Was Neverland really All Just a Dream? It seems that way, until Mr darling sees the ship and claims that it looks familiar...
Your Mind Makes It Real? Isn't Neverland created by the stories and dreams of children? Just because it's a dream, doesn't mean it wasn't real. Alternately, Wendy was dropped off and waited up for her parents - but just dozed off at the window.
The sequel seems to confirm that it was more than a dream. If Jane didn't believe in it, why would she dream about it?
How persistent is the ability to fly given by fairy dust? Everyone except Peter seems to forget about it instantly as soon as they reach Neverland, even in situations when it would be useful.
It seems to last only long enough to get to or from Neverland. Note that the Lost Boys are all ground-bound (this is in sharp contrast to the Fox series, where Peter, the kids, and the Lost Boys all fly routinely).
Maybe they just forget because it's not something they can normally do? Like when you're used to driving alone so you forget that you can go in the carpool lane when you have someone else in the car with you.
Wendy flies with Peter just after they have rescued Tiger Lily. Happy thoughts is probably the key. Like when they're on Captain Hook's ship, they're probably all too terrified of what's going to happen to them. Peter is able to fly because he sees the whole thing as an adventure and thus rescuing the others is fun to him.
If Captain Hook is a manifestation of the father, and the father went with Peter Pan when he was a boy and recognizes the pirate ship, did the father have to deal with a version of himself, or was Captain Hook based on his father when he went?
That Captain Hook is a manifestation of the father because Wendy and her mother were telling the story. I believe (based on how much I've seen the movie and what I know from other versions and the original story) that Peter Pan only exists because of the stories told. So, if the father had known Peter Pan as a child it would have been based on the stories that were told to him. Captain Hook was probably a different person, maybe his own father or the mean man down the street or the school headmaster or somebody. Though this could just be WMG.
No, Hook was never a schoolteacher — if we go by the original book, at least, the pirate who's an ex-schoolteacher is Gentleman Starkey (incidentally the only pirate apart from Smee to survive the final battle).
Hook isn't actually supposed to be a "manifestation of the father"; that's just a rumor that got started because it's tradition for Hook and Mr. Darling to be played by the same guy in the stageplay. (Initially, J. M. Barrie wanted Hook to be played by the same actor who portrayed Mrs Darling.)
In Return to Neverland, what happened to the crocodile? Did Hook kill it offscreen? Because if everyone else in Neverland is still alive and as young as they were before, there's no real reason for the crocodile to have passed on.
At one point while complaining about the octopus, if memory serves me right, he says something along the lines "I finally manage to get rid of that crocodile, and then that things shows up."
In "What made the Red Man Red", if Ogga Means what Bogga Means and Gogga Means that too, what the heck do they mean?
In Return to Neverland, wasn't Wendy being a little hard on Jane? Okay, she was a bit mean to her brother, yes, but she had a point and Wendy didn't seem to want to at least try to understand Jane's POV. (If I'm wrong, please correct me; I only watched the movie once years ago.)
It wouldn't be the first time a parent didn't listen to their child, for whatever reason.
Wendy was trying to calm her younger son down and Jane was acting like a Know-Nothing Know-It-All. Yes Jane was trying to be practical and Wendy was probably grateful for that. But from what I remember, Daniel was scared by the sounds of the bombing. Wendy tried to calm him down by saying "it sounded more like cannons - on a pirate ship". That got Daniel thinking about Peter Pan and took his mind off his fear. Then Jane goes ahead and ruins that because she has to put her opinion out there. Wendy could have been willing to discuss it later in private, but Jane was behaving like a brat and upsetting her younger brother - in the middle of a freaking blitz.
Actually, I think you're mixing two scenes together. If I remember right, during the blitz, Jane didn't say a word to Daniel and Wendy when they were playing pretend, only muttering under her breath that it was childish nonsense but otherwise keeping to herself and trying to listen to the radio. It was only when Daniel got too wild and tried to involve Jane, making her drop her notebook into Nana 2's water bowl that she scolded him, and even then she just said she didn't have time for games. The other scene was when Wendy told Jane that she and Daniel were going to be sent away for their own safety, sending Jane into distress because of her promise to her father to look after her family. When Wendy tries to tell her to "have faith" that's when Jane starts to lose it because she sees it as more of her mother's childish games ("Ugh, faith, trust, pixie dust! Mother those are just words from your stories, they don't mean anything!") Then Daniel comes in, and everything spirals out of control. But to answer OP's question, yes, I do think Wendy and the movie as a whole was too hard on Jane. And while she was out of line in the second scene with Daniel, the whole movie portrays her (intentionally or not) as if she shouldn't be concerned with the war and focused on her childhood instead. (Yeah, easy for the filmmakers to say when they aren't in danger of dying by blitz any moment)