Talk:Captain Hook

'Real Actors' claim

I have removed the following: "This is actually the first adaptation of the book with real actors, although it is commonly thought that there have been lots of them before it." Not only is there no citation, but I can't fathom what it even means. Is it suggesting that all the previous incarnations of Peter Pan have used amateur actors? Maybe cardboard cutouts. Either way, I've removed it until someone can clarify what the heck it means and cite it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.195.65.13 (talk)

I though he meant "real actors" as opposed to animated characters. In other words, it would be the first film version of peter pan that wasn't animated.

-anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.199.76 (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section header

Stevenson's Long John Silver is a fictional character in the novel Treasure Island, He is a pirate, and was the ship's cook under Captain Flint; Silver was said to have been the only man whom Flint ever feared.

Captain Hook's private thoughts mention Flint and "Barbeque." And while it is said Barrie based Hook upon Herman Meville -- he also hints that Hook is a descendant of the 'doomed' Stuarts. So, as Hook was not his real name -- you wonder if he was a FitzCharles or a FitzJames? [unsigned]

The hook: left or right?

It could be just me, but almost any picture that I see on the internet, be it either from the Peter Pan comics or photographs from Disney parcs, show Captain Hook with a hook in place of his left hand, not his right (as suggested in this article). Edy 09:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd never noticed before, but you're correct: Disney's Captain Hook does have the hook in place of his left hand. It's definitely his right in the original book, though. --Paul A 04:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was said that Disney Animators at the time chose the Left over the official Right hand, per drawing reasons. The animators found it easier for Captain Hook to be drawn and animated with the hook on his left hand. Wielding the sword in his right. – User: S.R.H. 17:20, 30 Dec 2005

Is Captain Hook a Portuguese?

While I assume most characters in the JM Barrie story are English in origin, is it possible that Captain Hook himself is not? The reason I present the question centers on Peter Pan's nickname for him: "Codfish." Such an epithet, though not necessarily used in that sense, is often used in the United States to describe persons of Portuguese ancestry, particularly in the New England region. In addition, Hook's appearance lends itself to a Mediterranean or Southern European origin. Also, the English and the Portuguese have a history of both alliances and rivalries, in anything from wartime to trading to exploration to football. Some Northern Europeans viewed Southern Europeans like the Portuguese as a more savage or pirating lot. Was Barrie making a political or cultural statement that reflected the sentiments of his era? Perhaps someone else has more information on this theory? – John Lowell 17:20, 9 Jan 2006

First of all pal, J.M. Barrie wasn't even English at all, he was Scottish! Secondly, i'm sure that if he had wanted to portray his villain as Portuguese he would have given him a Portaguese name rather than well, James Hook. Peter's reasons for calling his nemesis a "codfish" have a lot more to do with the idea of something slippery cought to the end of a hook. Fergus mac Róich 23:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Octopus And The Crocodile Never Met

"There, for some reason, Tick-Tock was replaced by a just-as-hungry octopus (a dear friend of the now deceased Crocodile who will stop at nothing to avenge his death at Hook's hands)"

The statement in parenthesis above should be taken out because it's highly innacurate. The reason why the octopus went after Hook was out of hunger, not revenge. In Return To Never Land, the octopus (known as "the beast" in the film), had accidentally landed on Hook, thanks to Peter Pan and Tinkerbell, and Hook accidentally landed in his mouth. Much like Tick-Tock in the previous film, the octopus also liked the taste and decided to try and devour Hook as well. Otherwise, there is no evidence whatsoever of Tick-Tock or the octopus knowing of each other's existance. Also, Hook never directly said that he killed the crocodile. Only that he "got rid of it". So, it's safe to assume that perhaps Hook had finally manged to either drive the crocodile away or simply capture it.24.111.137.236 06:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Anonymous

Intriguing new Evidence in "Peter Pan in Scarlet

since "In Scarlet" is an "Official" Sequel, we can take it as canon (at least to the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital, if not Barrie himself), that Hook didn't actually serve under Blackbeard.......

Well my friend, quite a few readers don't takee it as canon at all. the Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital's holding of the copyright them a legal position of authority, not a cultural one. They have the perfect legal right to pay Ms McCaughrean to write a sequel to Peter Pan, but no legitimate authority from a strictly cultural perspective to declare it as the cannonical second half of Barrie's imaginitive masterpiece. all information regaring Hook that is comes from the writing of Ms McCaughrean rather than from Barrie really ought tob be qualified as such. Fergus mac Róich 00:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hence the way I worded it....that it's canon in regards to GOSH, but not to the original author.....

it's all a matter of opinion.....I don't count the "Starcatchers" Stuff as canon, as it's not approved (and diverts wildly from the original tone) by anybody with any stake in the original, however, "In Scarlet" in my opinion, keeps with the tone, and feel of the original, in such a way, that it respects the original material, without taking anything away from it.

Barrie might've created the character, but he's owned (at least for now) by GOSH, and since they decide the direction of the character, I take it as Canon......you can qualify it as derivitave work if you like, but it's still called the 'official' sequel, and as such, carries more weight than any other derivative work, in my opinion........of course, Wiki isn't about opinion, it's about fact, so the fact remains, it's 'official'.......

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.140.110.158 (talk • contribs) .

Where did this come from?

I'm referring to this part --

A gray wolf version of Captain Hook, Romulus J. Hookfang, plays an important role as a background character in the not-yet-published cartoon strip Paws for Thought. True to his character, he is constantly at war with a lupine Peter Pan, Sirius Star (who is also ironically his son), and is stalked by a persistent ticking crocodile, cleverly named Rolex after the famous watch company.

Is it just me, or does this sound like the definition of a personal advertisement? The cartoon strip hasn't been released yet? How would anyone know about it but its creator? Plus the bias-showing words like "cleverly"...this seems all wrong to me, and irrelevant to the main article.

--128.122.253.229 04:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Disney version of Hook (KH series)...

There's already info about Hook in the Kingdom Hearts series under the "Disney" entry, so there's no point in having the "Kingdom Hearts" entry under "Other appearances". I'll remove it. NeoSeifer

Merge proposal (Captain Hook (Disney) being remerged back into this article)

Cactusjump (talk · contribs) split Captain Hook (Disney) out of this article (see Talk:Captain Hook (Disney) for Cactusjump's explanation). I am proposing we remerge that article back into this one, because a split was unnecessary and undesirable. Primarily, my contention is that the Disney version is not so far removed as to be considered a separate character. Nor do I believe that this article was so long that a split was necessary; if length was starting to become an issue, we should try paring down some of the trivial content first. Please discuss. Powers ^T 12:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't a need to split out Disney's use of the character based on the amount of information. In fact, since Disney's Hook is pretty much consistent with other portrayals, having a separate article for him would tend to require that information be duplicated between the two articles, which isn't helpful, either to readers or editors. Any precedent set by having separate articles for Disney versions of other characters, frankly, is a bad one. This article needs attention, but cutting out the Disney info isn't the kind it needs. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:Captain Hook (Disney), I felt that the amount of information on Disney's version (as well as the other appearances of Hook in Disney media) allowed for a separate article. I also added some development information to the article, as found in several Disney sources. I plan on adding more once I continue going through my sources. Again, apologies if this edit went against others' wishes; it was all in good faith. Cactusjump (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

About two thirds of Captain Hook (Disney) is needless plot summary that could easily be deleted or at least pared down greatly. At that point, your excellent development information would slide right into the main article and fit perfectly. Powers ^T 01:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the merge of Disney's Hook into this article. If the big amount of information on the Disney's Hook is mostly repetitive plot, then there is no reason to keep it in a separated article. A more notable character, the Disney version of the Evil Queen in Snow White, is merged into the original fairy tale character, despite having appearances in other media too and a place in the AFI's Top 100 Villains in #10. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Captain Hook (Disney) as it is now, most of the plot summaries are related to character development. I agree it needs to be pared down, as it is a lot of original research that had been there since it was part of this article, but there are some strong differences from other portrayals of Captain Hook. Cactusjump (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

But it is still the same character in the basics. Check out characters like the Queen (Snow White), Robin Hood, Big Bad Wolf, etc. who have numerous portrayals in other media and that are really different from each other. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A week has passed and opposition came only from the creator of the article, so I retrieved the old Disney section from the original Hook's article and redirected the Disney version there. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Captain Hook Related to Israel Hands

Captain Hook was already Black Beard's boatswain, the only man Long John Silver ever feared and "Hook" wasn't his real name, to reveal who he was even at this date would set the country in a blaze... I already heard somebody saying that Israel Hands was Captain Hook (or vice-versa), as Hands was Beard's second in command. I liked the idea, but I have my doubts, because:

1. Hands is not important this way to sent the country in a blaze.

2. Boatswain is not a second in command, a first mate is, I guess.

So, my questions are, Israel Hands was Edward Teach's boatswain or first mate??? Does somebody would approve the theory that Captain Hook is Israel Hands?? I want both questions answered, because that makes me on a blaze! Israel Hands is not even cool to be him!

Yes people, I'm sorry to have added this, but I thought it was an interesting theory. I found out myself (as I had nothing to do) Israel Hands was Blackbeard's first mate and I'm gonna add that to the information about the character/real-life pirate. Anyway, thanks for the one who made the theory, well, that was a cool begin for revealing Hook's actual identity.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.245.163 (talk • contribs)

How about no. Please read WP:No original research. Powers ^T 13:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's the answer I wanted to read. And yes, Mr. Powers, that wasn't what I've ment to say, and wasn't even my opinion, especially because I didn't like it. Thought we could make questions as that idea had actually principles. The other said that "maybe" Captain Hook was portuguese, why couldn't I write this no better absurd assumption? Sorry even thou. Remove it from the 'discussion' if you like. I've said that I was going to add that I discovered that Israel was the first mate (in the Israel's page, of course), not this theory as it was official in here. And this information I got about Hands is official because I red it in a book about Blackbeard. Savvy?? Be more gentle when reffering to a lady, if you please?

OK: Lady, will you please read WP:No original research? Wikipedia is not a place to explore this kind of obscure notion. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I red it before. I have the source (forget about the theory, I'm talking about the other guy that has nothing to do with Hook, Hands, which I know information that doesn't have in his article, which I havent even posted there, and I have the source of it!). DO I NEED TO WRITE IT ON THIS DISCUSSION?! I HAVENT "PUBLISHED" IT ANYWHERE ELSE BUT EXACTLY HERE!!! (This ain't my day...) Is not the fact that he is theorically Hook which I would be going to write in Hands article, it is about that in Hands article is not specified if he is a boatswain or a first mate. Savvy? And what it has to do with here? If you can get what I mean, say i do believe in fairies, and slap your hands, or I'm gonna die. Or say you dont and let me die... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.236.145 (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't make sense of what you're proposing. If I misunderstood you before, I apologize. Powers ^T 13:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Neverland (TV Miniseries)

I felt the entry for the prequel was far too detailed and long, particularly in comparison with the other sections. I tried to amend and abridge as best as I could, but please feel free to immprove it further.--ErikaJJ (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

"One of Ravello's trophies is an Eton trophy dated 1894." What's an Eton trophy? 76.226.205.69 (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)