It's a clash worthy of a pair of almighty witches.
The Walt Disney Co. struck it rich this past weekend with its "Wizard of Oz" prequel "Oz the Great and Powerful," selling $80.3 million in tickets domestically, which put it on track to become the most successful movie release of 2013 thus far.
But far from capping a three-year, $235-million production effort, the movie is shaping up to be the first shot in a battle between Disney and its Burbank rival Warner Bros., which owns rights to the iconic 1939 film but decided against producing its own reboot.
As Disney rolls out "Great and Powerful" around the world, it also plans a sequel and has high hopes for a merchandising line. Yet Warners, loath to watch a competitor cash in on one of its crown jewels, is trying to make up for lost time: it is planning an "Oz" cable TV show, a 3-D DVD re-release of the 1939 film and plenty of its own products.
PHOTOS: Scenes from 'Oz the Great and Powerful'
The fight over "Oz" bounty not only demonstrates the critical importance of a franchise in modern Hollywood but also raises the question — philosophically if not legally — of who should control the direction of one of the country's most cherished properties.
"It's in the great tradition of franchise movies with strange twists that ... the most successful execution of it [the 1939 film] isn't owned by the studio that now has a monster hit on its hands," said Marty Kaplan, a USC professor of media and entertainment who was once a writer and production executive at Disney, adding, "The competitive juices are flowing."
The battle is given a sexy extra dimension because, since June, Disney's studio operation has been run by Alan Horn, the longtime president of Warner Bros who was ousted in 2011. At Warners, Horn in fact passed on an "Oz" reboot — a nonmusical version of Dorothy's adventures on the yellow brick road that was to be directed by fan favorite Guillermo del Toro — before arriving at Disney to steer this film, which was then in postproduction but would require a significant amount of reshoots.
Through a spokesperson, Horn declined to comment on his studio's movie. But Disney production chief Sean Bailey sought to downplay the Disney-Warner Bros. angle: "I don't want to read too much into [it]," he said. "When we started on this road and throughout we thought, 'This was a big, amazing world with so many directions to explore.' We thought it was worthy of further exploration. I think it is as simple as that."
At the time that Disney began moving forward with "Oz" in 2010 (basing its movie on original ideas and on Baum's books, which are in the public domain) Warner Bros. had no fewer than three Oz films in the pipeline. (The company came to acquire rights to the original "The Wizard of Oz" when it merged with Turner in 1996; that company had acquired the early MGM library a decade before.)
There was a sequel titled "Oz: The Return to Emerald City," about Dorothy's granddaughter returning to Oz to fight new evil and written by "A History of Violence" scribe Josh Olson; "Surrender Dorothy," a modern-day spin on the tale that was set up with Drew Barrymore's production company; and "The Wizard of Oz," Del Toro's nonmusical version penned by "Shrek Forever After" writer Darren Lemke and set to be produced by the company behind the "Twilight" films.
The latter achieved momentum after "Hellboy" director Del Toro dropped off New Line/Warner Bros.' adaptation of "The Hobbit" and executives approached him about taking on the new "Wizard of Oz." The project even reached a Horn-led "greenlight committee" at Warner Bros., according to a person familiar with the discussions who asked not to be identified because the person was not authorized to talk about them publicly. But the company opted not to make it for reasons that appeared to be both creative (it's not easy tackling a classic) and, given the progress of Disney's efforts, competitive.