Talk:The Wizard of Oz/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about The Wizard of Oz. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"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)

Are You Being Served? Wahkeenah 00:56, 13 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:

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:

File: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. AnmaFinotera 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)

Re-jig?

I think this article needs to be re-jigged. Most people who visit the page will have a good knowledge of the plot. The plot is currently given a lot of space with a large amount of trivia dotted through it. So, those who know the film well have to wade through the plot outline to get the trivia they might not already know. It would work better divided properly into "plot" and "trivia". --Joff - 11 am Australian time 13 March 2006

I agree that the plot section should be shortened, but Wikipedia style guidelines discourage trivia sections. I think we could get this article to FA-status, no question. MOS:FILM says that movie articles should have a lead section, a plot section, a development/production section, a cast list of the major characters, a reception/awards section, a soundtrack section, references, and external links.

SunDragon34 (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I (never having seen the movie) think I cleaned up the plot section a bit, someone should check if I got the (scarecrow|tin man|lion) actor names right though.

It looks like the plot section still needs to lose about half its length though (1094 words atm).

82.75.71.241 (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Does anybody know how often this page gets vandalized? If it is often, then I feel it might be a candidate for Semi-protection. Purplewowies (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My Plans

I am planning on editting the Wizard of Oz page of the next few days. I am going to take everything that has been said on this page into consideration. I also plan on editing the Music sections by adding the Song list. Let me know any more edits you think should be made (KylieSchantz (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Confusing typo?

Am I mistaken or is the line:

Initially, The Wizard of Oz was considered a commercial success in relation to what was then considered its enormous budget, although it made a small profit and received largely favorable reviews.

...actually supposed to read:

Initially, The Wizard of Oz was not considered a commercial success in relation to what was then considered its enormous budget, although it made a small profit and received largely favorable reviews.

That seems to make not only the sentence but the entire paragraph make more sense. Patricia Meadows (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I added it back because I'm almost certain that's how it used to be and you're right that it makes sense. I guess it was some vandalism that never got reverted. If I'm wrong, please revert and say why! --Tombomp (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Among the top ten best movies of all-time?

Apart from the (I think deservered) [citation needed] tag, why does the fourth paragraph even link to Films_considered_the_greatest_ever? This movie isn't even mentioned on that page. 82.75.71.241 (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This really happened!

Okay people, this really happened, young people believe this. but i have no proof except "eye witness accounts" the extended version of the ending, where Dorothy finds her shoes. Older people know what I am talking about, the movie was cut at the ending after 1969 or maybe the 1970s, my mother and grandmother distinctly remember this. Does anyone have this remaining video!? i would love to see it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.8.113.169 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont think your talking about the 1939 film,however I do remember it in a Wizard of Oz show.I cant remember the name however Im pretty sure it wasnt this particular film.--208.100.226.89 (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That was definitely a 60's TV version - not sure which one. I remember seeing it as well. It was never a part of the 1939 film. The only part that was cut from the ending was an extended sequence of clips while Dorothy is repeating "There's No Place Like Home" and clicking her heels, right before she wakes up in Kansas. The soundtrack for this sequence is included in the extented 2-CD Rhino Records edition of the soundtrack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.127.189 (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we know the orchestrator for "Over the Rainbow"?

Given that this is such a famous song (voted No. 1 by Recording Industry for 20th century), can someone please verify who was the orchestrator of the film version? It might be on the liner notes for the various CD deluxe editions that have come out or perhaps in Fordin's book on the Freed unit. Imdb.com lists about 3 other orchestrators apart from the musical director.GBS2 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The log sheets for the pre-recording sessions (as shown in the booklet to the Rhino Records 2-CD set of the soundtrack) show that the song was composed and arranged by Harold Arlen, and the orchestra was conducted that day by Murray Cutter. Conrad Salinger and Murray Cutter took turns conducting the orchestra for the various song pre-recordings, with Cutter conducting for most. The orchestrations were actually composed and arranged by both Harold Arlen (who wrote the music for the songs) and Herbert Stothart (who composed the bulk of the background scoring). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.127.189 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the Wikipedia article The Making of The Wizard of Oz should be merged here. That article is not about the making of the film; it is an article that deals with a book written about the making of the film. As such, it is a completely different topic. AlbertSM (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't someone commit suicide in one of the scenes?

I heard somewhere that you can see an actor committing suicide at the end of the scene where they find the tin man. When the camera points up, you will see it, man. I think that this should be added to the article, or something. Beanmaster13 (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Untrue. Here's a video from TV Land's Myths and Legends. It was a bird.

Agreed, that is an urban legend and you can easily see by watching the scene that it's a large crane or stork-like bird.

Live! On Stage!

You'd think that a production starring Elton John, Bill Cosby, Jay Leno, James Earl Jones, and Julia Roberts would have more references on the Internet, or at least a citation.Pete Ashdown (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

I can find no mention of the above (Elton et al). This is most likely false. Elton does have a song called Scarecrow but the length of time mentioned (all but 2004 in a span of more than 10 years) makes it improbable if not impossible for those stars to have been on a road version of the Wizard of Oz. It should be deleted. It's not about the 1939 film in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.102.195 (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 68.32.9.140 (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed contributory copyright infringement: please do not link to pirated hostings. Durova^Charge! 06:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Academey Award Nominations

It would be nice to have a list of the Nominations, for the film. I found one at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0148114.html however I do not know if it is complete or correct. They listed: Outstanding Production (before best picture?), Color, Art Direction, Song (Winner), Original Score (Winner) , Special Effects —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.117.119 (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Drug References?

Does anyone have any info re the supposed drug references in the movie? The scene where Dorothy and Lion fall asleep in the poppy field (morphine) and are awakened by the snow (cocaine) is pretty obvious but what about the other ref's?Dcrasno (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that was the intention of the filmmakers. More likely the assertions of provocateurs and malcontent viewers.Booksrule9 (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Gay reaction Camp

"Film of 1939 delighting children, those young at heart, and queer-identified persons, especially gay men, for generations. The film stars Judy Garland, a gay icon.... A number of gay anaylses of the film, most notably that by Jungian writer Robert Hopcke that while this sentimental film is appreciated by many individuals, it holds a special resonance for queer-identified persons in juxtaposing everyday reality, ie homophobic, lesbophobic, biphobic, and transgenderphobic reality, represented by Kansas, to a magical land of acceptance....Queer-identified persons discover kinship in a majority of the characters [description of charaacters and why they are identified with]....When the film is shown in a theatre, like the Castro theatre in SF, it is transformed into a rite celebrating acceptance and community. "^[1]

Also (another source):

"In recent years,queer people have begun reading texts as queer even when messages were not (consciously) encrypted by their authors. This kind of "cross-reading", according to Creekmur and Doty, in their introduction to Out in Culture, depends on camp. They eyplained the queer resonance that the movie The Wizard of Oz has for gay men and lesbians by pointing out that almost everyone in thefilm lives a double life: "It's emotionally confused and oppressed teenage heroine longs for a world in which her inner desires can be expressed freely and fully. Dorothy finds this world in a technocolor land 'over the rainbow' inhabitied by a sissy lion, an artifical man who cannot stop crying, and a butch femme-couple of witches".^[2]

I've just put these on the talk page for now. If no-one else gets to it, it write it up as a section on monday (no time now - job interview!)YobMod 06:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What purpose does this section serve? Why does everyone have to sneak in a gay agenda for every article about a cultural icon, or a gifted personality, even those that can do fine without it?

If someone wants to talk about a gay subtext for The Wizard of Oz, one of the most beloved films ever made, let them write a new article about it, but don't add it to this one. AlbertSM (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Releases

I moved the statement "On September 23, 2009, the film will be re-released in select theaters for a one-night only event in honor of the film's 70th Anniversary. This event will also mark the first time the film will be shown in High-Definition." from the theatrical release section to the video release section.

I also added the word video on the end of High-Definition to accentuate the distinction - perhaps it's just a pet peeve of mine, but some people have got it in their mind and are willing to believe that HD is somehow higher resolution than film. The current Blu-ray edition was scanned at 8K and as technology moves along it will someday be restored and re-scanned at 16K, then 32 and so on. The thing is, is that film is analog and no matter where you look on a particular frame or how much you zoom in, there is information there. Not so with video (even HD). It is digital an therefore uses pixels and no matter how fine the pixels are there is still a lack of information between pixels. That's why there's the need for ever higher resolution. HD is just video trying to catch up with film and it's still not there.

The event having just gone by, I moved the statement to the 'Theatrical' chapter and updated it. I'll see about updating it a bit more, having attended a showing and being rather inspired! Jusda fax 07:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The theatrical re-release is a promo for the Blu-ray that's why I felt it should be in the video release section. It's sort of like when a band goes on Letterman to promote a new album, not everyone is able to attend the performance on Letterman but the more important thing is that you can buy the album they're promoting.

Agree and done. Actually it belongs in both places. I've also added some paragraph breaks to section to improve the readability. Jusda fax 18:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know

if this film was the first ever to feature shots that (apparently) had both B&W and color in them, such as the scene where Auntie Em appears in the crystal ball in the Witch's castle? marbeh raglaim (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding Judy Room OZ section link

Hi!

I have been advised by Leuko to use this forum to request that the link to my OZ site be added. I was originally adding it to this article, and the articles about the principle players, but was tagged as spam.

My site (http://www.thejudyroom.com/oz/index.html) is the most comprehensive site on the web that pertains solely to the 1939 film version. Other sites include information about the books and other adaptations that do not pertain to this article. My site (or "sub site"), in free to everyone, and includes very detailed information, data, photos and media pertaining to the history of the 1939 film, the making of the film, it's legacy, and so on.

I am definitely not making any money from it at all. I am not merchandising any product. I'm merely trying to give fans of the 1939 film the most comprehensive and complete information available. It would be a wonderful addition to this article. It's much more relevant to this article than the IMDB, Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, and even the Warner Bros. "official" site. All of those ARE sites that are selling something, and are on all of the articles about this film and any other classic film. And most merely have a page or two about the film. My site is much more relevant and complete.

Please take a look at my OZ site, and consider its inclusion in the links portion of the article. I'm sure you'll see that it would be a great addition for readers to find out more about the film.

Thanks in advance! And I'm sorry for any confusion. I really wasn't trying to "spam" - I though I was merely adding pertinent info to the pages! :)

Scott B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozianscott (talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Economic allegory section

That could be relevant to the original book, but is not particularly relevant to the movie. AnonMoos (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

About cleaning up

I'm just an anonymous contributor and admirer of the Wikipedia. I strongly believe that the "Errors" section belong to the film and should remain here in this article, with a title of its own. But let's be realistic about the trivia section: how many movies / stories have influenced that much our world cultures as a whole? And I mean plural because I'm Brazilian, and the impact is huge in any place I've ever been to. So, "The Wizard of Oz_(influence)" or something down that line (I honestly don't like my own idea for the name) should be moved to a whole new entry, with a link from this article and a small section saying exactly that: impact was and continues to be immense, so there's a whole entry dealing only with that. And it's been huge indeed. The moving is completely justifiable in many fields, and let's face it, the amount of items in that section won't get cleaned - they will grow larger than it is now. And it should, as Wikipedia should inform us about all possible (and meaningful) influences of the film everywhere else for our reference.

I agree because the LGBT section seems like it can be confused easily. It was never the creator's intent to express homosexual ideals. Regardless of the widespread acceptance of this interpretation, I feel that it is presumptuous to include it as such a predominant part of the main article. That would be like making a mention in the article of every female celebrity ever impersonated, in drag, by a male. I just think it's inappropriate to attach this as if it's part of the film's original intent. Include the information, but please move it to an "influence" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.180.163 (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yellow brick road

A minor note, but let's be a consistent encyclopedia here: The intro has a wiki-link to 'Yellow brick road', with yellow not capitalized. The linked article is capitalized, however, as seen in the linked title of this talk section. Further down, in the 'Color and sepia' section, it's Yellow Brick Road, etc. etc. Personally, I believe the right way to do it is to change the 'Yellow brick road' article title to Yellow Brick Road, then make the mentions of the Yellow Brick Road (and links) on this article all use that standard. I await other editor input here. Jusdafax 07:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Question about the color

In the old version of this talk page, now archived, a question was asked but never answered. I'd like to re-post the question (though it isn't mine), since I'd be interested to know the answer if anyone has it:

Does anyone know if this film was the first ever to feature shots that (apparently) had both B&W and color in them, such as the scene where Auntie Em appears in the crystal ball in the Witch's castle? marbeh raglaim (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Block quote

I haven't seen this picture in many years, but I think I remember the shot this poster refers to. Although I know nothing about it, I do know a little about Technicolor, and I don't believe it would have been possible to actually mix b&w with it in the same frame in 1939, so I think the effect must have been achieved with set design, as the poster seems to suggest. Similar work was done where Dorothy opens the door onto the over-the-rainbow color world. The opening sequences of the film having been printed in sepia, it was a simple matter of finding the right shade of brown for the door so that its reproduction in full color would appear the same as its reproduction in sepia. Thus, in that instant during which the door is opened, b&w and color seem to appear in the same frame, but it's really all Technicolor.

Even as late as (about) 1948, I think it would not have been possible to pull off that technical trick using an actual mixture of b&w with color in the same frame, because if an acceptable method of doing it had been devised by that time, then the Margaret O'Brien version of 'The Secret Garden' almost certainly would have used it. Berberry (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The effect of Auntie Em appearing in sepia inside the Wicked Witch of the West's crystal ball was achieved by virtue of the fact that the ball was actually a miniature movie screen. A brief sepia-colored film of Auntie Em calling out to Dorothy was made and projected onto the ball while the actual scene with Dorothy was filmed in Technicolor. That's how they achieved sepia and Technicolor in the same scene. AlbertSM (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to this question, 'The Photo-Drama Of Creation' [2] was published in 1914. I've seen some of this film, and can confirm that some scenes had partially-coloured frames. There is one sequence in particular which features a marching army, and the front ranks of soldiers are in colour, whilst the ones behind are in black and white. This 8 hour film series, apart from using such part-colour sequences, was also the first major presentation [audience of 9 million or more who saw at least some of it] to use synchronised sound, moving film and colour slides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G0mrb (talk • contribs) 10:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Munchkin Suicide

I know the truth about the munchkin. I promise you, this is not some crazy rumor. My great uncle Clyde Pollard was a prop man who worked for several hollywood studios. The story is far from debunked. Clyde was stabilizing a fake tree. He looked out, not knowing that the film was rolling, the director or someone else signaled him to get out of the scene, not knowing what do do he simply dropped down, thus frightening a wandering bird causing it to fly away. My Uncle told this story to my mother when she was a child. remember, back then there was no video, and there was only one oppertunity to watch the program every year. Thoggnee (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit removal

Why was my last edit removed? It was about the influence of the film. (It included a mention of bandleader Buddy Clark using the phrase "over the rainbow" in the Disney film Melody Time.AlbertSM (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it was Un-referenced and written as a personal opinion Mlpearc powwow 16:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is this reference still in the lead? I agree with Mlpearc, this is a personal opinion, there is no rational for calling it "not a good film either" based on the quote that follows...it makes no sense. I will remove it again, please do not add it back in. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Tim

Why was the following edit removed: "One urban legend which is true concerns the scarecrow carrying a gun. The scarecrow is shown multiple times with a pistol, but it became the subject of an urban legend as the gun wasn't very clear on broadcast television, which is where most people experienced the film. While it has been suggested that the reason for scarecrow carrying the gun is unknown, it is actually easily understood. To make a real scarecrow (one that was to scare crows) a farmer would go out to their fields and fire a gun every day while wearing the same clothes. After several days, the farmer would then dress a straw man in those same clothes and prop the gun in it's arms. Because it was believed to be the gun that did the job of scaring the crows, no real scarecrow could reasonably be portrayed without a gun."? There is far more internet material on this item than the other items listed as "urban legends". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.134.5 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It needs a reliable source, otherwise it fails verification. I'm sure there is such a source out there somewhere, it just needs citing per WP:CITE. Rodhull andemu 23:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Legacy?

What's with all the dates of death listed in the Legacy section? Is there some significance I'm missing? Flash: the people involved with the film were not immortal. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This age is sourced

Why is there a note saying "this age is sourced" everywhere it mentions that Dorothy in the film is 12 years old, when a source is not given?--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The note is irrelevant, as the only "source" that matters in this instance is the film itself. And nowhere in the film is her age mentioned. She certainly doesn't appear to be 12, so her appearance can't be used as a source for her age being 12 either.Shirtwaist (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

LGBT culture Section off-topic

What is the point of the "LGBT culture" topic? It is obviously a political / social agenda being forced into an article where it doesn't belong, nor is it relevant. That section addresses the LGBT culture, not the film. If we were to add the opinion of every different social group in the same way, then there would be sections for each race, nationality, religion, eye color, etc. This entire section needs to be removed and/or moved to a different article devoted to it. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessarily that the film is deliberately dealing with LGBT issues, more that the LGBT community has adopted it as relevant to them. As far as I know, there is no "blue-eyed" community, or any other, that would have adopted the film as such, but we are stuck (if that's the right word) with the incontrovertible evidence of its adoption by a cultural section of society. Rodhull andemu 03:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Then the topic should be covered on a LGBT page, and what movies/books/cultural icons they have adopted. For example, if the Humane society or some small-town church identified with the movie "Lassie", why would it deserve its oewn section on the "Lassie" site, and not on the site of the groups themselves? --216.114.194.20 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the phrase "Friend of Dorothy" and article Judy Garland as gay icon are enough for addition of the project tag. Rodhull andemu 23:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more; I came to this page looking to read about a venerable fantasy movie fondly remembered from my youth and was assaulted by an entire section about lesbians and "transgendered" people revering Garland as a "gay icon", none of which has anything to do with the movie - and if one goes to the article on Garland (which I did, to see what on earth the gibbering was about), one notes that Garland had no idea what the fuss was about either - she simple said (quote)"I couldn't care less. I sing to people."(unquote) This section is ridiculous and tries far too hard to legitimize a minority group instead of doing what it is supposed to do - provide interesting and relevant encyclopedic information on the topic at hand.68.144.172.8 (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a rather limited view of what is "interesting, relevant and encyclopedic". I think that the adoption of this film by a significant American subculture is relevant to its public image (and the connection goes beyond Judy Garland). I don't know why anyone would consider a factual section, well-referenced to reliable sources, to be an "assault". There is no attempt to "legitimize" anyone — unless you assume that anything to do with LGBT culture is ipso facto illegitimate, a position which I do not think is supported by any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and it's not just limited to American subculture. I'm not LGBT myself, but I am aware that the film has significant resonances within that community, which have been well-documented. I further suggest that anyone who has missed this point re-reads The Ugly Duckling within the context of Hans Christian Andersen's own sexuality, and consider the subtext. If it ain't obvious to you, you haven't thought it through. Same here. Rodhull andemu 05:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Josiah. I remember being surprised when I first read that section some time back. But after thinking about it, it made a lot of sense. As noted, it is referenced and has been a stable part of the article for some time, so I say put it back in. And I speak as a straight male and someone who also remembers the movie fondly from an innocent childhood. Jusdafax 05:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with others that the section should stay, but I think it should be presented in a different way. While the LGBT reception is fine for the "Cultural impact" section, I think that queer theory and other theories could be fleshed out in a kind of "Critical analysis" section, like what American Beauty has. Judging from a quick search of Google Scholar, there is analysis about populism, monetary allegory, secular American myth, and female imagination, etc. It's a suggestion for anyone willing to take the time to take that kind of approach, but in the meantime, it should stay. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It starts with the lion's line about being a "dandy lion", complete with limp-wristed gesture, although that refers as much to being "unmanly" as to being "gay" by modern definition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What "evidence" suggests the Shirley Temple casting info?

As much as WIkipedia insists on citing sources for facts, how is it that this site can claim "evidence" of Shirley Temple under consideration as Dorothy? Surely if there was some someone would have coughed it up by now.

Why not just move it to urban legends and be done with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.40.62 (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The 1977 book The Making of the Wizard of Oz, by Aljean Harmetz, brings this up in several places, including p.4 and pp.108-112. Fox at one time wanted to produce a film based on the story, with Temple as the star, but MGM had acquired the rights some years earlier and held onto them. Some executives at MGM (including Mayer) wanted Temple because she was a bankable star, but Fox wouldn't loan her out. However, those who were closer to the project wanted Garland due to her singing voice, and they "fixed her" a bit, capping her teeth and getting her to work out and stuff like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Dorothy's dog "Otto"? Not buying it.

I question the validity of the webpage which claims Toto was originally supposed to be a Dachsund named Otto, but that he was replaced due to anti-German sentiment in the pre-WWII era...photos from Richard Thorpe's tenure as director survive, and Terry/Toto appears in a large number of them. Also, no published work on the making of Oz makes any reference to this "fact", nor do they even mention any other animal besides Terry being considered for the part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioChuck (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's true. It's been talked about on Oz retrospectives, stills from the original shoot have been released. Hotcop2 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Being an Oz geek, I've read all the companion books and seen the numerous documentaries on the film...I can find nothing about any animal besides Terry even being considered, and it seems odd they would deviate from the original book in such a manner. As for the pic in question from the webpage cited, it looks like a photoshopped version of a still taken during production, w/"Otto" added in place of Toto...the Kansas scenes were the very last to be filmed, and it's been established that Terry was chosen for the part well before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.116.158 (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is transcription is correct, in the original Baum story the dog was a little black dog named Toto.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yoda says he Otto be in pictures. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, with his paw print as an Otto-graph. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A 1977 book called The Making of the Wizard of Oz, by Aljean Harmetz, discusses the search for the dog on pp. 131-134. It says they wanted a dog that would square with the one illustrated in the Baum book. That's where Carl Spitz and his dog "Terry" came in. Nothing about a dachshund or a dog named "Otto". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

That source is highly suspect. For one thing, it says "Lingering 'post-war' hostility toward the Germans, caused the studio to insist upon the substitution of a Norwich terrier (Terry was a Cairn Terrier - Norwich's look very different) to be called Toto. They saw this as more acceptable since the dog was of British descent(Cairns are a Scottish breed)."

I'm pretty sure filming began in the fall of 1938, one full year before WWII began! For another, the accompanying photo of Garland with "Otto" was obviously photoshopped, and the woman in the photo of "Margaret Hamilton" with her dachshund looks suspiciously like Eleanor Roosevelt. Finally, why hasn't anybody ever written about "Otto" before, especially Aljean Harmetz, who never would've left this kind of detail out of her book? I say the entry and the ref should go. Shirt waist chat 03:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The war referred to there would be World War I. However, the story does not seem to be corroborated, and it doesn't square with Baum's original story anyway, while Toto does. Meanwhile, the dachshund page linked is claiming as "evidence" an obviously fake/photoshopped picture (you can see the real one by google-imaging [toto and dorothy]), so the link is not reliable; and it be gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I forgot about WWI. But I isolated the exact frame from the film that they used to add "Otto" into. Fake as a three dollar bill. Shirt waist chat 04:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The giveaway is to note the positions of background objects with respect to the wagon wheel. They're identical. Not likely to be identical on a re-shoot. Also, note the other stuff on that page. "It's a little known fact..." Yeh, probably "little known" because they made it up. The Bewitched picture looks fake also. Kind of like that website with all those fake appearances by the Iraqi Information Minister. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Good call...I'd remove the "Otto" blurb, but the article's currently locked to editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.116.158 (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Has footage of Buddy Ebsen been released or not?

The article claims that no "full footage" of Buddy Ebsen as the Tin Man has been released. Yet, the article on Buddy Ebsen states, "Footage of Ebsen as the Tin Man was included as an extra with the U.S. 50th anniversary video release of the film." Who is right? Or is the footage on the video release in question not considered "full" footage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.128.247 (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What they probably had on the DVD was a still of Ebsen in the Tin Man costume, along with the audio track that he recorded of "If I Only Had a Heart", a track which was released on CD in the mid-1990s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also glimpses of him in the home movies, I think. Markhh (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot cleanup tag

Is there consensus here that the plot summary merits a cleanup tag? If not, it should be removed. Shirtwaist ^chat 06:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yellow Brick Road

Shouldn't the section on differences between the book and the film point out that in the original book, the "Yellow Brick Road" was referred to as "The Road of Yellow Brick"?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if its inclusion satisfies this guideline in WP:MOSFILM regarding such material. In fact, looking at the section, it is almost completely without refs and real-world context and should be trimmed severely to bring it into line with WP policy. Shirtwaist ☎ 11:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Poster

Apparently Commons has a free poster. As free images are preferred, shouldn't we replace the current poster with the one on Commons? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

WP policy allows non-free movie poster use in the infobox, even in FA articles. I would prefer the original poster in the infobox, and this new one included with some sourced mention of alternate posters. The original also looks much better than this one, IMO. If nobody objects, I'll put the old poster back in a few days, and leave the new one in Commons for now until RS commentary can be found on the alternates. If the old one isn't used in an article, ~~it will be deleted from Commons and then~~ we'd have to resubmit it with FUR. Shirtwaist ☎ 05:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If the old one is a fair-use file, then it shouldn't be on Commons at all. As for the old poster, it fails FUC 1. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

My mistake - the old one was never in Commons. It only fails FUC 1 if the new one isn't copyrighted. But how de we know the new poster isn't under copyright when the old one is? They were both copyrighted by MGM weren't they? If it is, the new one shouldn't be at Commons either, and both posters are fair-use. Shirtwaist ☎ 00:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The current one has no copyright symbol on it, which under US law at the time rendered it public domain. The old one may have been like that, but without a large enough image to verify we cannot be sure. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the writing under the MGM logo on the new one? Can't quite read it. I found a larger version of the old poster here. It clearly says "Country of origin USA" and no copyright notice anywhere. That would mean both posters are not copyrighted and can both be in Commons, yes? Shirtwaist ☎ 00:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be correct. It should be uploaded to commons with a similar tag as the one on the illustrated one. Regarding the really small writing, I think it is something similar. I noticed on the poster for Island of Lost Men that the country of origin can be written in terribly small text. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that the old poster (below the new one) is up at Commons, which do you think looks better? Frankly, the recently added one (top) looks a bit amateurish and not as high quality as the old one (bottom), but that's just me. As long as they're free, should we use both? Shirtwaist ☎ 05:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The old one, with live action shots, naturally. :-D The other one is cute, but the old one has higher EV. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Um..."EV"? Is that "entertainment value"? Shirtwaist ☎ 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, habit. EV is encyclopedic value. In my opinion, having an actual picture of the cast is more encyclopedic than a sketch of them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Munchkin Suicide

The Munchkin suicide myth is chronicled under two separate headings. One should be deleted. ShelbyBell (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ding dong, the wicked glitch is dead. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sequels and Reinterpretations

I remember that some time, during the 1980's, that there was another animated special based on The Wizard of Oz, or rather based loosely on it. In this animated special, that was shown on CBS during the Thanksgiving holiday week, Dorothy is magically brought back to Oz where she runs into the scarecrow, with a pumpkin head, just after landing in Oz with a pie, with the scarecrow afraid that it might be a pumpkin pie, until Dorothy tells him that it's a mince pie. The magic that brought Dorothy back to Oz actually made the mince pie talk back to her and again, she wants to see if she can get back to Kansas. But in the end, her family also magically winds up in Oz and they all live in Oz happily ever after.

The special was only shown once on CBS. It was never repeated again. I wonder why.

Does anyone remember that animated special by chance? Thanks to anyone that does.Frschoonover (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is known by many titles. It was released on VHS with the cover title, Dorothy in the Land oz Oz. It is also known as Thanksgiving in Oz (which may be the original title), Christmas in Oz (not to be confused with the later Oz Kids tape, In the Land of Oz, and even just Oz. I have two VHS copies of this--Family Home Entertainment and Best Home Video Corporation. Both are called Dorothy in the Land of Oz on the box, but the onscreen title of the Best edition is missing an overlay, so it reads simply "Oz," possibly because the title had been changed so many times and the overlay was lost form the master. The character in question is not the Scarecrow, but Jack Pumpkinhead, who was originally afraid of being made into a pie until he realized that he could carve new heads for himself. The mince pie, as well as the Wizard, were voiced by Sid Caesar.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding yet more unsourced claims

To those who insist on restoring unsourced info into the article - please cite reliable sources that can be verified, or stop adding the unsourced info, otherwise IT WILL BE REMOVED! This article is overloaded with unsourced claims as it is - IT DOES NOT NEED MORE! Mitchell Lewis may in fact have been the "head of the winkie guards", but WP is not about "truth", it's about verifiability. If that fact is not supported by the cast list in the film, and can't be verified in a reliable source, it doesn't belong here. I've removed some OR from the "Cast" section, but have left the "voice cast" stuff in because they may or may not be verifiable in the two books listed as refs in this Wiki(that was correctly removed by a bot). Whoever wants to keep that stuff in the article should find those books, look up the relevant text, and cite it properly (hopefully with page numbers so we can find it more easily!). Citing Wikis edited by anonymous users that cite other sources is not good enough, just as citing WP articles is not allowed. This goes for all unsourced claims in the rest of the article. WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR aren't just good ideas, they're the law around here. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Snow White and Nikko

One interesting book is The Wizard of Oz: The Screenplay, Edited by Michael Patrick Hearn, Dell, 1989. It's a reconstruction of the movie dialogue, with many notes taken from pieces of the shooting scripts and other sources. Included are bits and segments of dialogue that never made it into the final cut. The winged monkey is referred to as "Nikko" many times in the descriptions of the action, but I don't any place where the witch actually calls him by name. I've never read the book, but Winged monkeys suggests that the name was used in the book, so maybe it was clear to the 1939 audiences who Nikko was. On page 74, it says, "SNOW WHITE'S VOICE: 'Wherefore art thou, Romeo?'" The footnote states that Adriana Caselotti, the voice of Disney's Snow White character, was hired for that one line in the Tin Man's song. The first script reference I see to "NIKKO" occurs on page 81, and is described as the witch's "familiar winged chimpanzee". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Do you have the book, or was it on Google books? Shirtwaist ☎ 20:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I only have the book. I don't know if it's available online, or at all for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Munchkin overdubs

There's a lot of info in the booklet that accompanies the two-CD set Original Motion Picture Soundtrack: The Wizard of Oz - The Deluxe Edition, on Rhino Records, 1995. It lists all the songs and who's singing them. Nearly all the on-screen actors were overdubbed by voice actors in the studio, sped up to achieve the near-"Chipmunk" quality of the voices. The complete list of recordings is detailed on pages 4-7 of the booklet. Included among the vocals are:

"It Really Was No Miracle" - Judy Garland, Billy Bletcher, and the Munchkins.
"We Thank You Very Sweetly" - Joseph Koziel [?] and Frank Cucksey. (The producers weren't certain about the one).
"As Mayor of the Munchkin City" - Billy Bletcher, Pinto Colvig, and J.D. Jewkes.
"As Coroner I Must Aver" - Harry Stanton.
"The Lullaby League" - Lorraine Bridges, Betty Rome, Carol Tevis.
"The Lollipop Guild" - Billy Bletcher, Pinto Colvig, Harry Stanton.
"We Welcome You to Munchkinland" - it lists a bunch of singers who did the Munchkin group vocal.
"If I Only Had a Heart" - Jack Haley; and Adriana Caselotti as "Juliet".
"We're Off to See the Wizard" - Garland, Bolger and Buddy Ebsen; and then Garland, Bolger, Ebsen and Lahr. They didn't re-record the group vocals after Ebsen was dropped from the cast. It also states that Ebsen's voice appears in the group portion of "If I Were King of the Forest" and also the cut song "The Jitterbug".
It also lists various singers for songs like the "Optimistic Voices" and "Merry Old Land of Oz", which I can list here if anyone is interested.

Pinto Colvig in particular is easy to hear, especially at one point where he's among those saying "Follow the Yellow Brick Road", as a Munchkin who sounds suspiciously like a high-pitched version of Goofy. In contrast to Colvig's typical "hick" voice, Bletcher had a deep and gravelly voice, who you can probably hear if you listen for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember seeing that too. But are CD booklets considered RS, and for that matter, are DVD booklets RS? I could see it possibly being used in an article about the cd, but can we apply it to the film? Shirtwaist ☎ 20:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me the consensus has been that IMDB is pretty reliable for cast lists. Not necessarily so for "trivia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Harmetz book

The Making of the Wizard of Oz, by Aljean Harmetz, Dell, 1977, re-published 1989. This book is one of the sources of the Hearn book. Harmetz reprints the standard cast list on page 318, with a footnote for Nikko (played by Pat Walshe) that reads "the Head Winged Monkey." The book has a chapter talking about some of the actors who played Munchkins, pages 187-204, which I expect is well-documented at IMDB. The book says there were 124 little people in total. Generally, Harmetz only named the ones he interviewed, which included Hazel Resmondo, Billy Curtis, Margaret Pellegrini, Jerry Maren and Harry Momty. There was no mention of Meinhardt Raabe, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

^ Caonner & Sparks (1998), p. 349Conner, Randy P. (1998). Cassell's Encylopedia of Queer Myth, Symbol and Spirit. UK: Cassell. ISBN 0304704237. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Green (1997), p. 404Green, Thomas A. (1997). Folklore: an encyclopedia of beliefs, customs, tales, music, and art. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780874369861. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[1] Caonner & Sparks (1998), p. 349Conner, Randy P. (1998). Cassell's Encylopedia of Queer Myth, Symbol and Spirit. UK: Cassell. ISBN 0304704237. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[2] Green (1997), p. 404Green, Thomas A. (1997). Folklore: an encyclopedia of beliefs, customs, tales, music, and art. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780874369861. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

[1]

[2]