MovieChat Forums > Neverland (2011) Discussion > Give Hook a Break.

Give Hook a Break.

posted 12 years ago by norman891
58 replies | jump to latest

Everyone is so hot to blame Hook for poor little Peter's situation, when we do not know all the facts.

We are never told whether or not Jimmy was trying to seduce Peter's mother after her marraige or whether she was "stepping out" on her husband with Jimmy, but this is implied to be the cause of the duel in which Jimmy kills Peter's real father, and also the reason for Jimmy's banishment from high society. I'm going with the latter of the two scenario's, given Jimmy's bitterness, as if he's being punished unjustly.

What we do know is, given the conditions of the London workhouses at that time, had Jimmy not rescued Peter from them, Peter would most likely not have lived long enough to be as old as he was in the movie. Why he rescued Peter is never explained; maybe he believed Peter was 'his' child and not the other man's (we never get his name). Also, we're never told who initiated the duel - threw down the gauntlet, as it were. It might have been Jimmy, but it could just as easily have been Peter's father and if that is the case, the man wasn't very bright. By this I mean, if you want to pick a fight with someone, don't pick it with Evander Holyfield. Hook was evidently a master swordsman and if Peter's father wasn't, he was a fool to challenge Hook to a duel if, in fact, that was the way things went. Unfortunately these details were left out.

Peter is not blameless in this whole debacle either -- he's an ungrateful little brute and everything he initiates is basically a cluster *beep* He was specifically forbidden to break into Harbottle's by Jimmy, but being so dead set on proving on how accomplished & clever he was, Peter disobeys Jimmy, brow beats his comrades into accompanying him and ends up getting everyone into one hell of a mess. Then when Jimmy offers him the chance (practically begging Peter to join him) to be equal partners, Peter's little hazlenuts shrivel up into dried black-eyed pea sized gonads and he is either too afraid to seize the opportunity or too filled with hypocritical self-ritgheousness to accept.

Peter is basically a coward at heart anyway. He was never actually particpating in any previous thievery -- he was the lookout, well out danger, while the other boys did all the dirty work and took all the risks. He betrays the faeries, betrays his indian friends, gets the tree city burned down, & then has the nerve to tell Hook "I'm not like you". Like hell he wasn't -- Peter is every bit as corrupt as Hook, just on a different plain and what's worse he's a bloody hypocrit too. He leaves Jimmy to supposedly bleed to death slowly & painfully, or be trapped for eternity in a living hell. That's gratitude for you

Had Hook not been corrupted by Bonny & the lure of power and the chance to regain his status in society, escaping the pirate ship w/Peter and the other boys when he had the chance, things would have turned out different I think, but then we wouldn't have the story "Peter Pan".

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] nevermore0 12 years ago

I really hope this is a troll post because it looks like you just made up a bunch of crap and wrote it down.

1. Jimmy flat out said that Peter's mom moved on when she met Peter's dad. I believe his words were "he stole her from me," or something to that effect.
2. He also DID explain why he adopted Peter - because Peter reminded Jimmy of his mother.
3. How is Peter ungrateful? He hangs on Jimmy's every word and action until he sees that guy is losing his marbles. He only tried to pull the jewelry heist to please Jimmy.
4. Why would a coward lead the break-in at the jewelery store, rescue his friends on the pirate ship AND go back for Jimmy after they were safe, and face off head to head with the pirates in an attempt to stop them from reaching the orb without even expecting help from the Indians? He did betray the fairies but he had no intention of betraying the Indians. Also the tree city was burned down because they were followed there without his knowledge so I don't see how that can reflect on his character.
5. Hook killed Peter's father years ago and then wanted to use the fairy dust to rule England so don't act like he was just an unforunate product of his environment. He mentioned early in the miniseries how slighted he felt that he wasn't in the societal position he "deserved."

You sound like one of those people that tries to argue that Nurse Ratchet really isn't that bad. If you can't see the many, many signs showing you otherwise then you really need to pay better attention.

[–] elgrandTA82 12 years ago

No this is not a troll post, this guy is completely serious. I've seen quite a few of his post and now he's become completely ludicrous. Dude this is not the novel or the Disney version of the 2003 movie, where you can actually make those arguments. Its pretty clear Hook is the villain here and Peter is being used by Hook for his own purposes. The man is selfish, power hungry and has very little redeemable about him in the end. But your such a fan of Hook you can't accept him as the straight up villain here, you have to make scenarios/excuses for Hook and do anything to try to drag down Peter's character despite this being a completely different take on the character. Hook is the villain, Peter is the hero and you kinda need to get over that, its a completely different take on the story.

[–] norman891 12 years ago

tsk, tsk -- I expected a bit more than name calling from you. I have a different perspective on thing than most, I suppose. Could be from the five years I spent in a hell-hole of a parachial school run by a bunch of hypocritical "Christians" (& no, I am not anti Christian, just anti-hypocrit). It was so bad that 30 years laters I still wake up from nightmares of being trapped back there (Yes, I have PTSD from high school - seriously). Could also be I'm bipolar (which is uncontrolled mood swings - not insane) and just see the world in a different way. But ludicrous? That's taking things a bit far.

Yes, Jimmy is a scoundrel, running an Oliver Twist-ish gang of little thugs, and later revealed also an arms dealer, but I still maintain there are a lot of unanswered points in play. We have no idea who challenged who to the duel that ended with Peter's father being killed. We don't know if there were set rules for this duel (& dueling, I believe had already been outlawed, so bad on both parties there), say to first blood & Jimmy chose to make it a duel to the death. Maybe Peter's father was the one who insisted on making to the death, but we don't know (that might explain Hook's feeling he's been ostacized unjustly). We have no idea what went on; some more background would have been nice, because those details ARE important.

Now you know I described Barries Pan as a murderous little sociopath. This one is a thieving little thug who avoids the actual dirty work by being the look out & directing the action, well out of reach of the police. That makes him, in my book at least, a gutless coward. He'll watch your back, but don't expect him to come down to street level and get his hands dirty.

I realize its a different take on the story, the same way the book "The Child Thief" was (and it was a very good read, thank you). The fact that the timeline nor the scenario doesn't match up perfectly with Barrie doesn't bother me, its called poetic license, and I though it worked out very well. Now, I've only watched it once, I will be watching it a second time this weekend when I transfer from my DVR to DVD (& leave out all those annoying adds) and see if I pick up on anything that might change my opinion. It's kind of like reading a book you've been waiting for -- you fly thru it the first time, then when you read it again you pick up on stuff you missed the first time.

I'm not sure if Hook is using Peter for his own purposes for the whole film. I think his feeelings towards Peter changed drastically when he realized that Peter was "the spitting image" of his father and looked nothing like his mother. I think that marked a huge turning point in their relationship, especially for Jimmy. Rhys Ifans really did a wonderful job as Hook, much better than expected (though no one tops Jason Isaacs).

And I still say Peter is the real villain, regardless of your pick of versions. The only one that didn't really piss me off was the silent Betty Bronson film (excellent, BTW)because that portrayal of Peter showed "him" having a bit more honor & scruples. aA I said before, we just have to agree to disagree. Troll indeed - I don't like the underside of bridges -- too many snakes for my liking.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] norman891 12 years ago

Again you show your ignorance. And I do not take lithium, My doctor had me on other medications & they work very well. I function quite well most of the time. What I meant by revealing the bipolar was that one of the symptoms is racing thoughts -- I try to go to sleep at night and my mind starts racing about 100mph on some nonsense like 'what do I need to pick up from the grocery', 'oh yeah, you need to call so-and-so', etc; It's always working on something, trying to work out one problem or another & sometimes that's very helpful, sometimes its a pain in the butt. I also said that meaning it may be why I have always tended to side with villain type characters, as I tend to look at things from every angle before I pass judgement. I'm no lemming.

And personally, I resent the lithium remark. Bipolar is caused by a chemical imbalance in your brain -- its not catchy, it doesn't mean you're crazy, it just means that somedays I feel fine and others I am depressed & lost in a horrible blackness. My mania, btw, is rage. When I have a bad spell I have Krakatoa like outbursts of red-eyed anger and rage, and then poof, its gone. So if you don't know what you're talking about, maybe you should keep your feet out of your mouth. I've a good mind to report you.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] norman891 12 years ago

Well troll is a new one -- I've never been called that before. You need to read my post a bit more carefully maybe. I explained how Peter is a coward, and quite handily at that. Sure he leads the break-in at Harbotlles, after being strictly FORBIDDEN to do so by Jimmy PLUS he never actually participates in any of the skull-duggery, thievery, pick-pocketing. He's just a look out, well out of sight & out of danger, unlike his comrades who are in the thick of it taking all the risks. If had obeyed Jimmy's orders in the first place, no one would have been whisked off into a foreign place, as it were. As for facing off against pirates, he buggered that one up pretty good now, didn't he. Bravery & stupidity are easily confused for each other.

Yes, Hook killed Peter's father, we know that, in a duel, the circumstances of which we NOTHING about, but I do suspect this is why Hook felt slighted. He won the duel and was ostracized from society for doing so. Now, if someone challenges you to a duel, & you happen to win, why should 'you' be punished?

I stated that had Hook fled the pirate ship with the other boys when Peter came for them, things would most likely have turned out quite differently. However, by that point he had already been corrupted (further, if you wish) by Bonny's revalation of the faerie dust and ummm, by other methods of persuasion (she was in bed with him just about every time we see them together on the ship. And no, we men don't always think with our brains, do we now.

Whatever the reson Jimmy rescued Peter (not adopted) from the workhouse, he saved Peter's life in doing so. Conditions in workhouses were abominable at best, & Peter would most likely not lived to the 10-12 years old he was in the series. He treated Peter like a son and up until Peter lops off his hand, Jimmy practcally begged him to join back with him, as an equal partner. And I can spend all day arguing about who lost whose marble's. The faerie's did a right good job of scrambling Peter's brains as punishment -- after that was when he became so damned self- righteous and sanctimoneous.

"I'm not like you" the hell he wasn't. Peter was a member of a gang of rotten, thieving little thugs, directing thier moves from a safe distance. He was so eager to prove he was grown up enough to be Jimmy's equal that he disobeys him and , as I said before, just about everything Peter initianted ended in a giant mess.

I never said Hook was blameless -- wanting to rule London/the world, teach those who unjustly ostracized him a lesson, etc. Not really great choices. But don't give me a load of crap about what a heroic figure Peter is -- he's the one who got everyone into that mess to begin with, and when he was begged by Jimmy to "Be a man" (what Peter had been craving), he lacked the gonads to follow thru, which is good because otherwise there would be no "Peter Pan" story.

BTW, if you had carefully read the beginning of my post, you would remember that I revealed my bias as I have HATED Peter since my mother read the Barrie book to me when I was 5 years old. I still despise the character because he gets a pass for despicable behaviour on the ground that he's an "innocent little boy". Innocent? I think not.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] stellarsiren 12 years ago

If you hate the character of Peter so much why watch something that imagines the reasoning behind Peter and Hook's existence in Neverland pre- the story of the character you don't like? Just wondering

[–] norman891 12 years ago

Becasue I like Hook, always have. Just wondering if this might shed some light on why they hated each other so vehemntly, and this did provide a reasonable answer, though it left many an unanswered question too. It hasn't changed my opinion of Peter one bit; I wasn't watching it in hopes it would. I have always maintained that Hook got a raw deal, whether you read Barrie, watch whichever version you prefer, even in "Hook". I liked this prequel very much, plot holes and all. I have a serious problem with self-righteous, sanctimonious, holier than thou types (which describes Peter quite well). For him to tell Jimmy "I'm not like you" and theoretically leave him to bleed to death slowly & painfully is the hight of hypocrisy in my book. Yes, Jimmy killed Peter's father(under circumstances we know nothing about) -- leaving Jimmy to bleed to death or die of infection, whatever, is still murder (maybe second degree, but murder all the same). Of course, we know Hook survivied otherwise there would be no "Peter Pan" story, though they'd have a devil of a time meshing these two together. I like to see them try it though.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] elgrandTA82 12 years ago

Peter even in this version is an immature child, and a lot less immature then in most versions of the character. But he was trying to stop Jimmy from going back to London to bring back weapons to wipe out The Indians, yeah Jimmy really deserves sympathy for wanting to engage in genocide. As for the duel your right that in we don't know what happened, how given Jimmy's personality I don't think that Peter's father picked the duel or made it fight to the death. If Jimmy was the one who felt cheated its more likely he's going to pick the duel. If Peter's father got the woman he wanted then he wouldn't need to fight for her in the first place, unless someone else challenged him. And given Jimmy's personality its likely he upped the stakes to have things his way. No he didn't get a bad shake, he wanted something, didn't get it and if dueling to the death was outlawed then he broke the law and got punished for it.

And as for Peter being a coward, he was willing to risk his life to save everyone from the pirates, tried to save Tigerlily from the pirates and was more then willing to battle it out with Hook. Being the lookout was his job in the gang and your using that one thing to call him a coward never mind all the un-coward like things he did in the movie. Sorry man but I think your more then just a little bias here. I was willing to take your side when dealing with other versions because in those versions you had a valid point, but here your just being completely biased.

I have no doubt that Peter would have to be a perfect angel in order for you to not hate him. Which is pretty much impossible because Peter is a child and children just do not act that way. If they did there wouldn't be a need to punish/disciple them in the first place. Hook bought this all on himself and I have no sympathy for him in this version.

Also I never resorted to name calling, I never even called you a name. The other poster said they hope that you weren't being a troll and I said you weren't, you were completely series which you are. A troll in case you don't know is someone who comes to a forum just to say how much they hate something just so they can start trouble. When you actually mean what you say then your not a troll and you aren't. I did say your argument here are ludicrous and I very much think they are, but saying that I feel your arguments are turning ludicrous doesn't equal name calling either.

[–] norman891 12 years ago

Point taken, my apologies for the name calling remark.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] norman891 12 years ago

And you are right, given his character and how easily he was swayed by Bonny & her faerie dust, the lure of power, Jimmy "probably" did initiate the duel. Unfortunately we know nothing of Peter's father's character (Jimmy does say 'he stole her from me') so he may have been every bit as sleezy (or as charming)as Jimmy. Those details are left out ( a little flashback would've been nice to clear that up). You're assuming Peter's father was an honorable gentleman, and he might have been -- then again maybe he wasn't. Guess we'll never know unless they do a part 3 and answer some of these point. (And as much as I'd like that i think there's little possibility.)

As to my intense dislike of this version of Peter, it stems more from him being a "turn coat" (and really cannot stand disloyal "friends/family"). He turned on Jimmy in Bonny's cabin (I think Peter was jealous of Jimmy giving attention to someone other than himself). If you remember , Jimmy put himself between Peter & Starkey to protect Peter. Peter became more & more disloyal to Jimmy as time went on -- some of this was due to Jimmy's own actions, but also due to Peter's switching loyalty to the indians & faeries (prior to Jimmy's betrayal of Peter's trust & revalation of killing Peter's father). Even then, Jimmy was still begging Peter to join him, so I think he still held some affection for Peter until Peter cuts off his hand & refuses to finish him off.

Yes, I understand "I killed your father" is a deal-breaker, so to speak, but Peter is forgetting that Jimmy saved his life on several occassions, beginning with rescuing him from the workhouse. I'm not saying Peter or any other child wouldn't be enraged at such a revalation, but he's (& we're) forgetting his earlier praising of Jimmy to the other boys, asking them where they'd all be without Jimmy? - In the workhouses or prisons.

Yes, wanting to wipe out the indians could be considered genocide -- of course, as the indians attacked the pirates anytime they set foot on the island (don't forget that) - why is immaterial if you're the one being shot at (I've been shot at, accidently, but that didn't change the instinctual reaction to want to retaliate) - it could be considered retaliation for being attacked or a matter of a self defense tactic of sorts. Like I said, I tend to look at things from a different perspective.

And you're still over-looking the fact that Jimmy refused the Harbottle's job to the mustasched gentleman (name unknown) and Peter is the one who wanted to do it to both prove how grown-up, accomplished, & ready he was to be Jimmy's equal partner & to please Jimmy whom he idolized. Jimmy forbade him to do it, as it was too dangerous, they could end up in jail & he couldn't help them if they did. And what happened? Peter deliberately disobeyed Jimmy's instruction (why doesn't matter), brow-beat his comrades into coming along, and broke in to Harbottle's anyway. It IS Jimmy's fault for not giving them all a good swat and leaving immediately, but he would not have been Harbottle's & discovered or dropped the orb had Peter not disobeyed Jimmy's specific orders not to do so.

Your counter, sir?

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] domenici7 12 years ago

"If you remember , Jimmy put himself between Peter & Starkey to protect Peter. Peter became more & more disloyal to Jimmy as time went on -- "

That isn't exactly true. Peter was also hoping Hook would join them. Remember in Part 2 when the pirates capture him after the giant spider attack? Hook uses Peter to lead them to the passage and Peter fell for it because he still believed in Jimmy.

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<Hook uses Peter to lead them to the passage and Peter fell for it because he still believed in Jimmy.>>

Yes, I remember, and I did say that Jimmy seriously damaged their relationship by betraying Peter, which was wrong. But he still wanted Peter to stay with him/join him again as an equal partner right up until the end. Peter is the disloyal one. Jimmy made very bad decisions based on his desire for retribution against those he felt had wronged him, & also not thinking with his brain (r.e. Bonny). Because Jimmy didn't agree to go along with Peter's plan doesn't make him disloyal; he was preoccupied with Ms. Bonny & Peter was jealous of Jimmy's infatuation with the woman. I think this is why he insisted that Jimmy had to come with him, rather than him stay with Jimmy at first.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] Yarigosa 8 years ago

Since you like Hook, what's your take on him in 'Pan' (2015)? I'm curious. I like him quite a bit in that movie. Haven't seen this version.

[–] cyberwoff 12 years ago

Norman891, I completely agree with you assessment, and do not believe that you are a troll. Peter in this movie did betray his friends and bring much grief upon them. He was a walking cluster ****. I think that the ones who called you names, just demonstrated a complete lack of intellect, and ignorance.

[–] norman891 12 years ago

Thanks Cyberwolf. I was beginning to feel like I was the only one who felt that way. Nice to know I'm not alone.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] elgrandTA82 12 years ago

Um Cyberwolf nobody called him a troll or any sort of name in the first place. One person said they hoped he wasn't a troll. And I said that I thought his view and arguments were ludicrous, but no where did anyone call him anything. You should really pay more attention.

[–] nicerius 12 years ago

Are you forgetting the story Curly told about him being surrounded by 4 boys from another gang. They had knives and intended to kill Curly, but Peter showed up and stood between Curly and the boys, putting himself in immediate danger. Peter threw a bluff at them in hopes they would leave. If that isn't courage, then what is?

Peter never stealing anything directly is more of an example of his innocence and need to protect his friends. His friends trusted him the most with being the guy looking out for them. Peter was the man with the plan as shown when some of his crew were arrested and Peter came up with a plan on the fly for them to escape. Peter's crew knew this was a better use for his abilities than simply pickpocketing.

[–] daisukegirl 12 years ago

I think had they never gone to Neverland Hook wouldn't have been such a bad guy. I think he was easily corrupted, but that doesn't make Peter a bad guy. Peter was just kind of stupid, but he was just a kid, and kids are...well, kind of stupid. Peter did the wrong things for the right reasons, but Hook did the wrong things for the WRONG reasons. That makes him a villain.

[–] norman891 12 years ago

Excuse me? Peter did the wrong thing (disobeying Jimmy's orders NOT to break in to Harbottle's) to impress Jimmy and curry favor with him. How is that thr "right" thing to do. His actions are ultilmately resposible for everyone ending up in Neverland -- sounds "wrong" to me.

And as for Hook behavior, well, had Peter obeyed him, he wouldn't have been exposed to Bonny and her temptations (of all varieties). I am not saying that Hook made good decisions because he didn't -- but for Peter's disobedience (which was WRONG) - Jimmy wouldn't have been put in such a position in the first place.

Forgive me, but I'm a big fan of tracing back to the root cause of a problem & squelching it there, not the end results. And the root cause of the boys' & Jimmy's demise was Peter's disobedience to Jimmy's very specific orders NOT to break in to Harbottle's. That was WRONG in every sense of the word.

Oh, & BTW, how is leaving someone to bleed to death or die a slow painful death from infection the "right" thing to do? Don't they teach dignity, morals & honor anymore?

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] daisukegirl 12 years ago

I would leave Hook to die a slow and painful death. Why not? He screwed Peter over several times. If you're seriously convinced that Hook did not have bad intentions, then you have problems. I'm sorry to put it like that, but it's not a complicated story. Hook is a bad guy. Peter is a good KID. He's not very bright, but he is the protagonist. Hook is the antagonist. I don't think anybody but you will disagree with that.
Nobody's saying that Peter was a perfect angel, but it's very fair to say that Hook could fit the villain categoy just fine.
And if you're really bent on looking at everything so realistically, what do you think would realistically happen to the boys when Hook let them be taken captive by Bonny's men? They're young boys on a boat full of men who have probably not had sex in a very long time. Hello? Unless Hook was an idiot, they were probably going to get raped. And he just had the 'Oh-well-they'll-be-fine-let-me-go-screw-the-captain chick'.
If you don't look at it so realistically, Hook doesn't even know these people and he tells Peter 'Bonny promises the boys will be well looked after' or some nonsense. Based on NOTHING. He's a bad guy. That's my final comment.

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<And if you're really bent on looking at everything so realistically, what do you think would realistically happen to the boys when Hook let them be taken captive by Bonny's men? They're young boys on a boat full of men who have probably not had sex in a very long time. Hello? Unless Hook was an idiot, they were probably going to get raped. And he just had the 'Oh-well-they'll-be-fine-let-me-go-screw-the-captain chick'.>>

YOU weren't watching very closely because in the first place Jimmy didn't 'let' the pirates take the boys captive, he was taken right along with them -- they were all taken from the island against their will. And if you remember, Jimmy killed/disposed of the pirates that were going to throw him overbaord because he was hell-bent on protecting 'his boys'. Bonny even asks Jimmy later - "You would chose them over me?" because he wants to take the boys and try to figure out how to get back to London -- this is when she reveals the faerie dust & its power to him and is really the beginning of his undoing. But at no time did Jimmy turn his back on 'his boys'. If Peter had minded him and stayed with the group, he'd have been blown to Neverland with the bunch and never been separated from Jimmy in the first place. Of course, if he'd obeyed Jimmy in the first place No One would have been in Neverland, because Jimmy had refused to break into Harbottle's as it was too dangerous.

And as to ME having a problem, I'm not the one following along blindly like a pack of lemmings headed for a cliff, with blinders on, not wondering about certain things, like the infamous duel between Jimmy & Peter's father & other missing details. You're assuming the man was a gentleman when he may have been every bit as crooked and unscrupulous as Jimmy. A little flash-back would have been nice to clear that up, as to who started the duel, who insisited on making it to the death instead of first blood, etc. Every one "assumes" it was Jimmy and you know what happens when you ASSUME something, don't you. Jimmy may have killed Peter's father in self- defense or maybe not.

You're obviously very young and have never been in any real pain for an extended amount of time. I'm quite sure I have 20 years on you and I HAVE been in agony for 10 months from injuries in an auto accident, which was not my fault. To leave someone to die a slow, agonizing death is the hight of brutality and cruelty, which fits Peter to a T. I have dogs. I have had some develop cancer & as much as I love them and didn't want to lose them, I wouldn't leave them in agony to suffer a slow, painful death. YOU are the one with the problem, honey. Try developing some honor and morals and a conscience -- I know they're unpopular traits these days, but they do give one some real character.

BTW, Jimmy rescued Peter from a workhouse (i.e.-sweatshop, only worse). Had he not, Peter wouldn't have lived to be the 10 - 12 he appears to be. Peter was part of a gang of thieving pick-pockets (even if he is only the look-out & not actually taking any risk himself), and HE is your idea of a GOOD person? And futher more I am not the only one who holds this opinion, there are some other 'thinkers' out there and they have posted similar.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] zipdraw 12 years ago

Yeah something is really wrong with the OP.

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<Peter threw a bluff at them in hopes they would leave. If that isn't courage, then what is?>>

Umm - stupidity & bravery are often mistaken for each other. In this case I'd call a bluff stupidity. Don't issue threats/try bluffs unless you can back it up with action. Both Peter & Curly were bloody lucky the other gang was more bark than bite, otherwise they'd both be dead. Of course, this is the kind of knowledge that comes with experience/age.

<<Peter never stealing anything directly is more of an example of his innocence and need to protect his friends.>>

Peter was the look out, most likely, as this position would have been assigned to him by Jimmy to protect Peter. It's not an example of courage or loyalty. Yes, Peter did send the other boys back to rescue Tootles, but at no time is Peter himself in any danger, though he acts as if hes some great criminal mastermind. That's what got everyone in trouble, because Peter figured he was more clever than Jimmy was giving him credit for so he went ahead with the Harbottle's burglary even thoug Jimmy specifically forbade it.

C'mon people -- think beyond what you see. Ask why? What happened that made Jimmy so resentful. What are the details of the infamous duel that ended with Peter's father dead? Take nothing at face value, look beyond to the root cause.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] elgrandTA82 12 years ago

You still don't want to get that Peter is a child do you? Children are immature and do reckless things, often trying to impress adults or their peers. Peter wanted to impress Jimmy and as Jimmy told Peter he still had a lot of growing up to do, hence the point of Peter being a child. You keep trying to take the actions of a child/teen and way them against the actions/views of an adult when it doesn't work that way.

Everything that Peter does is because he's a child and immature, that's his character. Yes his actions lead to some bad things happening but it wasn't intentional, at all. It was the result of reckless behavior and a need to prove him which is perfectly for a kid his age, more so as a teenager.

C'mon people -- think beyond what you see. Ask why? What happened that made Jimmy so resentful. What are the details of the infamous duel that ended with Peter's father dead? Take nothing at face value, look beyond to the root cause.

I think the only person that needs to come on here is you, because you can't see past your own bias. And this all pointless because no one is going to budge and your not going to convince everyone here to start thinking like you. And you aren't going to give up your own dislike of Peter Pan regardless of what form he comes in, so why are you still here trying to argue?

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<You still don't want to get that Peter is a child do you?>>

Yes, I do. I just refuse to give his bad behavior a pass because he is a child/pre-teen, whatever. Whether or not the damage his actions cause are intentional does not change the fact that irreversable harm has been done. As the old saying goes , "I'm sorry doesn't feed the bulldog."

<<And this all pointless because no one is going to budge and your not going to convince everyone here to start thinking like you.>>

I'm just trying to point out there are 2 sides to every coin, that quite often things are not really as they first appear, and too many assumptions are being made without all the facts. And in my defense, I have said elsewhere that the 1924 version of is the least distasteful version of Peter I have seen. "He" (though played by a woman) at least has some decency about him, some sense of honor & dignity. So while I disliked Peter somewhat, he was a more decent figure in that film. Dare I say, he even treated Hook with respect in that film (excellent effects for its time, if you haven't seen it) No, I'm never going to like Peter, but some versions of him are less distasteful than others.

Like I said, my biggest bone to pick with this one was his disloyalty & hyopcritical self-righteousness. I have too much experience with those kind of people in the "real world" and I guess that clouds my judgement a bit here. I could tell you some horror stories from that little church run high school, but I don't care to air my dirty laundry in public. When Peter gets all holier than thou, "I'm not like you",or his I'm better than you attitude on, it sets me off. But there again, you & I will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] elgrandTA82 12 years ago

Yes, I do. I just refuse to give his bad behavior a pass because he is a child/pre-teen, whatever. Whether or not the damage his actions cause are intentional does not change the fact that irreversable harm has been done. As the old saying goes , "I'm sorry doesn't feed the bulldog."

I don't think his bad behavior got a pass, it seemed to me like he very much saw the consequences of his actions and tried to make up for it. He also ended up being mistrusted by the Indians and had to prove himself to them. There were consequences to his action and his was called on his mistakes. Now did he learn from all his mistakes in the end, well he decided that the best thing to do was to stay in Neverland and to have dangerous adventures with him, so no he didn't. But it doesn't he really forcing them or would force them into anything they didn't want to do, either. So this version of Peter isn't nearly as bad as the other versions of Peter are.

Like I said, my biggest bone to pick with this one was his disloyalty & hyopcritical self-righteousness

That tends to be how most kids his age are. Especially the part about the hypocritical self righteous is very common in teenagers. I've seen it first hand and I've actually been it first hand, a big part maturity is realizing your not perfect and doing your best to be the best person you can be. Of course this never going to happen w/Peter because he won't get any older, but its a common trait for his age group, I was that way and I knew people who were that way.

As for the disloyalty, well I really didn't find him all that disloyal. He wanted to prove himself to Jimmy making his disobedient (also common for his age), but it was disobedience in an attempt to prove himself. I don't think it was until Jimmy joined the pirates that Peter really turned disloyal. But he had been shown compassion and kindness from the Indians and as far as he knew the pirates were the bad guys. It would make little sense for him to want to suddenly side with them when they haven't done anything to prove they can be trusted, except kidnap his friends and hold them against their will. Peter was going by what he was seeing and experienced in Neverland, which is understandable for his situation.

[–] domenici7 12 years ago

"Excuse me? Peter did the wrong thing (disobeying Jimmy's orders NOT to break in to Harbottle's) to impress Jimmy and curry favor with him. How is that thr "right" thing to do. His actions are ultilmately resposible for everyone ending up in Neverland -- sounds "wrong" to me."

Yes, Peter led the gang to Harbottles. But what did Jimmy do when he showed up? He could have sent them all back home, but he let them stay- "fill your bags," was what I believe he said. And Peter isn't the one that struck the orb that brought them all to Neverland. It was a freak accident.

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<But what did Jimmy do when he showed up? He could have sent them all back home, but he let them stay- "fill your bags," was what I believe he said. And Peter isn't the one that struck the orb that brought them all to Neverland. It was a freak accident.>>

If you had read a little further you would have seen where I said that Jimmy SHOULD have given them all a good swat and left immediately, so the staying and going ahead with the burglary was Jimmy's fault. And no, Jimmy dropped the orb when some image in it shocked him badly, that is what blew tham all to Neverland. BUT the reason they were there IN THE FIRST PLACE is because Peter DISOBEYED Jimmy's specific order NOT to break in to Harbottle's. So the "freak accident" as you call it was due to Peter's disobedience and ultimately, tracing this back to the root cause, was Peter's fault.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] domenici7 12 years ago

Actually, if we're going back to the root- Jimmy is the one to blame. He put the idea of breaking into Harbottles in Peter's mind. And Peter, a BOY- an eager one to prove himself, at that, couldn't shake the idea once it was in his mind. I was watching it with my mom the other day and she even said, "Why did he even tell them about it than?"

Children are excited and adventurous. They don't like being told what they can't do. And to have something big and grand thrust in front of them, to have it suddenly taken away... it's not something children like.

And it WAS an accident that they ended up in Neverland. I know that Jimmy fell because he was startled (he didn't plan to fall, it was an accident). No one planned to end up in Neverland. Peter didn't drag his friends to that jewelry shop planning to get transported to another world. That is what a "freak accident" is.

ETA: AND, Jimmy is the one that found the orb and held it. If Peter and his friends had gone to the store and Jimmy never showed up, they probably wouldn't have even found it. Because they didn't know to be looking for it.

[–] stellarsiren 12 years ago

domenici7--my thoughts exactly BOTH Peter and Jimmy are guilty. Jimmy moreso in some ways because he was the ADULT in all this.

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<He put the idea of breaking into Harbottles in Peter's mind.>>

Actally, NO. Peter was listening to Jimmy & the mustached man (can't remember hs name) about the job. Jiimy refused to do the job as it was too dangerous. Peter came to him & tried to persuade him to do it anyway & Jimmy said no, they were not breaking in to Harbottle's. It was too dangerous. So had Peter not been ease-dropping on Jimmy's conversation.....

<<Peter didn't drag his friends to that jewelry shop planning to get transported to another world.>>

No, he brow-beat/coerced them into coming along though, or he would have had to do the burglary by himself.

You're still missing the point. Yes it was an accident that Jimmy fell & dropped the orb. But if you look back to the root cause of why they were there in the first place, it IS Peter's fault as he was the one so dead set on breaking in (why is immaterial). Jimmy had already turned the job down & fordade Peter to break in, but he did anyway. Otherwise NO ONE would have been there at all.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] deehingness94 11 years ago

I hate to re-open this can of worms but there are a few things that were said that I'd like to cast my own 2-cents on. No need to actually read all this (it's quite long) I'd just like my opinion to out in the open as well. Haha

First off, I've loved the story of Peter Pan my whole life. Of course up until Neverland Peter was purely the good guy and Hook was the bad guy. That's how they've been written and portrayed and as a young girl I accepted that and left it as is. That being said I have not always been the biggest fan of Peter.

I have a love/hate relationship for Peter. All growing up and admittedly even now I've waited for him to come steal me away in the night, but not unlike Wendy I tire of his immaturity. I guess I grew up too fast.
I've always seen his faults though. Of course there's the cockiness and the simple stupidity that comes with being a child/teen. It doesn't matter WHO you are all children have those traits in some way or another (and if you say you never did you're the one being cocky and self-righteous) so I just lay those down as being young and reckless. Yes, you may know better at a young age but that doesn't mean you always use your brain. Rashness and stupid mistakes are what ultimately turn us into adults because we're forced to learn from our actions and take responsibility. Peter doesn't have to take responsibility though. He's in a world where he can do whatever he pleases whenever he pleases and nobody can stop him. I don't condone his actions or the lost boys'. They steal, they kill, they're misbehaving brats who are in desperate need of a spanking...and that is exactly why children and adults alike flock to Peter Pan. They want the freedom to be bad. Being bad is fun, it's why we do it. To be able to be naughty and have no repercussions whatsoever is a dream come true.

Now as for the Peter in this story I see him as always like a young boy who's doing the wrong things for what, in his mind, are the right reasons. This is probably my favorite portrayal of Peter because he's not just an annoying little kid. He's older and actually has a lot more depth to him.
The looking from the roofs is not because he thinks he's better, he's just making sure everything goes according to plan and is in a position to help or call for help when needed. He may not be the one actually thieving in the beginning scene but it's foolish to think he never has. He went with them into Harbottle's didn't he? not like he waited outside for them to finish.
Also, the lads obviously need him looking from above telling them what to do considering the other boys didn't even realize Slightly got nicked until they heard the SOS. Peter is their leader and they look up to him. He makes plans and makes sure they're executed so that everything works out.
As for Peter being cowardly that's just poppycock if I ever heard it. Yes there is a difference between bravery and stupidity but often times (not unlike fear and respect) they go hand in hand. Stupidity is doing something you know could be harmful or dangerous or get you into trouble, bravery is the same thing. If there's not something stopping you, something that makes you afraid, then you're not being foolish or brave.
How many people do you know that would go to a pirate ship, armed only with a dagger to save their friends? It's madness and likely to get them all killed, but what other choice is there?
Peter also saved Curly from a gang where he was out-numbered and out-weaponed. Sure he did it with a bluff but had a fight taken place I think it's fair to say he wouldn't have backed down. He also didn't tell anyone else about it because he didn't want to show Curly up.
Then there was fighting Jimmy and the pirates for the orb. He could have done the easy thing and waited for them to leave but he doesn't do that. He fights for it to help the Indians without expecting to get any help from them.
Peter is in no way a coward.
I will say that from a certain perspective it is almost like he betrayed Jimmy in not joining him with the pirates, after all he was already a pickpocket. Not much difference in the two really.
But if you actually think about how he was feeling leading up to that point it makes more sense.
He saw his friends tied up being taken to a ship against their will, while the Indians gave him and Fox full access to their village. These people saved him and fed him and considering pirates have never been known as a particularly nice group of people it's only natural he'd take the Indian's side. When Fox is murdered it only confirms his thoughts that the pirates are the bad guys.
He also gives Jimmy more than enough chances to redeem himself and Jimmy burns him every time, leaving him more hurt and even less trusting than before until there is nothing left. Jimmy may have offered him a partnership up until the end but you can only take so much hurt from someone before you realize it's best to just give up. It may be cruel how he left Jimmy there bleeding but he deserved it...Besides, he's a rather small boy so he couldn't of really carried him and the only reason he got out himself is because "the orb took a bit of a knock"
And it's not that he just didn't kill him but I think there was also a not being able to kill him. Peter may have hated him in that moment but Jimmy was still the man who raised him.
It just adds another reason why Hook hates Pan so much.

And now for Captain James Hook.
He's undoubtedly always been my favorite villain. I love pirates and he was always so ruthless but at the same time, and oddly enough, he was a gentlemen. That's about all there is to him in every other telling of the story though. The reason he hates Peter is simple enough, he cut off his hand. That's pretty solid reasoning to hate someone so until more recently I never felt the need to look further than that. Even in the movie Hook I saw him as just the bad guy (comical but still purely villain)
I'm immensely glad that I discovered Neverland and a new look at Hook (because I don't have the syfy channel I didn't hear about it until the DVD came out, and didn't watch it until a few months ago)
Anyway I found myself both feeling sorry for Jimmy and hating Hook even more because of this telling. I don't even consider "Jimmy" and "Hook" to be the same person really because of how his character transforms so drastically. In the beginning he is very loving and father-like to the boys, that's where he's Jimmy. Hook is the one where he's easily corrupted and turns his back on the boys because he's power hungry. (I also find it note-worthy that he is only referred to as Hook on the ship while still being Jimmy to the lads, as if he's meant to be split into two people)
I don't see him as going from good guy to bad, just his level of madness increases.

I see why Jimmy is hurt. The girl he loved chose another man. We don't know anything about this man other than that Jimmy killed him in a fair duel. It's foolish to think too far beyond that because it opens up so many other doors and sometimes simple answers are best. It doesn't matter who challenged who, what matters is that Jimmy won. It's also fair to say that's why he was cast out of London Society but obviously he felt remorse for what happened (or at least remorse for the situation it placed the girl he loved in) or he wouldn't have gone looking for Jenny and never would have taken in Peter as his own.
His main problem is that he is incredibly self-righteous in thinking he deserves more and wanting to rule over London. He's power hungry and gets hurt and confused when Peter, the boy he raised up as his own, does't want to join him. Both of them feel as though they are being betrayed because neither of them have the time or ability to talk out their reasonings...not that it would have helped by part 2 once it's clear that Hook is fully corrupted.
Although I do feel almost sorry for Jimmy at the same time I hate him so deeply once he becomes Hook. My reasoning for that mostly is how he so easily abandoned his boys, the kids who looked up to him, for a woman and the promise of power. He was their father-figure and he walked out so quickly...not unlike many "men" do. That's why I find it hard to see him as any more than he's written to be. A villain.

One of the last things I wanted to talk about was whose fault it was they were sent to Neverland.
I agree completely that it was wrong of Peter to break into Harbottle's after Jimmy said no but it was Jimmy's fault for bringing it up in the first place.
It was ignorantly said,

"Actally, NO. Peter was listening to Jimmy & the mustached man (can't remember hs name) about the job. Jiimy refused to do the job as it was too dangerous. Peter came to him & tried to persuade him to do it anyway & Jimmy said no, they were not breaking in to Harbottle's. It was too dangerous. So had Peter not been ease-dropping on Jimmy's conversation....."

Absolutely none of that is correct. After the boys got home the first thing Jimmy said to them was "I've got a nice big job for you" getting them all (especially Peter) excited. He then changed his mind and told Peter is was too dangerous and that he was doing it alone even though Peter wanted to be a part of it as well. He figured that Jimmy just thought they couldn't do it, and wanted to prove him wrong to make him proud.
Jimmy never refused to do the job, it was his big break he'd been waiting for. And by the time he's talking to Jeffries (the mustached man) about his terms for doing the job the boys were already breaking into Harbottle's so there's no way that Peter could have been ease-dropping when he wasn't around.
Of course I think arguing about that is just foolish in the first place because it doesn't matter whose fault it is considering it HAD to happen for them to get to Neverland...if nobody had broken in there'd be no story.

Well that's my thoughts on the matter. Whether or not they're respected I don't care. I just wanted them out there.

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<That tends to be how most kids his age are. Especially the part about the hypocritical self righteous is very common in teenagers. I've seen it first hand and I've actually been it first hand... but its a common trait for his age group, I was that way and I knew people who were that way.>>

Your parents and mine had VERY different child rearing methods my friend. (LOL!) But seriously, the words "No", "I don't want to", "Why can't I", "I'm not going to" or "I'll do what I want to" were not in my vocabulary, nor did they even cross my mind very often -- and if they did, that's where they stayed. My parents were VERY old-fashioned (both born in the 1920's -- I was born in 1964, so I'm only 47)and they were very strict and demanded immediate compliance without any back-talk. When one of them said "Eddie, come here" my answer was always "On my way", sometimes preceeded by "Just one moment, I need to get my shoes on, I'll be riight there." Now my parents were not mean nor abusive, they both loved me very much and spoiled me rotten, BUT they expected/demanded my absolute respect for them. Maybe this is why we see children so differently. My parents would not have let any of us get away with 1/4 of the things I see kids pull in public now. Of course, I was an odd child, I never really rebelled, unless you count that playing my music just a wee bit louder than I was supposed to.

Also, I was taught the value of honor, dignity, loyalty, honesty and being a gentleman from the time I was a wee thing. So it's kind of ingrained in my thought pattern. You can't deny I'm loyal (to a fault, sometimes). I only wish my "friends" had been half so loyal.

Oh, BTW, back in the early 1900's adults were even less tolerant of disobedient, rebellious children than my parents were. So, "realistcally" Jimmy would have beaten Peter and the others within an inch of their lives for disobeying him, considering the protection he gave them from the law & workhouses.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] kralvarez1987 12 years ago

My 2 cents on Jimmy and Peter- the thing that motivated me the most to watch this miniseries was the relationship b/w Peter and Hook, because this is the first time in my memory that they were friends. Its interesting to see how their close relationship derailed in a matter of days/weeks. Correct if I'm wrong but it seems that as the series went on, their relationship gets worse from the rising lack of communication and distrust.

As for their characters- Hook isn't all bad (at first); he loves Peter, has a strong sense of responsibility toward the other boys and really wanted to atone for his actions that led to Peter's situation, but he is also selfish, vindictive, a bit entitled, deceitful, and manipulative. But Peter, while he is a good kid, is cocky, rash, and he does a lot of stupid things. At least he does get called out on them at times (Fox's death, his trusting in Hook, the hand in the destruction of the Tree city and Tree Spirits colony).

I AM MELON LORD!

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<Correct if I'm wrong but it seems that as the series went on, their relationship gets worse from the rising lack of communication and distrust.>>

I believe you nailed it.

<<Hook isn't all bad (at first); he loves Peter, has a strong sense of responsibility toward the other boys and really wanted to atone for his actions that led to Peter's situation, but he is also selfish, vindictive, a bit entitled, deceitful, and manipulative.>>

I would agree completely and am glad to see someone else looking at both aides of the coin, so to speak.

<<But Peter, while he is a good kid, is cocky, rash, and he does a lot of stupid things. At least he does get called out on them at times>>

Hmmm. Good kid -- ok, I'll give you that one on the basis that he looks out for his friends. His waning loyalty to Jimmy bothers me a bit, but then Jimmy is partly responsible for that. I like that you point out that Jimmy is trying to atone for his previous actions and that he does, indeed, love Peter. Right up until their duel, Jimmy is still "begging" Peter to come back to him, so he definitely had fondness for the boy.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] kralvarez1987 12 years ago

thank you, as said before the biggest draw for me was the very tragic father/son relationship. I found it interesting to see how much Hook wanted to shield Peter from the full ugliness of their current life/profession ("It'll happen when you're older, you have a lot to learn"), yet so driven to get back to his former station of life.

on Peter's parents- I agree with you on that they were not perfect angelic people. Peter's mom Jenny/Ginny (I think one of those was her name, I am that big of a dork) was an actress who performed on upscale stages according to Hook. Maybe my history is off and I'm being very wrong, but back then, weren't a good number of actresses, even the high quality ones, would dabble in prostitution? At least start out that way until their hard work paid off?

It wouldn't surprise me that Jimmy and Jenny/Ginny were lovers. I'm not saying she was a bad person, she may have a nice lady who made certain choices that were not unusual for the time.

Then there's Peter's dad; according to Hook, the dad was "self-righteous and too naive/innocent" and stole his girl. I don't believe he was a complete swine, maybe on the same level as Jimmy. Maybe they were in the arms trade together, becasue it seems that Jimmy was at least acquainted with Peter's dad before the love triangle.

Anyway, these are just theories backed up with little information and a lot of speculation on my part.

wow, did my mouth run off. give me a minute, I need a minute to talk about Peter.

I AM MELON LORD!

[–] loopylittlelayla 12 years ago

I did like the father/son sorta bond they had..made it a lot more intresting then two people just meeting and becoming enermies sorta thing.

Just seemed Hooks downfall was the call for power?

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<Just seemed Hooks downfall was the call for power?

I agree. Had Bonny not shown him the faerie dust and revealed its power to him, and Jimmy not felt unfairly treated/misjudged by his peers, I dare say he might have escapes when Peter came for him and things would have turned out differently. I'm not saying Jimmy had the best of morals (he didn't really) but he did genuinely care for Peter and tried/begged him to join him again up to the very end. Unbridled power is a tempting but dangerous prospect for anyone.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<Maybe my history is off and I'm being very wrong, but back then, weren't a good number of actresses, even the high quality ones, would dabble in prostitution?>>

No, you're not wrong. Until recently, or at least until after silent movies and talkies came along, neither actors nor actresses were looked upon with much favor, regardless of how upscale the stage they performed on was. And it was not uncommon for an actress to have a "gentleman" provide her with an apartment and money in exchange for certain "favors". A high society gentleman who married an actress would have been likely ostracised, or atleast been looked down upon.

<<Then there's Peter's dad; according to Hook, the dad was "self-righteous and too naive/innocent" and stole his girl. I don't believe he was a complete swine, maybe on the same level as Jimmy.

I think I can agree with you there also. Too many people assume he was a pure, honorable man (& he might have been) but there's an equal likelyhood that he was a high-society type (like Jimmy), dabbling in the arms trade, black market, etc, while passing himself off as "holier-than-thou". I've run into more than a few of those "butter wouldn't melt in their mouth" types myself, and they're really some of the rottenest, dirty people you'll ever meet. And as to if and/or why he "stole" Jenny (?) away, it may have been to spite Jimmy, to prove that he "could", or he may have actually loved the woman. Oh, for a flash-back. Personally, I'm betting he was at least as unscrupulous as Jimmy ( & not too bright to challenge a master swordsman to a duel).

<<Anyway, these are just theories backed up with little information and a lot of speculation on my part.>>

Nothing wrong with that, as you are, at least, looking at both sides of the coin and not condemning Jimmy simply because he's cast as the villain.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] wossonjohn85 12 years ago

firstly I have no problems with you trying to look at things from all angles, I completely agree that Hook wasn't all bad, he had a great deal of love for Peter and the rest of the boys as was shown when he dispatched of 3 Pirates to defend them but his biggest weakness was his lust for power (and hot female Captains) and it is my view that he would choose his quest for power over his boys, he could have left with Peter and the boys and escaped but chose to stay with the Pirates, yes he begged Peter to join him but in Hook's mind the only choices were 'get the power' or 'get the power with Peter at his side' the option of leaving with the boys to safety NEVER crossed his mind!

<<"Actally, NO. Peter was listening to Jimmy & the mustached man (can't remember hs name) about the job. Jiimy refused to do the job as it was too dangerous. Peter came to him & tried to persuade him to do it anyway & Jimmy said no, they were not breaking in to Harbottle's. It was too dangerous. So had Peter not been ease-dropping on Jimmy's conversation..... ">>

<<"You're still missing the point. Yes it was an accident that Jimmy fell & dropped the orb. But if you look back to the root cause of why they were there in the first place, it IS Peter's fault as he was the one so dead set on breaking in (why is immaterial). Jimmy had already turned the job down & fordade Peter to break in, but he did anyway. Otherwise NO ONE would have been there at all"

i think you definitely need to watch this again. Hook put the idea of robbing the store in Peter's head when he came in to the room. He told the boys that he had a job for them and when he told them what it was THEY (mostly Curly) refused as it was too dangerous and they were too young! This was when Peter stood up and reminded them all that Hook had saved them and they needed to repay him (or words to that affect) they then agreed to do it but for some strange reason (which i'm still not sure on, maybe after hearing Peter's defence of him he realised how much he cared for him and decided it was too dangerous?)he decides to call it off... note however he only said that the boys will not be doing it, the job WASN'T being called off altogether, Hook actually said he was going to go it alone so he did NOT refuse the job!

now following on from the fact that Hook did NOT refuse the job, this brings me nicely on to my next point...

Hook would have still broke in to find the Orb only this time he would have been alone BUT this does not mean the freak accident wouldn't have still occurred, it happened because after looking at the orb and tapping it he is startled by the image of the croc, it stands to reason that this would have still happened regardless of Peter's presence, no? Now why did Hook feel the need to take a peek inside this box and then tap it? he was told to handle it with the utmost care so why remove it from the box in the first place? Probably because much like Peter he can't help but do things he knows he shouldn't and he has a longing for adventure perhaps?

One more point, you have made numerous references to Peter lopping off Hooks hand as if it was a measured and cold hearted attack but if you remember (and I do because I laughed quite hard at how poorly they dealt with Hook losing his hand) it happened because Hook first kicked his hat at Peter's face to temporarily disorient him before he then attempted to deal what could have only of been a finishing blow but during his (pointless) 360 degree spin his wrist went through Peter's blade which which was still up by his face from when he tried to block the hat! Peter didn't mean to chop off his hand, his blade was stationary (must have been the sharpest blade in the world, which would be pretty impressive considering e stole it from an antiques shop!)

Now as i said at the beginning i agree with looking at things from all perspectives and things in this story are not as black and white as simply Hook is bad and Peter is good but they are 2 sides of the same coin, i believe Hook has good in him and has the ability to do right by others but he is on the whole a bad person who when push comes to shove is in it for himself whereas Peter is on the whole a good person but is still young and naive so is prone to making reckless decisions that put others at harm but it is never his intention

wow wasn't planning on rambling on for that long, hope it made some sense!

[–] kralvarez1987 12 years ago

you seem to have your own theory regarding the duel b/w Hook and Peter's dad- what makes you believe that it was Peter's dad that initiated the duel?

I AM MELON LORD!

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<you seem to have your own theory regarding the duel b/w Hook and Peter's dad- what makes you believe that it was Peter's dad that initiated the duel?>>

Kralvarez1987, are you asking me or someone else? If it's me, then my main point is that we don't know which one initiated the duel. I could write you several different scenarios where it would be Jimmy who initiates and several others where Peter's father throws down the gauntlet, so to speak. That's why I say it would have been REALLY nice if there had been a quick little flashback so we might know who started things, and who did what and to whom. I'm saying it's just as likely that Peter's father started the fight as it is that Jimmy started it -- that's all.

Too many people make the assumption that Jimmy started the whole thing, and he probably did given his temper, and assume he's just an evil, murderous, heartless villain. Peter's father may or have been much better, especially if he was a "self-righteous" (Hook's words) and holier-than-thou type; they're quite often some of the wickedest people of all, hiding behind a veil of piety and self-righteousness.

But I will say Jimmy's bitterness, as if he's been ostracised from the "good old boys" club, as it were, and lost his status in high society unjustly tends to make me lean towards Peter's father being the instigator. He feels like he's being punished for finishing a fight he didn't start (maybe). Just a hypothetical -- but it could have been self-defense (?) and because Peter's father was well liked (maybe) or from a "better" family, Jimmy was "shunned" by his peers. I'm just guessing though. Unless there's a sequel with some flash-backs, guess we'll never know for sure.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] kralvarez1987 12 years ago

thanks for replying [smiling] and that makes sense- you know in regards of Jimmy's descent in Neverland, the miniseries did it well but... not? Something with his character development went wrong in the writing somehow, but I can't figure it out.

I AM MELON LORD!

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<Something with his character development went wrong in the writing somehow, but I can't figure it out.>>

I agree. I imagine there are deleted/editted-out scenes (or I'd like to think there are) and it was a matter of time constraints that they rushed things. (Which is why I'm hoping for extras on the DVD release, or better yet a directors cut). The other possibility is that the script writers maybe just wanted to rush through Jimmy's development, or the (further) degeneration of his character (as in 'character is who you are when no one else but God is watching'), feeling that people would be less interested in Hook's back story than Peter's -- they couldn't be more wrong. I find Hook a far more enigmatic and interesting character, while I generally just want to give Peter a smack and tell him to run along. Or maybe they got bored with the character, couldn't figure out anything clever (should've called me -haha), or maybe got tired of trying to work out Jimmy's reasoning so they just sort of copped out.

As I said, we know Jimmy is very bitter about being shunned by his former peers. He seems to feel as if he's being punished unfairly or for something that was not his fault(?). From personal experience, I generally don't feel that way unless I have actually been falsely accused/treated unfairly. If I screw up, I'll be the first to admit it, but don't try to blame me for something someone else did. A little self-projection onto Jimmy, I realize and maybe that's why I sympathize with him, having been punished/treated unfairly when I was younger (at school), so I know how it feels. Much credit to Rhys Ifans for conveying that feeling right thru the screen too -- excellent performance.

The jealousy bit is a rather different issue -- all I can say it's a less desirable but quite human emotion. And I won't fault Jimmy for being 'human'. He was quite a good "father" to the boys, especially Peter, prior to ending up in Neverland, and did kill several pirates defending "his" boys. But as my Dad used to say, 'power corrupts, & absolute power corrupts absolutely'; and with his desire for revenge against those he feels have wronged him, Jimmy succumbs quickly to the lure of that absolute power (and scantily clad female pirates captains don't help matters either - lol!).

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] loopylittlelayla 12 years ago

It is a shame they didnt expand on it more or make it into a 3 parter maybe because they did make Hook and his downfall kinda intresting but you want to know more behind him and all
......

whereas Peter is on the whole a good person but is still young and naive so is prone to making reckless decisions that put others at harm but it is never his intention

Yeah defintly agree with that,and his trust in Jimmy and all...guess having seen someone as your dad figure for most your life you want to believe in them..and that people do change which why probably so trusting before the whole cave betrayal sorta thing

And for him as well a case of wanting to prove he was ready,that he was an adult and when someone tells you not to do something..you do hence some of the decisons he made

And agree with the hand cutting off moments..that was a bit 'eh!!' guess they didnt want to show Peter as a bad guy had it been he done it on purpose sorta thing but still...

[–] kralvarez1987 12 years ago

that would have been awesome to see- Hook, a man trying to atone for his actions, trying to get back what he lost and then gets corrupted and loses his soul and his son.

I think this miniseries was suppose to be the story of Peter and Jimmy, but they didn't take it far enough. That's a problem with a lot of SyFy miniseries (ALICE and TIN MAN)- they have good ideas (among the ridiculous ones) and stuff but they don't take things far enough esp the endings.

I AM MELON LORD!

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<that would have been awesome to see- Hook, a man trying to stone for his actions, trying to get back what he lost and then gets corrupted and loses his soul and his son.>>

I'm guessing you meant 'atone' instead of 'stone' -- I hit the wrong keys all the time myself.

That is the most bloody brilliant interpretation of Jimmy & Peter's relationship I've heard so far, and I'm thoroughly jealous I didn't think of it. In trying to atone for his 'sins' and regain lost respect, Jimmy ends up losing everything -- his adopted son & his soul. How tragic.

Plus it puts a new spin on Peter screaming at Jimmy -- "You killed/murdered my father!". It can now be looked at as an adopted child furious with his adoptive parents & wanting to go find their "real" parents, when in fact he already has them. The people who raise you, love and care for you are your Mother & Father, not the sperm donor nor the one who carried you to term (& I can say that as I was adopted; it was an inter-family adoption, but my Mom & Dad are the 2 people who raised me, not the 2 who made me.) So when Peter's screams at him, I think that is why Jimmy becomes so enraged at Peter as he once again feels betrayed, this time by the boy he rescued, raised, and loves and I think we see the man's heart break, as well as his mind snap.

I now have an interesting scenario to write on how this whole duel thing may have come about. I will post it sometime this week-end for you, as I'm cooking dinner and trying to look after my eldest sister who's very sick w/flu, and I really don't want to burn dinner.

BTW, you are a genius! Still wish I'd thought of that myself. Pat yourself on the back for me.
Eddie

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] kralvarez1987 12 years ago

thanks- stone is now atone. hope dinner is okay as well as your sister. And liked the point on the adopted aspect.

will be interested to read your interpretation and hope I may something to say something on Peter's character- but Hook is so interesting, one of the best, if not the best 3-dimensional characters in the miniseries. A large part for that is the actor Rhys Ifan. Never him seen before, now I can't to see him as Dr. Conner in Amazing Spider Man.

here some thoughts on Peter- a good portion of his actions are idiotic and hurtful (for Jimmy), and do more harm than good, he strives to right thing. Or at least what he believes is the right thing. He wants to prove himself to Jimmy, admiring the man and even wants to be like him. So to see Jimmy siding with the pirates (including bedding Capt. Bonny) after befriending the Indians and learning how "evil" the pirates can be. His actions, when he goes against Hook, does seem like a kid angry with his dad and doesn't want the relationship to change (that means, no evil stepmom) and if it does, its will be on his terms.

So yeah, if anything, Peter's character is aligned (?) with Jimmy's. And that makes a lot of sense since he may have traits similar to his birth father, Jimmy raised him.

Also, here's a thought that I had since I watched Neverland- wouldn't have been interesting to see that full effect on what the Tree Spirits did to him? To have pretty much everything human about him ripped away and in that way, lost his good memories for his adopted father? Or maybe see that even though Tinkerbell stopped them, he will lapse into that state?

I AM MELON LORD!

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<wouldn't have been interesting to see that full effect on what the Tree Spirits did to him? To have pretty much everything human about him ripped away and in that way, lost his good memories for his adopted father? Or maybe see that even though Tinkerbell stopped them, he will lapse into that state?>>

Yes, that's another avenue the script went down and then swerved away from. I thought they should have left Peter with most, if not all of his memory stripped. After all, most versions point out that being in Neverland makes you forget things -- maybe a bit more slowly, but eventually one forgets what things are like in the "real" world. And it would make it easier to accept his sudden change towards Jimmy if he had no "good" memories of the man.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] norman891 12 years ago

I've almost finished that not-so little scenario -- it's about eight pages long (sorry, english degree, free-lance writer, all my "short" stories end up far from short.) I'll be posting on fanfiction.net once I put the finishing touches on it, and will provide a link, as I doubt an 8 page post would go over to well.

Get back to you soon with the link.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] mothermayhem3255 12 years ago

Where in Peter's life was he taught right and wrong? You condemn him for being what he was being raised to be. A pick pocket and everything that goes with being a sneak thief.

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<Where in Peter's life was he taught right and wrong? You condemn him for being what he was being raised to be. A pick pocket and everything that goes with being a sneak thief.>>

And being such, he was quite aware he was stealing and that it was a crime to steal. Now,sometimes a person does what they have to in order to survive, and that includes stealing to feed yourself, your family. It may be understandable, but its still stealing and criminal behavior.

If Peter had no concept of right & wrong, then why was he warning the other boys of the police presence? Yes, he was looking out for his friends - so they wouldn't get arrested. Obviously, in this film, Peter DID know right from wrong and chose wrong 99% of the time (which includes disobedience to Jimmy). Being raised to be a thief doesn't mean you don't know what you're doing is wrong, as demonstrated by their attempts to avoid/flee from police, it just means you chose to continue in your 'work' and you don't care because you're stealing from the wealthy anyway, which was and is the attitude of professional thieves still. Nope, no pass for "child-like innocence".

My late father showed me many a trick that more than fractured the lines between right & wrong. I made the decision not to do them as early as 10 years old. Of course, he grew up during the Great Depression & sometimes you stole or engaged in other questionable behavior to feed your family. I'm sure he learned that from HIS father. But the decision to commit the crime is solely a matter of individual responsibility - so Peter is still no better than Hook, he just gets a pass because "awww he's just a kid, he doesn't know any better." Mounds of organic male bovine fertilizer.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] nick-31-228661 12 years ago

I think norman891 just needs to watch the miniseries and all questions would be answered.

From the first post he missed obvious details which others have pointed out already.

Later he says Peter is a coward unwilling to drop below to watch their back--certainly not the type to face 4 armed bullies and threaten them with 50 snipes. /wink /nod.

Watch the series and pay attention.

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<Watch the series and pay attention.>>

FYI, and its obiviously your uninformed information I watched the series on Syfi - DVR-ed it and have it on DVD/Blueray. Have watched it multiple times. I think I could relay the entire film (paraphrased) and not miss a thing -- so back YOUR uninformed buss up.

I haven't missed any details -- that is precisley the problem. I make note of details others ignore/overlook or just plain refuse to acknowledge. And what part of "personal responsibility" don't you get; Peter IS responsible for getting them all blown to hell & gone (or Neverland in this case) for disobeying specific orders to stay out of the Harbottle's job -- Jimmy was doing it alone because of the danger. As for the 4 armed bullies -- bravery & stupidity are often mistaken for each other. It was bluff -- had it failed he and Curly would have been minced meat.

Peter is no better than Jimmy. Both characters are extremely flawed, but i am supposed to overlook Peter's misdeeds because he's a 10 - 12 year old boy? I think not. And as for Hook taking sides with the pirates over the Indians, I have found over the last 47 years or so that adults are a much more reliable source of information than children, especially head-strong ones that have already proved they will not abide by your rules/orders & are therefore not trustworthy.

I look at this from an adult point of view. Imagine yourself taken prisoner on a pirate ship. You have no choice or say so because the captain has said to throw you over board to freakishly large 8 legged croc's, & yous intent is to protect the boys in your charge. Maybe bedding the captian was boorish (although quite human), but Jimmy & boys jumping overboard & making a swim for it would have turned them all into croc snacks. Let's not forget that Jimmy was adamant about not having the boys harmed. Peter took the word of people he barely knew (the Indians) over the man who basically saved his life and raised him as his own son. (Nothing agains the Indians, just saying.) Peter's biggest problem with the pirates was that he was jealous of Bonnie getting any of Jimmy's attention (proved by later scathing remarks about 'your lady friend'. Jimmy helped Peter escape from the ship initially, it's not his fault that Fawkes/Fox was shot by one of the pirates.

There again, I feel as though I'm talking to a brick wall. None so blind as those who refuse to see BOTH sides of the coin.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] norman891 12 years ago

<<I think norman891 just needs to watch the miniseries and all questions would be answered.>>

Well, if your 'genius' self had actually read my posts, I DID watch the mini-series when it waas broadcast, when I dubbed it from my DVR to DVD, and also watched the DVD released in Maech -- so back your bus up. I paid VERY close attention -- much closer than you obviously

As to Peter facing 4 armed bullies -- bluffing is easy, he's lucky it worked. Had his bluff failed, he & Curly would have been sliced & diced. A bluff is a gamble, and Peter gambled with his life, which is fine, and his friend's life -- which is not fine. Lucky for them most bullies, armed or not, are cowards at heart.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull

[–] Thats_A_Print 11 years ago

Jimmy said he was with Peters mother and Peter's father stole her from Jimmy. THis is when they got married and Peter's mom got pregnant with him. This is when Jimmy killed Peter's father. Plain and simple. Not sure where the OP got this convoluted story.

... End of line.

[–] norman891 10 years ago

That is ALL the info we have regarding the love triangle between, Jimmy, Peter's mother, and Peter's unnamed, unidentified, father whom we know NOTHING about. He may have been a perfect gentlemen; then again, his father may have been a total cad. We are not given any information whatsoever for you to draw the conclusion that Jimmy was naturally at fault. You are making an assumption -- I am asking for an explanation.

Speaking of which, there is not any explanation of who started the fight that ended with Jimmy killing Peter's father -- it quite possibly could have been done in self defense or I think Jimmy would have gone to jail. Of course, Jimmy 'could' have been at fault. I think the writers did a crappy job of creating such a scenario and then give us no info to support one side or the other.

And nothing in life is "plain & simple", unless you choose to be one of the mind numbed sheep who follow along blindly. I prefer to think for myself & ask questions when someone fails to give me a plausible hypothetical situation, and quite frankly the writers of "Neverland" dropped the ball IMO on this point.

"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull