Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

"O-Ee-Yah! Eoh-Ah!"

One thing that wasnt included was the "All we own, we owe her" bit that is used often in pop culture (simpsons, metallica , prince etc). I agree that there should be a plot and trivia section as well. Ktrosten April 8th

I've always heard the line as "all we are, we owe her", instead of "own". BUt I agree its worth mentioning. BethEnd 13:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Officially it's "O-ee-ya, eeohh-ah!" and is meant as kind of a "yo heave ho" soldiers' chant. I always heard it as "O-ri-oh, eeoohh-ah", and my college friends used to sing it "Oreo -- cookie!" (Totally off the subject: When Frodo, Sam and Gollum were shown in The Two Towers looking over the cliffs toward the Black Gate, I about fell off my seat, more to the point as it is not that way in the book. Then the Southrons came in from exactly the same angle as the Witch's guards with their very similar chant. Directorial manipulation of our heartstrings, and it got me but good. I was giggling and had tears in my eyes at the same time.) --Bluejay Young 23:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I got this off the IMDB trivia page: "There are many alleged lyrics to the "Winkie Chant" performed by the Witch's guards, including "All we own, we owe her", "Oh we love the old one", and "Oh we loathe the old one". However, the correct version, seen in the film's screenplay, is "O-Ee-Yah! Eoh-Ah!" and any other interpretations are simply the result of the listener's mind treating the chant as an audio ink blot." There you have it, and there it is. I love the phrase "audio ink blot". --Bluejay Young 20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The most interesting suggestion I've heard is from David Mirkin, Executive Producer for the Simpsons who claims that he understands the lyrics to be "All we own, we owe" which would make the lyric a comment on the depression and the debt so many Americans were plunged into at the time. Personally, I could never hear "we owe HER" but rather "we OOO-OWE". This reading is the only suggestion I've ever heard that sounds phonetically correct.

  • There is no shortage of folks willing to read something into something that isn't there. Maybe Mr. Mirkin (how would you like to go through life with that name?) also thinks he understands the closing song for WKRP in Cincinnati? Wahkeenah 12:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Characterization differences

In the "Differences from the book" section, I think mention should be made of a much more significant difference than those currently listed. In the movie, the scarecrow really is unintelligent, and the lion really is cowardly, etc., until the Wizard gives them tokens that would ordinarily not be expected to change them.

In the book, however, the scarecrow only _thinks_ he is unintelligent, the lion only _thinks_ he is cowardly, and the tin woodsman only _thinks_ that he needs a heart. As the story unfolds, the scarecrow thinks of clever solutions to their problems, the lion is quick to leap to their defense in the face of danger, and the woodsman explains that because he has no heart, he is careful to make a conscious effort to be kind and not hurt anyone.

Thus in the book, when the Wizard gives them the tokens, they are not changed, because they already had the very characteristics they sought! The ending of the book thus makes much more sense than that of the film. --Brouhaha 01:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the movie, there is at least some evidence that the 3 characters already had what they sought. It is best developed in the scarecrow. Right away he figures out how to get off the pole he was hung upon. He sees a way to get apples from the talking trees, by taunting them. He comes up with a plan to get Dorothy out of the castle. He sees the way to snare the witch's guards in the large candelabra, by chopping its suspending rope.
There was a scene cut from the movie, where the tin man is turned into a beehive, and then weeps when he accidentally harms a bee. In at least one point in the film, he cries when Dorothy is in serious danger.
The least developed is the lion, who shows fear at almost every turn. It is worth pointing out that he does stay with the group until the end, albeit with some coaxing, and when the wizard reneges on his promise near the end of the film, the lion is angrily growling at the wizard along with everyone else. Wahkeenah 08:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Names

According to Wikipedia's entry about the book, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the witch of the north is given a name. This entry about the movie says otherwise.

The Witch of the North is not named in the book. A name is given for her in one of the distant sequels, but that doesn't belong in the article on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. I'll fix it. AJD 13:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Pspeck 07:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

N-n of Red Brick Road

"Non-notable" means in this context "not among the article-sized collection of most valuable aspects of the topic". The article is about as big as it should get, and specialized articles on notable sub-topics need to be created if WP is to have more detail on this film. (As to notability of articles, participating in WP:VfD discussions is probably the best way to develop a feel for the concept.)
As to the RBR specifically, it is not the sort of thing that most viewers remember, nor is it important to understanding the film.
As to proper behavior on WP, implicitly stating the assumption that those who assess an aspect of the topic differently are less informed is a form of personal attack; such material is especially egregious when placed in an edit summary, rather than somewhere (e.g. here on the talk page) where it can be deprecated in various degrees if deemed necessary, instead of becoming a prominent part of the permanent record of the editing history.
--Jerzy·t 01:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Runtime question

Over at Wizard of Oz-Dark Side of the Moon Synchronicity we are puzzling over the fact that the USA version of the film is 101 minutes long, while the runtime on UK DVDs is 98 minutes. The simplest explanation offered is that the UK version simply speeds everything up by 3 percent or so, though I'm hardpressed to understand why anyone would do that. Do you guys here at the film site know anything about why the runtimes are different? --Archaic 17:12, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The differences in runtimes aren't arbitrary, but the result of technical differences between video systems. (Tech warning! I'll try to keep it as simple as possible.)
In the USA (also Canada, Japan, S. Korea and most of S. America) television uses the NTSC system which has a scanning rate of 30 frames per second (give or take a fraction). Film, running at 24 fps, has to be converted to 30 fps video using specialised techniques to make the motion appear smooth, but the speed stays the same.
The UK, along with Europe, Australia, New Zealand and China among others, uses the PAL system which uses 25 frames per second. Transferring film to PAL at 24 fps would involve showing every 24th frame twice, which would cause the on-screen movement to jerk once a second. To avoid this film is simply sped up to 25 fps so that each frame of film corresponds to one frame of video and the movement appears perfectly smooth. Hence the shorter running time. The pitch of the sound also increases noticeably, but nowadays that's often corrected digitally. Lee M 04:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Book vs. film section

I suggest that one should convert the section about differences between the book and the film into a table. It looks better that way to me. Any comments?? Georgia guy 02:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant prose is generally easier to appreciate, I think. Dave 23:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Article length

I disagree with the addition of the VeryLong warning box. I've seen plenty of similar articles just as long as this. True it's longer than the 32k recommendation but I don't consider it unwieldy, at least not yet. 23skidoo 20:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagree: I think it is unwieldy. I posted the VeryLong box because I felt users needed to be able to find the basic informtion on the plot and characters more quickly. These should be described far more succinctly, and all the exhaustive detail about the film's production (most of which is on the DVD documentaries anyway if anyone's desperate to find it) needs to be trimmed down or summarized. Lee M 16:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Any unwieldiness (if that's a word) can IMO by handled by simply reorganizing the article. I don't see much here that justifies separate articles. Remember Wikipedia is not paper. 23skidoo 18:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
As a followup to my earlier comment, might I ask how this article could be split up? There isn't really any precedent for movie articles to have breakout articles for plot, cast lists, etc. 23skidoo 19:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I clicked on the wrong link. Erm, yeah merge whatever your on about - I don't really care. Kingfish 17:29 3rd February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement, Maybe

I quote:

Dorothy goes after him, and the Wizard inadvertently lifts off in the balloon, unable to get back to the ground, and once again proving to be a humbug: "I can't come back! I don't know how it works!" Given that admission, it's anyone's guess how he might have found his way back to Kansas with girl and dog.

The wizard cannot find his way back to Kansas without the help of a gregarious 5th+ dimensional being, and there aren't many of those around. (I'm an exception.) Perhaps the editor did not realize that Oz is portrayed as a fictional dreamworld in the movie, while in the books an entire canon of Ozland exists. So the last sentence should be deleted as it is a benevolently added trivial musing, yet untrue. I'll get the statement in a week, and its little dog too. -207.241.244.1 20:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit POV, I'll agree, and inaccurate since Dorothy proceeds to wake up. I agree it should be deleted/reworded. Feel free. 23skidoo 23:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

too long

suggest spinning off plot and differences as separate article. As it is, it needs subheads throughout. Schweiwikist 00:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC) 3.25.06

Maybe the "Lyrics to lost scenes" could be made into its own article. Better yet, the "lost scenes" are described in detail on several websites, so the words could be linked instead of all written out again. --Bluejay Young 19:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ebsen question

60+ years after he has breathing problems due to Oz, he dies of pneumonia. This is ironic?Clarityfiend 17:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What is truly ironic is that Jack ("If I Only Had A Heart") Haley died of a heart attack in real life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.52 (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That Bolger 'felt that his "rubbery" dancing talents better suited the role of the Scarecrow' IS NOWHERE DOCUMENTED. This sounds like the writer projecting an assumption and then confabulating it in print. True, Bolger's dance moves fit the character perfectly, but I've never heard or read Bolger self-styling his dancing moves as "rubbery" or saying anything about how it makes for good scarecrow characterization via dance interp! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.51 (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hanged Man

Uhm, there's no original research allowed on the main page. But since this is 'Talk/Discussion', please let me sneak this one in: Yes, the image everyone spots is, indeed, a bird. But after repeated viewings, I have personally spotted a SECOND image in the forest scenes of a hanged body. Naturally, I think it's an optical illusion. :) User:Brother Lee Love 06:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe you could post a screen capture of it. Or are you just giving us the bird? Wahkeenah 01:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Um...what was a "large, emu-like bird" doing on the set? the "hanged man" story needs greater attention--I feel like what's written here is dismissive. I'm not convinced it's an urban myth.67.170.176.203 05:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't an emu, it was a peacock. And the "hanged man" story has been proven to be absolutely bogus and deserves no attention whatsoever. Wahkeenah 05:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It was a crane. There is also a peacock in the scene. Zoo animals were loaned for the set so that there would be animals in the forest. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
There ya go. In fact, when the movie was re-released to the big screen a few years ago, it was perfectly obvious that the background commotion was a bird flapping its wings, not a "hanging man". That rumor (or hoax) was started by folks who only had a small-screen version of the film and were misinterpreting what they were seeing. Wahkeenah 18:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

First color film seen by many children

Although the anonymous editor is quite correct that Oz was not the first Technicolor film by a longshot, I am certain that a lot of people have nonetheless cited it was the first color film they ever saw in the theatres (remember a lot of kids were unlikely to have gone to see Gone with the Wind). It would be nice if an Oz expert could provide a citation supporting this fact so we can put this statement back into the article. 23skidoo 22:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the article said "some" children... and that could apply to any movie, because the first color film a child sees will be the first one the child sees, if you get what I mean. Now, if comeone could cite evidence that it was the first one many had seen, that would be something. I forget if Gone With the Wind came out before or after Wizard, for example. If it were before, it's very possible some children saw it and it became their first color film... but given the adult-oriented themes of GWTW, probably not nearly as many whose first color film would have been Wizard. Wahkeenah 23:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
My parents were incredibly cheap, besides having bought into some lame theory about colour TV sets giving off harmful radiation. I watched this every year from '57 on, but never saw it in colour until I was past twenty. --Bluejay Young 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Over the Rainbow reprise

It seems the exact location in the film where the reprise of Over the Rainbow was orignally located can be easily determined, as some of the introductory music can be heard in the existing underscore of the film. While Dorothy is locked up in the Witch's Castle, after she has turned over the hourglass, listen closely to the underscore. You can easily hear the first few bars of Over the Rainbow before the underscore (and the film) abruptly cut to a different shot of Dorothy near the crystal ball. Maybe this is worth noting in the article? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 14:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free. I believe the DVD special edition specifies this as well. 23skidoo 15:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, does it? I haven't had a chance to watch all three discs yet. I'll add it to the article, though. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why no 1939 print on the web?

Given that this film has been in the public domain in Australia since 1989 [1] I'm curious as to why it hasn't appeared in its entirety on an Australian server. Any suggestions? Anyone with a copy feel like digitising it and posting it on the web in Australia? I gather editing (and possibly image enhancement???) count as copyrightable, so the version ripped would have to be the original (or a recent version with any new stuff reverted). I'm assuming it isn't already on the web since there is no link to it from the article. John Dalton 02:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hays office?

I'm much more interested in this statement in the IMDB trivia section for this film: "Frank Morgan posed for a test for The Wizard, made up to look as the Wizard looked in the book; this makeup was discarded and the final look was only reached after at least five more tries. The Wicked Witch has two eyes in the movie and only one eye in the book. In fact, Dorothy and her friends are the only characters who look like the ones in the book, because of changes having to do with the Hays Office." The Hays office??? What did they have to do with anything?! --Bluejay Young 20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't think the Hays Office had anything to do with it. Someone would have to find a real citation (and I'm becoming less and less impressed with IMDB as a source for trivia). The early constuming and makeup, to be blunt, just didn't look very good. They worked at it until they got it right. Wahkeenah 00:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Urban Legends

Why isn't there anything about the urban legends, such as the munchkin being hung after the encounter with the witch before they meet the cowardly lion, or the about the serial killer that was supposidly on the set during the shooting of the jitterbug scene

The first one is at the end of the Trivia section. I haven't heard of the second one. Val42 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hanging Munchkin? ... Proof it is not.

I have come across two videos that will prove that the supposed "haning man" is actually a brid's wing. Watch the thrid one on the list first. Then watch the second video. Finally, watch the scene in the actual movie.

"hanging munchkin" at youtube.com

User:Wittj

  • That merely reminds us of the fact that this legend was disproven years ago. Wahkeenah 02:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
yeah, i know it wasnt real, but my point was i thought it should be mentioned, just like the mr rogers legend about him being a marine sniper. - horrorfiend138
Mr. Rogers was a Marine sniper? Awesome! He probably wore a special sweater with a built-in flak jacket. Wahkeenah 03:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It's another hoax. It's on Snopes.com. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I know, but I had you wondering for a moment there. Let's see how long it takes for the flak jacket sweater idea to get added to the urban legend's story. :) Wahkeenah 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I learned that one a long time ago back when I read Snopes daily. --Scottandrewhutchins 06:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Kudos. Wahkeenah 06:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The important things we can learn from the article.

Re TRIVIA. The version of the Pythagorean theorem given by the Scarecrow in the film is apparently inaccurate. So I'm grateful that an attentive and learned Wikipedian has not only pointed out the inaccuracy in the trivia section of the article but has also informed mathematically less gifted readers like me what the Scarecrow should've said. Let us hope today's screen writers will draw a lesson from Edgar Allan Woolf's mistake.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not certain that it was a mistake. Some think the author was playing a joke "to see who was paying attention." Wahkeenah 13:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re JOKE. That can't be excluded, of course. But how would it then be possible for the author to see who was paying attention?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • By whether the cast and crew left it in the script, or revised it, or omitted it. Wahkeenah 14:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re LEFT. You mean, if it was left in the script unrevised, that would show that nobody had noticed it?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the point here is to show that even if you got a diploma, you can get things wrong.Mr.K. 18:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re SHOW. Why would anybody waste his time to point THAT out? And to the benefit of whom would he want to do so, Mr.K.?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

ELAC notice

Hi, with aims to improve Wikipedia, your page has been submitted to the Extra-Long Article Committee for page division. It is strongly suggested that the regular users here divide the article up into separate pages. If this does not occur in the coming weeks, this page will then be scheduled for committee involvement. Please comment at ELAC talk with concerns. Thanks: Philbertgray 14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Frank L. Baum coat Trivia

A fascinating story though more likely a publicity ploy of MGM that has since moved into urban legend. The actual story has never been proven, the coat was never shown by MGM to prove the story and the actual coat has never surfaced. Film historians dismiss it as typical publicity fodder. MGM said the coat was one of several pulled off a rack and one of several given to Frank Morgan for wardrobe tests. MGM further said the coat was selected because it looked appropriate and it fit Frank Morgan. Given that Frank L. Baum was a sickly 6' 1" (he suffered from extremely poor health throughout his adult life) and Frank Morgan was a portly 5' 10" it is extremely doubtful that the coat would have fit Frank Morgan "as is" as MGM claimed. Those "verifying" the story were all connected to MGM. The claim Frank L. Baum's widow identified the coat was also from MGMs publicity department. Frank's widow would have been 79 at the time and the coat would have been 20+ years old. That's a fair amount of time for an old lady to accurately identify an item of clothing worn by her husband at least two decades previously. Lastly the story quoted in this trivia section claims a cleaning tag with Franks name was found in the pocket, another example that points this to urban legend. Dry cleaners did not take a hold until 1926 when less harmful chemicals than kerosene (the standard to clean clothes at the time) were developed six years after Baum's death. This trivia item cannot be verified as anything other than myth. Philbertgray 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Next thing you'll be telling us is that there's no Santa Claus. :( Wahkeenah 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re SANTA CLAUS. You mean to say there isn't?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A scene from A Night at the Opera:

Groucho: That's in every contract. It's a sanity clause.
Chico: You can't fool me. There ain't no Sanity Claus!

Wahkeenah 13:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re SANITY CLAUS. Keep going. I wonder how long it will take until you're served an RFC.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re RFC. Correction: ... until I am served...--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Re SERVED? Again!?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, a Reserve in the RFC. Wahkeenah 10:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re LIKE Per Ardua ad Aspera, eh old chap.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • As opposed to E Pluribus Unum. Wahkeenah 13:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re PLURIBUS. Is this the one that Gus was told to hop on?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't need to discuss much. Just drop off-topic the key, Lee, and set yourself free. Wahkeenah 14:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re TOPIC. So let's get back to work. Given the fact that you consider this a suitable topic for discussion, you might want to explain now why a lady at 79 (or 92 for that matter) should NOT be able to accurately identify an old coat that her husband used to wear. And don't forget: In Baum's time, people didn't change their coats yet all that often.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not on Wikipedia to discuss hearsay. I gave up debating after high school. But, given that the average life span in 1920 was approximately 56 years, I'm amazed the old coot could even talk at 79. At this point in time no one will ever know the truth, but the facts fall heavily on the side of fabrication. Even the heirs of L. Frank Baum have publicly stated the story is most likely untrue. That's something one would think a family member would most likely pass on if it were true, along with the coat. There are enough interesting facts about "The Wizard of Oz" as is without relying on some probable urban legend. Philbertgray 19:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re DEBATING. A wise decision to have given it up after highschool, Philbertgray, and I hope that you will stick to it. Debating can only get you into trouble. For instance, somebody might point out that discussing hearsay is precisely what you are doing. Or someone might say that the intelligence displayed at any age has absolutely nothing to do with the average life span. And worst of all, you might get to hear that far from helping to debunk urban legends, weak arguments and faulty logic will actually reinforce any kind of myth or outright nonsense.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 11:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Philbertgray 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re WHATEVER. If you hadn't told us explicitly that you gave up debating after highschool, Philbertgray, I would have sworn that you are taking part in a debate right now. What's more, I would have complimented you on the rapid progress you're making as far as your debating skills are concerned. Whatever, as you woud say, I wish you a Merry Christmas.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. Philbertgray 13:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Revised plot

The plot was revised to cover the basic story without a specific description of each and every scene. This leaves the casual reader with enough information to understand the story and still enjoy the experience of seeing the film. The deleted scenes information was removed from the plot section since the scenes do not appear in the film. They will be added to the production information. The editing has lowered the article from 93 kilobytes to 58 which is closer to the Wikipedia standard of 32-54 kilobytes for an article. Philbertgray 21:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re REVISED. Great job, Philbertgray. Although I'm sorry that the section Differences between the film and the book had to go. All you'd have to explain now is why you feel that discussions of other differences, e.g. the one between the film and some "fumetti-style comic book series", are so important that they had to stay. Ah sorry, I forgot, you don't do debates. Well, whatever...--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Music info relocation

Their is extensive music information beyond what seems appropriate for a film article. It would seem better served and more easily located by adding an additional page for the music of the Wizard of Oz, including the popular culture music references. Philbertgray 08:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe you could also consolidate the many small articles about the individual songs into this one article. Unless that would add up to too large of an article, which is possible. Wahkeenah 08:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Good idea - will do so - thanks! Philbertgray 13:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Reinserted disambiguation to top of page

The Wikipedia Manual of style states:

Top links
When a user searches for a particular term, he or she may have something else in mind than what actually appears. In this case, a friendly link to the alternative article is placed at the top. For example, the article about Alexander the Great contains a link to the 1956 film Alexander the Great:
For the film of the same name, see Alexander the Great (1956 film).
For the film of the same name, see Alexander the Great (1956 film).
Which is generated by entering: {{For|the film of the same name|Alexander the Great (1956 film)}}.
Note that double brackets are not required within the template in order to generate the link.

Please do not remove. Philbertgray 15:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction

There have been several changes and a complete erase on this page today. Added page back in prior to some changes. Not sure what was appropriate and what was not due to the many changes over the last couple of days. If I eliminated anything that should not have been, sorry, please re-enter. Philbertgray 12:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

About the copyright

Will the copyright claim in this film ever expire? User:jonghyunchung 08:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not if Jack Valenti has his way with the Supreme Court. I was a claimant in Eldred v. Ashcroft, so I know what I am talking about. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Owning the rights to quotes

This quote "There's no place like home" is one of the well known quotes, but the studios, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Warner Bros. own the rights to this quote, meaning that films or movies from other studios cannot use this quote. --PJ Pete

Nonsense. The use of the phrase "there's no place like home" predates the film by at least 100 years: John Howard Payne wrote "Home, Sweet Home" in 1822. Plus, I'm not sure one can own copyright on such a short quote. In any case I'm sure it depends what use is made of it. --woggly 07:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Studios, other than MGM and WB, such as 20th Century Fox, Columbia, Paramount, and Universal are not allowed to use this quote, "there's no place like home" for whatever films they're producing. --PJ Pete

  • Based on what law or court ruling? Wahkeenah 01:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this an error?

When Glinda meets Dorothy she asks if she's a good witch or a bad witch. A few lines later, when Dorothy doesn't believe Glinda is a witch, she explains that only bad witches are ugly (and therefore she, as a good witch, can be pretty without breaking any witch rules). So... what kind of question was Glinda asking her? Are you pretty or ugly? I think a MAD TV sketch poked fun at this one time, but the error remains.. Dorothy's definitely pretty. ^_^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Intro sentence mangling

"The film continues to generate a cult following, despite its age, status as one of the most beloved feature films of all time and original creative intent as a musical cinematic fable for children. " - This is terrible english... will fix. Totnesmartin 19:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Done Totnesmartin 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Cap can be seen in the witch's hands when commanding the monkeys.

What "Golden Cap"? JayKeaton 00:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The "wishing cap" is what it actually was called. Also look where she says "Woe be to those who try to stop me!" and throws the cap. Unexplained in the film, obviously; it was simply there. Wahkeenah 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well it would have been nice if that was explained in the article where it mentions the Golden hat/wishing hat. Otherwise, it's like, a gold coloured hat? How is her holding that trivia. But knowing that parts were cut out explains it to the reader JayKeaton 04:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

subpage on Afd

The subpage The Wizard of Oz on television has been nominated for Afd. John Vandenberg 06:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Long awaited DVD?

The long-awaited first DVD release of the film was on March 26, 1997, and contained no special features or supplements.

Doesn't that make it one of the earliest DVD releases? How could it have been long awaited when DVD hadn't taken off big back then? Timrollpickering 13:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yearly Showing?

I think the yearly showing section is incomplete because while I dont' remember what channel ABC, CBS, or NBC I remember watching it every year as a kid in the 80's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

It was all a dream

I added to the section on differences from the novel, pointing out that the plot device of the dream, and all those characters from Kansas showing up in different form in Oz, was not in the book. (The 1925 version introduced the farmhand characters, I believe.) It amazes me that nobody put this in the section before; to me, it's the most obvious and fundamental difference between the book and the film. It certainly deserves mention. I still occasionally hear people who haven't read the book incorrectly attribute the "it was all a dream" device to Baum. (I actually think that Baum wrote an essay condemning the device in earlier literature; if so, he must have turned in his grave when the 1939 film applied the device to his own book.) marbeh raglaim 09:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

the article needs a MAJOR clean-up

Does anyone want to assist in upgrading the article to a GA or FA status? James Morton (User) 08:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rumor that the bird was edited in

A few years ago when I first heard about the urban legend that you can see a munchkin hang himself in the backround in one of the scenes I immediately hit the internet to get info on it. Snopes.com had an article about it and they even had a clip of the scene. The clip was black-and-white for some reason (this part of the movie is supposed to be color), but anyway I watched it and I remember seeing a few seconds of odd shadowy swinging-like movement in the backround, but it was too hard to make out what it was. Anyway I recently renewed my interested in this rumor and went back to the Snopes page to see that the clip I viewed years ago had been replaced with a high quality color version(1) from the DVD--and you can clearly see that it's a bird. However, although the clip I watched years ago wasn't in as good quality, there was definitely no bird there (I watched the clip from years ago over and over and over again). I came across numerous dialog on the internet about the bird having been editted into later versions of the film to materialize the cover-up story about how it was just a bird on the set.

1 This high quality version has since been replaced with a poor-quality Flash-encoded movie hosted at Photobucket--I guess I was using up too much bandwidth watching it over and over again ^__^

It has always been a bird. Even on a clear VHS copy you can tell it is a bird. I could tell it was a bird from the 1989 VHS edition ("50th Anniversary"). --Scottandrewhutchins 14:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dark Side of the Rainbow

So, here's the thing. Your edit is better sourced than "It is claimed...", but far less notable. That is to say, what is notable is that the "Dark Side of the Rainbow" effect exists at all, or is asserted to exist. It's not particularly notable that Turner Classic Movies decided to broadcast it. Do you see what I mean? AJD 13:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I copied your comment to this talk page (from my own) because I think that this is something of general concern to those editing this article. I see what you mean, but (from my understanding) another Wikipedia article can not be used as a source. There are issues that what is stated in one article needs to stand on its own in case the article referenced is changed (thereby invalidating the summary) or deleted. However, because I consider that you have made a valid point, I will restore the original intent without making it seem like a nebulous "It is claimed that ..." or some such. (Note that this means that I will be working on it after I make this post. Please give me some time.)
This rewording will only be able to stand a short time until someone else discovers it and also removes it or significantly alters it; the section in which it resides is already tagged for containing trivia. (Personally, I like trivia, but some people don't so they are tagging such sections in all articles as a warning for what I expect to be future removal.) Let's work on some sort of consensus with other editors of this article to arrive at some reasonable wording of this information. Val42 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is the original wording entered by AJD:
It is claimed that if The Wizard of Oz and Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon are played simultaneously, there are numerous moments at which the two works appear to correspond. This effect is known as "Dark Side of the Rainbow".
Here is the wording that I have recently changed it to (though the section in the actual article contains a reference):
Because of the "Dark Side of the Rainbow" effect (numerous moments at which the two works appear to correspond), Turner Classic Movies aired a version of The Wizard of Oz with Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon album as an alternate soundtrack.
I tried to work in as much of the original wording as possible while getting rid of the "It is claimed that...." I couldn't figure out how to explicitly tell people to see the Dark Side of the Rainbow article without it sounding awkward. Let's work on a consensus. Rather than editing the above text, please propose changes below. Once we get a consensus from those participating in this discussion, we will make the changes. Even incremental changes will work. Val42 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia, popular culture

It is important to note that this article is in dire need of help, especially in reference to the numerous trivial statements that make up the Trivia and ...in popular culture sections. This article is about the film, and therefore any old reference to Oz in popular culture do not belong here, but at The Wizard of Oz, and only then in the correct context. Any overt nod to the film is sufficient, but even then these sections are riddled with indiscriminate information (see WP:NOT). Trivia is supposed to be integrated into sections such as Production, Reception, and the like, and ...in popular culture sections and articles are currently being blasted and deleted at AfD right and left for their lack of encyclopedic content, so I greatly advise against separating the content into a new article (one such article is currently listed at AfD, by the way).

Therefore, if this article is to be improved and upgraded to GA status, and I believe it can be done, these sections need to be whittled down and then done away with. I've already made the first few cuts, and welcome suggestions on how to better integrate the relevant material. María (críticame) 20:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cast list

I deleted the (badly formatted) cast list, since the guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines seems to prefer discussion of major cast and roles in the production and plot sections respectively (which this article already has). If folks think that a full cast list really is necessary, please format it either as recommended at that guideline or in a table. (Also, if there is a full cast list someone else can determine how to list the Munchkins, who aren't individually credited in the original film. I assume that the IMDb listings are correct, but I'm not certain whether the article requires a full list of Munchkin actors or not.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Rumors" section

I deleted the following. It's already mentioned in the trivia section.

==Roumors==
it has been said that in the forrest scene after they pass the house if you look in the backround you can see what :appears to be a munchican hanging himself this has been proven false for three reasons 1. this scene was filmed before :the munchican scene 2.a munchican that was there didn't see anything and 3. keep watching the scene and you can see it :is really a bird.

Mark Foskey 17:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fable

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz cannot reasonably be described as a "fable". Please do not allow this edit to sneak back into the lead. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The March of the Winkies

Have any of you seen "Oh Brother Where Art Thou"? If so, what did you think of the similarities between the March tune of the Winkies and the music for the Klan dance? 4.249.198.211 23:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image about to be deleted??

I saw that this image from the article has been marked for deletion:

Image:WOO2.jpg

. Can anyone find its source and save it? Best regards -- Ssilvers 22:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OZ-07.jpg

Image:OZ-07.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Munchkin

ive been told that in 1 scene u can see a munchkin that hung himself, even if this isnt true will some one please put something up and get a pic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.114.115 (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't true. If you Google it you may find a pic, or maybe check Snopes, however one doesn't belong in this article. Collectonian 04:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth Strickfaden

Kenneth Strickfaden page has been started. He is one of the special effects artists responsible for Wizard of Oz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfgay (talk • contribs) 16:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Munchkins

How many actors who played the munchkins are still alive? -- Juve2000 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Last I heard, I believe it was down to seven. ---- Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Poor short people. Only seven. How many were in the movie, twenty or such? --LOOKIE MILK! (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Over 100. The ones who are now alive were under 18 at the time. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

cyclone vs. tornado

In American slang, "cyclone" was, and "twister" still is, synonymous with "tornado". In the film, the first two terms are used, while the correct term "tornado" is not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WOO3.jpg

Image:WOO3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Songs

I have eliminated the list of songs because I felt that it merely cluttered up this article. That list should be placed in the article Musical selections in The Wizard of Oz. AlbertSM (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)