MovieChat Forums > Hook (1991) Discussion > This movie makes no sense.

This movie makes no sense.


There was absolutely no thinking when they did this movie. It's riddled with plot holes and mistakes. Truly an awful film.

1. How could Peter not know he was once Peter Pan? He really doesn't remember flying? Neverland? Captain Hook? Pirates? The lost boys? It was never brought up in conversation?

2. How did Captain Hook know that Peter was going to be in England for Christmas?

3. How did Tinkerbell know that Peter was in England?

4. When the kids are kidnapped by Captain Hook and the pirates, how did they manage to get there? They travelled by ship. When they docked, did they hail a cab? How did they even know the address of where they were staying?

5. There is no way for someone to consistently think of happy thoughts while simultaneously doing something else. In this case it was flying.

6. How does Peter Pan (the book) exist in this world? Also, it never jogged Peter's memory.

7. If Wendy and Tootles knew Captain Hook kidnapped the kids after reading the note he left, why did they call the cops? We're they really thinking the cops were going to believe Neverland existed?

reply

Some possible answers:

"
1. How could Peter not know he was once Peter Pan? He really doesn't remember flying? Neverland? Captain Hook? Pirates? The lost boys? It was never brought up in conversation?"
It is not unusual for a child to block out memories. He decided he wanted to come back into the world. So he blocked out the memories of his childhood. His foster parents likely encouraged him to forget. Wendy likely didn't tell them he was Peter Pan. So any stories he told would seem like fantasies. As he grew he forgot.

"2. How did Captain Hook know that Peter was going to be in England for Christmas?"

If Hook has been planning his revenge for long he undoubtedly had spies in place. The people of Neverland, especially the higher ranked ones, would know about our world.

"3. How did Tinkerbell know that Peter was in England?"

Most likely, she got wind of Hook's plans and followed him. She didn't need to know the details to decide to do that.

"4. When the kids are kidnapped by Captain Hook and the pirates, how did they manage to get there? They travelled by ship. When they docked, did they hail a cab? How did they even know the address of where they were staying?"

I'm not sure what you are trying to ask here. How did who manage to get where? Hook? He had a ship. It could fly between the worlds. The children? Hook put them on the ship. Hailed a cab where? Hook kept them imprisoned on his ship.

"5. There is no way for someone to consistently think of happy thoughts while simultaneously doing something else. In this case it was flying."

You don't know that. And it is established in the mythology that is one of the keys to flying.

"6. How does Peter Pan (the book) exist in this world? Also, it never jogged Peter's memory."

Because Wendy told her story to J. M. Barrie. Everyone assumes it was fiction. It's likely Peter is only vaguely aware of the book because his foster parents did not encourage it and he wanted to forget.

See next post for 7.







reply

"7. If Wendy and Tootles knew Captain Hook kidnapped the kids after reading the note he left, why did they call the cops? We're they really thinking the cops were going to believe Neverland existed? "

Because Peter called them. Or insisted Wendy do so. They obviously did not tell the police what they believed because they new the police would never believe it. The police likely did believe that someone who was obsessed with the book planned the kidnapping and left the note. That would not be odd.

You do, sometimes, have to read between the lines. Ponderously spelling everything out specifically is a mark of bad writing.

reply

7. But if Wendy and Tootles knew, why let it get that far? "Peter, we've got something to tell you..." would surely have been better than the police coming over and telling Peter afterwards.

reply

That would not be a good time. Peter and his wife are scared and want their kids back. Sitting Peter down and saying "We can't call the police because you are really Peter Pan and the real Hook is the one who took them so you have to go to Neverland now" is not going to work. Notice how long it took for Peter to realize he was Pan even after going to Neverland. It wouldn't have gone over well seconds after his kids were kidnapped with no proof to show for it.

reply

At some point they would have had to say something. If anything, the quicker the better so Peter could go and try to help them.

reply

Your question was why they didn't stop Peter from calling the cops. That is your answer.

reply

still a greater movie anyday then evengers endgame.hey you cant even criticise that anymore and if you love captain marvel or brie larson you will be insulted and called incel,troll,pathetic and all other nonsense,endgame board is horrible.on this site.

coming back to this i think i have this in my collection i am a huge movie buff and robin williams is my favorite i need to see this quick it has the feel of pirates of carribean .the dop work looks superb and feesl underrated and overlooked,this deserves more viewing.

reply

1. But nothing jogged his memory? Not even the existence the Peter Pan book existing seemed familiar to him? Even after he went to Neverland, it still wasn't familiar to him.

2. But how? I don't even know about my neighbour going on vacation, let alone illiterate, bumbling pirates in a completely different place in an alternate setting.

3. It's possible but Tinkerbell then should have been able to beat Hook to the punch and warn Peter.

4. I mean literally, how did they get to the house? They're pirates. When they hit the English coast in their boat, did they stop to ask for directions to where Peter was staying. How did they know the address?

5. That seems like too much for the human mind to comprehend. Flying, while fighting, while thinking of happy thoughts.

6. Doing something this meta implies that the world in which this movie takes place should actually have happened because JM Barrie is a real person. They're entering dangerous waters by claiming this.

reply

From 4. Okay I see your confusion. The ship never docked anywhere, except at the house. The ship can fly.

From 6. It is certainly not the first story to do this.

From 1. If you don't want to remember, you won't remember. Even if your memory gets jogged, you would likely supress it.

From 2. You may not know what your neighbor is doing, but other people do. And if you send someone specifically to spy, they are going to pay attention.

From 7. You try telling frantic parents to calm down after their children have been kidnapped and to not call the police. Unless the KIDNAPPERS left a note to not call the police, they are going to call. I would. And I would ignore anyone who tried to stop me.

reply

1. I don't buy this. This wasn't some single event like the death of a friend. This is being in a fantasy world, having the ability to fly, knowing Captain Hook, the pirates, the lost boys for the first 13 (I think they mentioned 13) years of his life. It's not even like he was actively trying to forget. He just forgot from being away for too long.

2. So they followed him to the travel agency and listened in on his phone calls? Pirates were just walking around in America in disguise and found out he was going on vacation? Why not just kidnap his children there instead of waiting to go to England? How did they even find out his address especially when his new last name was Banning?

4. And no one saw a flying ship outside? It seemed to be a few houses big.

6. Correct, but in a story about someone forgetting something why write it in? It makes it more unlikely that he wouldn't be able to remember.

7. An attempt to tell Peter beforehand was never made regardless.

reply

I'm sorry. You're hopeless. All these issues are standard tropes in fantasy. Some are things that actually happen in real life. That you don't accept them does not invalidate them. I would suggest you study the genre in some detail.

reply

And I apologize. I shouldn't have said that. But you seem to be deliberating failing to understand. All of these issues are common tropes.

You also seem to think every dot and jingle needs to be specifically explained, with a scene all its own. Explaining everything is a mark of bad writing. The audience needs to be able to fill in the details on its own.

reply

If these details were in The Godfather, they would be picked apart because it doesn't have the luxury of being a fantasy film. Excusing the suspension of disbelief because it's a fantasy is a cop-out. It's not that it needs to be explained or given a scene, it's that it left no room for the audience to even believe it. A man who grew up in a land with pirates, lost boys, a guy with a hook for a hand, and also having the ability to fly, has now seemingly lost all memory of that. That's an incredible stretch.

reply

I believed it. It was simple. This is what you were not getting. All the things you have issues with are common story elements, often used and easily understood. Many apply to non-fantasy films.

Hook is a movie that people either love or hate. Those who hate it, or just dislike it, have issues that I disagree with, but can understand. I've never seen anyone bring up these issues. This would indicate to me that most people understand and believe them.

You are not required to like the film. Everyone's taste is different and no one can say your taste is wrong. But you should understand that just because you can't see past these items does not imply that most other people cannot. Since I've not seen those issues mentioned before, I would say most do not have a problem with these items.

reply

Most didn't see an issue with the underaged relationship in "Call Me by Your Name", but it's there.

reply

You are a complete nitpicker. Stick with dramas and not anything else, TC. You can't handle anything that isn't like real life obviously.

reply

I don't care that it's a fantasy, but these problems are the entire basis of the story. How can he not remember being Peter Pan and being in Neverland? Without this, there is no movie.

reply

Still seems like you're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

reply

I don't think so because it the main story. It's the entire basis of the film.

reply

1. This is explained well in Stephen King's It; the mini series, anyway. As kids grow into adults, they grow out of believing. And the thing is, it didn't just happen to Peter. It also happened to Moira, his wife. Both Peter and Moira moved away, have no recollection of their past and so would have never brought it up. It also seems like they've been away from England for a while and become wrapped up in their ordinary lives, so it's probably not something Wendy would bring up in the occasional phone call.

2. I assumed that Captain Hook has been keeping tabs on the Darling house, just going by the fact that, when Peter returns from Neverland at the end, Smee is pretending to be an ordinary person outside the house and it doesn't really get called into question by anyone.

3. Same as 2.

4. I personally enjoy the vagueness of this. It's intentionally dreamlike so as to keep magic and Hook separate and to tie-in at the end with the kids' and Peter's return, where it almost feels like their time away wasn't real. I also think it's intentional because it requires some knowledge of the book beforehand, creating a kind of partnership between the film and adult viewers who've read it (and those that have read Peter Pan to their kids).

5. I think it's more about having a memory attached to a positive emotion so strong it can sustain for great lengths of time, whether or not one's mind drifts from it or not. You see this when Peter thinks about something else that invokes an equally strong emotion that negates the former positive one and sinks to the ground.

6. This is explained in the film. And again, Peter has grown out of thinking those memories are actual real events and not just exaggerated or dreams.

7. To cover their butts with Moira and Peter, until they had the opportunity to speak to Peter privately. They still never told Moira anything, remember? So they were purposefully keeping her out of the loop.

reply

1. To me, it just seems too excessive that Peter would forget this. Especially since the story of Peter Pan exists in that world. We're talking about an entire fantasy world where people can fly and there is a small fairy that helps him out. This wasn't some terrible experience he had where he wanted to block it off. Imagine finding out one of your friends lived in a foreign country where he could fly and then your friend told you they couldn't remember any of it? It would have made more sense if he had amnesia.

2. But how can he do that from a boat? Did he send pirates to infiltrate for years waiting for the perfect time for revenge?

4. I personally would have been okay it the windows broke open and the children were being taken away by some evil fairy. Tinkerbell takes Peter Pan anyway, so I'd be okay with an evil fairy.

5.This doesn't bother me as much as the other things, but it would have been better if he just relearned it rather the memory thing.

6. I find this to be strange and unnecessary meta. It doesn't change the story by adding this.

7. But then by the police keeping evidence of the note and the knife, Wendy is leading the police to know there is a man named Hook. Also, the police would stay at the house investigating the kidnapping, so by Wendy knowing that she was going to tell Peter who he was, she made it harder for him to leave. The police conveniently disappear in the movie the same night even though there was ample evidence of a kidnapping.

reply

1. It is ludicrous from an adult's point of view that an adult would forget this. Actually, 2 adults forgot - including Moira. But it's a very common trope of fantasy stories for children, which makes it perfect for this movie. It's not supposed to make sense from an adult's point of view - this movie wholly embraces the theatricality and vagueness of childhood. For example, Susan Pevensie of the Narnia chronicles forgets all about Narnia - and who would want to forget being a queen of Narnia?

2. The boat's magical. It's something you go into the film knowing as a reader of the original story. Perhaps this is why you don't connect as much with the film?

4. As I stated previously, the film didn't want to connect Hook with magic. But magic made a lot of these things possible. Also, making it an evil fairy would make no sense to this particular retelling.

5. I disagree. Peter becoming a father as his happiest memory was fundamental to the entirety of the story, which is, at its core, about learning to move on from your past self. The memory of fatherhood as happiest is pivotal in demonstrating that not everything in the past is better than what's waiting in the future.

6. But you're the one who originally asked how the story came to be in the real world - if the answer hadn't been in the film, it would've been even more glaring. Also, he didn't need to read it to kickstart his memory. It's one of those, he knew deep down all along, but also he needed to forget in order to move on, both the first time and then at the end of the film.

7. The police have no chance of finding Hook, so that's not an issue. They most likely would assume the kidnapper is a super-fan and Hook isn't a real name; the kids came back the next day anyway. It wasn't a convenient disappearance - there's nothing they could have done by staying and forensic science wasn't where it's at now at the time of filming. Also, she needed to do it if she was going to keep Moira in the dark, which she did.

reply

1.The main problem with the movie is that it uses it being a fantasy to it's advantage without thinking of the logistics. Similar to plot holes in "it was all a dream" movies. These movies try to get away with it being a fantasy whereas a single plot point would be ripped apart in a dramatic film. Fantasies obviously aren't realistic but there should still be a sense of belief within the rules it establishes. Peter is still human. He should still be able to remember.

2. If the boat is magical and they're connecting fantasy world with real world, the rules need to be established of what's permissible and what isn't. For example, could any human discover Neverland themselves? Peter and the children were brought in from people from Neverland .

4. As dumb as an evil fairy is, I think it makes more sense than Captain Hook and his pirates doing a stakeout mission in America and following Peter to England, then finding out the exact address just so they can magically kidnap his children at the exact moment they knew he wasn't going to be home.

5. While I agree, both can still happen. He can have his momories of being a father but also his happy childhood in Neverland.

6. No, I mean why write that in at all? It's strange on their part. They're actually kind of admitting Neverland is not a fantasy world by doing this. It like writing a biography.

7. Honestly, out of all the problems this movie has, this doesn't even bother me too much because it's a quick thing. I almost feel it was written in just so they can have Phil Collins play the detective.

reply

The problem that I see with this massive clusterflop is that they picked out a cast they thought everyone would want to see, and then crammed the cast into a story that no one who loves Peter Pan would ever want to see. No one wants to see an adult Peter Pan. That’s like a Pimp Pope, a revolting notion.

reply

I actually applaud them for attempting a different take on the story, but it's a huge miss. It's like they had the idea and didn't think it through.

reply

You are really into denial on this. You can't understand people burying their memories of childhood, even though it happens. It doesn't require a dramatic trauma to occur.

Fantasy tropes are there for a reason. Many fantasy stories use them. In this case, especially, the tropes are established from the source material. You don't have to reiterate them or explain them when they already exist. Neverland and its relationships to the real world are already established.

Even if they weren't, the fact that they happen establishes the rules. That is the common method in any speculative fiction: fantasy, sf or horror. Its is only a plot hole if someone in the story says something cannot be done and then it occurs. By your logic we would need some explanation on how X-wing fighters and battleships and light sabers work in Star Wars.

As for the stake out mission, Hook wanted revenge. We don't know if he was staking them out in America. But they knew Wendy came from London. If they are trying to find Peter, spying on her and her home is logical.

And while Hook is flamboyant, that doesn't mean he can't lay long term plans. He HATES Peter Pan. Taking years to find him, including spying on Wendy, is completely in character.

You seem to be collating fantasy world with not real. Within the story Neverland is a fantasy land and it is real. Just as in the Wizard of Oz stories Oz is a fantasy land but it is real. (the musical not-withstanding). And as I said previously, its not the first to do so. The John Carter stories are presented as John Carter telling the stories to Edgar Rice Burroughs.

This is completely you. You don't understand how fantasy/sf/horror stories work; you don't understand the common tropes of them; and you cannot see that some of these tropes happen in non-genre fiction.

This story works on all its levels. Some like it and some don't but its parts fit together. It is your mind that is scattered.

reply

Part 1 of 2

You can't understand people burying their memories of childhood, even though it happens.  


I can't understand how somebody conveniently forgot how to fly. Did he also forget how to walk? He didn't forget Wendy and Tootles, but forgets how they met. This is so selective. And you keep saying he's burying his childhood? Why? What is it about his childhood that needs to be buried?

In this case, especially, the tropes are established from the source material.


Movies tell a story. No viewer should have to know the source material beforehand. They're telling me the story, so tell it. Why bother adapting it?

By your logic we would need some explanation on how X-wing fighters and battleships and light sabers work in Star Wars.


Let's take Jurassic Park as an example (also based on source material made by the same director). They explain in the film the existence of the dinosaurs, who financed them, why they did it, how the public would react to it. If all of a sudden they inexplicably had super powers that dinosaurs never had, you can't chalk that up to " but it's a fantasy/science fiction film". That's the difference between making a smart, classic film that's on IMDb's top 250 and doing Hook that's a 6.8 on IMDb and also a 26% or RottenTomatoes. Spielberg himself even apologized for it. But yeah, it's just me that doesn't "get it."



As for the stake out mission, Hook wanted revenge. We don't know if he was staking them out in America. But they knew Wendy came from London. If they are trying to find Peter, spying on her and her home is logical.


Let's not forget after all this time and waiting to get revenge on him, Hook still doesn't know what Peter looks like. Thank God they kidnapped the right kids who they've never seen before though.

reply

Part 2 of 2:


You seem to be collating fantasy world with not real. 


"Hook is, sadly, a disastrous attempt to update JM Barrie's story of Peter Pan. " - Film 4

"Hook is overwhelmed by a screenplay heavy with complicated exposition, by what are, in effect, big busy nonsinging, nondancing production numbers and some contemporary cant about rearing children and the high price paid for success." - New York Times

"No matter how much cash Hook earns, it will take more than pixie dust to fly this overstuffed package into our dreams." - Rolling Stone

"
The exposition is so underlined and re-underlined, you could teach yourself to fly waiting for something to happen." - Washington Post

"Here we get the uncanny suspicion that Hook was written and directed according to the famous recipe of the country preacher who told the folks what he was going to tell them, told them, and then told them what he had told them." - Roger Ebert

"This enormous wheeze comes over like the proverbial movie with a 40 million dollar set and a five cent script, which may hold its interest for under-fives but will leave most others cold." - Empire Magazine

"A woefully uneven retelling of the ''Peter Pan'' story." - Chicago Tribune

Steven Spielberg on Hook: "I felt like a fish out of water making Hook. I didn’t have confidence in the script. I had confidence in the first act and I had confidence in the epilogue. I didn’t have confidence in the body of it." Source: https://screenrant.com/steven-spielberg-hook-no-confidence/

It seems to me you have a personal affinity for the film and just want to push all the flaws aside. That's cool, but at least admit it. It is me in denial, or you?

reply

" can't understand how somebody conveniently forgot how to fly. Did he also forget how to walk? He didn't forget Wendy and Tootles, but forgets how they met. This is so selective. And you keep saying he's burying his childhood? Why? What is it about his childhood that needs to be buried? "

Memory loss doesn't work that way. He buried it. So yes, he forgot how to fly but not how to walk. Why? Because flying was a fantastic thing from Neverland. He wanted to forget Neverland. Walking is an everyday activity everyone around him is doing. It is normal.

"Movies tell a story. No viewer should have to know the source material beforehand. They're telling me the story, so tell it. Why bother adapting it?"

Generally yes. But Peter Pan is iconic. This story is not an adaptation. It is a projection from the original stories. And there have been many adaptations of the original source material. At least two films and a stage musical. It is reasonable to assume the audience knows the source material.

Wendy and Tootles were in contact with him. This was not the first time he had visited them since he was adopted. So yes, he remembered them. Again, they were part of the normal world, even if Tootles came from Neverland.

"Let's take Jurassic Park as an example (also based on source material made by the same director). They explain in the film the existence of the dinosaurs, who financed them, why they did it, how the public would react to it. If all of a sudden they inexplicably had super powers that dinosaurs never had, you can't chalk that up to " but it's a fantasy/science fiction film". That's the difference between making a smart, classic film that's on IMDb's top 250 and doing Hook that's a 6.8 on IMDb and also a 26% or RottenTomatoes. Spielberg himself even apologized for it. But yeah, it's just me that doesn't "get it.""

Your example is just what I said. You set the rules in the film. You do not have to state them. There is nothing in this film that violates ....

reply

To continue ...

There is nothing in this film that violates the original rules of Neverland.

As for the children, you really don't get how spying works. Yes, Hook had never seen them before. But the pirates who were spying, including Smee, had been there. They had obviously overheard that Peter would be visiting and staying with Wendy with his children. So the pirates were reasonably comfortable assuming the only two children in Wendy's house were Peters.

You know, I don't care a fig what reviewers think. I never have. I do not scan reviews to determine if a movie is worth seeing or not. Most reviewers have their own prejudices and biases. And frankly, most are completely clueless about SF, Fantasy and Horror.

Hook is a favorite of mine. But that is not the point. I would argue the same issues with them about a film I disliked when I see so many mistaken observations about it. These are not issues of like or dislike. Others have said the same things. You have a blind spot. You are so certain these are issues you cannot see the obvious answers to your questions.

reply

Part 2 of 2:

You know, I don't care a fig what reviewers think.


I put the reviewers in there because you keep telling me that I'm the only one who doesn't get how the fantasy aspects work.

Most reviewers have their own prejudices and biases. And frankly, most are completely clueless about SF, Fantasy and Horror.


I also gave you the Spielberg quote where even he admits he messed up.

You are so certain these are issues you cannot see the obvious answers to your questions.


These aren't obvious. They require you to suspend so much disbelief because they couldn't figure out the angles to avoid the glaring holes in the premise.

But the pirates who were spying, including Smee, had been there.


Yes, in a magical fantasy boat that's conveniently inconspicuous to everyone around where a few pirates are walking around in disguises trying to avoid being seen. Come on, man.

reply

Part 1 or 2:

Memory loss doesn't work that way. He buried it. So yes, he forgot how to fly but not how to walk. Why? Because flying was a fantastic thing from Neverland. He wanted to forget Neverland.


You still haven't mentioned why he wanted to forget Neverland.

Wendy and Tootles were in contact with him. This was not the first time he had visited them since he was adopted.


So Peter blocks everything out except Wendy and Tootles? Again, it's selective memory loss.

This story is not an adaptation. It is a projection from the original stories.


Exactly. There was no mention of an adult Peter Pan going to England so it's up to them to tell us that story.

Your example is just what I said. You set the rules in the film. You do not have to state them. There is nothing in this film that violates ....


Did they set the rules though? These pirates were bumbling morons who could barely read. You're telling me Hook took them to England, took tabs on Wendy for years without being noticed by anyone? How would the conversation of Peter coming to England even come up unless the pirates wiretapped the phones? Imagine if there was a shot of the pirates waiting for them in the airport in disguise. That would be hilarious, but they obviously won't show that.

reply

I've answered most of these. Peter decided to come to the real world. He wants to forget Neverland. His adoptive parents undoubtedly encouraged him to forget.

Most reviewers have no idea how SF and fantasy stories work. You can tell by their comments. This isn't odd. Many people have looked down on speculative fiction for decades as an odd, minor, forgettable genre fit only for children. It is only in the last couple of decades that it has become more respectable. And what a reviewer thought 28 years ago is of even less interest. Reviewers didn't like the Wizard of Oz either.

Memory loss can be selective. Especially when the things remembered are there all the time. Wendy has obviously kept in contact with Peter and he with her. She keeps in touch with all her children. That is made explicit.

Spies were able to find things out long before phones. They still do.

I'm through with this. You have dug yourself so far into a whole of minor nitpicks that are easily explained that you simply cannot acknowledge that your objections are easily explained. You have my sympathy.

No, they do not have to reintroduce things from the books. Those stories are iconic. Most sequels are only going to recap what is necessary. (and this qualifies as a sequel.)

Spielberg may think he messed up. I don't.

Since we see Smee outside the Darling house, we know Hook has them there.

reply

His adoptive parents undoubtedly encouraged him to forget.


You went from Peter wants to forget to, his adoptive parents wants him to forget. Even if this is true then this goes against your next quote.

Wendy has obviously kept in contact with Peter and he with her. She keeps in touch with all her children. That is made explicit.


So you're saying Peter wants to forget, but damn that Wendy for always pestering him when he's trying to forget everything about Neverland.


Spies were able to find things out long before phones. They still do.


Except that these were pirates who were complete idiots who had to go on a recon mission that lasted years somehow avoiding the public eye without knowing an address of both Wendy and Peter also without knowing which country they were in.

 (and this qualifies as a sequel.)


It really doesn't.

I'm through with this. You have dug yourself so far into a whole of minor nitpicks that are easily explained that you simply cannot acknowledge that your objections are easily explained. 


Me and as you said, the reviewers also don't understand. You've admitted the affinity you have for this movie, and you seem to be sticking with "everyone is wrong but me". And they're not nitpicks. They're the fundamental basics of the story.

reply

You do not understand fundamental basics. Others have mentioned this to you as well. I said I was done and I am. I am rarely so blunt, but you are hopeless. Your do not understand narrative, in story inferences or logical constructs in a story. I can tell you my various literature instructors, many years ago though they were, would likely fail you.

reply

The others are also fans of the film who have nostalgia for it. I can discredit those people just as you discredited the critics I told you about as well as Spielberg himself. It's no wonder why this is one of the worst reviewed movies of the 90s.

https://screenrant.com/worst-movies-1990s-according-rotten-tomatoes/

reply

[deleted]

8. How does Hook disappear at the end?

9. How did Peter age from a baby to a teen, when no one else aged?

Answer: Peter had a car crash on the way back from the gala and he's in a coma for the rest of the movie.

reply

There is always one explanation for what happens in Peter Pan, to all those who don't understand and ask how did they do this? How did they do that? It's simple .......

























MAGIC!

reply

Pretty much. They expect us to believe anything just because it's a fantasy film.

reply

Who is they? Don't do something or feel something or believe something just because someone else says you should. You have a mind. Make it up yourself. If you want to believe a little in the fantasy, and for a short time, be transported into worlds of wonder and joy, that's your right. If you don't want to believe a little in the fantasy, and stay firmly planted on the ground, that's your right, also.
I will not tell you what to do. But, personally, this world with all its woes, gets a little easier to take when watching movies such as this one.

reply

It is established in the original book that Peter forgets things. They even referenced this in the 2014 live action film a few times. So, I don't think it's a stretch that Peter would have forgotten Never Land after 30 years. The book references the same thing with the lost boys when they too decided to stay in London. eventually they forgot how to fly and lived normal lives. To me, it's actually more of an issue that Tootles remembers as opposed to Peter not remembering.

reply

I agree it doesn’t make any sense.

I don’t think it’s an awful film but the script needed a lot more work, there’s some good moments here but a lot of stuff that doesn’t add up like you’ve pointed out.

I actually think it’s a good premise though and with a stronger script this could have been something fantastic.

reply

I applaud the attempt in trying a new approach to an often told story. But man did they ever swing and miss.

reply

Yeah, when I was a kid I obviously didn’t notice these plot holes but watching it now it really is clear how lazy the writing is.

Captain Hook and his pirates are played as fools and we’re supposed to believe they have a network of spies in our world looking for Peter Pan?

Captain Hook doesn’t even recognise Peter at first yet he’s so sure he’s kidnapped Peter Pan’s children. Sense; it makes none.

reply

And then there's that creepy storyline with Grandma Wendy.

reply