Top Posts Tagged with #jas hook

I'll go first.

I like Peter Pan. A LOT.

It's my biggest guilty pleasure for a whole host of reasons... but, more often than not, there's just never a "proper" time or place to talk about it. Also, despite it going against the lessons I've learned through therapy and self-help, I'm anxious about being thought of as childish or a freak if I do bring it up. Rationally, I know I shouldn't care <that much> about how other people think of me, but it's easier said than done.

So fuck it.

I like Peter Pan. A LOT. I could fill a compendium with the knowledge and trivia I've come across over the years, and there is plenty more I have yet to learn!

There are <so many> interesting adaptations, dozens of them! But none have caught my eye so thoroughly as one in particular...

Specifically, the Disney animated film from 1953.

[Long post under the cut! Read on if you dare]

Firstly, I am aware of how problematic the '53 film is. It IS a product of its time, though, and I keep that in mind when considering the movie at all. Despite its glaring flaws [by modern standards], Disney's Peter Pan brings so many interesting details to the table that I've never been able to let go of! (Besides, I just REALLY like it).

For some reason, there's always been something enchanting about the fiery, almost cruel, charming yet self-important hero. It goes against every fiber of my being, but the whole "boys will be boys" thing somehow gets a pass when it's wielded by a nigh immortal trickster that can fly! Idk if maybe there's a bit of "I can fix him" energy in there, or maybe I'm just a sucker for red flags... either way, that's definitely one of the core traits built into ANY variation of the character, that no girl or woman could resist his charms. In fact, there's a line about that in the novelization of the play.

Oh, speaking of source material! The Disney movie puts its own spin on SO MANY details from the play (and books). A few of them even became the precedent for other future adaptations! Most of them are unique to Disney's version, though, and I desperately wish I could ask the writers what the process was...

For example: the bomb plot. If I recall correctly, the fate which befalls Tinkerbell before the climax of the story is VERY different between the film and the play/book. Originally, Tink would drink medicine meant for Peter, which had been poisoned by Captain Hook. Disney switched up the pace completely by changing the medicine for a freaking <bomb>! Captain Hook weasels the location of Pan's hideout out of Tinkerbell, traps her in an empty lantern, then goes to kidnap the children [except for Peter]. He leaves a "gift" behind, disguising an explosive. At the very last minute, Tinkerbell hears the Captain's plan, manages to break free of the lantern and flies as fast as she can to the hideout. She barely makes it in time, but it doesn't matter; the bomb explodes just as she flies in to push it away from her best friend, turning the entire tree-home to rubble.

The bomb plot is my favorite villain vs protagonist tactic in classic Disney, possibly in ALL of Disney! It is SUCH a devastating scene, but it is also the biggest disappointment in Disney history. Not only the bomb plot, but Tinkerbell's sacrifice had the potential to change the course of the film! The consequences should have been so much more brutal! Alas, with a clever off-screen deus ex-machina, the two heroes escape the rubble of their home and make it back to the Jolly Roger for the final act.

That heartbreaking moment is also my favorite scene for more reasons than that, though.

When the bomb goes off, we see the eruption from the Jolly Roger and the scale of it is <massive>! Whether it's just a lot of creative liberties being taken, or perhaps the minds of children warping the perspective of things, the aftermath of the bomb is huge. We don't get to see ALL of it, yet what we <do> see implies a lot. Half the screen, from the shore of Neverland to the sky above, is completely blackened by a torrent of smoke. The ocean quakes and whole swathes of trees are uprooted, sent flying into the sea. When the scene changes, we're set inside what remains of Hangman's Tree. Everything is reduced to rubble, just a darkened labyrinth of splintered wood and dunes of ash. Peter survived thanks to Tink, but only barely. He pulls himself out of the debris, and the instant he remembers what happened, the soft crack in his voice brings tears to my eyes.

Something about the mighty, boastful hero being so brutally humbled, especially by the sacrifice of their faithful companion... it could have been a very interesting turning point for Peter. Unfortunately, we never really get to know just how much the events of the movie affect him, because throughout the last minutes of Peter Pan and into the direct-to-DVD sequel, Return to Neverland, the bomb plot is never brought up ever again. In the sequel, everything appears as though the first movie never even happened, despite being a direct, "Next Generation" style follow up! The island seems unharmed, and Hangman's Tree still stands. It's odd, the things Disney picked to ignore and maintain, but they're not thinking that deeply about it, are they?

Disney's [often direct-to-DVD] sequels are infamous for being cheaper and much lower quality than their original counterparts. Their purpose was often only a poorly disguised cash grab, piggybacking off of the success of beloved classics. Whereas most of those movies are just that, objectively, I'd say Return to Neverland is among the better sequels that early 2000s Disney churned out. Still, it's not <great>. It does its job, yet, at the same time, provides an occasional interesting tidbit. After discovering Return to Neverland's existence, initially, I wasn't very impressed... then, the final scene got me <good>. A solid punch right in the feels!

It took a few more reruns for me to really find an appreciation for the sequel. If I'm honest, it's more of an appreciation for what the movie suggests, rather than the movie itself.

Taking something at face value isn't usually the way we're taught to evaluate things, yet doing so here provides a <wealth> of curious details!

For context: there is a MASSIVE difference between the Peter Pan we see portrayed in his titular film vs the direct-to-DVD sequel. Logically, that's very likely due to the different eras in which both movies were made. Stereotypes, taboos, and things considered socially acceptable were all vastly different in the early 2000s than they were in the 40s and 50s! These things and more, pieces of the corresponding zeitgeist, were major influences on these films. Nowhere else is this more evident than in the characterization of Peter himself.

In Peter Pan, we're introduced to the titular hero with all his boyish wiles and charisma. Famously, he's a real spitfire trickster, headstrong and cocky. He's cool, and he knows it! He's got skills, and he <knows> how to use them. However, in Return to Neverland, we get to see an entirely different facet of his character. He's more of a class clown than the vicious, hedonistic rascal I expected to see! When the whole "boyish charms" thing and magic island with mermaids and fairies don't end up doing... anything to Jane, there's even more that's changed! He doesn't scowl and lash out. He doesn't scoff and wave her off. Hell, he doesn't even concern himself with himself! He embodies the figurative "observant child," getting quiet, more curious, and eager to get to the root of things.

The moment that really told me something was different happened pretty early into Return to Neverland. Long story short, Jane tries to build a makeshift raft to sail home, and when Peter finds her, he just... stops. He doesn't fly in at top speed. He doesn't insert himself into the situation, he just pauses behind some trees and waits. He watches Jane so curiously, even ignoring Tinkerbell before making his move.

Later, near the end of the movie, as Jane and the Lost Boys are celebrating the victory over Hook, Peter is giving Jane another one of those <looks>. This time, it's very brief, almost blink-and-you-miss-it, but it still contributes to the theory that Peter is very much changed from when we saw him in the first movie. Both versions of Peter are worthy adaptations, and it's curious to see that kind of evolution go unspoken. What could have possibly tamed the spitfire side of the Boy Who Never Grew Up?

I have 2 hypotheses [neither of which will ever receive a true answer]. Firstly, the bomb plot from the original movie. Coming so near to death several times, losing your home and almost losing your closest friend would definitely change a person. Perhaps, after defeating Hook and safely delivering Wendy [and her brothers] home, Peter made a choice to live on the less dangerous side in an effort to keep himself, but more importantly, Tinkerbell, safe.

Secondly? The difference between Wendy and Jane. They are <worlds> apart from each other, and it shows! Wendy was fuel for Peter's fire. She was <enamored> by him, a devoted artist with the chance to meet her muse! It's a much different to have written about and [essentially] worshipped someone than to build that relationship with them out of shared experiences. Where Wendy had her affection for him from the beginning, Jane instead started opposite. She didn't admire or fawn over Peter the moment they met, like Wendy, or the mermaids did. She didn't even believe in him [or fairies, or magic]! Flight and fancy weren't enough to win Jane over, and that put Peter out of his depth. Stubborn and tomboyish, Jane presented something new to Peter. She was a <challenge>! They earned their friendship, and while I will always be in favor of Wendy and Peter, he and Jane's curious bond will forever have a place in my thoughts.

On a related note, I also have a couple of theories and hot takes on a few details from these movies.

To start: I think the whole "Tinkerbell in a lantern" bit is extremely over-romanticized. <Nothing> about it - or it's surrounding circumstances - is in ANY WAY cute or endearing! Yet, the lantern trope is constantly used in marketing, fan art, merch, and even in the Disney parks! Does <no one> recall how that bit came to be? Captain Hook had Tinkerbell <abducted>. He lied to her, basically coercing her (surely knowing the volatility of fairy emotions, especially in her current time of "distress") into revealing the location of Peter's home! And what happened once she'd marked the place on his map? The Captain snatched her up and ruthlessly tossed her into an empty lantern, locking it shut and moving to enact his <true> plan. Tinkerbell bangs and hits the glass, to no avail; only when Hook reveals his plan to the children does Tink find the strength she needed to topple the lantern over. The glass breaks, she escapes, and she flies as fast as she can to Hangman's Tree... but it's not fast enough. The bomb erupts just as she tries to get it away from Peter, culminating in one of the most underrated, most tragic scenes of classic Disney. Why do they use it in every other piece of promotional material? Who knows. It's certainly not MY idea of a cute bit...

Second: recently, I realized that there might be more going on in Peter Pan than initially seen. Several weeks ago, I rewatched the movie on a Disney nostalgia binge, and one specific thing stuck with me. After the conflict at Skull Rock, Peter flies away with Tiger Lily, leaving Wendy behind to travel by herself. Intentionally or not, he still leaves her behind even after she calls out for him to wait. As Wendy attempts to follow, it's clear she is struggling to fly (that was the thing that stuck to me). On a first glance, most might argue that the pixie dust is just losing its oomph. It's been who knows how long between their departure from London and their arrival in Neverland, and while it IS magic, it doesn't last forever!

I want to posit my own theory: Wendy is struggling to fly because she starts to lose one of the key things needed to fly in the first place. Everyone knows the saying, "Faith, trust, and pixie dust!" But that's not all. Happy thoughts are just as important! In the beginning of the movie, Wendy is alight with happy thoughts! She's thrilled by the appearance of the hero from her stories, and as the night goes on, not only do we hear what facet of Neverland the children are most excited to see, but the plot of the film is also foreshadowed. Wendy wants to see the mermaids, while her brothers are hoping to fight pirates and indians!

However, once they arrive, nothing about their adventure are as they thought they would be. I'm not the best with words, but it's something about how <real> it all is... not just pixie dust and rainbows, but very real, and very dangerous. First, they're attacked by the pirates, then [unbeknownst to the kids] Wendy is shot at by the Lost Boys and nearly plummets to her death! If Peter hadn't rescued her in time, she certainly would have been injured, if not killed. That could surely be brushed off as a freak, one-time thing, though. Later, after the children split up, Wendy is met with the harsh realization that the mermaids are NOT what she assumed them to be. They're cruel, bullying divas that freely admit to trying to drown her! It's bad enough to have been basically left behind while Peter gets fawned over by the mermaids, but then <that>? And all he can do is laugh, until the moment Wendy decides to strike back? Red flags everywhere. The spell is breaking. <Then>, the fight at Skull Rock goes down. Peter's guile against Hook is unmatched, but when it appears the captain was shot and "killed" by Smee, that does something to Wendy's heart. Maybe she can brush it off as a villain getting his dues, yet witnessing a death is unsettling regardless. Hook returns, Peter ends up victorious, and his gloating is a bit much when Tiger Lily's life is at stake! The two of them head for the island, leaving Wendy to fly alone, troubled by her own unhappy thoughts. Celebrating with Tiger Lily's people doesn't hit the same for Wendy when she's constantly urged away from the festivities, and seeing Peter get nose to nose with the princess doesn't help, either. She leaves the party early, put off by her experiences. Her song "Your Mother and Mine" just reinforces the idea that Neverland is <not> what Wendy imagined it to be, so much so that she knows she'd rather be home, with the people who love her. If all of that weren't spell-breaking enough, add the climax of film on top of it! Wendy, her brothers, and the Lost Boys [minus Peter] are all kidnapped by the pirates, forced to watch as their idol/leader/friend/hero gets blown up by a bomb!! The cherry on top? Wendy is the first to be tied up and made to walk the plank. Unbeknownst to her, Peter survived and is waiting in the shadows of the Jolly Roger, but for all she knows, she's about to die! For the <third> time that day!

Putting all of that together, I'd say it's no wonder why Wendy begins struggling to fly halfway through the movie! Neverland defies her expectations, turning the realm from her imagination into a thing of reality and nightmare. .............

All of that aside, I still adore the story as another classic romance or coming of age, like Romeo and Juliet! It's fun to watch the movie with or without thinking too deeply about it. Wendy's devotion to her beliefs and boundless passion for the stories of her childhood call to me on a very real, personal level. Besides, it's just magical to think about! Peter is like this... fae, or deity. A patron saint to some small, infinitesimal faith. Over the years, word spreads among the common folk, rumor of an island paradise where missing children and orphans may forever be at play. The rumor turns to myth, into little more than a comforting old wives' tale. Sure, Peter may have the company of the fairies and children in his flock, but eternity is an awfully long time... then comes Wendy. She's different. She's not a Lost Thing or abandoned by her grown-ups... yet she <believes>. At night, she dreams of their jungle haven and spins stories from the memories! Buoyant with curiosity, Peter finds her across the veil, keeping just out of sight as he listens to her craft. One night, by chance, Fate sees them meet.

I think I wax poetic too much to make it work. Just... a passionate artist by chance getting to meet the substance, the <heart> of her work... all portrayed through the innocent, if exaggerated lens of childhood... not to mention the added weight behind her coming of age, the whole "Once you're grown up, you can never come back. Never!", yet even as a mother herself, Wendy still believes as strongly as she did all those years ago, handing off the torch to her own children. Something about having that realization that adulthood isn't always as bad as so many people make it out to be, that you can still believe in magic and write stories about pirates and boys who can fly...

Oh! Two last things [for this post, at least].

It's definitely the Disney adaptation of Peter Pan that forever changed my default mental image of him. Peter is supposed to be a child, much like the other children in his ragtag crew of runaways; ever since seeing the Disney cartoon, though, something about the designs of Wendy and Peter himself give off tween or teen vibes, and I think that adds a <whole other layer> of complexity to the story! The inner conflict there could be if Peter were genuinely supposed to be the oldest child of the bunch... the potential is crazy! And, it makes that coming of age, first romance thing all the more possible (which has always been a favorite plot point of mine. The weight and meaning of a kiss, using love interests as leverage, the emotional conflict of friendship vs admitting to other feelings! So much stuff).

And!

Can we <talk> about Captain Hook? At face value, he's not that crazy of a villain. He... just wants to kill a kid. Kinda psycho, but not the worst we've seen from Disney. However, when you consider EVERYTHING, he becomes much more intriguing! One of the biggest, most widely accepted theories out there is that Hook - and, by extension, his crew - was once a Lost Boy. That theory opens the door to such an insane amount of potential for the world of Peter Pan! There is SUCH potential for a more villainous or antagonistic Peter, one who wants things <his> way, and he'll do whatever he pleases to those who don't bend to his whims... maybe Hook pissed him off, or defied his commands... wanted to keep his memories or just go home... and that's EXACTLY why Hook is such a bloodlusted old man! He's not just going for revenge (for himself and other children Pan had gotten his hands on), he's trying to put a stop to the cruel boy's twisted schemes! But, after so much time being trapped in the boy's own domain, deprived of the magic that keeps him from aging and constantly tormented day after day... it gets to you. I don't doubt that Hook's intentions were once good, but by the time of the movie? All he craves is the death of Peter at any cost.

There's more to that theory, and the possibility of an antagonistic Peter Pan than that alone. Several lines in the novelization of the original play imply those very same things. The phrasing, however, is vague, and given that it's all a children's story, quite unlikely... yet it's the potential that makes it so compelling! The story of Peter Pan is so unfathomably versatile!! It can be anything from a coming of age story, to a thriller, to a fantasy romance...

One final thing.

The writing for Hook's character, in the Disney adaptation specifically, is some of my favorite EVER. Period. I'd say "they don't write villains like they used to", and that is true, but there are solid reasons why. At the same time, it just adds so much flavor to his character! For example, one of my favorite, most memorable lines from the Captain was, "A jealous female can be tricked into anything". It's an awful, awful line, but it's so good! Yess! Let him be an evil, cantankerous old man!! God, it's disgusting, we need more!

Away from the general flamboyance of him, there's something about how genuine and dramatic I think his voice actor must have been... the writing was sensational, yet something in his acting truly makes me feel as though Hook is among the scariest of Disney antagonists. He deserves his place among their main lineup of villains (he's used so much in villain marketing!), if only because of his insane devotion to his bloody cause.

Trending Tags

Last Seen Tags

#jas hook

Trending Tags

Last Seen Tags

#jas hook