Sorry, JB. I failed to be as straightforward as the movie.

It's fine to interpret a movie that is meant to be open to interpretation (i.e. SHUTTER ISLAND), but I don't think STAR WARS is meant for interpretation of that kind. It's there on the screen. Anything more is taking fan fiction to a realm I never thought was possible.

Otherwise we risk, even unintentionally, disrespecting a creator's vision. Do we put forward a theory that the A-Team's adventures happened in the mind of Murdock (living in an asylum ward)? Perhaps Michael Long, in KNIGHT RIDER, never really recovered from that bullet to the head - and the adventures that took place over four seasons are all in his mind.

I think it's fine to imagine what is in the briefcase (PULP FICTION) or wonder about SHUTTER ISLAND, but if we start second-guessing something like STAR WARS, well... Personally, I think what we see is what we get.

This sort of overthinking is what I call the "SUCKER PUNCH Effect", where the fantasy elements are "really" a dream/fantasy/hallucination, because the fantasy elements are supposedly too unrealistic and/or stupid to take seriously. So, they're deliberately undermined by making them unreal, in-universe. 

"This is an imaginary story. Aren't they all?" That sort of thinking. The audience isn't even given the chance to invest in the story, because the creators are pointing out how unreal it is.