only once in it's entirety.

I cant either but I do love The wizard of oz! (I have the original analog master of it (1983 VHS release (I believe the 1980 and 1983 releases are the only analog copies out there)))

If I could find a PURE copy of GONE WITH THE WIND I would watch it.. (All I can find is digitally altered copies and that is said to be A BEAUTIFUL MOVIE (All technicolour -- Very hard to make) and I wanna see it IN ANALOG!! (The way it was made)))

I cant either but I do love The wizard of oz! (I have the original analog master of it (1983 VHS release (I believe the 1980 and 1983 releases are the only analog copies out there)))

If I could find a PURE copy of GONE WITH THE WIND I would watch it.. (All I can find is digitally altered copies and that is said to be A BEAUTIFUL MOVIE (All technicolour -- Very hard to make) and I wanna see it IN ANALOG!! (The way it was made)))


Try buying the dvd of Gone With The Wind. I have the special box set and it only cost around $10

Impossible. Can't decide. However, O'Hara vs. Gale in a chick fight ? Gale, easily.

Both are fantastic and classics. They are the best in their own category. Having said that, I like both but am fanatical about the Wizard of Oz and collect books, dolls, photos, etc and I have it on both DVD and VHS. I have Gone With The Wind on DVD and have a doll (both inherited from my grandma who was a GWTW fanatic). Interesting I did have the book too like I have Wizard Of Oz but it got worn down.

I'm voting for Gone With The Wind. There is nothing better than Scarlett O'Hara.

I have to go with GWTW. "The wizard of Oz" is just a big borefest.

I cant either but I do love The wizard of oz! (I have the original analog master of it (1983 VHS release (I believe the 1980 and 1983 releases are the only analog copies out there)))

If I could find a PURE copy of GONE WITH THE WIND I would watch it.. (All I can find is digitally altered copies and that is said to be A BEAUTIFUL MOVIE (All technicolour -- Very hard to make) and I wanna see it IN ANALOG!! (The way it was made)))

Once again you're totally mistaken. Here you're talking old movies, and they were made on FILM. Just because you first watched analog television doesn't mean that's the way it was made. You can scream and kick your feet like a brat and it won't change the facts. Transferring film to VHS is not better than transferring to DVD or Blu ray.

PS: my Blu Ray of The Wizard of Oz, kicks the crap out of your remastered VHS LOL

This is a toughie! As an adult I will choose Gone With The Wind. A masterpiece!

Once again you're totally mistaken. Here you're talking old movies, and they were made on FILM. Just because you first watched analog television doesn't mean that's the way it was made. You can scream and kick your feet like a brat and it won't change the facts. Transferring film to VHS is not better than transferring to DVD or Blu ray.

PS: my Blu Ray of The Wizard of Oz, kicks the crap out of your remastered VHS LOL

The Blu-ray version is crap. Probably has the movie in High Definition which lowers the quality of viewing the film. I would rather watch it on a DVD or VHS like Dude111 rather than Blu-ray

The Wizard of Oz. Gone with the Wind has some great moments, but they're separated by tedious half hours.


Eh. I always thought The Wizard Of Oz was just too "childish" to me. Gone With The Wind seems more sophisticated in my opinion

The Blu-ray version is crap. Probably has the movie in High Definition which lowers the quality of viewing the film. I would rather watch it on a DVD or VHS like Dude111 rather than Blu-ray
You're entitled to like whatever you want, but your opinion about Blu Ray is crap and makes no sense - none! - FILM is not analog. Blu Ray captures more of what's on the film..

I prefer Wizard Of Oz rather than Gone With The Wind.

Gone With The Wind was kind of too tragic and boring.

Wizard Of Oz was kind of lively, but even if the dog screwed up in the end, this movie ended successfully.

I like them both. The Wizard Of Oz and Gone With The Wind are both classics in their own right. And I don't think you can compare the two because they're very different movies from each other. Lots of great movies were made that year. I'll admit I've seen The Wizard Of Oz a lot more times than Gone With The Wind though. Judy Garland singing Somewhere Over The Rainbow is one of the best performances on film ever.

Ed.

Nobody beats the Wizard of Oz.

Not nobody, not no how.

Nobody beats the Wizard of Oz.

Not nobody, not no how.


Gone With The Wind easily beats The Wizard Of Oz

But unfortunely Gone with the wind CANNOT BE EXPERIENCED IN ITS ORIGINAL ANALOG STATE (If one wants to) :( (Even on Videodisc (It has been digitally altered for stereo which will ruin it right there.....))

Wizard Of Oz. Gone with the Wind is all about War and Death, but Wizard is about fantasy and musical fun, and the death of only one person deserving of it, or 2, if you count the hag from the east. OMG!!! :eek: There is a WITCH underneath your house. Is she trying to fix your pipes?

Both are good movies but The Wizard of Oz is better.

But unfortunely Gone with the wind CANNOT BE EXPERIENCED IN ITS ORIGINAL ANALOG STATE (If one wants to) :( (Even on Videodisc (It has been digitally altered for stereo which will ruin it right there.....))

It's original state is FILM, not analog, and not analog film. :crazy:

The remastered Blu Ray kicks major butt over any other release of this movie and it's not even close.

Which is better, is simply based on taste, just like anyone that thinks VHS with it's low resolution on a cathode ray tube TV with their low refresh rates and low resolution is better than Blu ray on a HD TV LOL.... You don't need facts to back up your taste.

I enjoy The Wizard of Oz more...

Apples and Oranges.

They are both superior examples of storytelling and star power.

Both directed by the same man...:)

Apples and Oranges.

They are both superior examples of storytelling and star power.

Both directed by the same man...:)


Actually (and amazingly), the Wizard of Oz had five different directors, even though they did not get screen credit.

The Blu-ray version is crap. Probably has the movie in High Definition which lowers the quality of viewing the film. I would rather watch it on a DVD or VHS like Dude111 rather than Blu-ray

You're entitled to like whatever you want, but your opinion about Blu Ray is crap and makes no sense - none! - FILM is not analog. Blu Ray captures more of what's on the film..

...and just to set the record straight, which you know nothing about, Film is the highest definition still available.. lowering THAT quality is what happens when you transfer it to VHS. VHS is crap.

The remastered Blu Ray kicks major butt over any other release of this movie and it's not even close.

Well you can have your opinion.......

Well you can have your opinion.......

At least it's based on facts...

Wizard of Oz hands down.

I've seen Gone with the Wind and it's a great film in its own right but if we're to compare the two, I just prefer The Wizard of Oz.

...And I forgot to mention that the 75th Anniversary Blu Ray release includes the original MONO soundtrack.

Gone With The Wind would have been better had it had flying monkeys.

The Wizard Of Oz Always seemed childish to me. That's why I enjoy Gone With The Wind more. Gone With The Wind Was not childish or any of the like. It is a more sophisticated film if you ask me

If it's about a film being childish vs production and acting etc. Then Gone With The Wind is evil revisionism glorifying slavery. Ok so they diluted things from the novel and references to the Ku Klux Klan were excised. But the N word was changed to "darkie" and all the black characters were stereotyped acquiescent servants happy to do their “family’s” bidding even after emancipation.. This makes it a fantasy as much as The Wizard of Oz.

Please knock if off with the personal attacks. Members can debate all they want about films, what media you like better... but no attacks against each other.

Also, please keep PM discussions off of the boards. If anyone has a problem with anything here you can message me or a site Admin. and it will be looked into.

If it's about a film being childish vs production and acting etc. Then Gone With The Wind is evil revisionism glorifying slavery. Ok so they diluted things from the novel and references to the Ku Klux Klan were excised. But the N word was changed to "darkie" and all the black characters were stereotyped acquiescent servants happy to do their “family’s” bidding even after emancipation.. This makes it a fantasy as much as The Wizard of Oz.
Well, the novel was written by a Southern woman in the 1930s. So you can't expect it to live up to what's political correct now in 2016. But like you said yourself, the movie was good at removing a few offensive parts of the story. It would have been big deal back in 1939, that the "N" word was never used and that the KKK were never portrayed in any positive light... Neither can I see how the movie "glorified slavery". As a matter of fact, it was never going to be about the slaves at all. But if you ever watch the movie again, note how only three former slaves stayed with the O'Hara sisters at Tara. So there was no suggestion that all black characters were happy to be servants.

Well, the novel was written by a Southern woman in the 1930s. So you can't expect it to live up to what's political correct now in 2016. But like you said yourself, the movie was good at removing a few offensive parts of the story. It would have been big deal back in 1939, that the "N" word was never used and that the KKK were never portrayed in any positive light... Neither can I see how the movie "glorified slavery". As a matter of fact, it was never going to be about the slaves at all. But if you ever watch the movie again, note how only three former slaves stayed with the O'Hara sisters at Tara. So there was no suggestion that all black characters were happy to be servants.

It's starts with some tribute to the “grace and gallantry” of a vanished civilization “the age of chivalry.” The South was a “land of grace and plenty” - Oh, so owning slaves is an honor and all about morals and being nobel.. Sounds more like political correctness when you add up the facts. And that's revisionism.

After 3 hrs of watching this you never hear about the decisive results of the war - the abolition of slavery.. all you hear is Rhett Butler talk about how he values Mammy's respect, and Scarlett not being able to stand anyone's tears but the old man servant. And Scarlett being attacked by a black and a white, but sure enough it's the black who puts himself in great danger to save her. And the scene where the slaves were eager to help build defensive positions for Confederate soldiers outside of Atlanta sure sounds like revisionism since some 220,000 Negroes fought on the Northern side. All historical statements and implications of the film are false from the beginning to the end. No showing of the slaves in the field being terrorized to keep them in submission, but a slave foreman shouting "it's quitting time"... revisionism throughout... Slaveowners wanted to establish their domination over the country in order to shape its course for no other purpose than the maintenance of their rotting and reactionary system. The Northern industrialists, in that age progressive, crushed the South because the South was a check on capitalist production. And we won't even go outside the film about the revisionism some claim about the reasons for the Civil War. And I'm not against the film, actually, just bringing up some points to others calling The Wizard of Oz childish. Fantasies are fantasies, may yours be as pleasant :)

"Gone with the Wind."

It's starts with some tribute to the “grace and gallantry” of a vanished civilization “the age of chivalry.” The South was a “land of grace and plenty” - Oh, so owning slaves is an honor and all about morals and being nobel.. Sounds more like political correctness when you add up the facts. And that's revisionism.

After 3 hrs of watching this you never hear about the decisive results of the war - the abolition of slavery.. all you hear is Rhett Butler talk about how he values Mammy's respect, and Scarlett not being able to stand anyone's tears but the old man servant. And Scarlett being attacked by a black and a white, but sure enough it's the black who puts himself in great danger to save her. And the scene where the slaves were eager to help build defensive positions for Confederate soldiers outside of Atlanta sure sounds like revisionism since some 220,000 Negroes fought on the Northern side. All historical statements and implications of the film are false from the beginning to the end. No showing of the slaves in the field being terrorized to keep them in submission, but a slave foreman shouting "it's quitting time"... revisionism throughout... Slaveowners wanted to establish their domination over the country in order to shape its course for no other purpose than the maintenance of their rotting and reactionary system. The Northern industrialists, in that age progressive, crushed the South because the South was a check on capitalist production. And we won't even go outside the film about the revisionism some claim about the reasons for the Civil War. And I'm not against the film, actually, just bringing up some points to others calling The Wizard of Oz childish. Fantasies are fantasies, may yours be as pleasant :)
Yet again, the movie was made in 1939. And it was made from the perspective of the South, where people back then still believed (or at least wanted to believe) that the majority of the slaves had been happy with their situation. The movie was also never about the slaves in the first place, but it was mainly about Scarlett. Who was the daughter of a rich plantation owner, so I can see why some people today would have a hard time sympathizing with her. But we also have to remember that the character was based on Margaret Mitchell's own grandmother, and that is whom she wanted to write about and knew anything about.

Yes, things would be much different in a modern movie. There would be much more focus on the slaves and their situation, like there was in the TV show "North & South" from the 1980s. But for a movie made from such a strict Southern perspective back in 1939 (77 long years ago), I have to say that GWTW was indeed fair for its day. Hattie McDaniel who played Mammy (which was seen as a positive portrayal of a black woman back then) also happened to be the first black woman to win an Oscar, and she did that thanks to this movie.

Eh. You could say this about any movie.

Can't argue with that.

Yet again, the movie was made in 1939. And it was made from the perspective of the South, where people back then still believed (or at least wanted to believe) that the majority of the slaves had been happy with their situation. The movie was also never about the slaves in the first place, but it was mainly about Scarlett. Who was the daughter of a rich plantation owner, so I can see why some people today would have a hard time sympathizing with her. But we also have to remember that the character was based on Margaret Mitchell's own grandmother, and that is whom she wanted to write about and knew anything about.

Yes, things would be much different in a modern movie. There would be much more focus on the slaves and their situation, like there was in the TV show "North & South" from the 1980s. But for a movie made from such a strict Southern perspective back in 1939 (77 long years ago), I have to say that GWTW was indeed fair for its day. Hattie McDaniel who played Mammy (which was seen as a positive portrayal of a black woman back then) also happened to be the first black woman to win an Oscar, and she did that thanks to this movie.

I see it more like a Hollywood story cooked up for a 1930s audience - something women of the time could relate with.. Hollwood sex symbols headstrong in a male chauvinist time period. What happened to the myth of the sweet, innocent southern flower? And you mentioned the movie can't live up to what's politically correct today - but the political correctness was the film itself. The movie was released during the period of segregation, so telling the facts of the KKK would annoy elected officials that were actual members.

I do like the movie, but telling it from a southern perspective? to a degree - but a lot of Hollywood fantasy, and a good one at that ;)

Wow Mr. Munster its so good to see you :)

I am so sorry I made you mad,I thought you left the site..... I am so sorry,I really think your a nice guy.... Maybe we were both having a hard time then and took it out on each other..

I wonder how 1930s audiences liked Wizard of oz,that movie was made in 39 after all........ (Well the rough draft was made in 25 right?)

I see it more like a Hollywood story cooked up for a 1930s audience - something women of the time could relate with.. Hollwood sex symbols headstrong in a male chauvinist time period. What happened to the myth of the sweet, innocent southern flower? And you mentioned the movie can't live up to what's politically correct today - but the political correctness was the film itself. The movie was released during the period of segregation, so telling the facts of the KKK would annoy elected officials that were actual members.

I do like the movie, but telling it from a southern perspective? to a degree - but a lot of Hollywood fantasy, and a good one at that ;)
The movie was based on a novel, that had been written by a woman from Georgia. Who based it on her grandmother's life. So yes, this would be a story told from a Southern perspective... But the script writers for the movie toned down many questionable aspects (like the KKK bit), to make it more marketable for everybody.

Its not good when they do not as it makes it worse usually (Especially today in this idiotic P.C. world)

I wonder how 1930s audiences liked Wizard of oz,that movie was made in 39 after all.
As I have understood it, it failed to become a hit at the time. It seems to be only later generations, who loved it to bits and thought it was a "classic".

Hmmmmmm its surprising they couldnt see how good it is back then when everyones minds were thier own... (No one was compromised,etc)

Well, I found that movie to be a complete borefest. So I don't blame the audience back then for not drooling over it.

Wow Mr. Munster its so good to see you :)

I am so sorry I made you mad,I thought you left the site..... I am so sorry,I really think your a nice guy.... Maybe we were both having a hard time then and took it out on each other..

I wonder how 1930s audiences liked Wizard of oz,that movie was made in 39 after all........ (Well the rough draft was made in 25 right?)

No, you didn't make me mad even though you tried, and when I played the same game you got mad :) Let's agree top let it go.

The movie was based on a novel, that had been written by a woman from Georgia. Who based it on her grandmother's life. So yes, this would be a story told from a Southern perspective... But the script writers for the movie toned down many questionable aspects (like the KKK bit), to make it more marketable for everybody.

Then they must have "toned down" the typical southern woman..
It's Margret Mitchell's influence from Hollywood stars like Jean Harlow and Louise Brooks that clearly goes against the "Southern Flower". "Based on" does not a Scarlett make.. No more a fantasy than The Wizard of Oz.

The movie is good, but I do get bored. They toned it down because elected official were part of the KKK.

No, you didn't make me mad even though you tried, and when I played the same game you got mad :) Let's agree to let it go.Im glad your not mad at me Buddy :)

I did check out your site,looks quite nice!!

Im glad your not mad at me Buddy :)

I did check out your site,looks quite nice!!

You can always register and have your own private group or whatever. I can help you with a design you like also.. And a private group can be separate from all the rest, or can be one part of it.. and being your own group means YOU decide who can join, not me. Try it out and if you don't like it you can leave..

Been busy watching a lot of baseball recently :)

Wow Mr. Munster its so good to see you :)

I am so sorry I made you mad,I thought you left the site..... I am so sorry,I really think your a nice guy.... Maybe we were both having a hard time then and took it out on each other..

I wonder how 1930s audiences liked Wizard of oz,that movie was made in 39 after all........ (Well the rough draft was made in 25 right?)

"The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" novel written by Lyman Frank Baum, and published in the year 1900, was the "rough draft" that led to the Classic 1939 movie. Having loved the book, children wrote letters to Baum asking for follow-ups, so consequently, he released 13 novel sequels, none of which I have read. The oldest surviving film version is a 1910 silent, along with another silent version made in 1925 starring Larry Semon and Oliver Hardy. Longing to see the 1925 version for my favorite film comedian, Oliver Hardy, I bought it from Amazon.com, but nevertheless, it left no lasting memory. I also own the 1985 "Return to Oz" which many critics say is closer to the novel series than the 1939 movie version. All of that aside, the 1939 movie remains special to me the same way VHS tapes are special to you - and I have fond memories from long before VHS tapes existed, where you dropped what you were doing and came running as your mother called out to remind you about "The Wizard Of Oz" coming on. Now that's what I call a yearly event similar to Christmas or your birthday, and always came on after the return to school.

Neither one are my cup of tea! :(

Gone With The Wind, though I enjoyed it I've never had a desire to watch it a second time.

Wizard Of Oz on the other hand I've watched many times. It was a childhood favorite. And one of the films I introduced to my daughter when she was younger, and even introduced her to Return To Oz. (which I think she enjoyed even more) We even read all 14 of the books together, and some of the sequels written by other authors.

I've seen the silent versions, the 1939 remains the best. And it is true as far as my experience- Return To Oz is closer in tone and atmosphere to the books. The books are a great fantasy series, though I never read them as a kid, I'm glad I got to enjoy them with my daughter.

I so prefer "The Wiz" from 1978 over the 1939 borefest. How can I not when Michael Jackson is the scarecrow? :D

But I have also come to enjoy Diana Ross's portrayal of Dorothy, no matter how much people have complained at it. I like how they showed that adults can be insecure too, and I could relate to her being 24 years old and still not having a man in her life.

Thank you for all that about the Film Herman :)

Thank you for all that about the Film Herman :)


That was high resolution! :lol:

Now get your hands on "The Return To Oz" - another poster verified, at least in their opinion, that it's more faithful to the novels...

Ahh Muchos Gracious my friend :)

But unfortunely Gone with the wind CANNOT BE EXPERIENCED IN ITS ORIGINAL ANALOG STATE (If one wants to) :( (Even on Videodisc (It has been digitally altered for stereo which will ruin it right there.....))


My oh my LOL - Gone with the Wind is on FILM, not analog... and film is still the highest resolution available. VHS, DVD and even bluray can't capture what's on that original film.

I hear ya buddy..... But that movie was originally done IN ANALOG thats what I was saying....

Its nice to see you Herman,HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!