All in all, Tom and Jerry: Back to Oz was a pretty good adaptation as an Oz sequel. Despite very clearly following up the 1939 film and using those variations of the characters, it was made by people who really cared about the books and knew their stuff. It was chock filled with references and nods to Oz things from several adaptations, not just the books. Though of course they were warped to fit the plot the movie was telling.

Some of these details in no particular order included the erection of a Dorothy statue, the Nome King pursuing revenge on Dorothy, being able to bring inanimate objects to life with a magical substance, background posters for the '39 Professor Marvel, bringing the Wizard back to Oz, casting actors like James Monroe Igleheart (literally how did they get him?!) who were in other productions, the inclusion of musical numbers from the '39 film that didn't make the first Hanna-Barbera film or reprises (including the Jitterbug!), the Queen of the Field Mice appearing, the nomes having a giant unending pit they throw people in, and the Wizard returning to Oz to stay even after Dorothy leaves.

It was really nice to see the nomes finally in a film adaptation! And Jason Alexander killed as Ruggedo. I am a hater at heart though, so I have a few minor issues with their portrayal. The emphasis on his being a King first and foremost and wanting things due to his station obscured his portrayal that I always read as a critique of a uber rich gilded age American business man, and things like his symbol mimicking the flag of the Soviet Union also didn't mesh cohesively. And they spelled Nome with a G. That being said they really cashed in on the puns with things like nome sweet nome, and there's no place like nome, which I appreciated and felt was in the spirit of the source material while also honoring the '39 film.

The animation was significantly worse than the last film, but this is a sequel and a Hanna-Barbera annual film at that, so keeping that in mind it was pretty good. I think the whole animation budget went to the Jitterbug sequence, which looked significantly better than the rest of the film.

My only comment on it as a Hanna-Barbera piece of media is that, unlike the last movie where Tom and Jerry played a big role and basically propelled the plot forward, they do absolutely nothing here. They are barely in any scenes. This movie is much more about Oz and all the characters, and would lose only minutes of screen time if you cut Tom and Jerry. Not that I mind, but I'm sure Tom and Jerry fans weren't as thrilled about this one. The original songs were nice touches though.

All in all a fun but simple time, made better if you know it's a goofy watch and enjoy with your Ozian friends or a drink or two!

Wdym the ruby slippers change shape depending on who is wearing them. You're all cowards. Put Ruggedo in the red kitten heel.

Diversity win! The Hungry Tiger who wants to eat you is a woman

This is so funny the villian wants to kill the Gale's farm animals and serve them as food. Tom and Jerry writers I have terrible news for you about the purpose of farms

OH MY GOD AN INSTRUMENTAL OF THE JITTERBUG IS PLAYING IN THE OPENING CREDITS

WE'RE SO BARACK

"tell me this movie is gonna go hard without telling me it's gonna go hard"

Before the next book it's time for Tom and Jerry: Back to Oz because I want to see it.

There's just this weird ongoing underlying theme in The Lost Princess of Oz of like, colonialist intent, as I observed in a previous post. But less understandable to me is the weird dialogue that Ugu the Shomaker's arc undergoes in relation to American values.

His reasons for being deemed a wicked person is that he believes himself to not be equal to others, but to be their better. He wants to be in a position of power because he "is blind to the rights of others" both of which are due to his beliefs about his own heritage and what he is owed based on his ancestry. His "wicked" actions are nearly all a plot to grab power and dominance over others.

His unlearning of his violent entitlement which happens off the page and out of sight, lead him to appreciate a common life more than ever. He also explicitly renounces his disregard for others "rights" and comes to love a "free and independent life" (even though it's life as a bird ???) in his final moments before being granted forgiveness.

But of course the only rights he was impinging on were the rights of the powerful rulers, and taking away their ability to retaliate. He didn't actually hurt the common man.

Idk what to make of this aside from what we already know, Baum is an American writing this in 1917, who really wants to write about a socialist utopia but also can't imagine a better system of rule than 'the divine right of kings would work if we found someone who was intrinsically perfect and also probably a woman'. Idk. Nothing really shocking, but it was odd enough I've been thinking about it.