Well it's quite apparent that literary artifice for the sake of parody and sarcasm is beyond your experience so we'll just have to leave it at that.  However, I will go out on a limb here and surmise that you don't write comedy for a living. Neither do I, but laughter is good, especially when public clowns like Trump & Co. can be so easily skewered. On the other hand there were quite a few people who understood and enjoyed it for what it was, and didn't feel compelled to wonder as to their amusement because some insignificant details didn't quite square. It had the intended effect, it was funny, that was entirely my point. Scarecrow not Tin Man! So what, people laughed. And where did 'crybaby' come from?  Most people don't extrapolate 'crybaby' from 'wistful lament'. Grasping at straws duckster? Now that would have to be Scarecrow, we couldn't use Tin Man there.  You've had zero endorsements on your first reply, so clearly no one cares about your pedantic, misplaced cinematic autopsy.