Was Neverland really All Just a Dream? It seems that way, until Mr darling sees the ship and claims that it looks familiar...until it breaks apart in the wind.
Your Mind Makes It Real? Isn't Neverland created by the stories and dreams of children? Just because it's a dream, doesn't mean it wasn't real. Alternately, Wendy was dropped off and waited up for her parents - but just dozed off at the window.
The sequel seems to confirm it on the surface. Then again Word of God says it's not canon because the sequel was not produced by the Walt Disney Animation Studios, but rather the now-defunct Disney Toons studio.
How persistent is the ability to fly given by fairy dust? Everyone except Peter seems to forget about it instantly as soon as they reach Neverland, even in situations when it would be useful.
It seems to last only long enough to get to or from Neverland. Note that the Lost Boys are all ground-bound (this is in sharp contrast to the Fox series, where Peter, the kids, and the Lost Boys all fly routinely).
Maybe they just forget because it's not something they can normally do? Like when you're used to driving alone so you forget that you can go in the carpool lane when you have someone else in the car with you.
Wendy flies with Peter just after they have rescued Tiger Lily. Happy thoughts is probably the key. Like when they're on Captain Hook's ship, they're probably all too terrified of what's going to happen to them. Peter is able to fly because he sees the whole thing as an adventure and thus rescuing the others is fun to him.
But watch closely after Wendy's ordeal with the mermaids, and after Peter rescues Tiger Lily. Wendy had to resort to flapping her arms to take off. None of them had to do so the first time they flew. It's entirely possible that the pixie dust had worn off by the ending.
And the carefree, impulsive Lost Boys can't fly under normal circumstances because they're too busy having happy experiences to bother thinking about them.
If Captain Hook is a manifestation of the father, and the father went with Peter Pan when he was a boy and recognizes the pirate ship, did the father have to deal with a version of himself, or was Captain Hook based on his father when he went?
Then again, the fact that Mr. Darling both sounds and resembles Captain Hook might have been Wendy subconsciously associating her father's antagonism toward her and her stories with Hook's vendetta against Peter Pan.
That Captain Hook is a manifestation of the father because Wendy and her mother were telling the story. I believe (based on how much I've seen the movie and what I know from other versions and the original story) that Peter Pan only exists because of the stories told. So, if the father had known Peter Pan as a child it would have been based on the stories that were told to him. Captain Hook was probably a different person, maybe his own father or the mean man down the street or the school headmaster or somebody. Though this could just be WMG.
No, Hook was never a schoolteacher — if we go by the original book, at least, the pirate who's an ex-schoolteacher is Gentleman Starkey (incidentally the only pirate apart from Smee to survive the final battle).
In a case of Death by Adaptation, Starkey doesn't survive the Disney version.
Yes he does - Return to Neverland has a pirate who looks identical to Starkey, almost certainly him. He's the guy with a knife in his mouth. Of course, which of the pirates survived Return to Neverland is completely up for grabs.
Hook isn't actually supposed to be a "manifestation of the father"; that's just a rumor that got started because it's tradition for Hook and Mr. Darling to be played by the same guy in the stageplay. (Initially, J. M. Barrie wanted Hook to be played by the same actor who portrayed Mrs Darling.)
The sequel hints that Hook was based on Mr. Darling's father, possibly. While they aren't voiced by the same actor, Hook and Jane's father Edward are similar in that they try to entice Jane into being too grown-up for things like stories, fun, and games. Said enticing was obviously less malicious in her father's case, but they're both still responsible for the character flaw Jane needs to overcome by the end of the film.
In Return to Neverland, what happened to the crocodile? Did Hook kill it offscreen? Because if everyone else in Neverland is still alive and as young as they were before, there's no real reason for the crocodile to have passed on.
At one point while complaining about the octopus, if memory serves me right, he says something along the lines "I finally manage to get rid of that crocodile, and then that thing shows up."
Why is this such a mystery to some people? It's a crocodile. It can't be that hard to kill.
In "What made the Red Man Red", if Ogga Means what Bogga Means and Gogga Means that too, what the heck do they mean?
It means the first man, the first woman and the first stepmother (the first stepmother is mean, and the first man and the first woman mean a lot to each other).
Exactly how long has Peter been in Neverland? He could be older than Hook, or Really 700 Years Old for all we know.
It was mentioned in the book, as well as certain film adaptions, that he'd overheard his mother talking about him getting a job in an office or court, so presumably it couldn't have been too long ago. At least within the era of human civilization.
In the second film, how does Jane manage to reach the pirate ship, let alone climb aboard and make her way up one of the masts without being seen?
What's the explanation for Tink's sudden recovery in the Disney film?
As much as I love the sequel, why does Hook have to go looking for Peter's hideaway again, when he already found out where it was in the first film, and Peter appears to still be living in the same place here? Did Hook forget its location since then, or did the bomb he left in the first film demolish the place, and Peter managed to find another one that looked exactly like it? it would have been odd don't you think for a animated movie to ask for children/families watching the movie in movie theatres of the 50s to clap their hand right?
Sooo, does Hook not know that people age normally on the mainland? He does understand the concept of growing up, so why did he think Wendy would still be a child when he mistook Jane for her?
It's probably like how, when we meet somebody after years of absence, we're surprised by how they've aged even though we know that that's how people work. I suspect that seeing somebody who looked that much like Wendy instinctively felt right, and he didn't think about how unlikely it was in practice.
Doesn't Peter actually look grown-up? I'd say he looks 21 at least. So doesn't that mean that he did grow up?
His voice actor and physical model, Bobby Driscoll, was about 14 or 15 when the movie was being made. I think that's the main problem; he does seem a bit more like a teenager than a child. But I personally don't think he seems 21 and I definitely don't think he's meant to seem that old. 12-14 feels like the right age range.
Hook shoots his crew with extreme regularity, so how does he have any left? All of them appear white, so he's not stealing them from the Indians (which likely wouldn't work in any case). In the 2003 film he shoots two of them inside of five minutes. You'd think he'd have run through their entire number inside of a fortnight, given how trigger-happy he is.
It's possible that Hook himself and the rest of the pirates are Lost Boys that escaped from Peter Pan due to be killed.
Considering Neverland is often described as being influenced by the dreams and imaginations of children, it's likely that Hook gets new, nameless crew members as kids dream about them. It's not like any of them are all that important outside of himself and Smee.
Okay, so in the book's universe, if a child says, "I don't believe in fairies", a fairy dies. I have three questions about that: 1.) What if they're quoting someone else? 2.) What if a child says that fairies probably don't exist without outright denying their existence? 3.) What if an adult says that they don't believe in fairies?
1.) I would imagine that intent matters with this sort of thing, though I could be wrong. 2.) It's still possible to believe in something even as you acknowledge it's probably not real. Just as long as you don't outright denounce your faith in it, I'd assume it's safe. 3.) I have seen versions of the story that expand the phrase to include everyone, not just children.
If fairies are born every time a baby laughs, how come nobody's seen one?
Because they're born in Neverland, as is shown in Disney's Tinker Bell movie.