Nosey About the Nursery

You know how it’s Wendy’s last night in the nursery when Peter Pan comes to take her away?

I don’t.

It’s not in Barrie, folks.  Neither book nor play.

Disney seems to have concocted this wrinkle as well.

Nowhere in Barrie’s texts does it suggest Wendy is being made to grow up.  Neither Mr. Darling nor Mrs. Darling approach (or even reproach) Wendy about her time in the nursery.

But as with many other errors, it has become ingrained into popular thought.  P.J. Hogan, too, used this concept in his, the only live-action [& not silent] motion picture of Barrie’s tale.  Although I did enjoy the added* character of Aunt Millicent who wished to impart her womanly knowledge on Wendy by taking her away from the nursery, I wish Hogan had not done the “last night” shtick.

*or rather replacement for Liza the Maid

To me, the actual story makes the situation all the creepier.

Consider that in the popular skewed scenario, Wendy has cause to leave.  After all, she’s being made to do something she supposedly doesn’t want to do - become an adult.  So she retaliates by flying off with Peter Pan.  She’s afraid/angry/curious/take your pick!  For she’s not really any of those emotions.  She doesn’t go for that reason at all!

 

Think about it the other (ahem! actual) way - Wendy & her brothers leave.  Without warning.  Without being admonished.  [Unless one counts the debacle with Nana, but that’s not an incident to incite children to run/fly away.]  Wendy leaves because she wants to go be a mother and have adventures.   So she abandons her own mother to do so.  There’s no “This will show them!” or “They don’t really want me!” mindset involved.  She leaves.  Period.  Just before Xmas, mind you.  Much darker than one might first realize, no?  Just like the rest of the story.

So please let Wendy not be fearful that she’ll grow up.  It’s in her nature to do so, just as it’s in Peter’s to not.

UPDATE:  So much to recall in Barrie!  When my friend and colleague Andrea Jones (author of The Hook & Jill Saga) read this, she reminded me that Barrie does indeed have a line which tells us Wendy did not fear the fate of adulthood.  Must have sunk in to me, even if I didn't recall it specifically:  You need not be sorry for her. She was one of the kind that likes to grow up. In the end she grew up of her own free will a day quicker than other girls.

Once Upon a Barrie-Land

This post contains spoilers about the TV show Once Upon a Time.  Proceed at your own risk.

I’ve made it known before that I enjoy ABC’s Once Upon a Time.  It’s a clever and fresh take on fairy tales.  Well, once upon a time, they expanded the definition by including the Lewis Carroll Alice tales.  A little later on, Dr. Frankenstein came into the mix.  Yet it still remained as fantastic as the stories from which it borrowed.  In a nutshell, “The Mad Hatter” explains to the skeptic character that all stories are histories.  They’re just told differently.  Our ‘actual’ history, in other words, probably lost something of pure truth in the writing of it.  Speaking sort of metaphorically, all worlds can be peeked into, or semblances of them.  In this way, we can allow for the spins on characters and events that we thought we knew.  The creators of tales heard whispers and tried to get it right.  Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t.  Of course, this only works within such a construct.  Separate Peter and Wendy and it becomes law until itself.  It can’t be told differently or contradicted or re-imagined… not unto its own telling as told by the author.   But the show does allow for deviations and it’s in this way that Once Upon a Time finally fully approached the Neverland.

With some rather unexpected results!

Hook has been on the show for quite a long time now.  However, we get to know him completely away from the Neverland.  Although we do know (and saw him chart a course for) the infamous isle.  [Once Upon a Time utilizes flashbacks to fully tell and realize their story.]  Their Hook is meant to make us swoon.  He’s much younger with good looks.  And his personality is sort of Jack Sparrow mellowed out with a touch of Barrie’s evil man.  The hook is on the incorrect hand, but then, it’s correct for Disney’s version and this is a production under their jurisdiction.  An interesting variation and major change is that Peter Pan did not cut off the captain’s hand.  Nope, not here.  Rather it had been the crocodile.  Except the crocodile isn’t an animal.  It’s a man with scaly skin, none other than the show’s Dark One himself, Rumpelstiltskin, who’d been thwarted by the pirate earlier in life before obtaining his magical power. The way I figure it, Peter would convince himself he cropped off the hand and bragged as such, thus the tale came to be.  For a whole season or so we’ve been wondering about the Neverland and Peter Pan.  Lemonie and I, and probably a slew of others, suspected a character as being Pan.  He even recognized and disliked seeing Hook.   But, we were wrong.

Well, they finally showed us how both the boy and the island manifestation in this version of fantasy on the episode “Second Star to the Right.”  Naturally they used Disney insertions into the tale of Peter Pan.  The second star to the right is one of two.  However, despite the title, it is never spoken.   We see a “second star” flash when Wendy is taken away.  And yes, I phrased it that way on purpose. For the living shadow is the other Disney touch.  Yet another unexpected twist.  It’s just the shadow!  There’s no boy.  He’s never referred to as Peter nor Pan.  Only the magic shadow.  Yet we can see that he’s dressed in leaves. Though Wendy wants to go (and it’s just her, by the way, not her brothers, too) the shadow forcibly drags her away.  She had been warned by a boy she’d been harboring in the house unbeknownst to her parents. (I didn’t know the nursery had a hidden compartment either, but it’s quite Barrie-like!) And oh – this boy happens to be from another world.  (This character fell into ours through a portal too many moons ago in the overall story.)  He fears magic, but away Wendy goes.  She comes back, though.  And mentions the mermaids and fairies…and the darkness at night.  She then describes the cries of children wanting to go home.  But the shadow won’t let them leave!  She escaped because it wanted a boy (imagine that!) and she said it could take one of her brothers.  The boy from the Enchanted Forest (the main place the storybook characters in the show came from) tries to defend them but ultimately goes instead to save the Darling Family.  (The boy lost both his parents, so it’s important to him.)  He fights the rapidly and dangerously flying shadow along the way, though, and plunges into the sea.  He’s picked up by Captain Hook.

As for the Neverland itself, we don’t get to see it other than glooming in the distance.  I’m not disappointed in that.  For their version needed to have it mysterious and foreboding.  Overall, I rather liked this take on it.  A recurring theme and line of the show all throughout has been “Magic comes with a price” so I enjoyed making the Neverland and its child thief as dark as can be.

Lastly, I’d like to say the portrayal of the Darlings is wonderful.  They certainly “looked” like them.  And how wonderful to weave in more of Barrie by having Mrs. Darling all too welcoming and ready to have another little one join the family.  Of course, Mr. Darling had two shillings to say about it.  But in the end, Mrs. Darling won out.  Any doubt? 

Once Upon a Time, thanks for bringing this to the dark.

For Those Who Care...

Seems the movie adaptation of Peter and the Starcatchers is moving forward at Disney.  Just reporting it, as it's Peter Pan related.

As you either know (or as can be inferred from my posts and such), I am not fond of this book/series outside of it being a fun adventure tale on its own.  A prequel to Peter Pan?  To Disney's, perhaps.  To Barrie?  No.  I often wonder if the authors even read Peter and Wendy.

I hope that all who like the book are satisfied with the movie... for I know how upsetting that can be otherwise.  I also hope all who like this book actually read Peter and Wendy and discover the truth about the depth, psychology and magnitude of Barrie's genius as opposed to the watered down, erroneous presentation of Pan past.

(Find the staggering list of differences [aka blatant disregard] to Barrie's novels here.)

Tock-ing about the Croc

Imagine this... but I've just gone through Peter and Wendy again.  There's a reason... but I'll save that for later.  I know, I'm a tease that way.  Suffice to say I've mentioned it before to the tune of restoration... but another development has come up, too.  I'll reveal the 'news' soon.

SO, what (among much) did I notice this time around?

Disney calls the crocodile "Tick-Tock."  Clever.
(Oops, got some sarcasm on you.)

Well, in the book, the crocodile never TOCKS.  Just ticks.

Just saying...

PANtastic Fans

Every so often I take a gander at what's being said on the "Forums" over on IMDb for both P.J. Hogan's and Disney's Peter Pan.

I'm posting this one:

It's nice to see that there are discriminating fans out there.  That's my issue with Disney's, too.  (Well, one of many...)  Disney perpetuates an illusion that the Neverland is nothing but carefree fun and that Pan is [as stated] happy-go-lucky and cutesy all the time.  Yes, I already did know there are (and have heard from) fans who care... but it sure helps to know there are more!  Thanks, norman891!

And for the record, there is a touch of Barrie's Pan in Disney's.  He can still be a total jerk.  Case in point, though it's not Barrie dialogue -

Wendy:  Wendy Moira Angela Darling
Peter (flipplatly): Wendy's enough...

But still, they do project a much squeakier clean version.

Pan "Returns" - of sorts

A while back I reported on Disney’s latest venture in their version of Barrie’s magical island, Jake and the Neverland Pirates. It’s still the same [standard children's fare, a la Dora the Explorer set just off the famous island though], but here’s something new on it. Peter Pan will be making his first appearance. Up until now he’s only ever spoken of, but apparently they’ve seen fit to have him visit the lil’ adventurers.

Not surprisingly, Pan lost his shadow again and they need to help him look for it. Really? Couldn’t they have come up with something - anything - else? No, we’ve got to perpetuate the living shadow idea... sigh. Well, at least they’re consistent within themselves, eh? I hope the return of Pan is as exciting as it should be for those who enjoy the program.

Jake and the Neverland Pirates: Peter Pan Returns

airs on February 20th.

For those of you wondering about whether or not I decided to keep my character named Jake in Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between despite the usage of this preschooler show -- Anyone who might actually read my novel will figure out that the Disney Jake is not affiliated with my Jake whatsoever given the events of the story. Jake is my favorite name and I really wanted the character to have a “J” name. No other seemed to suit him. (Why “J”? It happens to be my favorite letter as well, but the real reason comes from examination of the rest of his moniker.) Besides, it will only serve to further establish the two [Barrie/Disney] as separate when they realize the two cannot be related.

Thanks to Josiecat for bringing this one to my attention!

TIME for a GREAT IDEA

I laughed out loud when I read the description of this upcoming movie.  Loud and LONG.  Think "Evil Villian Laugh" but on a happy, amused level instead.

And no, I don't mean laughing AT the concept.  I mean a sheer boisterous joy and appreciation.

It's currently called Time Zones... and the idea is rather simple but compelling.  AND - it's an ORIGINAL idea in this sea of reboots and remakes.

Imgaine if the world were divided into Time Zones...it already IS you say?  No no... as in fractures in space and time so that one geographical area might be 1750 France, whereas another section is China in 300 B.C. and yet another is the future - New York 2065.  What a great and twisted idea.  Of course, it has a plot of a man's race against time to change the past and save the life of his wife.  He can use the Time Zones to do so, it would seem, but it becomes a race against time within a race against time.

It's being written by Marc Guggenheim and is being produced by Disney.

I'll be keeping an eye on this one!  It's definitely up my alley.

Talking Tink...

Assuming her alive at the time you found her, would you be able to carry on a conversation with Tinker Bell? I’m guessing you’re inclined to say “no” because she speaks in the sound of little tinkling bells. No doubt your rationale for this comes from the passage:

“You don’t hear her, do you?” and they both listened.

“The only sound I hear,” said Wendy, “is like a tinkle of bells.”

“Well, that’s Tink, that’s the fairy language. I think I hear her too.”

Some of you might be so inclined as to believe you cannot understand the fairy language. Hearing it the first time, really how could you? Would you be able to understand Swahili when it first entered your ear? (I’ll venture to guess no.) And there’s rationale for this from the book as well:

“Tink,” said Peter amiably, “this lady says she wishes you were her fairy.”

Tinker Bell answered insolently.

“What does she say, Peter?”

He had to translate.

And then: What she said in her lovely tinkle Wendy could not of course understand...

So there we have, right? Only Peter Pan can understand Tinker Bell...

Now hold on a moment! Don’t go zipping to conclusions. Here’s a bit of text regarding the Lost Boys:

“Hullo, Tink,” cried the wondering boys.
Tink’s reply rang out: “Peter wants you to shoot the Wendy.”
It was not in their nature to question when Peter ordered. “Let us do what Peter wishes!” cried the simple boys.

A-ha! So the boys make sense of her bell-voice, too. Before you go arguing that the boys are wont to say such a thing anyway as they are devoted to Peter’s wishes, surely you don’t forget they actually do shoot Wendy down, just as Tink says Peter commands. Obviously it’s not just a regurgitation of an ingrained desire (to obey Pan’s wishes.)

So why is it that the Boys can comprehend her as well as Pan?  Perhaps it’s because they’re in the Neverland and therefore just do?  No, that’s not it.  Good guess, though.  Perhaps they’re magical like Peter himself?   Oh no, that can’t be it.   They’re just not.  Well, then, why?

For the answer, we’ll have to (but of course) look to Barrie’s words again:

“You silly ass!” cried Tinker Bell in a passion.

She had said it so often that Wendy needed no translation.
“I almost agree with her,” Wendy snapped.

When does this occur in the story? Just about the time Wendy is trying to get Peter to declare his real feelings for her. When “playing house” needs to be much more real for her than it seems in the Home Under the Ground. Okay, but how about a more concrete image story-wise?  Surely.  It’s after Pan rescues Tiger Lily. Unlike a play or movie version of the story which must have a rapidity to the adventures the children have on the island, we know that a they’re there for a long time, so the saving of the Redskin princess wouldn’t have been toward the beginning of their trip.

And so we arrive at the simple answer. If you’ve been around Tink for quite some time, would you understand her then?  Yep.

It seems that the fairy language is something that humans can pick up on, if they have enough exposure to it. Which certainly explains why the Lost Boys have no trouble.  For who knows how long they’ve each been on the island?  But we can bet it’s been a while.

Knowing that I’d need the first girl to visit NeverWorld to be able understand Denny (Peter Pan’s ‘new’ fairy) right away in my book, I had to make sure I included a passage about how this could be so.

Of course, Amy could not be described as a normal child, for she understood the fairy language perfectly. She had heard it so many times while passing through Kensington Gardens and in the twilight of slumber that she knew it quite well. Thus, she did not need a translator to converse with the fairy who just spoke to her.

Another easy solution. You see, I happen to know (of course I would) a little about the backstory of Miss Amy Alexis Richards.  In the relevant nutshell, she’s been hunting for fairies and Peter Pan since age five, and does so with more conviction than most summon up [for anything] their whole lives.  It took her a while to finally track down the Darlings’ house, but that’s another story and I digress...

At any rate, talking to Tink is no great feat.  It’s just a matter of paying attention and prolonged exposure. Not unlike any other language, oui?

So why is it that there’s the misconception that only Pan can talk to Miss Bell? That when (erroneously) Captain Hook speaks with her in cahoots, she must pantomime to help get her point across? [Thank you, Disney. (Said with an eye roll.)] Why is it that she rarely talks in the few movies of the tale?  Do we really have an aversion to hearing her speak?  Possibly so, since many protested her being heard in the Disney films about her... and the script drafts of it bounced back and forth as to whether or not she had a “voice.” (Yes, certainly it also had to do with maintaining the Disney animated feature as well.)  And yes, I know a certain actress played Tink and spoke freely in a certain movie named for the priate captain, but I so very pretend that movie doesn't exist.

It baffles me, then, why P.J. Hogan preserved the “silent” pantomiming Tinker Bell as well. Although I do recall learning in the ‘extras’ on the DVD that Hogan (and all) had been entranced by Ludivine Sagnier's facial expressions and clowning as such without words.  But as cute as they may have been, I’d preferred they left the marvelous expressionism as such to Peter Pan, for as I’ve said before, no one makes faces like Jeremy Sumpter!

I’ll tell you... if I’m ever responsible for the mini-series version that rattles around in my head, the way I’d handle Tink’s speech is as follows:  She’s just heard as the jangling at first. But throughout the show, each time she speaks, a whisper of actual words will gradually become louder, almost imperceptible until it’s clear as a well, bell.  Naturally the tinkling sound will always accompany her, but it will be softened and weaker.

So there you have it.

Tinker Bell talks. Why else would she have lines with quotes around them in the book?

New Old School POOH - The Stuff(ing) of Legends

Perhaps you remember from previous posts that I've been "jazzed" for a long time about seeing the new Winnie-the-Pooh movie.

Fortunately, it's every bit as grand and reverent as I'd gleaned and hoped it would be.

It's the Pooh we remember.  There's nothing but charming scene after charming scene and it's not afraid to slow down.  At so-called "slow" parts the characters' personalities and interactions shine through and we eat it up like Pooh eats up honey.  Truth is it never truly becomes fast paced at all.  Sure, the characters are hurried and bothered, but the story remains at the leisurely comfort of curling up with a stuffed animal.

The animation is glorious.  Not just the production itself, but the re-production of Disney's classic Pooh shorts.  They've really found the niche.  The artwork is a sheer delight, as is the fluidity of the animation.  Bravo to the artists and animators.

There are also a number of musical sequences.  And I bet you can guess... they're delightful.  Each is funny, catchy and moves the story along without feeling out of place, forced or unwelcomed.  They even have the Tigger song.  You know, "The wonderful thing about Tiggers are Tiggers are wonderful things...." - that one.  But it's truncated.  Just a peppering to top off a scene with Tigger.  We didn't need the whole song again, and Disney knew that.  Just as they knew we needed a small smackerel.

I went with Bart and Josiecat, both of whom also adored the film.  Yes, they, too, deem it 'Old School' and just pleasing all around.  Josiecat hit the nail on the head in what they'd done to make this movie.  It's really only one chapter from the A.A. Milne Pooh stories, the one with the note that reads 'Bisy Backson.'  From there it expanded...by which we mean rerouted, heightened or inserted parts to create a new tale without ever losing sight of the origins.  Truly a remarkable feat.  But somehow it felt effortless, guided all the while by the shenanigans of Pooh and his friends.

I'd like to say it had been quite "Goldilocks."  In other words, just right.  It could have gone too far with the slapstick humor, but it does not.  It's stirred in gently and never reaches "too much/far."  It could have been an emotional fest, oozing a sappy feeling or message, especially when intending it to be such a nostalgic piece.  But it's not dripping with too much honey in the least.  (Metaphorically that is!) It would have been easy to push the envelope boundaries what with all the aforementioned 'expansion' but no, it all fits, nay flows nicely together. 

I also want to give a special mention to John Cleese and Craig Ferguson.  They lend their vocal talent as the Narrator and Owl respectively.  You couldn't ask for a better Narrator than Cleese when it comes to Winne-the-Pooh.  Yes, I agree, many people would be great like Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie or the like.  But there's something about the timbre of Cleese that fits right into the Hundred Acre Wood.  Ferguson is a wonderful Owl.  He's got it down and yet adds his own twist...and keeping suit, in a Goldilocks fashion.

Lastly, the title.  It's simply Winnie-the-Pooh.  It's direct, it's simple.  It's not some attention grabbing headline like Pooh: The NEW Movie or a story-informant such as Pooh and the Backson.  No, just a plain ol' Pooh movie for you.

I'm convinced.  The people who made this movie are the ones who, like me, waited all year for the Pooh TV special to come on, and when it did you can be sure the Footie Pajamas embroided with Pooh were on and the world stopped.  Joy radiated for who knows how long after.

If you have a Pooh bear (that's ours in the picture) give him a hug.  But go see this movie.  On the big screen.  When will you have the chance again to see a Pooh of this calibre on the big screen?  Go!  Relive the days when if you missed something when it aired, you missed it entirely!

Folks, Winnie-the-Pooh won't be in theaters forever.  Take this opportunity to see Pooh at LARGE.

Tinker Bell & Hook: 'Frenemies'?

Remember when Tinker Bell is captured by Captain Hook and they strike up a sort of kinship against Peter Pan (because Peter had banished her)? I don’t.

This, folks, is another of the misconceptions about the story of Peter Pan. I’d been almost exactly positive that it doesn’t happen in any versions of the story by Barrie.  But just to be sure I just had a gander and, no, sorry, Barrie never has Tink and Hook together in any capacity (play, novel or screenplay.)

It’s another invention of Disney. It’s a fine one, to be sure. For it’s not like it doesn’t make sense, given how moody and flighty the fairies, especially Tinker Bell, can be. But it’s technically not correct, nevertheless.

It’s also another of the ingrained-in-pop-culture bits that P.J. Hogan used in his movie. I rather like his image of Tink sitting on Hook’s iron claw... and I love the fact that Hogan had it so that Hook understood the fairy directly whereas Disney had her ‘speak’ to him most of the time in pantomime [although at one point it does seem he hears words yet if so, they're still accompanied by a shaking finger.] Hogan has it precisely right.  Having been in the Neverland so long, Hook must have developed the knack for translation of the fairy language.  But again - Tink siding with Hook just does not actually happen in Barrie.

There’s also a short story called Never Never by Bruce Glassco in The Faery Reel: Tales from the Twilight Realm in which Hook and Tink are seen together as well.

And the last place the two of them are seen together in cahoots that I can think of off the top of my head is in Hook & Jill. And this, folks, is probably the best use of this idea. No, not because author Andrea Jones and I are friends. Because in her Pan tale, the scene happens after the point in which the storyline has been skewed. Therefore, Andrea uses the popular (and appealing) idea to great advantage. She includes it but in a way entirely separate from anyone else. I won’t spoil it for you. You’ll just have to read Hook & Jill to see how it plays out. Incidentally, it’s precisely this scene that Andrea read aloud at the bookstore when I first met her (at a book signing/reading.)

In Disney’s showing of this otherwise non-existent scene, Hook tricks Tink into revealing the location of Peter Pan’s hideout.  She walks along a map and locations are seen (not found in Barrie) such as Cannibal Cove. (Cannibal Cove? Really, Disney? I mean hey, I’ll be the first to point out that the island can be a horrifying place... but cannibals?? Egad!) In doing so, it winds up sacrificing a rather fun part of Barrie’s tale and at the same time denying Hook some of his thunder – that he finds the hideout himself. Granted, he does so by accident when he’s rambling on about his woe of his infamous encounter with Pan that cost him a hand and how the crocodile lurks around for him, but still...

In Hogan’s version, it’s not an asking of Tink as to Pan’s whereabouts. Rather Tink tells him the name of the girl/mother now on the island (Wendy.) Interesting that they changed this around.  [Also interesting is that the film, too, omits Hook finding the hideout as Barrie has it in favor of that damned parrot (an addition) following Tink.]

Naturally, this cancels out another fun image - a fairy (namely Tink) trapped in a lantern.  It appears in both Disney and Hogan.

Oh well. It’s a shame that this lantern concept has become so over-used. (I’ve seen it a bunch outside of stories or movies, too.) I’d like to do it myself in a tale though I have nothing particular in mind... and since it’s now sort of hackneyed it’s more than likely that I won’t.

So as much fun as it might be - there's no "frenemy" of Tink & Hook in Barrie.

Cloudy, with a Chance of Fun

This article from The Onion blew my way from some site or another and it made me think of Peter Pan.  Imagine that.

Scientists Theorize What Would Happen If They Touched A Cloud

The line that brought to mind Pan is: While Foote claimed that a person would likely attain instantaneous unconsciousness if laid horizontally atop a cumulus cloud, opposing scientists argued that a person would fall right through.

For me, it brought to mind Peter Pan and the Darlings atop the clouds.  But you know what?  That's another movie creation.  Disney it seems.  But not entirely.  There is a case to be made for the practice of alighting on clouds in Barrie.  ...see how we bump against clouds... says Wendy, and the Narrator informs us slightly afterward: but if they saw a cloud in front of them, the more they tried to avoid it, the more certainly did they bump into it. But that's all he says.

It's quite probable that a stage production featured the children resting atop clouds prior to Disney.  Though perusing through The Peter Pan Chronicles by Bruce K. Hanson (which is devoted to the stage and screen) turns up nothing in the picture-laden book.

Though the silent movie is filled with marvelous and many F/X, clouds don't factor in at all.

It's one of the additions to Peter Pan that I do enjoy.  And not just slightly tying in to Barrie's text.  Just in general, it fits well with the mythos.

Interacting with clouds had a wonderful twist in Fox's Peter Pan & the Pirates.  Captain Hook is peering at Pan, the Lost Boys and the Darlings flying admist the fluffy white in the sky through a telescope.  He's appalled, and as I recall, says they are molesting clouds.  [Yes, he uses that word.]  Rather than looking at clouds and deciding what they look like, the kids are treating the clouds like clay and sculpting them to their whim.

In my own tales of Pan?  In Peter Pan's NeverWorld I have Amy skidding into a cloud.  In Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between a character brushes off a bit of cloud.  I also use clouds thematically.

It's just a fun concept, played out beautifully in Hogan's film of Pan.  Have a gander at a short couple of clips.

(P.S. - A commerical for the ThreeSixy Peter Pan aired while writing this post!)

JeopardSMEE!

Ah, yes, again.

The correct response on an episode of Jeopardy!:

What is Peter Pan?

The category: Disney Movie by Character

And they gave the clue:

Technically they're wrong.  In the Disney movie, Smee is never actually referred to as "first mate."  However it does say that in Disney storybooks of Peter Pan.

In Barrie, Smee is the bo'sun [boatswain (a synonym) in the play], not the first mate.  In fact, there is no mention of a first mate other than:  Nibs and John were first and second mate.  And that's not even the crew of the Jolly Roger.  And he's never "Mr. Smee" - just Smee.