Talk:1149: Broomstick

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 18:02, 19 December 2012 by Philosopher (talk | contribs) (The movie, not the book: new section)
Jump to: navigation, search

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. 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)
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
Megan never struck me as much of a dog person. DanB (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The movie, not the book

Since the book had Silver Slippers 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)