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 Special:Contributions/ (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?

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)
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)
 * 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)

"Starcatchers" is non-canon because...
"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)
 * It is not Wikipedia's role to determine what is "canon". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The Lead and Biography
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)
 * 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)

I agree with Jason A Quest, I was the one who undid the insertion in the lead and stand by it. Apart from the fact it's only one of Barrie's many inspirations, A N Wilson's assertion is not properly referenced: the article cited in the next section only provides an indirect quote, not the actual source of the quote. --Stelmaris (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)

Quotes in lede
In the lede there are (or were) two phrases quoted from Barrie's description of Hook. User:Jack Sebastian has twice removed one of them, asserting that we can't use quotes like that in the lede (but inexplicably doesn't mind the other). Perhaps he'd like to explain what he means by this, instead of stuffing edit summaries with imperious half-explanations. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Jason, I am sorry. I presumed that you were aware of some basic editor knowledge that the Lede doesn't contain material which isn't in the body of the article. I'm going to rephrase that, since I said it in the 'stuffed edit summary'. If it isn't in the body of the article, it isn't in the Lede.
 * My revert wasn't about quotes, despite the fact that you chose to wikilink something which you haven't supported either in the Lede or in linked article. That I didn't delete more was - as I said - "a shot across the bow"; it was a warning to do some reference work on the article. Apart from the problem with using info in the Lede, the remaining issue regards adding proper referencing within the article. That's how Wikipedia works. Once you have properly linked these statements and any relevant wikilinkage, you can then use the Lede to summarize the entire article. Hope that helps. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't wikilink anything; all I did was to restore the quote, without the wikilink that you (understandably) objected to. The source of both quotes is the original work by Barrie, which I think is clear from the context. I aware of no requirement that the quotes be used in the body of the article before they can be used in the lede, but if you feel they should be, and if you genuinely want to make constructive edits, then I would suggest you add them where they are needed, rather than deleting (one of) them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you claim to be the admin at Neverpedia, the source of all things Peter Pan. Clearly, you have the ability to find the material a lot better than I do. Instead of asking me to do your work, why not just follow our rules while following your bliss? What you think this contextually clear was clearly not; otherwise you wouldn't have been reverted. If you are having trouble learning how an article is put together, I can point you in the right direction. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you are the person who removed the quote, it's circular reasoning for you to point to that removal as proof that you were right to do it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While you were busy crying in your beer, Stelmaris went out and did what you were tasked with doing. I am sorry your feelings were hurt. I pointed out what was wrong. You weren't addressing it, so I became less patient in my re-delivery of said information.
 * In case you missed it, information not in the body of the text can't be in the Lede. That was the main point, please confirm that you understand this, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In other words, you dispensed with civility because I didn't immediately follow your orders. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I grew less patient with you after you failed to address the point at all. In all the space you have since wasted on my talk page and here, you havre continued to avoid noting that my edit was, in fact, correct. Unless or until you are prepared to admit this, I consider the matter of your bruised ego closed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your disregard for others' feelings is noted. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your disregard for reality is likewise noted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I also thought it was clear that the quotes in the lead came from Barrie's original works, but I agree the original wikilink to Long John Silver (which Jason A Quest hadn't restored) didn't make it clear that Barbecue was one of his nicknames. I have made a few tweaks to the text and added references to the body of the article, which I hope make sense and clarify the sources. --Stelmaris (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done, Stelmaris. Thank you for your effort. It is indeed clearer now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link 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)

Fictional kidnappers
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)

Lost Boy: The True Story of Captain Hook
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)

Notability is always of course somewhat subjective but in this case, it meant that (however good you might personally think this book is) The Lost Boy cannot be considered as a key title in the Peter Pan bibliography. It's not published by a mainstream publisher, has not been translated and/or reviewed internationally (in the same way as say, Peter and the Starcatchers or Peter Pan in Scarlet, and outlets such as Den of Geek, Sydney Morning Herald or Goodreads cannot be considered as serious reference points. This status may of course change in the future if the book becomes a bestseller on a major scale. If one had to list ALL the sequels, prequels and other derivative works ever written about Peter Pan, Hook, Wendy, Tinker Bell etc. on this page or the characters' page, the page would become too unwieldy even for Wikipedia. I'd suggest it'd be best listed on the List of Works based on Peter Pan page. --Stelmaris (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Stelmaris, many thanks for taking the time out to reply. I completely understand and will keep that in mind when contributing to Wikipedia in future. Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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