a judgement-free blog to share and chat about things that might elsewhere be hard to broach. oh, and occasionally, we indulge here, too. [LGBT+ friendly, haters DNI! 🫶]
Here, feel free to chat about things you might otherwise feel uncomfortable, or unable to talk about IRL. Maybe you wanna get some family drama off your chest, maybe you wanna gush about a guilty pleasure you've never been able to share... heck, maybe you wanna get existential about existence because it's 3am and you've had one hell of a day. Got questions about life? Relationship woes? Do you feel better discussing grievances or proceedings with the anonymity of the internet, knowing you're (probably) speaking/messaging real people?
If any of these ^^^ apply (or none, even), then you are welcome here!
Some general guidance when engaging with others on this blog:
This is a judgment-free blog. Hate, intolerance, mockery, bullying and other similar offenses have no place here. Offenders are liable to be blocked.
This is not a particularly child-friendly blog; there will be likely be cursing, obscenities, and discussion of topics considered controversial or NSFW, such as relationships and orientations, the human body, politics, etc.
Don't be afraid to commiserate Anonymously! It can be hard to broach certain topics, but sometimes, you just want to get something off your chest. Send an anonymous ask, and maybe sign it off with an emoji (instead of using a username)!
Remember to be kind! We've all got a little bit of freak in us.
Feel free to use the #the guilty conscious tag if you'd rather post your thoughts
Would ANYONE be interested in reading OC-insert fanfiction of the Daredevil live action series (Netflix AND Disney+/Born Again)?
Not necessarily self-insert, but definitely NOT romantic in any way. Just a random, regular original character in scenes I think the main characters deserved.
Music is one of the details in Peter Pan that I rarely give any thought to. Of course, there's the Disney musical, and that's fine, but overall, I've not seen or conjured up much stuff of substance regarding music in/from that universe.
It's certainly a curious subject! There's plenty to be discovered, I'm sure. His pan pipes were inspired by the Greek deity Pan, though, in any iteration of Barry's story, he hardly ever uses them.
It strikes me now that there's actually a lot of whimsical music from modern media that I sometimes subconsciously associate with Peter Pan, if only because it truly captures the vibe of magical, mysterious forests and childlike wonder. A lot of tracks from the How to Train Your Dragon films, especially the 3rd, fit that bill. The score for Toothless's interactions with the Light Fury - like Legend Has It and Third Date - are essential to that mood. I wonder how many others there are... lots of tracks from WoW, too. Ardenweald music, Harandar, Sholazar Basin... I've gotta wonder what it is about deep forests that make artists think, "Flutes, subtle flutes".
The headline on why Disney-Pixar cut LGBT+ elements from Elio is hugely disappointing. Maybe it might not have stung so much if they hadn't worded it the way they did, but still, what a gut-punch.
"Not making millions of dollars worth of therapy" my left nut. Pushing the chance that parents might have to have a tough conversation with their children is just part of the deal. It's a deal you make every time you make these beautiful, poignant CHILDREN'S films. By that logic, maybe Up should have had a very different opening. Maybe there shouldn't have been any death in The Lion King.
I hate the way my brain functions. Idk if it's a part of some condition - ADHD, something on the spectrum, what have you - or if it's just a quirk of the mind, but goddamn does it make having an opinion kind of hard.
Sometimes, having a debate - or even an argument - is refreshing! For example: if someone brings up a controversy or piece of news, in the moment, I can rarely muster the words to express my own thoughts. I blank! Yet, days after the fact, I'll have this sudden epiphany where I can write up the perfect summation of what I might have said.
I swear, I *know* how I feel! I do! I just can't put it into words when it counts. It's tough to avoid just speaking my mind because I know the wording will be juuust wrong enough to get the wrong point across. Then it's, "That's not what I meant", followed by, "Well, what did you mean?" Proceeded by a moment of panicked silence and, "I... don't know..."
Makes having enriching day-to-day conversations a bitch.
It probably also explains why I tend to hoard pictures, video clips, and other keepsakes of things that have shaped my perspective, or have put my own thoughts into more perfect words than I'll ever manage.
Conspiracy theory: Tiger Lily doesn't speak because Peter can "steal" voices. It's proven that he can mimic others to an unmistakable degree, so I think if he used that skill more often, it might lean more into the childishly cruel trickster vibe that few adaptations make use of. You'd never know whether the voice you're hearing is the person you're talking to or the fae changeling that lurks in the woods. So, to prevent her own voice from being used, Tiger Lily doesn't speak at all - unless the situation demands it, like the time she was drowning after being abducted by Hook.
After hearing about the whole "drama" with Snoop Dogg and Lightyear, my feathers are just *so* ruffled again. No hate against him, just...
"That stuff-"
It's how I've heard people describe literally ANYTHING queer. A gay couple with a child, anything about being transgender, two girls kissing, two boys holding hands, the list could go on and on...
Why say that? Why phrase it like that? The wording thinly veils the separation of "us" and "them". Such a degree of separation, as if queer lives and experiences are somehow scandalous or offensive that they can't even use the words to describe it.
Idk. I'm a bby gay. I've only been on this earth for about 24 years; the social movement has existed long before me, and will likely exist for long after I'm gone. My complaints aren't new or unique, I know.
There's an "us" and a "them". There's "normal" and "alternative". There's "safe for the children" and "unspeakable". We can't explain how two women have a child! It's obscene!
No. It's not. It's actually pretty simple. Adoption, step-children, in vitro, whatever the case may be, none of it involves any more detailed explanation of the childbearing process than how a straight couple might do the same.
Somehow, EVERY TIME, it makes me sad when someone I know - someone who claims to support the cause - uses that phrase.
One of the main plot points in the 1953 Disney film is the banishing of Tinkerbell. Long story short, the pixie attempts to off Wendy one or two times, Peter finds out, confronts her, and consequently banishes her. Where from? Who knows. All that's known is that she is *not* welcome in the Lost Boys' company, at least, for the moment. She reacts angrily, flying away, her glow turning so red hot she burns through a leaf!
That begs the question: how did the pirates find out? Later on in the movie, after the events at Skull Rock, Smee is caring for the injured Captain Hook when he mentions Tinkerbell's current situation. The way he puts it has very interesting implications for the unspoken details of the movie! When we see the scene where Peter confronts Tink, they're in a clearing in the woods, alongside the Lost Boys and the Darling kids. There aren't *any* other souls around! Yet, when Smee brings up Tinkerbell, it's a rumor from among the crew. A they-heard-he-heard kind of thing. How does that work? There weren't any pirates around!
*That we know of.*
The mystery is fascinating to think about, but I have my theories. Firstly: there are pirates in the woods. I'm thinking they scout the forest, seeing what they can see, gathering intel. Whether there are more pirates on Hook's crew than we see in the film, or scouting the island is just one of their many duties, I'm betting THAT'S how the rumor of Tinkerbell's banishment started. Someone witnessed the whole thing go down from afar - of course, they didn't dare intervene themselves! One lone pirate vs *the* Peter Pan and his entire pack of Lost Boys? No thank you. Self preservation is a valued talent among the pirates, especially given that Hook and his crew have been around for what appears to be quite a long time. Instead, the pirate who might have witnessed Tinkerbell's banishment just retreated, heading back to the ship with that juicy information fresh on the mind. I don't think they'd report that to Hook. Clearly it wasn't immediately made known! A smart decision on that guy's part. With the captain's capricious attitude, that news could have sent him flying all the way in either direction, good or bad.
My other idea? The Lost Boys aren't all against the pirates. A popular theory about the pirates of Peter Pan is that they're just Lost Boys who grew up - Hook included. Now, that could have happened any number of ways! Maybe Peter is the only one with the magic of immortal youth, or maybe, somehow, he withholds the magic from those who rub him the wrong way... either way, just because Peter feels one way doesn't mean his followers share the same sentiments. The fact that he probably *wants* them to is another story entirely. What I'm getting at is this: if the pirates were previously Lost Boys who were essentially kicked out for going against the grain or getting too old, it makes sense that current Lost Boys, having known the others, would want to keep in touch (even if it means risking the wrath of their trickster-fae-immortal leader). That explains how the pirates discovered Tink's banishment - although we don't necessarily see it, sometime between the kids all splitting up and the Jolly Roger sequence after Skull Rock, one or some of the Lost Boys meet up with some of the crew. They share what happened with their pixie friend and the pirates, perhaps intentionally or unintentionally, take it back to the ship. Word spreads, and the rest is history.
+
There's a detail about Return to Neverland, the almost direct-to-DVD sequel, that has always bugged me. I get it: Disney wasn't thinking that hard about continuity, but it's still an itch that begs to be scratched.
That detail is this: during the original, classic Peter Pan film, a bomb - which is a major part of the plot - erupts and destroys the Lost Boys' hideout. It gets OBLITERATED! The destruction is unparalleled! Yet, we only really get a small glimpse into the aftermath of the explosion. There's a heartbreaking scene amid the rubble of Hangman's Tree, then, miraculously, the heroes make it out off-screen. The movie has a happy ending, and several decades later, Disney cranks out a sequel that does an okay job!
However, there is no sign of destruction anywhere on Neverland. Everything is picture perfect, as if the main events of the first movie never happened! Truly, a missed opportunity for some theoretically crazy world-building. Alas, the health of the island goes unexplained.
I like to think the fairies had something to do with the flawless regrowth. That explosion was surely seen and felt by all manner of Neverland's denizens! Such a catastrophic event would probably stir some of them to action. The mermaids, whether they wanted to or not, probably couldn't help much, but I'm sure Tiger Lily and her people did their own investigating. The animals likely fled, scattering among the remains. The fairies were certainly the safest of all the lives affected by Hook's scheme; with Pixie Hollow nestled in the high hills, hidden from view. Though they might have been last to hear the news, the fairies, with their dedication to nature, surely offered their services to the place they call home! Their kind aren't eager to befriend or play nice with humans, so I'm sure the fact that Peter's own home was included in the regrowth was probably just a bonus... perhaps, after all was said and done, Tink shared her story and asked for help. I'm sure she's not forgotten the things that lead up to the big showdown between Hook and Peter. She probably remembers that she's still "banished", and stays away from the Tree for a while. Maybe she spends some time along the beaches, sifting through lost things as the fairies work their magic. Queen Clarion approaches her when their work is done, curious as to why she lingers here, so far away from her true calling (being with the lost boys). She offers some vague yet sage advice before taking her leave, just as Tinkerbell's fairy friends arrive. They chat about all the things that have happened recently, and Tink resolves to return to the Tree.
Just... fairies working their magic like druids! Wild life restored to the scarred land, greenery creeping back to the heart of the forest... fun stuff 😊💣🌋🍃🌳
For some reason, I've always had this irrationally extreme, double standard dislike of OCs and character x reader fan content.
I don't openly share my consumption of said content - for example, I'm very open with my friends and family about the IPs I'm currently into, what fics I've binged recently, but I've never explicitly said anything about the aforementioned content.
If I ever even so much as glimpse an OC or x Reader thing, something deep and awful inside me cringes. There's unspoken sneering. Scoffing. As if such things are some lower form of art. As if they somehow have lesser meaning.
That might have been my true mindset when I was much younger. I've learned better than that, though. I guess the phrase, "easier said than done" is more relevant to me now more than ever. It's easy to say you've learned something, that you've changed your ways or become a better person. Maybe you went to therapy, read some self-help books, got prescribed medication... at the end of the day, it seems like there's always going to be that *one* thing that will still haunt you.
Art is art! It has different meaning for different people, limitless potential encapsulated in millions of different mediums! Inspiration, emotion, vibes, passion, it's all evoked and indulged in countless ways. The fact that the artist was brave and eager enough to share them online says so much! Who am I to say these two specific forms of art are "unworthy"?
Truly, they're not. I can't speak for the cynic that lurks inside me. Idk why it's so hard to internalize new, better ways of thinking. Adapting is usually so easy...
If it's not already apparent, I also partake of OCs and x Reader content. I constantly brainstorm plot bunnies of all the different ways my own characters (usually stand-ins for me) might interact with the characters of my favorite shows and movies; when I'm down or feeling lonely, sometimes I'll go incognito and search for x Reader fics with all the cheesiest tropes you can imagine.
I'm such a hypocrite. Just because some (a majority) of these things don't appeal to my own tastes or standards doesn't mean anything, yet I'll dismiss them just as soon as I gobble them up.
I've floated an idea around for a little while... basically just saying "fuck it" and writing my own additions to these genres, posting the years-old drafts I've had hidden away in the deepest corner of my Google Drive, so no one could ever see my "shame". Maybe that'll be the cure to my obstinate hypocrisy.
I've drafted this post several times, each getting deleted and rewritten due to length and eventual incoherence. This time, I think I've got it summed up.
I have a LOT of relationship anxiety, despite a massive lack of experience. I live in a small rural town in the Midwest, can't drive, and for a variety of other reasons, I've had little opportunity to really meet people or what have you. I've not even approached the beginning of anything more than platonic since my first and only "relationship" in high school - 5+ years ago - imploded. Not for lack of trying, if Tinder or Bumble count...
^^^ this has given me a lot of time to think and reflect on that anxiety, as well as my orientation and interests.
A year or two ago, a few months went by where all I could think to do in my free time was research queer terminology, slang, sexualities and other romantic trivia. For the longest time, I never really thought outside of men being my primary interest because... I'm a woman. That's right, right? Right. Gay people exist and that's awesome but it's just not *my* thing. Then, after some therapy and self-care, I did some digging, inside and out.
Turns out, kissing another woman sounds *really* awesome! And everything else, too. The undercover shuffle, going on dates, sharing a life... occasionally, I compare that to how I thought I was supposed to feel, and what I've learned about these things IRL, and it's so different from what I ingrained in myself growing up. There's no "supposed to" or "right way" to love or want; if you are one way, there's no corresponding opposite you're required to be with... little wisdoms like that.
It's all easier said than done, though. I've made peace with my own orientation so far, knowing I'm not quite straight but not solidly one kind of queer or another. Labels aren't necessary, but I find them comforting. Like putting your bed against two walls, rather than pointing out into the room, so if you toss in your sleep, there's less of a chance you'll roll off the bed!
Some things under the queer umbrella sound nice, but I'm afraid that ... idk. I think it's internalized homophobia? I'm not sure.
Polygamy and polyamory, for example. It's not for everyone, of course, but much like romance in general, every polycule can be different. You have to communicate, set boundaries... I'm certain it takes more work to make it work, yet
Once, I read something that suggested it's impossible to expect humans to (romantically) love - truly love and dedicate - only one other person in their entire life. As a collective, yes, that's how a majority of humanity has gotten by, but likely because that's what our society expects of us, or what they pressure us into... on the surface, I fully agree with the aforementioned statement. Statistically? Realistically? Of course. How could anyone be expected to solely attach themselves to one, single other person for (theoretically) decades? I mean this as genuinely and peacefully as possible, knowing how my words can be interpreted. Sure, you find a significant other that you spend your days with for all your years, that's great! But... what if you find someone else?
Here it is. A post getting so long I lose track of my intended goal...
What I'm trying to get at is this: I can't get behind the standard arguments against polygamy, yet, I can very much see myself standing by them (in the event that a hypothetical poly relationship goes south).
They say, "Multiple partners? That's cheating! Immoral!" I say, how can one person be expected to have 1 partner for their entire life? It's surely possible, but what else is possible? A love life fraught with unsatisfaction, infidelity, changing interests, divorce, dishonesty... whether the issue is purely sexual in nature or there are other problems at play, at this point, unhappy couples (married or otherwise) have become a trope! A blanket cautionary tale from both real life and TV, one I've grown up with and learned from in all facets of my life (which likely contributes to my relationship anxiety).
At the very least, polygamy (or open relationships) can ease the burden of sexual intimacy! Interests change, maybe you want to try something your partner doesn't... hell, would it not be a funny talking point to just discuss recent lays with your partner/s? You're making brekky and suddenly, "He stuck his twig and berries *where*?"
That brings me to another point, which I might save for a different post, although, I don't really know how much more I have to add to it. This part also REALLY shows how inexperienced I am, so, if you're reading this, bear with me.
Surely there's more to the depth of a romantic relationship than the "owning" or "giving" of sexual intimacy? Like... idk. I love this person for far more than the fact that his dong is mine and mine alone. We are a couple for more reasons than simply because the sex is good, right? We share inside jokes, you know my deepest insecurities and darkest desires, I've been with you at your father's funeral, you talked me through some of the biggest decisions of my life. How could sex be such a huge factor that it utterly destroys people's relationships?
Then again, just because it's mainstream doesn't mean it's not genuine. If a couple is in a closed relationship and one of them gets with someone else without their SO's knowledge, I can see how that would be devastating.
I suppose maybe I assume there are more people in the world who practice real "healthy communication" than not... but, going off of my own life and family, I should have known that wasn't the case.
It's my biggest guilty pleasure for a whole host of reasons... but, more often than not, there's just never a "proper" time or place to talk about it. Also, despite it going against the lessons I've learned through therapy and self-help, I'm anxious about being thought of as childish or a freak if I do bring it up. Rationally, I know I shouldn't care <that much> about how other people think of me, but it's easier said than done.
So fuck it.
I like Peter Pan. A LOT. I could fill a compendium with the knowledge and trivia I've come across over the years, and there is plenty more I have yet to learn!
There are <so many> interesting adaptations, dozens of them! But none have caught my eye so thoroughly as one in particular...
Specifically, the Disney animated film from 1953.
[Long post under the cut! Read on if you dare]
Firstly, I am aware of how problematic the '53 film is. It IS a product of its time, though, and I keep that in mind when considering the movie at all. Despite its glaring flaws [by modern standards], Disney's Peter Pan brings so many interesting details to the table that I've never been able to let go of! (Besides, I just REALLY like it).
For some reason, there's always been something enchanting about the fiery, almost cruel, charming yet self-important hero. It goes against every fiber of my being, but the whole "boys will be boys" thing somehow gets a pass when it's wielded by a nigh immortal trickster that can fly! Idk if maybe there's a bit of "I can fix him" energy in there, or maybe I'm just a sucker for red flags... either way, that's definitely one of the core traits built into ANY variation of the character, that no girl or woman could resist his charms. In fact, there's a line about that in the novelization of the play.
Oh, speaking of source material! The Disney movie puts its own spin on SO MANY details from the play (and books). A few of them even became the precedent for other future adaptations! Most of them are unique to Disney's version, though, and I desperately wish I could ask the writers what the process was...
For example: the bomb plot. If I recall correctly, the fate which befalls Tinkerbell before the climax of the story is VERY different between the film and the play/book. Originally, Tink would drink medicine meant for Peter, which had been poisoned by Captain Hook. Disney switched up the pace completely by changing the medicine for a freaking <bomb>! Captain Hook weasels the location of Pan's hideout out of Tinkerbell, traps her in an empty lantern, then goes to kidnap the children [except for Peter]. He leaves a "gift" behind, disguising an explosive. At the very last minute, Tinkerbell hears the Captain's plan, manages to break free of the lantern and flies as fast as she can to the hideout. She barely makes it in time, but it doesn't matter; the bomb explodes just as she flies in to push it away from her best friend, turning the entire tree-home to rubble.
The bomb plot is my favorite villain vs protagonist tactic in classic Disney, possibly in ALL of Disney! It is SUCH a devastating scene, but it is also the biggest disappointment in Disney history. Not only the bomb plot, but Tinkerbell's sacrifice had the potential to change the course of the film! The consequences should have been so much more brutal! Alas, with a clever off-screen deus ex-machina, the two heroes escape the rubble of their home and make it back to the Jolly Roger for the final act.
That heartbreaking moment is also my favorite scene for more reasons than that, though.
When the bomb goes off, we see the eruption from the Jolly Roger and the scale of it is <massive>! Whether it's just a lot of creative liberties being taken, or perhaps the minds of children warping the perspective of things, the aftermath of the bomb is huge. We don't get to see ALL of it, yet what we <do> see implies a lot. Half the screen, from the shore of Neverland to the sky above, is completely blackened by a torrent of smoke. The ocean quakes and whole swathes of trees are uprooted, sent flying into the sea. When the scene changes, we're set inside what remains of Hangman's Tree. Everything is reduced to rubble, just a darkened labyrinth of splintered wood and dunes of ash. Peter survived thanks to Tink, but only barely. He pulls himself out of the debris, and the instant he remembers what happened, the soft crack in his voice brings tears to my eyes.
Something about the mighty, boastful hero being so brutally humbled, especially by the sacrifice of their faithful companion... it could have been a very interesting turning point for Peter. Unfortunately, we never really get to know just how much the events of the movie affect him, because throughout the last minutes of Peter Pan and into the direct-to-DVD sequel, Return to Neverland, the bomb plot is never brought up ever again. In the sequel, everything appears as though the first movie never even happened, despite being a direct, "Next Generation" style follow up! The island seems unharmed, and Hangman's Tree still stands. It's odd, the things Disney picked to ignore and maintain, but they're not thinking that deeply about it, are they?
Disney's [often direct-to-DVD] sequels are infamous for being cheaper and much lower quality than their original counterparts. Their purpose was often only a poorly disguised cash grab, piggybacking off of the success of beloved classics. Whereas most of those movies are just that, objectively, I'd say Return to Neverland is among the better sequels that early 2000s Disney churned out. Still, it's not <great>. It does its job, yet, at the same time, provides an occasional interesting tidbit. After discovering Return to Neverland's existence, initially, I wasn't very impressed... then, the final scene got me <good>. A solid punch right in the feels!
It took a few more reruns for me to really find an appreciation for the sequel. If I'm honest, it's more of an appreciation for what the movie suggests, rather than the movie itself.
Taking something at face value isn't usually the way we're taught to evaluate things, yet doing so here provides a <wealth> of curious details!
For context: there is a MASSIVE difference between the Peter Pan we see portrayed in his titular film vs the direct-to-DVD sequel. Logically, that's very likely due to the different eras in which both movies were made. Stereotypes, taboos, and things considered socially acceptable were all vastly different in the early 2000s than they were in the 40s and 50s! These things and more, pieces of the corresponding zeitgeist, were major influences on these films. Nowhere else is this more evident than in the characterization of Peter himself.
In Peter Pan, we're introduced to the titular hero with all his boyish wiles and charisma. Famously, he's a real spitfire trickster, headstrong and cocky. He's cool, and he knows it! He's got skills, and he <knows> how to use them. However, in Return to Neverland, we get to see an entirely different facet of his character. He's more of a class clown than the vicious, hedonistic rascal I expected to see! When the whole "boyish charms" thing and magic island with mermaids and fairies don't end up doing... anything to Jane, there's even more that's changed! He doesn't scowl and lash out. He doesn't scoff and wave her off. Hell, he doesn't even concern himself with himself! He embodies the figurative "observant child," getting quiet, more curious, and eager to get to the root of things.
The moment that really told me something was different happened pretty early into Return to Neverland. Long story short, Jane tries to build a makeshift raft to sail home, and when Peter finds her, he just... stops. He doesn't fly in at top speed. He doesn't insert himself into the situation, he just pauses behind some trees and waits. He watches Jane so curiously, even ignoring Tinkerbell before making his move.
Later, near the end of the movie, as Jane and the Lost Boys are celebrating the victory over Hook, Peter is giving Jane another one of those <looks>. This time, it's very brief, almost blink-and-you-miss-it, but it still contributes to the theory that Peter is very much changed from when we saw him in the first movie. Both versions of Peter are worthy adaptations, and it's curious to see that kind of evolution go unspoken. What could have possibly tamed the spitfire side of the Boy Who Never Grew Up?
I have 2 hypotheses [neither of which will ever receive a true answer]. Firstly, the bomb plot from the original movie. Coming so near to death several times, losing your home and almost losing your closest friend would definitely change a person. Perhaps, after defeating Hook and safely delivering Wendy [and her brothers] home, Peter made a choice to live on the less dangerous side in an effort to keep himself, but more importantly, Tinkerbell, safe.
Secondly? The difference between Wendy and Jane. They are <worlds> apart from each other, and it shows! Wendy was fuel for Peter's fire. She was <enamored> by him, a devoted artist with the chance to meet her muse! It's a much different to have written about and [essentially] worshipped someone than to build that relationship with them out of shared experiences. Where Wendy had her affection for him from the beginning, Jane instead started opposite. She didn't admire or fawn over Peter the moment they met, like Wendy, or the mermaids did. She didn't even believe in him [or fairies, or magic]! Flight and fancy weren't enough to win Jane over, and that put Peter out of his depth. Stubborn and tomboyish, Jane presented something new to Peter. She was a <challenge>! They earned their friendship, and while I will always be in favor of Wendy and Peter, he and Jane's curious bond will forever have a place in my thoughts.
On a related note, I also have a couple of theories and hot takes on a few details from these movies.
To start: I think the whole "Tinkerbell in a lantern" bit is extremely over-romanticized. <Nothing> about it - or it's surrounding circumstances - is in ANY WAY cute or endearing! Yet, the lantern trope is constantly used in marketing, fan art, merch, and even in the Disney parks! Does <no one> recall how that bit came to be? Captain Hook had Tinkerbell <abducted>. He lied to her, basically coercing her (surely knowing the volatility of fairy emotions, especially in her current time of "distress") into revealing the location of Peter's home! And what happened once she'd marked the place on his map? The Captain snatched her up and ruthlessly tossed her into an empty lantern, locking it shut and moving to enact his <true> plan. Tinkerbell bangs and hits the glass, to no avail; only when Hook reveals his plan to the children does Tink find the strength she needed to topple the lantern over. The glass breaks, she escapes, and she flies as fast as she can to Hangman's Tree... but it's not fast enough. The bomb erupts just as she tries to get it away from Peter, culminating in one of the most underrated, most tragic scenes of classic Disney. Why do they use it in every other piece of promotional material? Who knows. It's certainly not MY idea of a cute bit...
Second: recently, I realized that there might be more going on in Peter Pan than initially seen. Several weeks ago, I rewatched the movie on a Disney nostalgia binge, and one specific thing stuck with me. After the conflict at Skull Rock, Peter flies away with Tiger Lily, leaving Wendy behind to travel by herself. Intentionally or not, he still leaves her behind even after she calls out for him to wait. As Wendy attempts to follow, it's clear she is struggling to fly (that was the thing that stuck to me). On a first glance, most might argue that the pixie dust is just losing its oomph. It's been who knows how long between their departure from London and their arrival in Neverland, and while it IS magic, it doesn't last forever!
I want to posit my own theory: Wendy is struggling to fly because she starts to lose one of the key things needed to fly in the first place. Everyone knows the saying, "Faith, trust, and pixie dust!" But that's not all. Happy thoughts are just as important! In the beginning of the movie, Wendy is alight with happy thoughts! She's thrilled by the appearance of the hero from her stories, and as the night goes on, not only do we hear what facet of Neverland the children are most excited to see, but the plot of the film is also foreshadowed. Wendy wants to see the mermaids, while her brothers are hoping to fight pirates and indians!
However, once they arrive, nothing about their adventure are as they thought they would be. I'm not the best with words, but it's something about how <real> it all is... not just pixie dust and rainbows, but very real, and very dangerous. First, they're attacked by the pirates, then [unbeknownst to the kids] Wendy is shot at by the Lost Boys and nearly plummets to her death! If Peter hadn't rescued her in time, she certainly would have been injured, if not killed. That could surely be brushed off as a freak, one-time thing, though. Later, after the children split up, Wendy is met with the harsh realization that the mermaids are NOT what she assumed them to be. They're cruel, bullying divas that freely admit to trying to drown her! It's bad enough to have been basically left behind while Peter gets fawned over by the mermaids, but then <that>? And all he can do is laugh, until the moment Wendy decides to strike back? Red flags everywhere. The spell is breaking. <Then>, the fight at Skull Rock goes down. Peter's guile against Hook is unmatched, but when it appears the captain was shot and "killed" by Smee, that does something to Wendy's heart. Maybe she can brush it off as a villain getting his dues, yet witnessing a death is unsettling regardless. Hook returns, Peter ends up victorious, and his gloating is a bit much when Tiger Lily's life is at stake! The two of them head for the island, leaving Wendy to fly alone, troubled by her own unhappy thoughts. Celebrating with Tiger Lily's people doesn't hit the same for Wendy when she's constantly urged away from the festivities, and seeing Peter get nose to nose with the princess doesn't help, either. She leaves the party early, put off by her experiences. Her song "Your Mother and Mine" just reinforces the idea that Neverland is <not> what Wendy imagined it to be, so much so that she knows she'd rather be home, with the people who love her. If all of that weren't spell-breaking enough, add the climax of film on top of it! Wendy, her brothers, and the Lost Boys [minus Peter] are all kidnapped by the pirates, forced to watch as their idol/leader/friend/hero gets blown up by a bomb!! The cherry on top? Wendy is the first to be tied up and made to walk the plank. Unbeknownst to her, Peter survived and is waiting in the shadows of the Jolly Roger, but for all she knows, she's about to die! For the <third> time that day!
Putting all of that together, I'd say it's no wonder why Wendy begins struggling to fly halfway through the movie! Neverland defies her expectations, turning the realm from her imagination into a thing of reality and nightmare. .............
All of that aside, I still adore the story as another classic romance or coming of age, like Romeo and Juliet! It's fun to watch the movie with or without thinking too deeply about it. Wendy's devotion to her beliefs and boundless passion for the stories of her childhood call to me on a very real, personal level. Besides, it's just magical to think about! Peter is like this... fae, or deity. A patron saint to some small, infinitesimal faith. Over the years, word spreads among the common folk, rumor of an island paradise where missing children and orphans may forever be at play. The rumor turns to myth, into little more than a comforting old wives' tale. Sure, Peter may have the company of the fairies and children in his flock, but eternity is an awfully long time... then comes Wendy. She's different. She's not a Lost Thing or abandoned by her grown-ups... yet she <believes>. At night, she dreams of their jungle haven and spins stories from the memories! Buoyant with curiosity, Peter finds her across the veil, keeping just out of sight as he listens to her craft. One night, by chance, Fate sees them meet.
I think I wax poetic too much to make it work. Just... a passionate artist by chance getting to meet the substance, the <heart> of her work... all portrayed through the innocent, if exaggerated lens of childhood... not to mention the added weight behind her coming of age, the whole "Once you're grown up, you can never come back. Never!", yet even as a mother herself, Wendy still believes as strongly as she did all those years ago, handing off the torch to her own children. Something about having that realization that adulthood isn't always as bad as so many people make it out to be, that you can still believe in magic and write stories about pirates and boys who can fly...
Oh! Two last things [for this post, at least].
It's definitely the Disney adaptation of Peter Pan that forever changed my default mental image of him. Peter is supposed to be a child, much like the other children in his ragtag crew of runaways; ever since seeing the Disney cartoon, though, something about the designs of Wendy and Peter himself give off tween or teen vibes, and I think that adds a <whole other layer> of complexity to the story! The inner conflict there could be if Peter were genuinely supposed to be the oldest child of the bunch... the potential is crazy! And, it makes that coming of age, first romance thing all the more possible (which has always been a favorite plot point of mine. The weight and meaning of a kiss, using love interests as leverage, the emotional conflict of friendship vs admitting to other feelings! So much stuff).
And!
Can we <talk> about Captain Hook? At face value, he's not that crazy of a villain. He... just wants to kill a kid. Kinda psycho, but not the worst we've seen from Disney. However, when you consider EVERYTHING, he becomes much more intriguing! One of the biggest, most widely accepted theories out there is that Hook - and, by extension, his crew - was once a Lost Boy. That theory opens the door to such an insane amount of potential for the world of Peter Pan! There is SUCH potential for a more villainous or antagonistic Peter, one who wants things <his> way, and he'll do whatever he pleases to those who don't bend to his whims... maybe Hook pissed him off, or defied his commands... wanted to keep his memories or just go home... and that's EXACTLY why Hook is such a bloodlusted old man! He's not just going for revenge (for himself and other children Pan had gotten his hands on), he's trying to put a stop to the cruel boy's twisted schemes! But, after so much time being trapped in the boy's own domain, deprived of the magic that keeps him from aging and constantly tormented day after day... it gets to you. I don't doubt that Hook's intentions were once good, but by the time of the movie? All he craves is the death of Peter at any cost.
There's more to that theory, and the possibility of an antagonistic Peter Pan than that alone. Several lines in the novelization of the original play imply those very same things. The phrasing, however, is vague, and given that it's all a children's story, quite unlikely... yet it's the potential that makes it so compelling! The story of Peter Pan is so unfathomably versatile!! It can be anything from a coming of age story, to a thriller, to a fantasy romance...
One final thing.
The writing for Hook's character, in the Disney adaptation specifically, is some of my favorite EVER. Period. I'd say "they don't write villains like they used to", and that is true, but there are solid reasons why. At the same time, it just adds so much flavor to his character! For example, one of my favorite, most memorable lines from the Captain was, "A jealous female can be tricked into anything". It's an awful, awful line, but it's so good! Yess! Let him be an evil, cantankerous old man!! God, it's disgusting, we need more!
Away from the general flamboyance of him, there's something about how genuine and dramatic I think his voice actor must have been... the writing was sensational, yet something in his acting truly makes me feel as though Hook is among the scariest of Disney antagonists. He deserves his place among their main lineup of villains (he's used so much in villain marketing!), if only because of his insane devotion to his bloody cause.
