The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Comments on Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-23-2011, 09:18 AM
LaurenIpsum LaurenIpsum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
New development in Wizard of Oz "hanging"?

Based on this column: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...izard-of-oz-em

I know there must have been several previous threads on this, but the only one I could find was from 1999 and it seemed a bit silly to revive it, so I just started a new one.

Based on Cecil's column, and a Snopes article at http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/ozsuicide.asp , the thing you see in the background is a bird. In fact, if you look a the clip on the Snopes page, it seems so obviously to be a bird that I wondered how anyone could possibly think it was anything else. If you look up "wizard of oz munchkin hanging" on YouTube you can find many more of the same clip, showing the same thing.

However, I came across this page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8YVeMwhDNI

The person who posted it claims that it came from a VHS tape, and the bird was added digitally to later laserdisc/DVD versions to cover up the hanging. In this one, there clearly does seem to be something hanging - no trace of a bird flapping its wings. So I'm not really sure what to think. Regardless of what you see, an actual hanging is unlikely because of the reasons Cecil/Snopes already mention - how was it kept secret for 50 years, how did the actors not notice during the scene when they are dancing/walking right by it, etc.

So, what do you think? Maybe someone in charge of a rerelease simply decided to add a digitally created bird just to cover up the "whatever-it-is" as a way of trying to put the rumors to rest?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-23-2011, 09:37 AM
LaurenIpsum LaurenIpsum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Missed the edit window...forgot to add...

Or there's the possibility that this latest YouTube video is the one that is actually digitally altered, just to get some attention and YouTube hits. I guess one way to check is if someone here has an actual 80s VHS tape of the movie?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-23-2011, 09:38 AM
AClockworkMelon AClockworkMelon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Does anyone at home have an old VHS version they can pop in to verify what's in the Youtube video? Because that pretty obviously looks like a hanging person to me.

Edit: OP beat me to the punch. If someone (preferably multiple people) at home with the old VHS tape can verify that what the Youtube video shows is accurate I'm going to sit in the "it's a hanging person" camp. If not, the Youtube author is pulling our legs.

Edit #2: I'm finding several other videos online and there is an obvious difference between the VHS and DVD releases. So unless there's a Youtube Wizard of Oz hanging person conspiracy...

Last edited by AClockworkMelon; 08-23-2011 at 09:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-23-2011, 09:47 AM
AClockworkMelon AClockworkMelon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
If you find video of the old black and white version it looks like a bird (or something - but definitely not a hanging person). See here for just one example.

So in the (original?) black and white version I'm seeing footage of a bird.
Then, for the VHS release, it's been changed and there's a hanging person.
Then, for the DVD release, it's that fucking bird again.

So... either the people putting those videos up are fucking with us (I'll wait for Doper help) or we need to check to see if the people responsible for the VHS rework ever helped with Disney's The Little Mermaid.

Last edited by AClockworkMelon; 08-23-2011 at 09:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-23-2011, 09:53 AM
davidm davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 6,216
As far as I know there was never a B&W version of the parts that take place in Oz.

I suppose someone may have filmed it off a B&W TV.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-23-2011, 09:58 AM
AClockworkMelon AClockworkMelon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
As far as I know there was never a B&W version of the parts that take place in Oz.
Yeah, I should have caught that on my own. I'm not a particularly good detective!

Still, I'd appreciate any Dopers who have the actual VHS at home verifying if what the OP's Youtube clip (and others) shows is accurate.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-23-2011, 10:31 AM
Mithras Mithras is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 471
My parents have a copy on VHS that they purchased around 1989 (I believe it's the 50th anniversary edition). It was that tape that I looked at after first reading this column in whichever book it was published in. What is on the tape absolutely looks like a bird and not at all like that Youtube video. The probability that the Youtube clip is edited is close to 100%.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-23-2011, 02:19 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,162
The apparent hanging object makes 5.5 oscillations in 20 seconds, for a period of 3.6 s. Using the pendulum formula T = 2pi*sqrt(L/g), we find that the length of the pendulum must be 3.3 meters. Yet the apparent attachment point of the object is only slightly above the "head". So either there's some higher attachment point we're not seeing, or that's not a real physical object.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-24-2011, 12:13 AM
garygnu garygnu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The apparent hanging object makes 5.5 oscillations in 20 seconds, for a period of 3.6 s. Using the pendulum formula T = 2pi*sqrt(L/g), we find that the length of the pendulum must be 3.3 meters. Yet the apparent attachment point of the object is only slightly above the "head". So either there's some higher attachment point we're not seeing, or that's not a real physical object.
Also, at around the 15 second mark, the whole area around the "body" shifts around noticeably. The same thing happens when zoomed and slowed, etc. To my trained eye (BA in "this exact thing") the video in question is faked.
The masking of the foreground characters is nearly perfect, but the camera motion tracking gives it away.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-24-2011, 10:30 AM
ShadowFacts ShadowFacts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygnu View Post
Also, at around the 15 second mark, the whole area around the "body" shifts around noticeably. The same thing happens when zoomed and slowed, etc. To my trained eye (BA in "this exact thing") the video in question is faked.
The masking of the foreground characters is nearly perfect, but the camera motion tracking gives it away.
Concur entirely.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-24-2011, 02:24 PM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 32,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The apparent hanging object makes 5.5 oscillations in 20 seconds, for a period of 3.6 s. Using the pendulum formula T = 2pi*sqrt(L/g), we find that the length of the pendulum must be 3.3 meters. Yet the apparent attachment point of the object is only slightly above the "head". So either there's some higher attachment point we're not seeing, or that's not a real physical object.
It's threads like this and especially posts like this that keep me a Doper.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-23-2011, 02:22 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,162
Oh, and there's also the matter that, if they wanted to hide something, it'd have been a heck of a lot easier to replace the "body" with just blank background, rather than putting in something as complicated as an ostrich, especially considering that they couldn't have done it via computer at that time.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-23-2011, 04:09 PM
TSBG TSBG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Oh, and there's also the matter that, if they wanted to hide something, it'd have been a heck of a lot easier to replace the "body" with just blank background, rather than putting in something as complicated as an ostrich, especially considering that they couldn't have done it via computer at that time.
You're right that the blank background would have been easier, but replacing a body with an ostrich or whatever could have been done...if there ever was a body. The whole story is ridiculous on its face, but it wouldn't have been beyond filmmakers of the time to change the image, for example by simply drawing something on each frame of film.

There's a funny story about the making of "The Last Waltz", in which Scorcese has to matte out a chunk of cocaine that falls out of Neil Young's nose. Wiki says it was hanging from the end his nose, but I remember reading that it was especially difficult to pull off because the coke was in motion.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-23-2011, 04:21 PM
JKellyMap JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 5,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by fgasparini View Post
There's a funny story about the making of "The Last Waltz", in which Scorcese has to matte out a chunk of cocaine that falls out of Neil Young's nose. Wiki says it was hanging from the end his nose, but I remember reading that it was especially difficult to pull off because the coke was in motion.
I think it was both....hanging from the end of his nose (not falling), AND "in motion"...in motion because either Neil was moving around (or moving just his head), or the camera was moving, or both.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-23-2011, 04:33 PM
bucketybuck bucketybuck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,247
This story is all new to me, I have never even watched the Wizard of Oz, but one thing immediately occurs to me. If that is a dead munchkin, then why do the three characters active in the scene happily walk right up to and past it? They could not have failed to see it, so why do they not react to it?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-23-2011, 02:40 PM
Mithras Mithras is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 471
I think it's also worth mentioning that the column was published in 1997. DVDs had barely been invented at that time and I doubt the Wizard of Oz had been released on the format yet. In all likelyhood, Cecil was watching the VHS for his research.

Edit: It was first released on DVD less than two months before the column. But I still imagine he was working from the VHS.

Last edited by Mithras; 08-23-2011 at 02:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-23-2011, 06:30 PM
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 51,913
The quality of the footage looks too good for VHS anyway, especially old VHS. I call foul.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-23-2011, 07:18 PM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 49,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangetout View Post
I call foul.
I call fowl.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-24-2011, 12:29 AM
EvilTOJ EvilTOJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
I have a bad recording of the Wizard of Oz on beta taped off of TV way from long ago. I'd heard of this rumor and me and my dad tried to see the hanging back in about 1990 or so. I could ever see was something that looked like it was swinging, but I could never verify what the blobby shape was.

LaurenIpsum's link is way different than I remember. What I saw was something actually swinging like on a pendulum. It wasn't nearly as dark, and it blended mostly into the background and it didn't start moving until the scene was almost over. There was no mistake, me and my dad watched this scene over and over and over trying to discern what the blob was (I got chills from it because I couldn't quite make out what was going on)

This particular link looks way too good for anything off of VHS or beta. I'm claiming it's photographic fakery.

OK this is more of what I remember only fuzzier.

Last edited by EvilTOJ; 08-24-2011 at 12:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-24-2011, 07:57 PM
qazwart qazwart is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
The thing that gets me is that the three actors walk right up to the alleged body while singing. You'd think if there was a dead body there, one of them might have at least miss a beat.

I also know that scenes like this take multiple takes. Something always goes wrong. Someone turns a half second too soon, a missed step, some scenery drops down. Even if things went perfectly, you know they'd do at least thee or more "perfect takes" in order to cut and paste between them. They probably spent a whole day just shooting this one scene.

Somewhere, someone would have noticed "Hey, is that Ralph hanging in the background?"

Now, Ed Woods was known for shooting in one take, and it shows. Ed Wood didn't care if a tombstone fell, or the background changed from day to night and back to day in one scene. Or, if a policeman scratched himself with his loaded gun. If someone said there was a dead body hanging in the background of an Ed Woods film, I'd believe that.

It'd probably be one of the actors. "I'm staring in an Ed Woods film. My career is dead. I might as well end it all now". Heck, considering how cheap he ran things and the quality of the acting, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the actors were diseased. That way, he wouldn't have to pay scale.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-24-2011, 02:56 AM
psychonaut psychonaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by qazwart View Post
Now, Ed Woods was known for shooting in one take, and it shows. Ed Wood didn't care if a tombstone fell, or the background changed from day to night and back to day in one scene.
Or if his name changed from "Woods" to "Wood" and back to "Woods" again in a single paragraph?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-24-2011, 03:27 AM
kozz kozz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
whatever that thing is, it doesn't even look like a munchkin. It looks like a wicked witch. Probably the until-recently-good witch of the south who went bad when she heard she didn't get to appear in the movie.

If it's really there, it obviously doesn't weigh anything either, because it's clearly hanging sideways. Its center of mass should be under the part of the tree it's suspended from, instead it's way out where there's no tree above it at all.

It really looks like some kind of piece of fabric, flapping slowly in the breeze. Maybe something used to cover props that somebody hung there and forgot about.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:51 PM
Zebra Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by qazwart View Post
The thing that gets me is that the three actors walk right up to the alleged body while singing. You'd think if there was a dead body there, one of them might have at least miss a beat.


This
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:54 PM
drewder drewder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra View Post
This
but that's why he dressed up as a bird so no one would realize it till later. He then had his buddy cut him down and cover the whole thing up....
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-24-2011, 10:20 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,162
That would explain Bela Lugosi.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-13-2011, 07:12 AM
LaurenIpsum LaurenIpsum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
I just borrowed a VHS copy of this movie from my library. The cassette itself did not list a date, but the record in the library catalog listed a date of 1983 - but that doesn't sound quite correct. I was hoping it would be 1986, because that's supposedly the year that this YouTube person had.

But anyway, I checked out that scene on the VHS tape, and it was still a bird, no hanging object in the background. Which is what I had pretty much expected already, based on everyone else's comments.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-24-2011, 01:16 PM
ZenBeam ZenBeam is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 8,602
As legionmonkey wrote in the comments on the YouTube link in the OP, there's evidence this was put over the original video:
Quote:
some one put this over top the bird,proof is :50 , 1:34,and 2:57. third tree to the left FROM hanging figure,the white tree makes and X with the 3rd black tree,you can see clearly that there is a black thing poking out toward the cabin,this is the wing from the bird that we see stretching at this very same moment on all the other versions.
(the first one is at more like 0:52)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-24-2012, 12:42 PM
Andyfighter Andyfighter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
I can prove that hanging video is fake!

It was an edited hoax and I can prove this very clearly.
I have made a video on youtube to point out that parts of the bird still appear in it, proving the bird has been edited out.
Both of the birds wing tips poke out from behind a tree, the editor has obviously missed them, its best to watch this in full screen

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAqvkj3HtGY

It was found on a vhs tape that claimed to be original, but you can clearly see it has been faked, someone made this as a hoax
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-24-2012, 12:50 PM
Andyfighter Andyfighter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
It was an edited hoax and I can prove this very clearly.
I have made a video on youtube to point out that parts of the bird still appear in it, proving the bird has been edited out.
Both of the birds wing tips poke out from behind a tree, the editor has obviously missed them, its best to watch this in full screen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAqvkj3HtGY

It was found on a vhs tape that claims to be original, but you can clearly see here it was faked
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-26-2012, 12:29 PM
drewder drewder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
You all are missing what really happened. The munchkin dressed up as a bird before hanging himself. Ps the video is fake
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-26-2012, 01:04 PM
Zebra Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Also if that is how it looked originally. IN the theatrical release, I find it hard to believe that nobody in all the millions of millions of people who watched the movie saw such an obvious hanging body.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.