The fact that the Darling Children break out in their nightgowns seemed an impediment to their adventures - but ironically, for Wendy it was a blessing: regular female clothing for upperclass girls back then was way too constricting to do anything useful, so for her the nightgown was the only appropriate choice - SS 13.
The Darling family was actually middle-class. The reason they had Nana was because they couldn't afford a "real" nursemaid.
At one point, it is said that Hook was even feared by "the Sea-Cook". The cook in question is Long John Silver from Treasure Island.
While in the book, the Darling children learn to understand Tinker Bell, the audience never hears her voice - because they don't understand Tinker Bell's language.
Neverland has an interesting context to its name. After all, once you get flight from Tinker Bell or Hook's ship, you'll want to never land.
Think about it: since the Lost Boys don't really age in Neverland, that implies that they're from Earth. This means that the parents of those kids never knew where their kids disappeared. Now consider the fact that this might mean that the Lost Boys may be hundreds of years old, so their families are long dead by then...
Hook addressed an aspect of that Fridge Horror rather nicely. Look at his relationship with Wendy. Though that may merely be a case of Who Wants to Live Forever?
The original book is both better and worse, though at least it avoids the trip to the fridge being necessary: the Lost Boys do age. It's just Peter Pan who doesn't. When one gets too old... well... let's just say it'd have been nicer for Peter Pan to merely kick them out, okay?
The boys on the island vary, of course, in numbers, according as they get killed and so on; and when they seem to be growing up, which is against the rules, Peter thins them out.
The book and its sequel mention that Peter does NOT kill the lost boys; in the original book Peter sends them back to Earth and in its sequel its mentioned that that anyone, not just Peter, has the ability stay young forever in Neverland provided that they never ponder their future. Pondering the future and wondering what they would be if they grew up is all it takes to break the magic that keeps the individual young in Neverland, in the novel RavelloWho is actually Captain Hook refers to it "Betraying childhood and Looking Ahead" and it's also mentioned that people can trick others into growing up by asking them to answer the question "What do you want to be when you grow up?" Looking Ahead is the single Rule Peter has for the Lost Boys, and if Peter realises that they have broken the Rule, he banishes them to Nowhereland, meaning that they were to be ignored by the League of Pan (All of Peter's allies). In the novel it's mentioned that the banished Lost Boys (Called the Roarers) resent Peter for banishing them until they realise that in the past they were tricked into growing up by Captain Hook and turn their full resentment on him instead.
Also in the book, it states that the baby has to be missing and not looked for for seven days before they are taken.
The line was something like "They are the children who fall out of their prams when the nurse isn't looking. If they are not claimed in seven days they are sent away to Neverland".
In the book, it's stated that mothers read their childrens` minds every night and "tidy" them up like drawers. "When you wake in the morning, the naughtiness and evil passions with which you went to bed have been folded up small and placed at the bottom of your mind and on the top, beautifully aired, are spread out your prettier thoughts, ready for you to put on." It is supposed to be cute and portray mothers as deeply caring, but for older readers the idea of someone knowing every thought you ever had can seem unsettling.
Even more so, the idea of someone remodelling your mind as she sees fit!
Worse, imagine all those folded-up evil desires building up over time, before you finally cant take it anymore and snap...
If you take the Barrie publication dates as the time during which Peter Pan is set, John and Michael come home from Neverland, having learned a valuable lesson about growing up...only to be sent off to die in the first World War ten years later.
In the film, one of the Lost Boys admits to shooting Wendy, his response is to kneel down and pull his top down to show his heart, ready for Peter to kill him. Note how ready the Lost Boys are to face being killed off when making Peter angry, how often has something like that happened that the Lost Boys do this without even being told to do so!?
Also, in the book Peter kills off the boys when they get to old or not follow his orders. It's likely that Peter would have killed of the Lost Boys in the 2003 film version too.
Unlikely because it's been confirmed by the sequel novel that in the original novel Peter never killed his allies and if they grew up (Something that can be prevented by never pondering the future, which was Peter's only rule for the Lost Boys), disobeyed him or betrayed him, he would retaliate by banishing them to Nowhereland (Mentioned above); and in the movie Peter looked rather dismayed at the thought of having to kill Slightly, Slightly only did this because he believed that it was only fair that he should pay for the death of Wendy with his own life.
Fridge Tear Jerker: Not only can Wendy never go back to Neverland after she grows up, but we can assume that after she dies, Peter will forget she ever existed. Just like he forgets about Tinker Bell, Captain Hook, and everyone else he knows who dies. Their adventures and the bond they shared will be literally nothing to him, because his new adventures "crowd out" all the old ones from his mind.
When I was a little kid watching Disney's Peter Pan, I didn't really notice the glaring stereotypical portrayal of the Indians. Then, not too long ago, a Cracked article reminded me that, yes, the way the film handled the Indians was inaccurate. Today, however, I realized that, duh, of course the Indians are portrayed stereotypically—Neverland is the average 1900s English magical world, and the average kid's idea of the Indians is pretty much what's portrayed in the film. -Chutney Prophet.
Then again, the flight to Never Land made it pretty clear that Never Land isn't even on Earth, let alone in America. So, technically speaking, the Injuns in Never Land aren't even Native Americans, they're native Neverlandians!
Some people were mad that in the spinoff series, Tinker Bell speaks - most people know Tinker Bell to be mute. Except that she actually speaks a different language, and in the movie, the kids don't learn to understand her language - and neither do the viewers. As for why she's Suddenly Voiced in the spinoff series, it's because it's from her perspective, so Translation Convention.
Adding to that, at least in her first solo movie, Tink only ever speaks to other fairies, never to humans or other creatures. Of course they'd understand her and be able to communicate with her!
In a later movie she does meet and communicate with humans. And then she's back to ringing like a bell for a few minutes.
An extremely subtle Mythology Gag in Return to Neverland—when Tinker Bell gets sick, Slightly dresses up as a doctor and takes her temperature with a thermometer. In the original book and play, when Wendy was unconscious after being shot down from the sky, Slightly acted as doctor and "put a glass thing in her mouth" to "cure" her.
Ever notice that during the climax there's not a *tick* to be heard? Is it possible that this was intentional and that the clock in the crocodile ran down just as it did in the book?
Wendy is extremely composed when being forced to Walk the Plank. Did she have faith that Peter would save her, was she just going to Face Death with Dignity...or could she still fly? It's never really established how long the pixie dust lasts, it's possible she was fully capable of saving herself.
Throughout the movie you'll notice that Wendy has trouble flying. Pixie dust works best with happy thoughts. However, since coming to Never Land Wendy has been attacked, bullied, and frustrated with Peter. Factoring all that it's probably hard for her to think happy thoughts.
Quite a bit, notably in that scene where Hook casually kills one of his crew members for singing while he was planning-just how many times has he done that? And where does he get new crew members from when he goes through them so fast? Plus, while he was listing off methods of loosening Tigerlily's tongue, he spoke horrific tortures such as boiling in hot oil and such in a casual tone, with Smee nodding along calmly, as if such things are commonplace to them. Just what have they been doing?
They are pirates after all. Doing horrific things is what they do.
The Lost Boys and the Blackfoot tribe play an ongoing game of war against each other. It's all in the spirit of fun, nobody's supposed to get hurt, and everybody is turned loose at the end with no hard feelings...but John and Michael didn't know that. So when they volunteered to join the latest fight, they really were out for blood!
In the Disney film, Peter's instructions were to 'go out and capture a couple Injuns', so Michael and John weren't planning to bring back a severed head or anything.
What Hook experienced while in the belly of the crocodile. With him being extremely terrified of the crocodile, imagine how he felt when he was in the stomach of the beast for that brief amount of time, where he can only see or feel the slimy and thick insides and the stomach acid ruining his clothes and painfully burning his skin. Instead of being comical, it could also come off as horrifying. Especially since crocodiles in general rely more on slow and painful digestion after swallowing their prey whole rather than simply chewing their food. Just imagine what would've happen if he didn't escapefrom the belly of the crocodile in time...
In the 2003 film version, Peter forgetting Michael & John's names (and often presence) is given off as a comedic effect, but one wonders that because Peter has a tendency to kill off boys...and having lived for so long...it's quite possible that Peter doesn't bother to learn or remember names or have a special connection with the boys if he is used to killing them off. From the start Peter had wanted Wendy to go with him to Neverland. (The camera has a split-second shot of Peter grimly staring at the boys right at the beginning of the movie when Wendy persuades Peter to let her brothers come along too and wakes them up from bed.)
As it's been mentioned above, Peter DID NOT kill the Lost Boys and that being forgetful is one of Peter's character traits.
It is heavily implied that Hook is an Alter Ego of Wendy's father (for example in the end where he tries he cheer himself with "banks" and "stock operations"; they are both called James and played by the same actor). This makes the fact that he was ready to kill Wendy (and her siblings) extremely disturbing. Worse yet, it even makes sense, as Mr. Darling did notice that he is inconvenienced by his children earlier (of course he repents at the end, but still).
Actually I think the father's name is George
Yeah, and the same actor is because it is stage tradition in Peter Pan (and, I believe, in general) for the father to be played by the same actor as the villain. Now, of course, you can go right ahead with the same argument and it will stem not from the film but from the play.
Not to mention the decidedly unsavoury edge this lends to Wendy's Precocious Crush on Hook.
Surely that's part of the point? The 2003 film version plays heavily on Wendy's sexual awakening, and it's not uncommon for (straight) children just entering puberty to first be attracted to someone who reminds them of their own opposite-sex parent. It adds another layer to the symbolism already inherent in casting the same actor as Hook/Darling.
Jung's theories include both an oedipal complex, where a boy's first love is his mother, and an electra complex, where a girl's first love is her father. He described it as a natural progression of sexual idenfication. As the children grow up, these are resolved into relationships with other boys and girls. It's interesting that while the play was published in 1902, the book was published in 1911 when Jung was already known.