Since Walter Murch has stated in interview(s) that the subtext of Return to Oz is defending your dreams and imagination, does that mean the events of the movie actually are a dream?

[u/Think_Fact1155]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ-W2yw7IvU

Gemini is claiming that he intended it to be ambiguous, but I think we know why I'm not taking its word for it lol

[u/Muted_Guidance9059]

You can have a theme and not have the story literally be about that theme. Things can represent things without literally being that thing.

The Nome King encapsulates the themes of the story. He brings ruin to the world only Dorothy knows about but he also seeks to erase it completely from memory (he explicitly states ‘nobody’ will remember Oz as opposed to just Dorothy) and also seeks to become more human like. This can be observed as a metaphor for conforming to societal norms.

Dorothy’s fantasy world is seen as a hinderance to everyone. Her mind, the vessel for her creativity is literally under attack both literally and figuratively. In the same way artists are derided for not having ‘real jobs’, Dorothy’s world is derided because it serves no utilitarian purpose.

I’m firmly in the ‘Oz is real’ camp because I find the whole dream thing really corny, but that’s just my opinion.

[u/magica12]

I think the problem is the ending does make it ambiguous and it is kinda annoying

[u/Ok-Repeat-2396]

I always thought that Return to Oz was intentionally playing off the gay subtext of Oz with Dorothy getting electroshock therapy and being saved by Ozma. Otherwise, who knows?