Talk:Captain Hook

message: 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)
thread_title: 'Real Actors' claim

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The hook: left or right? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is Captain Hook a Portuguese? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  The Octopus And The Crocodile Never Met 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where did this come from? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge proposal (Captain Hook (Disney) being remerged back into this article) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Captain Hook Related to Israel Hands 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neverland (TV Miniseries) 

message: "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)
replies: text: It's a trophy he won for winning an eton contest; he works out to keep off the pounds. [snicker] It is obviously an award given to him at Eton College for academic or athletic accomplishment.  Hook was an Etonian, the presence of such a trophy in Ravello's possession is meant to imply that he is really Hook.  I thought that was obvious from context, but perhaps not.  I didn't write it; if you find it wanting, fix it. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: "whereas in Barry and Pearson's adaptation his left hand was accidentally cut off by Peter."
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but Peter cutting off Hook's hand wasn't be accident. If I remember right, he noted that hook threw out his non-sword hand each time he struck, then deliberately, targeted that hand. 66.75.14.234 (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not Wikipedia's role to determine what is "canon". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Starcatchers" is non-canon because... 

message: As for the recent undoings of the inclusion of information on Ahab as a model from the lead: this information is crucial enough to be stated in the lead. The lead of any wikipedia article should be an abstract of what follows, a sort of thumbnail summary. The current lead, however, is a biography of Hook. Hoewever, the information is not included in the Biography section. So the way to go is to transfer that information to the Biography part and create a new lead which touches on all sections of the article.MackyBeth (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Even rewriting the lede as you suggest still wouldn't mean spotlighting a connection between Hook and Ahab (just one of many sources that JMB drew upon for the character). It's significant, but not that significant. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK then, since you have consensus on this. The following information may be useful. The editor of Barrie's letters, Viola Meynell, had published something relevant to the Ahab-Hook relationship: the following remark and bibliographical reference appear in the notes to the Hendricks House Moby-Dick of 1952, page 652: "James M. Barrie admitted that his Captain Hook was modelled on Ahab; see Viola Meynell, 'Herman Melville's Moby-Dick,' Dublin Review, Jan. 1920, Vol. 166, pp. 96-105." MackyBeth (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lead and Biography 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Captain Hook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102032812/http://www.jmbarrie.co.uk:80/introduction.html to http://www.jmbarrie.co.uk/introduction.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Captain Hook kidnapped children in many literary and film adaptations of the story of Peter Pan. Should we add the category of 'Fictional kidnappers' to the article? The White Witch from the Narnia series has that category listed since she kidnapped Edmund Pevensie. Irishlady85 (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional kidnappers 

message: This section was removed foe the reason :Not a key, notable work but I'm wondering what is the basis for that? The book Lost Boy is a fantasy book set in Neverland and starring Hook. It's release was covered by a few media outlets such as Den of Geek, Sydney Morning Herald etc and is currently nominated for a Goodreads award. I know some may not consider that 'prestigious' but it's certainly notable. Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Boy: The True Story of Captain Hook 

message: how old is he 2603:7000:1800:5360:B805:31AC:AC60:1D7 (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain hook