A Conspiracy of Wizards is a fictional book by Steve Harvey, published in 2005. The book takes readers on a journey to a magical land inhabited by imps, wizards, giants, monsters, heroes, and villains. The story revolves around a young woman who flees an unwanted marriage to a local nobleman and seeks to fulfill her own dreams. She becomes a heroic archer and eventually joins the winged muses of Ilyaria as they carve from the clouds.
The book is set in the millennial struggle between the gods and forces of nature, as well as imps, wizards, and muses. The story is set amidst a millennial struggle between the gods and the forces of nature. The book is available in paperback and Kindle editions, with low prices and free delivery.
In Tactical Breach Wizards, players lead a team of renegade wizards in kevlar through turn-based battles to unravel a modern conspiracy plot. They combine their unique spells in clever ways to unravel the plot. The book is available in paperback and weighs 1 lbs.
In the land of Calambria, things are not always as they seem, but the naked truth is no less marvelous than the myths that clothe it. The book explores themes of magic, mythology, and the power of imagination in navigating the world.
📹 THEORY: Glinda is the Wizard of Oz MASTERMIND!
EDIT: My apologies, when I show the two actresses birth dates, I accidentally put the same date for both of them. That’s just an …
📹 TikTok’s Craziest Conspiracy Theories
PO BOX: PO BOX 1113 Ashwood, VIC AUSTRALIA 3147 Thanks for watching Like, Comment and Subscribe for more!
Glenda first asks “are you a good witch or a bad witch” suggesting that there is no way to tell the difference. Later on Glenda says “Only bad witches are ugly” which seems convenient considering that Glenda is not ugly. The munchkins then laugh as if they are in on the joke. That scene has always stayed with me.
As a child one of the things I noticed about Glinda, and everyone else seems to have missed, is off the bat she lied to Dorthy. At the beginning of the movie the first thing Glinda said is she couldn’t send Dorthy home with magic. Yet, at the end of the movie that is exactly what she did. Sends her home, with magic. But we should also examine the so called “bad” witch. What did the Wicked Witch of the West exactly do that was so bad? Nothing. All she did was try to reclaim her property, her sisters shoes, that where hers by the laws of inheritance valid in any society in history. For this, she was brutally murdered during a home invasion by a hired band of thugs that where there to steal her rightful property. A band of thugs hired by, Glinda, the good witch.
….why would Glinda ask Dorothy, “Are you a good witch or bad witch?”, if she already knew Dorothy had the power to go home at any time? And put the slippers on Dorothy’s feet? If Glinda didn’t have an agenda…. she would have told Dorothy to just click her heels to go home at the time she gave her the slippers. Why wait all the way till the end to tell her that, unless her agenda was completed. Lol just saying
I had the original Wizard of Oz book or a different version. I liked that book so much that I’ve read it over and over. There were no parallels. Dorothy, Toto, Aunt Em, and Uncle Henry were the only characters in the beginning of the story. Dorothy came to Oz by cyclone, but the Wicked Witch of the West was not flying on her broomstick in the cyclone. The Wicked Witch of the West did not appear when the house fell on top of the Wicked Witch of the East. The Wicked Witch of the West did not show up until later in the book. The Wicked Witch of the East did not wear ruby slippers; she wore silver slippers. The Good Witch of the North gave Dorothy a kiss of protection on her forehead. The Wicked Witch of the West could not hurt Dorothy due to Glinda’s kiss of protection. The Wicked Witch of the West did not put a spell on the poppies that caused our main heroes to fall asleep. The poppies already had the ability to make anything living fall asleep. The poppies had no effect on the Scarecrow and Tinman. Believe it or not, there was a Good Witch of the South. The Good of the South was the one who revealed the secret of the slippers in the end. I would say that the book is quite different from the movie. I must say that Glinda being a manipulative liar was a good theory.
This theory makes perfect sense, and I was thinking it before I even watched the entire article. She basically used this girl to assassinate all her enemies and become the default ruler of Oz. The wand waving and the untying of the ropes were details that I never noticed, but undeniably intentional. The Tin man even pretended that he was shocked by what’s happening immediately afterwards as if he didn’t know what he just did deliberately.
I noticed that Glinda was kind of shady the other day while perusal. Especially at the end, where she says that Dorothy always had the power to go home but never told her because she needed to “want it more” or something like that. I just sat there thinking no you put her through so many unnecessary things just for laughs.
What about TOTO?? If it weren’t for Toto, there would BE no Wizard of Oz. He sets the entire story in motion and sustains it to the end. If Toto hadn’t tried to bite Miss Gulch, she wouldn’t have taken the dog away to be destroyed, after which he escaped and ran back to Dorothy – at which point SHE decides they have to run away from home to keep him safe. If they hadn’t run away, she would’ve been home when the tornado hit and would have been safe in the storm cellar. In Oz, Toto is still the main player. Toto is the one who leads the way on the Yellow Brick Road, who escapes imprisonment in the Witch’s castle by leaping off the drawbridge, and runs to get the Tin Man, Lion and Scarecrow to lead them back to the castle where they rescue Dorothy. AND IT IS TOTO who pulls back the curtain, revealing that the Wizard is a fraud! Yet, I have never ONCE heard anyone mention Toto’s importance or name him as their “favorite character”. He just sort of fades into the background. OH AND ONE MORE. Toto is the reason Dorothy can’t go back with the Wizard in the balloon. He jumps out and she has to go after him. Nothing would happen AT ALL without Toto.
I have a theory that Dorothy DOES have a doppelgänger, and it’s the Wicked Witch Of The East. Glinda calls Dorothy here because WWOE is the only one who can kill WWOW, but the real one didn’t want to kill her own sister- so Glinda kills her, and brings her doppelgänger to Oz to do away with WWOW and the wizard
this reminds me of the book “Dorothy must die” where the summary basically said that things were the way they were for a reason and when Dorothy came and changed things, it left Oz messed up. I think it kinda ties into Glinda being the villain. things were apparently fine before Dorothy came so if Glinda really is the one who brought Dorothy there, she used her as a tool to mess up Oz to get what she wants
I have got something to add to this evidence. In Return to oz Dorathy goes back into the world of Oz but things have changed! Glenda let bad things happen to oz and helped the villains in that movie take over because she thought they could help her rule . That’s when they also turned her to stone and when glenda is saved she pretends like nothing ever happend so her sharade lives on. She is the evil witch. And if the proper witches and oz were still there oz wouldn’t have been attacked be the evil villains there! Like if you agree
I believe that the Wicked Witch is a lot like Snoke from Star Wars. She was created by Glinda out of a magic clay that can only be destroyed by water, and she would take control of Glinda’s army of flying monkeys and she wouldn’t know that she’s being controlled by Glinda. So in some way, the Wicked Witch is her own villain but she gets thoughts and ideas that she thinks are her own but are actually from Glinda in order to get Dorothy to progress through the story.
I like your theory. I have one of my own. And I’d like to counter: 1.Uncle Henry doesn’t have a parallel doppelgänger either….. 2. in Alice in Wonderland, who are the people from her normal life identical to the people in wonderland??…. 3. The character of the ” Old woman” (apparently you call 30 old) mentor that turns out to be a tyrant doesn’t exist. Theory: GLINDA IS DOROTHY’S DEAD MOTHER. Dorothy is brought up by her older aunt and uncle. She dreams of her deceased mother whom, in memory, she has idolized as a beautiful fairy princess. Like a mother, rather than doing everything for her, Glinda directs and guides but allows Dorothy to learn her lesson for herself. This releases her from the dependency of childhood. Glenda is more like an angel….. what do you think?? {Of course, other books about OZ blow this out of the water. Wicked witches of the east and west good witches of the north and south and Ozma being the true ruler of Oz… But ignoring that…lol}.
Love the various Glinda roasts! It was weird that Glenda didn’t stick around to help much. She isn’t ruling over munchkin land & I feel like she should have gone with them to stop such a “huge threat to OZ” so the pulling the strings behind the scenes idea makes sense. Also, its suspicious that Glenda doesn’t give the Muchkins anything to protect themselves from either Wicked Witch or at least magically make them human sized. It seems like she wants them to be dependent on her/unable to stop her if she decided to take over all of Oz as ruler. Great article, revised theory, speculation, & movie evidence!
This is awesome! Great theory! And makes sense. He forgot to point out how right from the start, Glinda shows herself to be a very self-centered, egotistical witch! Think about her remark to Dorothy when she said, “I’ve never heard of a beautiful witch before. Witches are old and ugly!” Glinda’s response was, “Only bad witches are ugly!” Implying of course, “you’re right Dorothy I AM beautiful! And very good!” Right there is proof of her evil intent, by warping and twisting reality!
Literally none of this would have been a problem if they had just STICKED TO THE PLOT OF THE BOOK! Glinda is the GOOD WITCH of the SOUTH and DOESN’T APPEAR UNTIL THE END OF THE BOOK! She is greeted by the GOOD WITCH OF THE NORTH, who is unnamed, and DOESN’T KNOW HOW THE SLIPPERS WORK. Also, the Witch of the West is a MINOR plot point, appearing in literally THREE CHAPTERS.
This also makes sense when you look at the Broadway play Wicked. In that story both Glinda and Elphaba (wicked witch of the west) are in some sort of high school. They start out as enemies but quickly became friends after seeing the wizard. Throughout the play, it’s clear that Glinda only cares about popularity, going as far as to backstab her friend.
I always thought there was a power struggle going on in Oz! Glinda wanted to have East and West gone, but didn’t want to get her hands dirty. Don’t know if she was brought in or came accidentally, but Glinda saw her as the perfect patsy: someone incredibly naive that she could easily manipulate with a couple of well-placed lies. As for the Wizard, well he was expendable once he served his purpose. Thanks for fleshing out the rest. By the way, no Witch of the South? What happened to HER?
red shoes signify she’s under mk ultra. parallel lives equals what she does while under mk ultra vs what she does as herself. she doesn’t have a parallel because she’s the same person just with several personality’s. the tornado is significant to going through a portal or “switching” once you study about mk ultra handlers then you will understand the man behind the curtain.
What about the other witch? When Dorothy first arrived the Munchkins ask if she’s a good witch or a bad witch. Even Glinda asks her this. And the Witches are all directional rulers. East… West… North… and South. East was killed by Dorothy and later in the film the West as well. Glinda is the Witch of the North… so who is the Witch of the South? It isn’t Oz since he isn’t a Witch… he is a Wizard. When I watched the movie it seemed more that Dorothy’s neighbor was the Wicked Witch of the East as she was riding her bike then turned into a witch on a broom before the house fell. And during her song to the Munchkins she explained what happened. Then the Wicked Witch of the West appeared… who looked identical. Soooo if there is a Witch of the South are they an identical twin of Glinda and a being of Good…. or are they Wicked as well making Glinda the exception? What if the witch of the South is Dorothy’s parallel in this world but can’t be seen as Dorothy is in the world and it would make a paradox?
You know how Dorthy lives with her uncle and aunt, where’s her mom? Dorthy’s dad died from a lung disease. Glinda is someone who is traveling! So the reason why she knows all the things is because she was being told by her sister Emily! When Dorthy was 3 her father died of lung cancer, Glinda wanted to give her kid a better life by sending her to Emily, her sister. So Oz is a place where all doppelgangers live. Glinda put her family in Oz. Her mom was the wicked witch of the East. Her sisters neighbor as The wicked witch of the West. Her daughter was to be the witch of the South. So when Glinda asked are you a good witch or a bad witch and Dorthy says I’m not a witch at all, Glinda is upset with Aunty Em, because Emily was aware of her sisters world, but wanted nothing apart of it, so she didn’t tell her niece and that’s why Glinda lied to Dorthy. Glinda just wanted to have a world where her daughter can learn her family ways.
I just stumbled on your website… And…. Got a question that MIGHT blow your theory:: What about the dog? If she was pulled out of her body to go there, he’d have to be a doppelganger, as well. But he clearly knows her. He clearly is the creature she knew before. She had to introduce herself to the other 3. Not him, though. He was there with her from start to finish.
If you really think about it, the witch of the east never did anything on screen to indicate she was evil in any way and was only called “The Wicked Witch” by Glinda. We have no idea if she was wicked or not because she died instantly at the start. It was also super convenient that this house RANDOMLY landed on Glinda’s enemy by chance. The Wicked Witch of the West wasn’t necessarily evil either. All she did was come to avenge her dead sister and claim her property (the shoes) which is rightfully hers since it was her own family’s belongings. Everything after that could be considered an act of vengeance against someone that murdered her sister and stole her fancy shoes. OH yeah and then she also got murdered.
I’m currently reading a book called Dorothy Must Die. It’s obviously about The Wizard Of Oz. It’s about another girl from Kansas coming to Oz, the girl is Amy Gumm. The thing is, though, everything is different. Basically, you can’t trust the good witches or Dorothy and her friends, and the wicked are the trustworthy ones. It’s a bit hard to explain. Here are a ew things about it: You might say though that Dorothy went home, and yes, that’s stated in the book, but Dorothy came back and got hold of some magic, became addicted, and everything went downhill from there. Also, Glinda is a evil character in the book! The book I’m reading, I mean. Before you even announced Glinda as being the evil one, I was already chanting it. Anyways, this was a useless comment I took five minutes to make, and I hope you all enjoy the rest of y’alls lives. (Btw I suggest y’all read the book!)
the book is a political statement about the gold standard switch to silver. the slippers were originally silver the land of oz actually ounce like what gold is weighed in. The scene in the poppy field is a nod to the opium wars. the wicked witch is banks, Dorthy is a representative of a farmer who made a populace march the scarecrow represented the farms union, the tin man is the Steele workers union, the cowardly lion was Woodrow Wilson the president who sold us to the irs and federal reserve, and the wizard is the puppet government who when found out will have no power. so your theory is wrong you don’t know anything about the wizard of oz and the movie was only created to diminish the message of the original story. nice article though.
I always did find it interesting that Glinda never had a reality counterpart …but maybe the producers didn’t know how or where to fit in another character in the opening where Dorothy is in Kansas. Glinda is not evil ..at the end when Glinda says “you wouldn’t of believed me” ….Glinda is referring to how Dorothy wouldn’t of believed “there is no place like home” …Dorothy was running away and wanted to find something better out there …Dorothy would of never wanted to go home upon arriving to Oz ..b/c of how great and beautiful everything looked …but ultimately Glinda’s lesson to Dorothy is “there is no place like home” ….everyone is thinking way too deep into a movie that’s 80 plus yrs old …the movie wasn’t thought out how it should’ve….I mean water is what kills the witch??? Whether she was inhuman or not…that’s ridiculous ….but either way I love Glinda! She is my fav movie character ever!!! 💘💘💘
This could be a theory: You don’t meet Dorothy’s real mother in the movie, she just has Aunt Em. What if the reason Dorothy doesn’t have a parallel in Oz is because she was actually born there; then, the reason Glinda brought her to Oz because she is actually Dorothy’s mother who sent her away because of the other witches. Then she brought Dorothy back because she wanted to see her and knew that she was the only one who could truly defeat the witches and gave her the shoes to help her on the journey to Emerald City. The reason why she could have sent the balloon away after that is because then she could send Dorothy home and look like a hero to her daughter.
I have always thought Glinda to be the true villain if this story. The taunts, the lies, why make Dorothy travel by foot across a strange country with a “wicked” witch after her instead of bubble-porting her to Oz, or letting her ride by horse-drawn munchkin carriage? Dorothy was totally there as Glinda’s secret assassin, a “sleeper” agent (just caught the pun) to get the competition out of the way. I don’t think all the dopplegangers were Glinda’s creations, though, because why would she need Dorothy to eliminate them for her? Why would she ever have made them in the first place if she just wanted to rule over the munchkins? Also, the reason no munchkin had time to summon Glinda in the end, as the Wizard flew off in an unstable air balloon (which was probably meant to kill Dorothy too if Toto hadn’t jumped out causing Dorothy to follow at the last minute) is that they were in Emerald City, not munchkin land, and there were no munchkins present. After Dorothy escaped the balloon of death, Glinda had no choice but to send her home as she couldn’t just kill her in front of witnesses
There’s also the part in the movie where she tells Dorothy that she had the power to go home the whole time, but didn’t say it to begin with, because she wouldn’t have believed her. I find that odd. Yeah, sure she also said that she wanted Dorothy to learn a lesson, but I’m wondering why she worded it “She wouldn’t have believed me.” Dorothy literally believed in a wicked witch, flying monkeys, a talking lion, a talking person made out of tin, and a talking scarecrow, along with the other absurdities that are associated with Oz. Why wouldn’t she believe a witch when she told her that she could go home anytime she wanted. And even if she didn’t believe it, why wouldn’t she try anyway, if she wanted to go home so badly? That was her goal for the entire movie since she got to Oz. Going home. It wasn’t defeating a witch, it wasn’t making friends, since she didn’t even know the other characters existed. And while I’m on that topic, what was the point of her going to Oz to begin with if she had the ability to go home the whole time. If the original movie plot was correct, the “good witch” wouldn’t have known the scarecrow, the lion, or the tinman even existed. And while I’m on the subject of going to Oz, the queen either didn’t really know who the Wizard was, or she didn’t know he was a bumbling idiot, and not a wizard. That’s if the original plot made sense, which it doesn’t when you overthink it. The only thing I can think of was that the witch sent Dorothy on a wild goose chase. Also, the “lesson” she learned from all of this didn’t really make any sense.
I think this is a true behind story about Glenda. I’d say Dorothy was the last person to remove from OZ so she could rule. Seeming so kind she did let Dorothy suffer. She did use her. She only saved her so she could get away to finish the rest of them off. The only thing is she accidentally found out about the Wizard being a fake. Interesting. Thanks for the clip 2020
There is one thing you missed. I don’t know if the book counts or if it is mentioned in the movie But there is a witch of the west, a witch of the north (Linda, or whatever her name is), the witch of the east and the witch of the south (who Dorothy doesn’t meet). If Dororthy gets rid of the eastern and western witch and the wizard, there is still the witch of the south and the witch of the north. In the book it is said that they both are good witches, you said the witch of the north is secretly evil. You could say: ‘it doesn’t look really logical that there are 3 bad witches and 1 good witch. What if they’re all evil?’ I don’t think That’s the case. As the wizard is useless it seems to me that if all witches were evil, there was nothing stopping them from fighting eachother and taking their lands. So for Logics sake, the witch of the south has to be good. Meaning that even after the witch of the west and east are defeated, there will still always be an enemy fighting against the witch of the north. And if the witch of the north really wanted to kill the witch of the south, she wouldn’t have let Dorothy go home But just told het another lie that she first needed to kill the witch of the south. That’s just What I think.
I agree with you and I want to add something you may have missed. As a former film student and a writer I have used shoes many times in my stories to symbolize taking someone’s place. This actually happened to my friend’s in real life where one took the other one’s shoes and his car and took off as a blatant sign of disrespect so I have always had this in my head as a metaphor. Obviously the legs under the house are symbolic of what is about to happen to Dorothy and Glenda has placed them onto her symbolically showing she is filling the shoes of the dead person. I can think of not one positive reason to wear a dead persons shoes this is a social taboo it is amazing no one ever has ever pointed out how twisted and creepy that scene is? Glenda obviously has the culture industry PR machine deep in her back pocket and uses every trick in the Edward Bernays hand book to sway public opinion to the point they think its a great and magical thing for a little girl to put on shoes stolen right off a dead person still warm. So most likely Dorothy is going to take the blame for the wizards fate as you have pointed out. re-watching that scene it looks like Glenda she’s hiding behind Dorothy and she when she threatens the wicked witch that a house could fall on her next that’s classic mob boss dialogue. Not to mention she was lead down a road by little fairy people who in legends almost always trick people. And she meets a lion who fears someone a heartless tin man, and a straw man. Basically straw mans definition sums up your theory nicely.
I always thought something was up with Glinda. The first time I noticed it was after listening to Wicked for the millionth time and then watched the movie. It was a joke between my friends that Glinda was a sadist witch because of Wicked. We watched Wizard Of Oz together joking around at everything Glinda says and does saying she’s a monster. Then we started realizing she was kinda acting messed up. So many people thought we were crazy so I’m glad we aren’t the only ones who don’t trust Glinda
Margret Hamilton the actor who played the witch, did a great job as the witch even though she was on life’s risk since copper paint was on her the whole time, but, there was also another witch, the good witch of the south, does she know about this, or was she tricking her sister to do this, maybe she’s the bad guy since we never see her, she’s in the shadows.
if it’s real and Glinda brought Dorothy to Oz, it’s because she wants to be in power for one, and 2 wants the shoes to herself in the end. no one can kill the other witches for whatever reason, only someone light in spirit and Dorothy is very innocent… so Dorothy has to kill the other 2 and innocently convince the Wizard to help her… and then talk him into using the balloon, so that would get rid of him. Glinda wasn’t able to convince him…
🤔 my hypothesis of Glinda’s lesson to teach Dorothy…. “That monsters (evil villains) can “Also” Look glamorous & appear sweet kind & helpful.” ….when all the while they’re ripping you off, setting you up for a fall, and placing you & your loved ones in danger, and causing immense amount of trauma chaos!!!! And then make you think it’s your own imagination and just a dream.😉
What if Dorothy really died in the twister? She’s not able to move on, thinking she needs to travel the world. She ends up in an alternate world where the first character she sees (Witch of the East) is dead beneath a twister. It’s her own body. She uses these versions of her friends back home to learn she didn’t need to see the world, that her life was meaningful. It gets a bit religious but Glinda is God and in the end, Dorothy is finally granted a place in heaven.
So, you said the Doppelgängers were created by Glinda. So if the Wizard of Oz and the Wicked Witch of the West are both doppelgängers, then Glinda had created them. So why would she need to get rid of them? They probably didn’t exist before Dorothy came, cause Glinda had created them herself. All Glinda needed to do was have Dorothy kill the Witch of the East and then send her home. It just doesn’t make sense.
Glinda didn’t send her home bc she wanted Dorothy to truly learn a lesson, just like how Mr. Miyagi used non-direct methods to teach Daniel-San, not just straight forward karate techniques. But how life and karate are so similiar, both require concentration, hard work, discipline, and balance. Glinda’s main them to teach Dorothy: Grass isn’t always greener on the other side: “There’s no place like home”. And instead of sending her home when she arrives, she makes her journey so Dorothy fully understands. Check. And incedentally. Mate.
After the wizard flys away, as glinda is beginning to make her entrance, the scarecrow shouts… “look! Here’s someone who can help you!” First off, its like he’s saying this to reassure dorothy of glinda’s “goodness”. Secondly, how does he know it’s someone who can help, or even know who glinda is in the first place? Glinda never appears in any scenes with the scarecrow.
This article is six years old. No one is going to read this, but I don’t care. My guess as to why Glinda is not Auntie Em’s doppelganger is so the “twist” isn’t revealed straight out of the gate. Even on a first watch, It would be evident that it was Em in a puffy pink dress and a wand. Sure, the leading players in OZ are all replicas. Still, perusal it for the first time, you might not pick up on it until the Emerald City when you see the Professor playing three different people and then realize you are not crazy for thinking the witch, scarecrow, tin man, and lion seemed familiar…..wait why didn’t Henry have a replica!?
A bit late but this works for the Oz the great and powerful movie too. The monkey is his magic assistant The China girl is the girl in the wheelchair during the show Glinda is the woman who visits him after the show Perhaps there is more but those are the main 3. The only people who don’t have Doppelgängers are both of the Witches. They seem nice and kind at the beginning however as the movie progresses they become more aggressive and show more hatred to Oz.
This is like making a mountain out of a Mole hill on all this wizard of oz stuff!😂 Of course Dorothy doesn’t have a double, because it’s her dream! n Glenda struck a deal with her n she accepted, so she could go home. n You could say that the Lion n the Scarecrow n the Tin man was Dorothy’s familiars. Because they were who she knew in her reality. However, your article was really creative.🕊️💛✨
You say it’s either a dream or it’s everything you say it is, well it’s easy just watch the end of the movie. She wakes up in her bed and says it was a dream. More like a mild coma or a near death experience. The other two movies you reference do share similarities but The Wizard of Oz differs in major glaring way. In the other two the protagonist does not wake up in their bed and proclaim it was a dream. It was an obvious dream.
In the context of the movie, Dorothy’s adventure in Oz was indeed a dream; Mervyn LeRoy, the producer, was under orders from the MGM suits to make sure that the fantasy was not portrayed as real. It had to be a dream; that was why they created five characters– Professor Marvel, Almira Gulch, Hickory Twicker, Hunk, and Zeke– who were not in the original book and who were to serve as the templates for some of the characters that Dorothy would meet in Oz. That’s simply the truth of it, and any “theories” that disregard that fact of history are falling wide of the mark and are basically a waste of time.
I have a few issues with this 1. Uncle Henry doesn’t have a parallel either 2. Why would Glinda create the Wicked Witch to kill her and why would the Munchkins be so afraid if she was just created before Dorothy came 3. The Tin Man literally could’ve just gotten distracted 4. The Wicked Witch outright says that the shoes cannot come off until the wearer is killed, Glinda does not control them 5. Glinda never said she wanted to teach Dorothy a lesson, she said Dorothy wouldn’t believe her about the slippers magic and she had to see it for herself.
Hate to tell you but Return to Oz disproves a lot of your theories. And just so you know MGM Studio stated return Oz is a direct sequel to The Wizard of Oz. And you learn in that film there’s only one true heir and her name is ozma of Oz. Also Glenda is nowhere to be seen instead you have Queen Mombi and the Nome King.
This article and theory was a lot of fun! Thanks for creating it! However, I am curious about one thing. Maybe I missed or misunderstood something somehow. If the Wicked Witch of the West was a fake creation of Glinda herself using the appearance of Miss Gulch for the trick. ..why and how does Glinda need Dorothy to take her, as another rival ruler out? If she doesn’t really exist, she has no position for Glinda to covet. And what happened to the Good Witch of the South who I don’t recall ever even being mentioned in the story?
There’s an exchange between Glinda and Dorothy which is telling, but I think a lot of people miss. Glinda asks if Dorothy is a good witch or a bad witch. Dorothy responds that witches are ugly, but Glinda says, “only bad witches are ugly.” Firstly, she’s implanting a fear of uglyness in Dorothy’s subconscious, but also she’s giving a subtle clue as to the real villain. If you look at the statement logically, she’s only saying that ugly witches are evil, she’s not denying that beautiful witches could also be evil.
This is a good theory, however the reason Glinda does not tell Dorothy how to get home earlier is due to the books, in the books Glinda was actually two characters, there was the good witch of the North and Glinda the good witch of the south. And in the books Dorothy originally meets the witch of the north, and she only meets Glinda at the end, who tells her the true potential of the Ruby slippers (or the sliver shoes in the book) and tells her how to go home. In the movie they put them into one character to simplify it. And that resulted in this mistake.
also Glinda has a book that records everything in oz as it happens so she knows all in oz. some of these are explained if you actually read the books………. there are other things in the books way more occult than these examples. also the munchkins arnt the only beings that live in oz, not even close
Sorry to say this but the 1980 movie Return To Oz messed up your theory. There we don’t see Melinda anywhere in the movie other than a small part of her emerald shadow. She does not rule over the emerald city, ozma does. If Melinda’s plan was to rule then she would be ruling. Although almost the whole movie is taken place in the destroyed oz in the end when it is restored wouldn’t you think to see Melinda ruiling? My theory is Melinda watched over dorthy the whole movie since we see her emerald shadow. Melinda is Dorthy’s guardian. Also in the movie we see many examples of the shoes actually having power, including sending dorthy home. But your theory of Oz being real is true as we see in the end. Dorthy looks in the mirror and sees Ozma after she is home, while she is awake. It would be a good theory if the second movie didn’t ruin it.
I have always heard that the Wizard of Oz was written to let people know what was going on at that time. “Follow the yellow brick road” ie follow the money. I have been told that tells the people about the removal of gold… possibly backing the dollar. Also, the T.I.N. man = “tax identification number”, the scarecrow= “a straw man”. “We are not in Kansas anymore”= wake up and realize what is going on. I did like your rendition though.
I want to add to your theory: Glinda was the single ruler. But the munchkins didn’t like her because she demanded power. So she took ppl from another universe and made them the other powers of the land. Oz the great and powerful, the wicked witches and the East and West. She wanted to make sure the munchkins saw that other ppl could be worse rulers. But then she realized if she were too kill them herself, that’s gonna look bad in the munchkins eyes. So she needed another innocent which ti do her bidding. Enter Dorothy. Now everything in your theory happens and everyone’s gone finally. Now the munchkins thank Glinda for helping Dorothy and saving the land. Making them trust her more and now they want her as the ruler. 🤨
Anyone notice the similarities to Apocalypse Now? Willard and Dorothy were both from the Midwest. They were both ready to get out. One was almost attacked by a lion, the other a tiger. Both movies had euphemisms for killing ( “terminate with extreme prejudice ” and “take the witches broomstick”). There was one scene where they communicate with Home base (from the hour glass in WOO and the radio just before Kurtz was attacked in AN). Remember the lion seeing the sign that says “turn back” and the friends put him back on the path? Remember during the helicopter scene the one air cavalry soldier yelling “I’m not going!” And the other guys pulling him out? Last words before the witch and Kurtz attacked were similar: ( “how about a little FIRE scarecrow “. Or “they train young men to drop FIRE on people…..”). And the oddball greeters: the man at the door of Oz’s castle and the photojournalist.
I have one theory- that by putting on the red slippers, Dorothy actually became the witch of the east. Hence why the scarecrow and others came to life, how she had the power to go home and how she was able to kill the witch of the west (it was the witch of the east that turned her into the horrible witch in the first place so makes sense that only the witch of the east knew how to kill her or had the power to)
If the Wizard and the Wicked Witch are also doppelgängers (like the tin man, lion, and scarecrow), then that invalidates Glinda’s motive. If the Wizard and Wicked Witch were also rulers in Oz they wouldn’t be doppelgängers, they’d be real/legitimately from Oz. So why would Glinda need to bring Dorothy in to fix a problem with people that don’t exist? Since she, in this theory, created the wizard and Wicked Witch to accommodate/manipulate Dorothy.
Antique Perry Mason shows did better at presenting evidence, than this presentation!!! This was all about looking at something from another Perspective. That’s a bit different than ‘evidence’. Then have a read of “Wicked”…the story from the perspective of the Wicked Witch…. …Whole different Perspective. Now apply the skill of seeing multiple perspectives on any issue, to real life……think it would make some good differences, if more folks tried to see things from various perspectives, before agreeing with any position/side/argument? Besides…doesn’t everyone know by now, that drugs fueled Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, and likely Oz? Drugs certainly were forced on the actors for Oz…but that’s a different story….or was it?? One mark of a great, timeless story, is that people from any time, will see sub-stories or camouflaged commentary on the times, represented by, or hidden in, the larger (supposed) fiction. As seen in comments, many see different truths of their times, hidden in the story….different perspectives. Some make more sense than others, but that does not diminish even the poorest analogies; those just become parodies; humor is also of value.
Another thing about Glinda she tells Dorothy to walk down the yellow Brick Road to find the wizard to go back home well when the wizard flies away and then she shows up she says that she could just teleport there the whole time so basically she made Dorothy go through a whole trip just to do nothing apart from her friends getting the things that they want
No you are reading too deep bro. Good vid but it’s misleading. You see the witch did get more evil as time went on in film. The witches parallel is the lady on the bike. Because the lady on the bike is not a witch shes just a regular mean ole lady. But not a clear witch. So sorry you are wrong on that one main point. Aren’t you? Or how am I wrong? Please share. I liked it anyway.
Hi Theorizer, Correction to your article; The actual reason Glinda claimed for not Telling Dorothy how to get home in the first place wasn’t quite to teach her a lesson, but specifically to, “learn it for herself” (slightly different), and that Dorothy, “wouldn’t believe” Glinda. Please see the transcript quote on; moviequotedb.com/movies/wizard-of-oz-the/views.html Either Glinda was telling the truth….or…. lying so as to cover the truth of her hidden agenda to use Dorothy to do her dirty work. Please give me your feedback on this. Thank you Michael
Regarding your theory. Did the OZ books not contain a lot of grown up stuff, that was hidden between the lines. I recall that one of the characters who has lumb all over his body, is an reference to body malformations? So maybe there was an intendet plot in the Wizard of OZ about how people who act nice to you, always will try to exploit you when you are naiv?
I know this is an older article but I really hope the Theorizer sees this & can better dive into the thought I am about to say. I was just thinking about the theory presented in the article, which is one of the few theories I completely buy into, & realized something strange: THE GIRL MUNCHKINS ARE IN A COALITION CALLED THE LULLABY LEAGUE so maybe they helped Glinda bring Dorothy to OZ via dreams. Munchkin theory!
So let me get this straight: In the two other movies, the antagonist is a parallel of a character known to the protagonist, and because this movie follows the other two, the fact that glinda don’t have a parallel makes her the antagonist? Correct me if I’m wrong. Edit: When I think of it, where IS the parallel of the heart queen?
This one doesn’t make sense to me honestly, but I’m dumb so what do I know …. so she created doubles to fight her for power over Oz only to have Dorothy get rid of the fakes that were under Glinda’s control? Why make the fakes exactly ? Idk, maybe it would make that there is something with the slippers, what if the slippers are some sort of magical parasite ? Once the victim is drained up, then erase the whole fake world, kill off the current victim since the shoes can only come off after death, spy on a new girl, send twister to bring girl to Oz with landing the house on the previous host, killing her off and saying this whole fake back story . Then use the puppets to make the girl feel special, if she is eager to go on an adventure, make the story fun for her, if she seems unmotivated to act, create a villain . Use her memories to create new dolls, with faces of people she’d hate, or love, or trust, this will get her to play along . She’s easy to trick being so young . Make sure she keeps the shoes on for a long enough time to make sure they can’t ever come off again till she dies, once they are stuck- tell her she can go home and all she needs to do is close her eyes …..and then wave the wand behind her and put her to sleep. Let her dream while she’s being drained . “Dream of your loved ones, dream that they survived my magical twister. Yes, you’re back home and they’re all there…. the farm is intact. The mean lady is gone . Stay in this dream while you fade away as my food.
There’s more of this in “Oz the Great and Powerful”. The first time we see Glinda is in the Dark Forest. As we see, this place is full of monsters. Yet what does she do outside the graveyard, of all places? She puts her wand down, which would seem to deprive herself of magic. That action leads to two intriguing conclusions: either she is seeking to assure whatever is in the graveyard that she doesn’t want to hurt it, possibly in order to make friends. Or, she is already friends with whatever is in the graveyard and thus doesn’t need magic to defend herself there. Why is she making friends with monsters in a graveyard? Is she a monster herself?
k so this is a text: 1- you have no proof only conjecture, and the fact that some of the plot points are kind of nonsesical, but like, the movie clearly wants us to believe the universe is a dream, so the theory kind-of eats itself. 2- you do not consider outside reasons why dorothy’s aunt and glinda are played by the same character, and jump to a very strong conclusion, without pondering on the possibility that outside factors in the production could have stepped in(or like, people thought for the only bad witches are ugly line to make sense, the actress should not look like and old woman idk…) 3-I really find the point that the female manipulating character neeeds not to have connections with other characters, when in t alice in wonderland we have a character who is obviously meant to be the queen, and in coraline, the OTHER MOTHER is LITERALLY THE OTHER MOTHER, like my god. 4- if looked at it from wendy’s perspective, peter pan fits the formula pretty well, and in that one the manipulator is hook(manipulates tinker bell and the lost boys, tries to do so with wendy) so they don’t need to be a woman. 5- the manipulator and the villan could very well be split into the wicked witch and the wizard, and their overall aesthetics before the wizard reveal kind of confirm this, green face, shoots fire and lightning, lots of smoke, big castle and army. in this idea, the villan n1 dies and the second one is kind of redeemed. 6- this is inherent in most story theories, but you seem to observe the story as if it is an actual event, and not a story, with clear morals and plot points, it’s kind of a mute point but I think analysing stories without even considering message and purpose is kind of empty because otherwise you are just suggesting things occured for pretty much no (storytelling) reason.
The mother in coroline has a parallel character too? So does the wicled witch? How can you say because of the wicked witch having a parellel character, she’s not the antagonist? This makes no sense. You said that corolines mother is the antagonists but the witch isn’t the antagonist because she has a parallel?
1.) I honestly really love this theory but I need to stop perusal scarier-sounding theory articles like this one at night. My sleeping schedule is already slightly messed up and playing articles with nightmarish noises in the background (and in the dark too, I might add) isn’t helping any😅😅😅. 2.) I have read this really good book series that I think is slightly based on this very theory (called “Dorothy Must Die”). It’s really good and I recommend it😊. 3.) The hot air balloon scene always confused me as well; especially after I saw “Oz the Great and Powerful”; the Wizard had experience with them in that film, I’m pretty sure, and therefore should not be confused about how they work. I’m not sure if those two films would be considered to be connected though.
But I don’t get it. This theory poses Glinda created the Oz characters to resemble Dorothy’s friends and family and then manipulated Dorothy into killing them. But why did Glinda create them in the first place? Why does she create the Wicked Witch, Wizard and Wicked Witch of the West if she only wants them killed to rule Oz? Why did she create her own competitors?
I like it but realistically it’s actually an allegory for populism that was prominent during the time of the author. It has a lot of references to the gold standard hence the yellow brick road that leads to Oz which is green (money) and Oz being capital D.C. she is a country girl which is where farmers were being hurt the most during the 1880s ish. If you look it up there’s a lot more but that’s a general idea
Isn’t coralline’s moms doppelgänger the future antagonist? So the theory that the doppelgängers are fake and created for the traveler can’t be true for coralline. Also the wicked witch of the west was also a doppelgänger so she couldn’t have been a real ruler of oz if Glinda created her for Dorothy, and if she did why would she need Dorothy to defeat her if she was made for dorothy?
I seriously doubt that the Hollywood scriptwriters analysed the script to this degree and came up with the plan you describe. They were surely just creating an entertaining story. Also the original book by L Frank Baum was nothing like it’s movie counterpart. If anything you should maybe analyse the book. Just my thoughts.
I’m just confused what glindas motive is cus you basically said all the other “rulers” wicked witch and wizard were glindas creations so why did she need dorthy and why did she create those characters anyways, if she was the only magical “real” person in oz why not just rule cus she has more power and is smarter than the muchkins
“In her portrayal of Glinda, (Billie) Burke projects a benevolent sweetness that exemplifies her character’s all-knowing and serene grace. Glinda does not betray Dorothy in negligence by allowing her undue tribulations, which thus circumvents the often raised question, ‘Why didn’t Glinda tell Dorothy the way to get home right away?’ The point is that, in her wisdom, Glinda’s clairvoyance foresees the outcome of Dorothy’s journey and knows no serious harm will befall her; sans the journey, Dorothy’s maturity remains stagnant.” — “The Road to Oz” by Jay Scarfone and William Stillman
Of course “The wizard of Oz” wasn’t all a dream. And to anyone who says otherwise, I’d say, didn’t you ever see “The Wizard of Oz 2: Return To Oz”?! Oz is most probably a parallel universe in the multiverse. Also, about the wizard, remember, he said that one day while putting on a show, the balloon failed to return to the fair. In short, he didn’t know how to properly fly a hot air balloon then, either!!! Explanation DONE!!! There’s something wrong with the wizard’s entire story.
Either your theory is correct/somewhat correct, or the movie was just lazily written and there just seems to be a darker plot to it, when really it was just a dream and it wasn’t supposed to make sense. But I have to admit, it does seem that Glinda is behind the wheel throughout the story, from bringing Dorothy to Munchkin Land, sending her home and everything else in between. And the Wizard seemed to have little to no purpose. When I was a kid and I watched this movie, I did wonder why Dorothy went to all the trouble to finding a Wizard, then when they finally got there, the way he gave them things as a way to say “you’re fixed” seemed odd to me, but at the same time I did remind myself that it was a dream (hence the ending scene) although it did appear that Glinda was supposed to do everything and no one else in Oz had any power over her, even the western witch, when she appeared at the start, she didn’t put up much of a fight for the ruby slippers and almost seemed to be intimidated by Glinda.
I think the thing that confuses me most about Flat Earther’s is this. They always say “We’re being lied to” but… why? If the Earth was actually flat, what does ANYONE gain by lying to us and telling us the Earth is a globe? “Control”? Control over what exactly??? I don’t think people suddenly turn into mindless puppets if they’re told the Earth is round? Genuinely doesn’t make sense to me.
The last guy doesn’t realize that the atmosphere exists… the sun’s light is scattered throughout and lower wavelengths are reflected. If I knew him I would just show him any of those articles meant for 6 year olds about why the sky is blue… I hope he would be able to understand that. Also, he doesn’t think that water is blue, right? Ocean water is blue because it is reflecting the sky, not the other way around. When he turns on the faucet in his home, does blue water come out? If so, there’s either a massive plumbing problem in his area or someone is playing a prank on him.
Okay so the moon ‘theory’ really pisses me off for some reason so I’m gonna rant about it for a minute. The day/night cycle is caused by the rotation of the Earth. When it’s day, the sun is on your side of the globe relative to your position and night is when the sun is on the other side of the globe. Easy concept. The reason night isn’t as bright as the day is because the moon isn’t a star. The moon is a chunk of rock that broke off the Earth during its formation, so it does not emit its own light. What it does do is reflect the sun’s light, which isn’t as much as the sun generates obviously. This also helps explain the phases of the moon, as the Earth blocks the path of the sun at different parts during the rotation creating Earth’s shadow on the moon. This is why there’s more light during a full moon, there’s more surface area for the light of the sun to reflect back on Earth. All of this I learned in school, and anyone can learn by just Googling this shit. I’m sure anyone reading this likely already knows at least some of it, but I like to rant about science occasionally. Or rant about anything really. All that being said, thanks for listening to my Ted Talk.
17:06 the sky is blue because of light that is reflected You’ll notice that in like a rainbow 🌈 blue is pretty close to the bottom so if you look at the sun directly of course it’s bright and yellow because that’s the direct light but earth gasses scatter and reflect blue light more which why the sky is blue Btw it’s red at sunset because the light is less refracted I learned that in 5 minutes and 2 google searches and got a reasonable answer This guy brings up a good point Yet he has the answers right at his fingertips yet he spreads his confusion with the same powers that could solve all of them
The sky is blue because the molecules of various gasses that make up our atmosphere reflect light similar to the way water does, but it is much less dense so we don’t experience as much resistance from the air as we do water. but basically the sky reflects blue light and absorbs the rest of the colors. the blue light scatters making the sky not appear dark, but blue. (I know many people already know this but it is still a really cool fact.)
real one here, watch a clock with seconds on it. They only run when you are looking at them, and stop when you aren’t looking. watch how long a second takes, then look away and look back. when the clock starts back up, the second will be a little longer than normal. . . . . . . . . . . . this is a psychological trick. your brain starts timing the second from when you turn to look, not when the second actually starts, so the time will seem to pause for a fraction of a second when you look at it.
Honestly he really lost it immediately with the clock thing because he’s saying everything across from each other equals 12, but then when you get to 6 and 12, 6 + 12 does not equal 12. It worked with every other number except for 6 and 12 so what they said was 6 + 6 is 12 which is true but there’s not two sixes on the clock.
By the way, the ‘i’ in “iPhone” stands for “internet,” as in “internet phone.” The reason the sky is bright blue during the daytime is because our atmosphere traps high-energy light (such as blue and purple) while letting lower-energy light (such as red and yellow) through. The trapped light is so intense it makes the stars disappear. The firmament is actually what we call the stratosphere. It holds water in the sky in the form of clouds. Magic might exist, but if it does, you want to stay as far away as possible from it.
To be fair, the sky does look a lot more like the one in the images, without needing long exposure. The reason we don’t see it like that, or need long exposure in the first place is due to light pollution. You have to go a very long way away from any lit up areas to get a proper glimpse of the real sky. There are “Dark Sky” Places you can go to get a real look of the stars. Or the ocean. I remember the first time I saw the Milky Way, and I mean truly saw it i was astonished. I realized then, why mankind always looked to the stars.
What I find funniest about the “dark iphone theory” is that you don’t even need to make up shiz to show how scummy they are. Just look at how anti repair they are and how they actively try to get users to buy new by making repairs and access to parts uneconomical. Or how they force recycling companies to recycle the old products instead of refurbishing them which is much better for the environment. Or how they estimate you will get $400 credit for your old macbook (that is worth $600-800 on ebay) then tell you its only worth $75 because there were a couple of temporary dots on the screen. That last one happened to my sister.
Targeted marketing is so shitty. For some reason I’ll get ads for things that I’ve just bought like I bought some cheap ass shoes from amazon and then my ads for the next day were like oh we’ve got some shoes for you and it’s like £100 trainers and I bought the cheapest crocs I could. But this is the time I am least likely to buy some shoes so why are you trying to sell me some.