The point of the comic is to show how easily Dorothy could resolve the situation if she was willing to forsake both her traveling companions and her pet. She leaves Toto with the Witch; it is unclear whether she plans to retain possession of the broom and return it in order to collect him, or plans to abandon Toto as well. She will also leave Oz completely at the mercy of said witch by giving her the Ruby Slippers and leaving with the Wizard.
It should be noted that this resolution defies the canon established in the movie, as nobody could remove the slippers as long as Dorothy lived, presumably including Dorothy herself. Additionally, it turns out that the Wizard was a fraud and was unable to take her home, and ironically it is the ruby slippers that did so.
Whichever user removed the category "Comics featuring Black Hat," commenting that his hat is taller and has a white stripe on it, kindly refer to comic 954, 377, 498, or ANY other comic involving him, and you'll see you're... well, wrong. He has never had a white stripe, and his hat is usually short, but occasionally slightly taller (mostly in the older comics). Maoman (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- They were saying that his hat has a white stripe in this comic. That guy in the balloon isn't Black Hat. Davidy22[talk] 02:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have any thoughts on the title text? Is that intended to suggest that Toto was an annoyance that Dorothy was happy to be rid of? I'm not really sure why (if) it's supposed to be funny... TheHYPO (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I figured it was a kind of loophole closing. With a lot of movies, you have viewers that go "well if the protagonist had just done 'this', then they could have saved a lot of trouble." But in this "easier" scenario, what reason would the witch have to trust Dorothy? Collateral is often used to ensure that one party will keep up their end of a deal, so it helped to seal this one. 18.104.22.168 16:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the intention was to close a loophole, but I also was unable to fathom that Dorothy would leave Toto behind. It would be way out of character for her. If Dorothy had been a more self-centered character, then the title text would be a lot funnier. Smperron (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2012 (EST)
- Yes, it would be extremely out of character, considering she was willing to run away from home just to protect Toto in the first place.22.214.171.124 06:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely to close a loophole. Dorothy has something the Witch wants that Dorothy doesn't need except the crazy witch wants to hurt her for them. The Wizard seems to have what she needs but won't give it except for what the witch wants. A trade seems much easier. But of course, who would trust the witch (and why would the untrusting witch start trusting)? All things considered, if you're in a strange land with freaky creatures and frighteningly perverse singalongs, you might consider a Scottish terrier a small price to pay to return to a Kansas farm which, while dull, is far superior to that crazy place. :) Chriss (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Chriss
- Cairn Terrier, original to the books and continued in the movie. Smaller and less feisty than a Scottie.A loyal breed, he probably escaped from the WWW after the trade, and is flying home with Dorothy and the Professor, unseen down in the bottom of the balloon basket.126.96.36.199 21:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Megan never struck me as much of a dog person. DanB (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just wondering if Wizzard wants to see the broom, why not to show that to him, even let him touch that, than return it to the Witch, collect the pupy from her and merry on my way ? Kind of complicating the quest again, but retaining the all-for-friend appearance. prom 1:13, 20.12.2012 (CET)
Since the book had Silver Shoes and the movie had Ruby Slippers, I think it's probably best to avoid discussion of the book... I've removed the reference to the Nome King - who doesn't appear in the movie or even that first Oz book. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else notice Black Hat Guy in the balloon? How do you add the tag for "Comics with Black Hat Guy"?
- I dont think that is Black Hat Guy.. This guy's hat is taller. It also wouldn't fit into Black Hat Guy's character, as Megan is essentially tricking him into thinking she's killed the witch.
Due to the absence of lyrics, I assumed it was humming or whistling, not singing. --BigMal27 // 188.8.131.52 12:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The irony here is her ruby slippers have the power to take her home, but she's trading them away for a broom, in the hopes that the wizard will take her home. She says "that was easy" although it was far more effort than just clicking her heels and repeating "there's no place like home".
Twifosp (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)twifosp
I'm still confused by this one - or maybe I just don't remember the movie well enough. She has the ruby slippers which would let her fly home by clicking them - so what has she gained by exchanging them indirectly for a flight home in a balloon? Has she traded her three companions and dog for the wizard's company? I feel I'm missing something. Also, to the person above saying it would be "out of character" for Dorothy to trade in this way, isn't that the point? That a sociopath version of Dorothy would resolve the problem completely differently? Stevage (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Which version of Dorothy is the sociopath? Can't WoO be summerized as "Young girl arrives in strange land, kills first person she sees, then sets out to kill again."?
Dorothy didn't know till near the end of the movie that the ruby slippers could get her home. I also want to point out that the Wizard never actually demanded the destruction of the witch. He just asked for her broomstick. The Tin Man suggested "But if we do that, we'd have to kill her to get it". The Wizard neither confirmed nor denied this, merely restating "Bring me her broomstick, and I'll grant your requests". So Dorothy trading for it without killing the witch is perfectly acceptable according to the terms outlined. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Furthermore, the good witch was (likely) not going to tell her how to get home until she had learned some valuable lesson. This bypasses the whole ordeal. 220.127.116.11 05:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm just remembering Wicked instead of the Wizard of Oz, but I was under the impression that the slippers were stuck to her feet. So she couldn't take them off, even if she wanted to. -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- That's right, Dorothy can't get the shoes off her feet, which is why she doesn't give them back to the witch (who is the legitimate owner of them) in the first place. This is the actual loophole that the alt-text is meant to close. 22.214.171.124 21:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Late to the party, but... There's probably some mystical detection of coercion, which would prevent even 'willing' self-removal. Fair trade (neither party being aggressive about it) might trigger their removability. The observed "dead witch's shoes" inheritance mechanism is another element of their enchantment that either teleports them to the current wearer's killer (though that's somewhat antithetic to the prior 'safeguard') or else rather more cleverly chooses the nearest possible person who hasn't personally struck the deadly blow or even conspired to?
- This latter might well be the intended imbued magical protection. It didn't predict something as esoteric as an entirely unintentional residential-homocide transfering ownership to my enemies' friend (out of the wicked sisters' hands/feet to the munchkins' more natural ally), but would have been a protection against almost all the actually imaginable threats their ultimate creator (whoever the mythos says that is) would have usually anticipated.
- Or it's a safeguard to get the slippers back into 'good' possession, via the chance innocence of heart, if ever they were somehow wrangled onto the feet of anyone blighted with power enough to bring them over to the 'evil' side. Not so obvious a backdoor that would be aggressively guarded against by even an astute practitioner, but a loophole left in that sufficiently favours (eventual!) repossession in a goodwards direction. 126.96.36.199 15:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The probable reason she didn't do this in the movie (assuming she thought of it) is that Dorothy is a very generous, loving person. If an evil witch who's terrorizing innocent people 24/7 wants something that bad, it's likely the slippers are a weapon or something the with could use to gain more power or do more evil. 188.8.131.52 17:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)EvanJM42 5:24, 1 August (GMT)
I don't think that this comic implies that anything bad would happen to Toto- the Witch would have an incentive to treat the dog well, so that she received her broom back without complication. I think the title text is just to emphasize that the problems Dorothy faced were very solvable if her only priority was getting her and her dog home. Bbruzzo (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)