One interesting aspect of this production is not an influence, but an absence thereof. The comic, almost pointedly, avoids reference to the iconic 1939 film. Many adaptations routinely adhere to these eliminations and alterations because they are adaptations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by proxy of the film, using it as a “best of” highlights reel containing the stories and references popular culture audiences will recall. This adaptation is far more comprehensive of the original narrative, including many scenes routinely chopped out of adaptations (the story of the field mice) as well as details that are often altered (the famously refurbished silver shoes as the ruby red slippers) or altogether ignored (the green glasses of Oz).
Strangely though, there are striking visual similarities to the film, details either not evident in or contrary to the text. Examples include Dorothy’s blue dress and braids, Glinda’s depiction as young rather than as an old woman, and Toto’s breeding leaning somewhat more towards Scotty than Silky. Oddly specific details, heavily wrapped in the iconography of the Wizard of Oz pop culture collective, but out of place in a work so consciously avoiding the dilution of prior adaptation.
The answer to this incongruity can be explained by tracing back to the common ancestor of Oz’s visual adaptation: William Wallace Denslow, whose illustrations accompanied the first edition of Baum’s work. The incongruity from Baum’s text to Young’s art can be traced back to Denslow’s initial interpretations, adding another layer to the comic’s adaptation. Shanower and Young didn’t approach Oz with the intention of interpreting the text and only the text, but with a mind to reinvent the original as an inclusive whole. They draw the oversaturated reader away from the mythology Oz has accumulated over the century and place them back into something resembling the time when Oz was new and tainted all at once.