I just recently watched "Oz", and the whole thing has me thinking about time dilation, for some reason. The opening of both movies seem to be in roughly the same time period, I'd say 1890 to 1910, with "Wizard of Oz" happening at the latter portion of the time frame. However, when Dorothy travel's to Oz, the Wizard is an old, wizened man. You'll also notice that Glinda seems to have aged only barely.

So my question is, does time in Oz affect humans differently from its natural inhabitants?


I took Oz The Great And Powerful to be set much earlier than The Wizard of Oz. If you take Oz to be set at the time when it was made in 1939, and Oz-TGAP to be set when you were suggesting, around 1900, that gives you about a forty year difference. This would account for the difference in the Wizard. The Wizard, being from our world, would age as we would expect. Glinda (and the Wicked Witch, for that matter) might age differently if for any other reason than being witches (speculation on my part). One of the purposes of the newer movie was to provide back story for the witches and the Wizard. With this in mind, it would make sense that the Wizard would have aged. To answer your question, I think there could be an aging difference here, but I don't think it would be due to time dilation, though, or anything inherent within the Land itself.

  • You are essentially correct, except for the fact that the people who made the movie screwed up the entire story in important and fundamental ways. – Donald.McLean Nov 6 '13 at 14:33
  • @Donald.McLean ... Care to expound? – Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 Nov 6 '13 at 15:12
  • The most important point is that L Frank Baum was a fervent supporter of women's suffrage and that pretty much all of his major female characters were strong and independent. Glinda certainly would not need a non-magical humbug to save the day - she was quite capable in her own right, and demonstrated that fact in the books. – Donald.McLean Nov 6 '13 at 15:19
  • @Donald.McLean ... That's fine, but what does that have to do with the question at large? Mind you, I'm not trying to badger you, just trying to find where you believe I went wrong in my analysis. Remember, this is a movie site, not a literature site and we are not comparing the book to either movie, but movie-to-movie instead. If the book(s) provide insight into the movie, though, please explain. – Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 Nov 6 '13 at 15:32
  • 2
    Actually, there is nothing wrong with your analysis. My comments are orthogonal to everything that you said. – Donald.McLean Nov 6 '13 at 15:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .