why does everyone hate on Peter Pan?? - Peter Pan (1953) Discussion

[–] elgrandTA82 14 years ago

I pretty much agree with you. I think when it comes to people criticism for Peter Pan it has to do with people being raised in a society that is based on rules of right and wrong. Peter comes from Neverland which doesn't have those rules and he's never had those people to teach him right from wrong. So I often tend not to really hold him that accountable for his actions since he really doesn't know any better. And truth is that despite all this he does manage to have some morals, maybe not a lot, but he does have some.

Hook on the other hand I really have no sympathy for. Hook has been raised in our world, I assume has been taught right from wrong and knows very much that what he does is wrong. And despite all this Hook is a pirate and as a pirate has robbed and killed people. Hook may have honor and believe in good form, but that does not excuse any of the bad things he's done. And yes I agree that while Hook may not have done anything to Pan himself, he probably has hurt and killed many innocent people and probably did deserve to have his hand cut off. I think this is why Hook is the villain of the story, Hook knows what he's doing while Pan is a child that doesn't know and was never taught any better.

From now on I speak my mind and I bow down to no one.

reply

[–] norman891 14 years ago

Probably because he's a self-serving, sadistic sociopath who regularly kills his own lost boys (read the JM Barrie book --please! the "Thins them out" bit), the only reason he has ever defeated Hook is because he doesn't fight on an even level (kind of hard to fight someone who's flying around like some half-witted mockingbird). If he kept his butt on the ground Hook would have killed him in no time. He mutilated Hook's arm (we only have Wendy's version that it was a "fair" fight). He's tyrannical (its his way or nothing), not to mention a kidnapper.

And I DO believe Peter knows right from wrong -- he just doesn't care and does whatever it is he wants to do in the name of "fun". Its ok for Peter to kill Hook, pirates, lost boys, whoever but wrong for Hook to try and exact revenge on Pan for his mutilated arm??? And you wouldn't be a tiny bit pissed if someone hacked off some part of you for no good reason other than "for fun"???

BTW, I had the Barrie story read to me when I was 5 -- hated Peter from jump. Always preferred Hook and still would like a nice pair of crocodile skin boots. Saw both the Disney version & PP2003 -- neither improved my opinion of Pan. Given the hypothetical chance I'd bust a cap on him right between the eyes.

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

reply

[–] jdawgenator 14 years ago

i actually just started the book.Have you ever thought that maybe "thins them out"
means that he sends them back to the real world, because maybe they actually grow up? towards the end of the Disney version, he does in fact beat hook without flying, if you remember. But if you were in a vicious duel with someone, and had a distinct advantage (flying) wouldn't we all use it? Also Hook is a grown man and Peter is a little boy, so its not really a fair fight to begin with, i think most people would agree. and if Peter didn't take off his hand, how would he have gotten the name Hook? How would there be conflict between the two? kidnapper? how is he a kidnapper? Wendy John and Michael all came willfully, and he then took them home, and hes young so it isn't even kidnapping in the first place

wait wait wait.. how does a young boy, who has never had parents or rules, know right and wrong? if anyone grew up under the same circumstances, they would be the same way.Furthermore when you were a child what motivated you to be a good kid most of the time rules and supervision or because you wanted to? actually in fact its rules and supervision, without that people do the worst things imaginable, no one is evil them selves, its the circumstances around them that make them evil. for example http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html

how could you hate him from the start? i love peter pan! hook is equally, if not more tyrannical than Peter. I didn't see the 2003 version it looked a little cheesy, i thoroughly enjoy the Disney version though and i have seen hook, which i haven't seen in ages until recently and that one is just depressing, but it shows how the codfish Hook isn't a nice guy like you say so. you shooting Peter? isn't that equally unfair?

reply

[–] elgrandTA82 14 years ago

The 2003 movie is really good and far from cheesy, its actually pretty hard core. And sorry but after watching the movie (the 2003 movie) over again I really have no more sympathy for Hook anymore. He made Wendy walk the plank and added to her horror by blindfolding her (in the 03 movie), he had no reason to do that. And no saying sorry doesn't change the fact that he was willing to kill an innocent girl in the worst way possible just to get at Peter. Hook knows right from wrong and still does wrong, sure he can pissed over his lost hand, but then again how many lives as he destroyed as a pirate. There are little things such as karma and sayings like what goes around comes around. I like to think Peter was Hook's comeuppance for all the bad things he willingly choose to do in his life.

And also the whole good and bad form thing is really something that was created when fighting arts became used more for sports and settling petty issues between the upper elites. Back when there were no fire arms, or limited fire arms and it was still largely heavy martial arts usage all over the world, you used whatever advantages you had. Especially considering that those fights were strictly fights to the death and people hacked off each other hands, limbs, legs, whatever they had to immobilize or kill their opponent. This included fighting with your weapon but then gaining an upper hand by punching or kicking your opponent.

Peter given that his combat training was in Neverland and likely based off the Indians, it makes sense he fights in this manner. Hook being implied he comes from nobility and probably from around the 17th or 18th century was at a time when sword play was no longer a full on martial art that also mixed in hand to hand combat. Hence we get rules such as don't strike with anything else but your blade and good and bad form. Which is really ridiculous because real fights (especially to the death) is not about form, its about winning and beating your opponent using whatever you have and it doesn't have any real rules to it.

When you think about it didn't Indiana Jones use bad form when he shot the Arab swordsman in Raiders of the Lost Ark? He had an advantage that he was more then happy to use and it won him the fight in under a minute, and we all crack up at that moment. And he could have used his whip to fight the guy, in fact the fight was originally suppose to be using his whip.

And as for Peter character I think the OP said it perfectly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Also in the book i don't remember it being stated that Peter flies in his final battle with Hook. In fact I don't remember any instance in the book of him flying when he battles Hook (I've read it twice). I don't even remember him flying during the final battle in the Mary Martin musical. The whole he flies during a fight I think is really something that comes from Disney.

From now on I speak my mind and I bow down to no one.

reply

[–] norman891 14 years ago

<<When you think about it didn't Indiana Jones use bad form when he shot the Arab swordsman in Raiders of the Lost Ark? He had an advantage that he was more then happy to use and it won him the fight in under a minute, and we all crack up at that moment.>>

I love that scene, and don't see it as bad form, justa good shot. Actually referenced that scene in a piece of fanfic.

<<Also in the book i don't remember it being stated that Peter flies in his final battle with Hook. In fact I don't remember any instance in the book of him flying when he battles Hook (I've read it twice). I don't even remember him flying during the final battle in the Mary Martin musical.>>

Ugh! Can't stand the MM Musical, turned my stomach. Couldn't watchit all the way through. As to the book, I got the impression that Peter was flying, but that may have been influenced by an illustration in the copy my Mother had. I'll have to go back and re-read that.

<< I like to think Peter was Hook's comeuppance for all the bad things he willingly choose to do in his life.>>

Well, that we assume he did. Though its said Hook was the only man Barbecue feared, so you are probably right concerning his prior deeds. I just disagree that this somehow justifies Peter's sadistic mutilation by cutting off Hook's hand for fun(as we have said before, look at Hook as an amputee and your perspective changes) and I do consider his sunsequent pain & suffering. Call it sympathy for the devil (my apologies to the Rolling Stones.)

BTW, a bit off subject, but many have suggested that Hook was based of Blackbeard. After a bit of research, Blackbeard wasn't the terror he's made out to be and I think Barrie based Hook on Bartholomew Roberts (Black Bart)who took over 400 ships during his short career. Any thoughts?

reply

[–] elgrandTA82 14 years ago

I love that scene, and don't see it as bad form, justa good shot. Actually referenced that scene in a piece of fanfic.

I know you used it in a piece of fanfic, you posted the links to your fan fics on the Peter Pan 2003 message board years back. Its the main reason why I choose to use that scene as the example and its an example of having an advantage and using it. Indy had the gun, Indy used the gun, Peter has flight, Peter uses flight, not saying that its fair, but combat is about winning, not about playing fair.

I also remember from the PP 03 board you mentioned Peter constantly showing bad form because he constantly flies and kicks Hook in the final battle. And the whole thing about striking your opponent with anything other then your blade is bad form. Well if it was a competition or petty duel I would agree, but its not, it was a real fight to death and that's not something that has real rules. And even the old styles of European combat mixed in weapon usage with hand to hand fighting.

I just disagree that this somehow justifies Peter's sadistic mutilation by cutting off Hook's hand for fun(as we have said before, look at Hook as an amputee and your perspective changes) and I do consider his sunsequent pain & suffering. Call it sympathy for the devil (my apologies to the Rolling Stones.)

Well I never said it justifies him, I just don't feel sorry for Hook either. If Hook wanted better then he should have strive for something better in his life. He choose the violent life of a pirate and that's what comes with having the violent life of a pirate. Your likely to get shot, stabbed or end up losing a limb or two. Call me unforgiving but I tend to hold people responsible for the life they choose to lead and the consequences that result. Hook is far from being some random innocent victim in the whole thing.

In reality a lot of evil is usually defeated by another source of evil. Villains don't share, don't like each other, will often attempt to one up each other and hence fights result and they wipe each other out. This is how I look at the Peter/Hook dynamic. And ironically this is how it tends to work in real life as well, sure there are heroes and good guys, but more often then not evil either wipes itself out or gets bought down by another source of evil. The good guys are really just clean up the mess that's left behind.

But I really do think the book is about the psychology of children and children don't know right from wrong if their not taught right from wrong. Your parents are teaching you right from wrong from pretty much day one. They tell you no and pull you away from certain things. This gets ingrained in you and as you show more correct behavior it gets met with approval from your parents, which most if not all children all love to have.

Peter from what I know about his character had never had that or doesn't remember having this. Hence Peter really doesn't know right from wrong and isn't truly aware that his actions are wrong. We know his actions are wrong, but I don't think he Peter Pan knows that are his actions are wrong. He's essentially acting like a child that was never taught and has no understanding, and yes that makes him come off like a miniature sociopath.

I think the real problem with Peter Pan is that thanks largely to Disney, we've regarded Peter as some kind of heroic figure. J.M. Barrie never intended him to be the heroic figure but a representation of an out of control, never be disciplined or taught correctly child.

Wendy has this but still being an immature child herself it takes her a while to finally come to that conclusion. When she finally does that is when we finally see that Wendy is truly growing up.

From now on I speak my mind and I bow down to no one.

reply

[–] norman891 14 years ago

Point well taken, you're right. Disney did diservices to a lot of great literature ("The Jungle Book" comes to mind, as well as "Alice in Wonderland") and he (Disney) did misrepresent Peter as the hero.

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

reply

[–] norman891 14 years ago

<< If Hook wanted better then he should have strive for something better in his life. He choose the violent life of a pirate and that's what comes with having the violent life of a pirate. Your likely to get shot, stabbed or end up losing a limb or two. Call me unforgiving but I tend to hold people responsible for the life they choose to lead and the consequences that result. Hook is far from being some random innocent victim in the whole thing.>>

Well, we are assuming Hook "chose" piracy as a lifestyle. Anyone who has studied pirates/piracy knows not all pirates started out as such, but if a ship was taken by pirates they would often try & recruit members of the captured crew; on occasion they would press a man into service -- rare, but it did happen. Not saying that Hook was not a willing participant, but its just another possibility.

And you can pretty well be guaranteed I'm going to cut Hook a little slack as he's been my fav. character from the start & I feel he's been misjudged somewhat. I also believe in holding people responsible for their actions -- its why I hold Pan's feet to the fire, because I DO believe he knows certain things are right/acceptable and certain thing are not, and he does whatever he deems fun, regardless of what category they fall into or the consequences for the other party.

Hook knows its wrong to basically drown Wendy by making her walk the plank, but he's a pirate (you knew what I was when you picked me up). He's not trying to pass himself off as a heroic figure or a do-gooder; Pan is, and he most certainly is not, by choice. Yes, it was quite common for pirates to lose limbs in battle, but Hook's "righteous indignation" at Pan makes me question the circumstances under which the hand was lost. Somehow I don't think it was as a defensive thing as much as an offensive/punitive completely unneccesary act, and that pisses me off. Kind of like my theory on lying: If you lie to protect someone else, its a noble act. If you lie to protect your own butt, then your a coward. And as far as it having something to do with Hook "getting what he deserves", may we all never get what we really deserve, eh?

Good thing I didn't become a defense lawyer, just a disgruntled ex-postal worker (not by choice -- I was disabled in a wreck when some kid flying low[no pun intended] for "fun", slammed into the back of my stopped car at 45 mph, which double the impact speed to 90mph. Guess what that'll do to your spine. But he was just having "fun", right?.

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

reply

[–] elgrandTA82 14 years ago

And you can pretty well be guaranteed I'm going to cut Hook a little slack as he's been my fav. character from the start & I feel he's been misjudged somewhat. I also believe in holding people responsible for their actions -- its why I hold Pan's feet to the fire, because I DO believe he knows certain things are right/acceptable and certain thing are not, and he does whatever he deems fun, regardless of what category they fall into or the consequences for the other party.

I work w/kids so I have a pretty good of just how evil they can be. I've had kids who have jumped on me, stomped on my feet, poured garbage on my head and one even picked my pocket all in the name of fun. This of course was back when I was just starting out and really didn't know what I was doing. There always needs to be a clear cut line and an understanding that if this line is crossed there will be harsh consequences. Peter is the biggest example of what happens when a child has none of these consequences. I do however agree that Peter does have something of an understanding that what he does is wrong, as all kids do. But there instincts are largely geared towards themselves and their own amusement, and since Pan has no one to stop him, well he can pretty much do whatever he wants.

Hook knows its wrong to basically drown Wendy by making her walk the plank, but he's a pirate (you knew what I was when you picked me up). He's not trying to pass himself off as a heroic figure or a do-gooder; Pan is,

I think Pan passing himself off as a heroic figure is something that really comes from the movies. I don't remember Peter really declaring himself as a hero in the novel except when he declares himself Peter Pan the avenger. But no one ever said that an avenger was a hero and Hook had committed kidnapping at the time it happened. But once again Pan is a child and a child will often view themselves as being the hero even if they aren't. Its really w/age that we start to really understand what a hero is and to be honest even that's something that tends to change as well as ideas a right and wrong over time.

When the constitution of the United States was written African Americans were still being used as a slave labor force and there was still mass genocide against Native Americans. So really what's right and what's wrong or what's okay and what's not okay has never historically been something that set in stone.

From now on I speak my mind and I bow down to no one.

reply

[–] boxerrebellion 10 years ago

So, an adult who basically has chosen (whether originally or not, he is now an adult, a Captain and in charge of pirates) to lead a life of crime you will cut some slack because you 'like him'. But a twelve year old orphan who has taken over the care of children neglected by their nannies you won't. That says more about you than it does about either character.

Yes, I like Loki - I think that the Marvel movies have written a great character with absolute genius dialogue (second only to Tony's); however, I will not defend his actions based upon my liking his character. I was heartbroken when I thought he had died in the second Thor; but again, do not defend his actions. Just as, as much as I do love Tony's character, I don't defend his *beep* It is part of his personality, but does not make him a hero. His defense of his nation and his response when his weapons are being used against the US do that.

reply

[–] norman891 14 years ago

<<Have you ever thought that maybe "thins them out" means that he sends them back to the real world, because maybe they actually grow up?>>

No. Thinning out generally refers to culling out inferior plants, cattle, breeding stock, etc by means of removing them from the gene pool (i.e. - puilling up seedlings, sending cattle to slaughter, and so on. Besides, I didn't come up with the notion of Pan killing of his excess boys, many others have also proposed the same notion -- I agree with them.

<<towards the end of the Disney version, he does in fact beat hook without flying, if you remember.>>

I remember quite well, and I would argue that he did, indeed, fly considering the physical impossibility of that jump from a near prone position and the extended hang time in mid-air -- or didn't you notice that?

<< how is he a kidnapper? Wendy John and Michael all came willfully, and he then took them home, and hes young so it isn't even kidnapping in the first place >>

Your age, or lack there of, is showing. The willingness of the Darling children does not change the fact that they were kidnapped. And the notion that Pan is young so he can't be considered a kidnapper/criminal is false, acording to the law.

<<Furthermore when you were a child what motivated you to be a good kid most of the time rules and supervision or because you wanted to?>>

I hate to break it to you but it would be the latter, as I found pleasing my parents a much more rewarding experience than the shame of their disapproval. I can count on one hand the number of time I got in serious trouble (& I don't even need all 5 fingers to do it). But then I was a rather odd child I suppose. And I didn't really rebel much as a teen-ager aside from playing the radio a bit loud.

<<how could you hate him from the start? i love peter pan! hook is equally, if not more tyrannical than Peter.>>

I despised Peter from his first appearance in the book. He is calous, self-centered, and murderous (or have you not gotten as far as the sleeping pirate scene (obviously its wrong to kill a sleeping pirate but ok if you wake him up first - huh?)

I have never suggested that Hook is not a thoroughly evil character and as captain of a pirate ship he would have to be vicious & tyrannical to maintain control of his crew. However, Peter mutilating Hook's arm for "fun" borders on psychopathic. I suppose you're proposing Hook did not suffer for weeks, post amputation? Have you ever been seriously cut, broken a bone, or otherwise wounded? I have (all 3), and I doubt Hook had the benefit of any Vicodin or Demerol or any pain killers, other than drinking himself into a stupor. Then there's the feeding of said hand to the crocodile. I suppose I can sympathize with the man there -- I hate snakes. Almost been bitten several times by copperheads & a damned rattlesnake tried to bite my dog for good reason (we played St George & the dragon with him).

My main objection is that Peter gets a "pass" on his thouroghly dispicable behaviour simply because "awwww - he's just a little boy." Yes, a murderous, sociopathic little boy at that.

<<you shooting Peter? isn't that equally unfair?>>

And hypothetical. Well, since I wouldn't trust Peter in an outhouse with a muzzle on, nor would I turn my back on him for one instant, and I expect him to cheat(outside interference from others is included in that) -- screw good form over a good shot. Something a 'la Indiana Jones in the market from "Raiders of the Lost Ark". I know a wolf in sheep's clothing when I see one, and Pan looks mighty woolly to me.

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

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kevinchengxin 13 years ago

He killed any of his lost boys? That's *beep* up. Where? Back in old Barrie's original play?

reply

[–] norman891 12 years ago

No, in Barrie's book -- he "thins them out" if there get to be too many or if any or them show signs of growing up. And with Peter's blood-lust, I don't see him sending them back to London, plus "thinning out" generally refers to culling undesirables from a herd/group or inferior plants from a garden, ultimately ending in the death of the culled/thinned out.

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

reply

[–] stayprettystockholm 12 years ago

So a little evil boy is bad, but an evil grown man is cool?

And wishing death upon a book character? You must be so proud.

I love Jesus AND Jesus-hating atheists and am 100% proud!

reply

[–] teck76 13 years ago

God forbid someone made a main character who isn't a cookie cutter, "good guy" paladin type with religious notions of "right and wrong," rather than someone who's actually human and interesting.

reply

[–] elgrandTA82 13 years ago

Well many characters aren't exactly cookie cutter good guys yet they are still seen as the heroes of the stories. However I think the issue is that Peter Pan is largely seen as that type of character rather then the anti-hero of the original novel and play. But we have to remember that this film was made in the 50's when cookie cutter heroes were pretty much in vague. And considering this Disney didn't do to bad of a job, I think the issue comes with how he ends up being marketed, esp. to kids.

reply

[–] norman891 13 years ago

<<God forbid someone made a main character who isn't a cookie cutter, "good guy" paladin type with religious notions of "right and wrong,">>

Yes, that would be nice, but then it wouldn't be a Disney film. All Disney films have, as you say, cookie cutter good guys and bad guys and the good guy always wins. (Fantasia excluded, as it was an art form way ahead of its time but a true classic)

And right & wrong are not religious notions, they're morays imposed by society. (i.e. - robbing banks is wrong because its wrong to steal someone else's hard earned savings, poisoning someone is wrong because murder is wrong, etc.). Now, there are varying degrees of right and wrong, some "wrongs" are worse than others, some "good" does more harm than good.

<<rather than someone who's actually human and interesting.>>

Well, you're obviously not interested in seeing that. In the real world there is no black & white, only varying shades of gray -- people are the same way. Disney's characters do not fit this, as they ARE either "good" or "bad", though Hook does come off more as Pan's victim rather than his ruthless adversary.

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

reply

[–] stayprettystockholm 12 years ago

actually God did give us the knowledge of right and wrong, but we can choose to heed or ignore it... like when society changes what the definition of right and wrong is. so you're partly right, partly wrong there.

But I agree, he used it incorrectly in that context.

I love Jesus AND Jesus-hating atheists and am 100% proud!

reply

[–] IndianaMcClane 13 years ago

It was made in the 50's. To me it feels like they were going for a rebel without a cause kind of attitude with the character.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SweeneyLovesLovett 12 years ago

To me, the story was always make-believe. Always a game kids play. The evil is black and white, neverland is a kid's playground where they're pretending.
I guess that's because I always knew the origin of the story, that Barrie based it on a group of brothers he knew and the games they playacted.

So I dont get it either. I think people take it too seriously. It's all one big game, to peter and to the reader.

reply

[–] Oddark123 11 years ago

I don't really see how in anyways they are black and white. If there's any symbolism going on between Pan, Hook and even the Crocodile, they are all clear in shades of grey, Each has some sympathetic motives and some repulsive motives.

If i'm meant to take anything away from Peter Pan, it's that Wendy made the right choice getting away from Neverland. Giving into ignorance regardless of what it is is not better than growing up and maturing.

And besides in general i've always considered Pan, Hook and the Crocodile

all to be jerks. I wouldn't stay in Neverland as long as those crazies are all running around there.

Gamefaqs has a far worse population than IMDB

reply

[–] getyerownpizza 12 years ago

I agree with you 100%. I like that he's so flawed, and that he's not an entirely "good" character even. It makes him more interesting. In a way he's almost an anti-hero.

reply

[–] LadyN1 11 years ago

I don't think as others said Barrie intended Peter to be a hero however we are meant to sympathise with him. There's a great youtube series in which this guy called Matt does anayltical reviews of books vs films and sometimes vs their theatrical adaptations as well. Unlike some critics who just want to nitpick and impose their biased opinon or mock what they don't like Matt gives a balance view studying the intentions, imagery and symbolism before making an opinon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RkLl7kZTeY

Anyway back to what I was saying, like Matt brilliantly says, Peter's childish ways and selfish behaviour come from ignorance. He has no desire to learn what it means to grow up and have that kind of family love and it's that ignorance that makes him so sympathetic. He's not flat out murder in your sleep, evil he's someone who is living in a world that allows him to be ignorant of reality and because of that he sort of becomes a tragic figure because he's so caught up in being a little boy he doesn't realise what he's missing. Which in some ways makes the parallels to Hook even greater as Hook is actively aware of his lonliness and that makes him bitter Peter only has a vague idea of it but won't go far to seek it out in case it means endangering the comforting state of ignorance that he's lived in all his life. That's sad.

Also I'd argue Peter isn't the hero or at least the protagonist of the book it's Wendy. The orignal title is Peter Pan and Wendy and there's a good reason why. Peter is the fantastical larger than life figure but Wendy is the surrogate for the reader/audience. I'd argue it;s Wendy's POV thhat affects our opinions and judgement of the characters from the stern Mr Darling to the tempermental Tinkerbell and thus our affects how the we see Neverland, the embodiment of carefree childhood we are swept up in it with her and later see the undercurrent darkness in it and understand why we need to leave it.

Wendy's represents the childish natures and longing of nostalgia and youth that exist in all of us yet like the audience whether you are young or young at heart she realises the need for reality and a future that involves changing and growing as a person and she eventually longs for it as the audience do. It's why she's so relatable she wants to be like Peter and be a child and live life like it's a game like Peter but she sees the flaws in this. You live that way and you forget who you are like Peter forgets those who leave Neverland.

In this way Peter is the extreme of what getting swept up in your childhood and nostalgia can lead to and when you examine it on closer inspection it's actually pretty frightening. No care, no compassion you become as others have said a sociopath or at least an unrecognisable, cold version of yourself as there are no emotional stakes for you to mature and sacrifice yourself for and thus you become wrapped up in yourself and your own issues and the pursuit of your happiness above all others. It's a dark place to be in which is why Wendy cannot be the Mother to Peter's Father forever. Peter is incapable of fully even in play committing to any form of relationship/ family role he will choose his desires, his pursits, his adventure and if someone like a lost boy crosses him he is not afraid to be violent, Wendy has a great fortitude of compassion and even though she loves the games and fun realises what truly matters and is more than willing to put herself on the line for people she cares for. In that way Wendy's probably the most complex character with the biggest emotional growth in the book she's the most human and realistic so naturally we tend to, whether consciously or not support and see her point of view.

I think she represents the reality of childhood and growing up Peter Pan represents an idealised version- flaws and all. We're not meant to relate to him as we would a protagonist or anti hero we are meant to like you would a dream or fantasy at first admire him but later subconsciously distance ourselves from him and realise that he cannot, or cannot be allowed to fully maifest himself in ourreality.

Also to the person who hates Peter Pan with a vengeance: if you don't like him now then you're going to love how he's portrayed on Once Upon A Time if you don't watch it already.

beauty freedom love truth

reply

[–] peterpanlovesitalianbeef 11 years ago

Thanks for linking to that review it was awesome! And I completely agree with what you state. I've also seen how he's portrayed in OUAT and have a love/hate relationship with him there haha.

reply

[–] SkittlesMilly 11 years ago

I think they complain more about the original Peter Pan, from the book. The Peter Pan in this film, whilst still cocky, isn't as bad as the original Peter.

Believe me, nothing is trivial. - Eric Draven, The Crow.

reply