Talk:The Wizard of Oz/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "O-Ee-Yah! Eoh-Ah!" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Names 

message: "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)
thread_title:  N-n of Red Brick Road 

message: 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)
replies: text: Brilliant prose is generally easier to appreciate, I think. Dave 23:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book vs. film section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect Statement, Maybe 

message: suggest spinning off plot and differences as separate article. As it is, it needs subheads throughout.
Schweiwikist 00:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  too long 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Hanged Man 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  First color film seen by many children 

message: 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)
replies: text: Feel free. I believe the DVD special edition specifies this as well. 23skidoo 15:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ''Over the Rainbow'' reprise 

message: Given that this film has been in the public domain in Australia since 1989  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)
thread_title:  Why no 1939 print on the web? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hays office? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Urban Legends 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The important things we can learn from the article. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ELAC notice 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Revised plot 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good idea  - will do so - thanks!  Philbertgray 13:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music info relocation 

message: 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).
::Which is generated by entering: .
::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)
thread_title:  Reinserted disambiguation to top of page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reconstruction 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Owning the rights to quotes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is this an error? 

message: "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)
replies: text: Done Totnesmartin 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro sentence mangling 

message: What "Golden Cap"? JayKeaton 00:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Golden Cap can be seen in the witch's hands when commanding the monkeys. 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Long awaited DVD? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Yearly Showing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  It was all a dream 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rumor that the bird was edited in 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia, popular culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cast list 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Rumors" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fable 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The March of the Winkies 

message: I saw that this image from the article has been marked for deletion: .  Can anyone find its source and save it?  Best regards -- Ssilvers 22:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image about to be deleted?? 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:OZ-07.jpg 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Munchkin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kenneth Strickfaden 

message: How many actors who played the munchkins are still alive? -- Juve2000 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last I heard, I believe it was down to seven. ---- Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[cyclone]] vs. [[tornado]] 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:WOO3.jpg 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of Songs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My Plans 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing typo? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Among the top ten best movies of all-time? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This really happened! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Do we know the orchestrator for "Over the Rainbow"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Didn't someone commit suicide in one of the scenes? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Removed contributory copyright infringement: please do not link to pirated hostings. DurovaCharge! 06:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live! On Stage! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Academey Award Nominations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Drug References? 

message: :::"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. "Caonner & Sparks (1998), p. 349
::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".Green (1997), p. 404
::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)
thread_title:  Gay reaction  Camp 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does anyone know 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adding Judy Room OZ section link 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  About cleaning up 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Yellow brick road]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question about the color 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Munchkin Suicide 

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

text: 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. Rodhullandemu 23:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit removal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legacy? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This age is sourced 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Rodhullandemu 03:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Rodhullandemu 05:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  LGBT culture Section off-topic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What "evidence" suggests the Shirley Temple casting info? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Also glimpses of him in the home movies, I think. Markhh (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has footage of Buddy Ebsen been released or not? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plot cleanup tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Yellow Brick Road 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: The Munchkin suicide myth is chronicled under two separate headings. One should be deleted. ShelbyBell (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ding dong, the wicked glitch is dead. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Munchkin Suicide 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sequels and Reinterpretations 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adding yet more unsourced claims 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Do you have the book, or was it on Google books? Shirtwaist ☎  20:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Snow White and Nikko

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Munchkin overdubs

message: 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)
thread_title: The Harmetz book