Between Wicked and The Sphere, Oz is having a really big moment right now. Let me back up before I start making jokes. Yesterday, I logged on to Twitter to talk about the upcoming NFL season and was met instead by a bunch of tweets of people arguing over The Wizard of Oz.

As it turns out, I had not been transported back in time, but was in the middle of something seemingly more insane.

The Sphere in Las Vegas is showing The Wizard of Oz, but they have enhanced the movie with AI to make some shots clearer, add background, change depth of field, add digital performances in expanding frames, and lots of other things.

It’s become the most divisive topic in film this week, so I want to unpack it today.

Let’s dive in.

The AI Wizard of Oz

The backlash from film purists centers on what many are calling a “desecration” of the original film’s artistic integrity, by adding AI performances from characters, expanding the frame, and outpainting other parts.

Basically, they used AI to generate new visual information to expand the film’s original 4:3 aspect ratio to fit the Sphere’s immense, wraparound screen.

This process has resulted in the creation of new footage and even the insertion of “extra” actors into scenes, performances the original cast never consented to.

It’s also not what the filmmakers intended.

And when AI was used to scrub some of the other shots, it added grass and changed depths of field, distorting the filmmaker’s intentions.

Now, critics argue that these alterations disrespect the creative vision of the film’s directors, cinematographers, and even actors with added performances.

The alteration of the original film grain has also been a massive point of contention, with lots of people feeling it strips the movie of its historical texture and warmth.

It’s like touching up the Mona Lisa because you think she looks too sad.

Here’s another insane thing: the movie’s runtime has been cut from its original 102 minutes to a condensed 75 minutes to accommodate more daily screenings.

This chop down, coupled with ticket prices reportedly starting at over $100, has further fueled the public’s perception of the event as a “gimmicky” cash grab rather than a respectful homage.

— (@)

Who’s For All This Stuff?

The debate on the internet has raged, with TCM’s Ben Mankiewicz actually coming out in favor of the AI edits, reasoning that it would bring more people to classical movies.

— (@)

Other proponents of the Sphere experience include Lorna Luft, daughter of Judy Garland, who defended the use of AI as a necessary and “ethical” tool to adapt the film for the technologically advanced venue.

The main AI argument is that the enhancements are respectful to the source material and will introduce a new generation to the timeless story.

Not only was AI used for this, but the experience will also feature 4D effects, such as vibrating seats and custom scents, fake wind, and other gimmicks to further immerse the audience.

To me, those gimmicks feel a little less intrusive than digitally altering a movie.

Summing It All Up

The whole debate raises broader ethical questions about the use of AI in the preservation and presentation of art, particularly when it involves altering the work of deceased artists without their consent.

I don’t see this as preservation at all, it’s more like an artistic recut of the movie, like if you had a song you wanted to remix.

I think if they billed it that way, people would be less upset.

When I was in college, I used to go to watch The Dark Side of Oz all the time, where they linked Pink Floyd up — I wasn’t upset at that, because it was like seeing two pieces of art being used to make something new.

But this is just a computer changing a movie to make money…that’s not art…that’s just unfettered capitalism run amok.

Let me know what you think in the comments.