The post-production of the film is fraught with inconsistencies. It also matches up with the scene taking place in the Haunted Forest.Īccording to “ ninaplays“, a Redditor, she or he also mentions that depending on the version or “print” you are watching, it’s possible that the Haunted Forest scene in question may have not even appeared. Additionally, a lot of the prints of the film are poorly restored, and in some cases, to make out the finer details of the gun, or any other items the cast members are holding is quite a hard task indeed. While the video above doesn’t directly explain the items, it makes sense they were given them to fight the Jitterbug, especially the Lion’s bug catching net and pump-sprayer. The jitterbug itself was a pink-and-blue-mosquito-like creature who – under direct orders from the Wicked Witch – stung the principal characters and sent them into a frenzied dance in the Haunted Forest. Here is the complete track of the number accompanied by more of Alren’s home movies made during a camera rehearsal of the song a brief opening portio of the number is covered by stills of the stars. “The Jitterbug” took five weeks to rehearse and film and was cut from the picture after the first preview. This has proven to be the case with “The Jitterbug”, a found piece of footage that shows a home video created featuring the music and some rehearsal production from the movie: Many long-time fans conclude that the scene exists as part of a larger deleted portion of the movie that explains all of these items. It was brought up again in popularity (and my mind) recently due to a Cinemassacre video on the subject. While my impromptu experiment doesn’t conclude anything, I feel it at least raises some points on how this could be missed or completely forgotten. It’s only when we point out these oddities, the viewers become aware of them. It’s an obscure thing that has no right or context to being in the movie, and it’s hardly noticeable even when asked to be aware. I think that’s at the heart of what we are dealing with here. I showed it again, and yet again she couldn’t see anything weird. I asked if she noticed anything out of ordinary. Yet the scene is there. I wouldn’t say I’m a devoted fan or anything, but I’ve seen the movie a number of times.Īs an experiment, I asked my friend to watch the scene without telling her anything. I personally do not remember this scene, but I was just like the others in believing there’s no way the Scarecrow had a gun. Take a look at the following scene below: The Mandela Effect here is that people do not remember the gun and are convinced that either this scene never existed or he never had a gun. It seems like the gun that the Scarecrow is holding is the most shocking to people. The items possessed by the other members are usually not even mentioned within the Mandela Effect community when reporting on it. That isn’t it however the Tinman has a wrench (along with his normal axe), the Lion has a bug catching net, and a two-handed pump sprayer with the words “WITCH REMOVAL” (or REMOVER), and the Scarecrow actually has another item that isn’t seen or heard from again after the scene a walking staff/stick. It features a scene where the Scarecrow inexplicably has a revolver firearm. Frank Baum and produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Not having it overstay its welcome, when there could be months before the game releases, is likely for the best for all involved.The Wizard of Oz is a 1939 musical/fantasy/comedy film adapted from the 1900 novel, “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” by L. In the end, the demo didn't completely represent the final product and it did what it was meant to do promote the game, giving players a bit of a taste, and give the devs feedback on things. That gets tiresome after awhile, and so pulling the demo was probably the best. However, it only had 2 hours of natural gameplay, and maybe 8-12 hours of awkward 'sandbox mode gameplay that kept people stuck in effectually the beginnings of the tutorial/newbie stage. The demo in the short term showed that the gameplay loop worked and worked well, making many people wanting to play more of it. Don't get me wrong, this was done on purpose and there is nothing wrong with this. Except in this case the product was mostly done, rather than still in early development, but it was cut down to only the core parts of the game loop. For lack of a better term, the demo was pretty much a minimum viable product of sorts. While this term is sometimes used in a derogatory way, I'm not intending it as such. When I think of a demo, I expect it to have more than what was given. I felt as though it didn't give the player a real feel for what to expect. I did say, more than a few times (sorry devs if that was off putting), that the demo was too short and didn't really get to the good parts. I actually get why, and it is a smart move, even though it did felt a bit awkward on this end.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |