Wizard of Oz, The Movie Blooper

Movies | TV | Books | Quotes

Easter Eggs | Drink Recipes

The Slip-Up Archive_TM
SLIPUPS.COM

Home > Movies > U - Z > Wizard of Oz, The Bloopers

Add a Slip-Up | Help | Discussion

Where To Next?

More Wizard of Oz, The Bloopers

Top 25 Bloopers in U - Z

All U - Z Bloopers

Top 25 Bloopers

Newest Bloopers

Wizard of Oz, The Easter Eggs

Wizard of Oz, The - Wrong Grammar

When they go into the haunted forest, the first shot is a close-up of a sign (I think) that reads: "Haunted Forest, Witches House Ahead (I would turn back if I were you)". Shouldn't it be "Haunted Forest, Witch's House Ahead"? Because the witch owns the house. If it is "witches" then there is more than one witch. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I think they could have fixed a simple error like that!!

Special Requirements:

the movie

Avg. Rating:	3.1 of 10 - (123 votes cast)
Your Rating:

Contributed By:

ski on 11-30-2000

Email this Slip-Up to a Friend!

Reviewed By:

Webmaster

Correct this Slip-Up

Pictures Click on the thumbnails for a full-size image, or send in your own

Be the first to send us your picture of this Slip-Up!

Comments:

Mort-Hog writes:: Just to clear it all up. One witch. Two witches. One witch's watch. Two witches' watches.; 22 of 27 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

Evilmeteors writes:: Well, heck, there WERE two evil witches, remember? Dorothy's house killed the other one. And since they were sisters, it could be conceivable that they'd share the same house. Er, castle. Hmm...another slip-up. And then there's the whole East/West thing; if they lived in the same castle, why would they be the Witch of the East and the Witch of the West? I guess that sign is ALL screwed up. Fire the set painter!; 12 of 15 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

RonJLow writes:: By whom do you imagine such a sign was meant to have been painted? The municipal signage department of Emerald City? I think it was put there by someone fleeing the Witches' castle - scared out of his or her wits - in a charitable effort to warn other wayward souls. In such a case, bad grammar would not be a film-making slip-up.; 8 of 9 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

Evilmeteors writes:: Ehh, I dunno, Ron. If I was fleeing a witch's castle and wanted to put up a warning for future passersby, would I get out my jigsaw and cut out and construct a nice little sign and take time to paint a happy little ghost on it as well? Nah, I'd probably carve it on a tree at best. My guess would be, it's intended to have been put up by the witch/witches herself/themselves, to keep curious pests from bothering her/them. It's all in good fun anyway. Interesting side note...the spell checker just picked out "witch's" as incorrect, and suggested "witches" as one possible replacement. Hmmm...maybe that's what happened to the original sign painter...; 6 of 6 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

Ktsmurf writes:: The witches don't live in the same castle......there are five parts of Oz, the East, West, North, South, and the Emerald City.; 6 of 6 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

Jack writes:: I don't know much about withes/witch's/witches', but a witch might have wrote it and not cared. I really wouldn't care if I spelled something wrong as long as I could kill anyone who makes fun of me by waving an old broom at them.; 6 of 9 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

heatherc writes:: Actually it reads "Haunted Forest Witches CASTLE 1 mile. I'd turn back if I were you."; 4 of 5 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

haleyray writes:: Maybe the sign is a very old one you know back in the day when the whole family lived together? I mean there would have to have a mom with and a dad witch too, right?; 3 of 3 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

CasualObserver writes:: I only wanted to add that in Old English, the possesive form of which was which + es. Soon, though, it became proper to use an apostrophe in place of a silent e. Then, "es" was changed to "'s" .Later, to avoid confusion, the modern conventions were established. Hope you can understand that. In other words, maybe you're all right.; 3 of 3 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

JonoThePimpMaster writes:: Besides,it's not even a house,it's a castle.; 2 of 2 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

Ne0-MATRIX-Trinity writes:: Both of you are correct, although I would like to make another point. Even if both of the witches lived in the same castle, AND even if they were to temporarily (on the sign) call it a house, they would have to have written it like this: "This way to the Witches' House". Notice the plural "witches" has an apostrophe after the "s", making it the pluralized version. If not, they would be making a grammatical error because "witches" isn't possessive, it is just a plural form of the word witch.; 2 of 3 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

elovrich writes:: Actually, it is a missing comma, as in: Haunted Forest, Witches (correct, non-possessive plural), House Ahead; 2 of 3 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

Laura writes:: I think the witch wrote it and just isn't very good with grammar. (She's a witch, remember!); 3 of 5 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

Chard deNiord writes:: Robert Frost's phrase "a witches' broth" in his poem "Design" implies that several or many witches are also one. What to make of this? Is "witches" synonymous with coven? Are witches both singular and plural at the same time? If so, one more bit of evidence that witch magic has altered grammar with hardly anyone seeming to notice.; 1 of 1 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

Wiccaof2001 writes:: And if there were two witches wouldn't it be houses?? Instead of house?; 1 of 7 people found this comment helpful. Did you?

Panda_Bear writes:: witches house makes no sense anyway, even if there were more than one witch because of what wicca said.; 0 of 6 people found this comment helpful. Did you?