Main question: Did Hook die?
-
norman891 — 14 years ago(December 13, 2011 05:09 PM)
I have pondered this very same question scince I first saw the movie waaaaay back in '91 (I think). It's one of those "stupid, multiple endings" I have complained about, though overall I do like the film.
You are correct. This was NOT a live croc or even a propped up dead body. This was a taxidermied crocodile, which basically means they skinned it, stretched the tanned hide over a frame, and propped that up. There was nothing inside the croc to 'come back to life' with so that belch after Hook dissappears is really unbelievable. Somewhere near the beginning of the film, Hook even says "Who killed that cunning crocodile? Who stuffed him & made him into quiet clcok?" So I don't see how a taxidermied mount can come back to life and 'eat' anyone. And even in Neverland dead is dead, or Rufio could come back to life, right?
My theory is that A) Hook was either killed or knocked unconscious by the concusive force of being thrown inside that hollow shell or B) He was just hiding inside waiting for everything to die down, everyone to go away, and sneak off to engage in more skull-duggery. I'd rather choose B myself. but it really was a stupid, unimaginative way to dispose of Hook unltimately.
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." Jethro Tull -
officialnathanbanks — 14 years ago(December 19, 2011 04:45 AM)
Brilliant post, you're right, he did say "who killed that cunning crocodile?"
It's one of those movie deaths from my childhood that's really annoyed me, because it wasn't really clear whether it was a death or not. He just disappeared, no body, just dust. It didn't make sense, the croc was dead, so it's not exactly eaten him, has it?
I think maybe they didn't confirm his death in case there was going to be a 2nd movie? -
norman891 — 14 years ago(December 19, 2011 10:25 PM)
<< It didn't make sense, the croc was dead, so it's not exactly eaten him, has it?>>
Exactly. There is nothing to come back to life to 'eat' Hook; there's only a hide stretched over a form and nothing of the crocodile's body to re-animate.
<I agree. I think originally they thought it was going to be this huge box-office smash, and while it did well, it was no block-buster. This statement in no way is meant to denegrate the movie, but I think they had left it open-ended for the possibility of a sequel and with the reviews it got and so-so showing re. ticket sales, they dropped the sequel idea.
"Hook" has actually done better as a video/DVD release as its become something of a cult classic, like "The Goonies". Which is better in a way, because its 'life' after the theater will be much longer and better remembered I think.
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." Jethro Tull -
jajceboy — 14 years ago(January 10, 2012 03:29 PM)
How can it not be a blockbuster? It was the 6th highest-grossing film of 1991. That isn't exactly a flop.
If they wanted to do a a sequel, they would do it. But Spielberg didn't like the result, so that is probably why a sequel was never made.
Back on the crock issue, didn't you guys think about the possibility that it is maybe the point of the whole scene? That you don't know Hook's fate, and never will know. Some things don't need an answer, and this is one of them -
norman891 — 14 years ago(January 10, 2012 11:03 PM)
<
No, not a flop but compared to other Spielberg films plus figuring off-setting the HUGE budget, it didn't really meet block-buster status either. I have just about every magazine article, reviews, etc I could get hold of back then (including begging the theater mgr for the marquise poster), and it wasn't really critically well received. Now, as I have pointed out, what film critics find out-standing has been known to bore me to death & I disagreed with their assessment. But I think the bad reviews played a part in there being no sequel, plus neither Hoffman nor Williams were too keen on reprising their respective roles.
<That is EXACTLY the point. A taxidermied crocodile skin stretched over a frame CANNOT come back to life (it growled, it moved, it belched - WTF?). Belching implies to the viewer that is has had a good meal except that's impossible because it's dead, and dead is dead, even in Neverland or Rufio could just pop back to life, right? The damned thing growled, broke loose from its super-structure, and its DEAD makes NO sense. That is pushing beyond the "plausible impossible" (term developed by Disney - i.e., if Donald Duck runs off the edge of a cliff and realizing it, he turns around and runs fast enough, albeit through thin air, he can make it back to safety and the viewer "believes" it possible because its executed in a plausible manner.) But expecting me to buy a hollow shell coming back to life and swallowing/eating Hook is waaaaay beyond plausible.
The whole problem is that towards the end of the script, Spielberg went of on some tangent about the joys of fatherhood (Peter's happy thought) and kept beating us over the head with it, plus he had multiple endings where he "should" have stopped and sent Peter & family back to the "real" world, most notably after the dewigging scene (shameful).
<Well, that's you're opinion which you are entitled to. I for one don't like to have a director/film piss down my back & tell me its rain, so to speak. This is one of the most important questions the film left unanswered - Did Hook die or didn't he? , and it DOES need an answer, definitively, not some cop-out gimmicky reanimating mount of croc skin.
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." Jethro Tull -
Ash-lee — 14 years ago(January 28, 2012 08:53 PM)
Let's keep it in perspective people - this is a story that is largely popular because of it's myth and magic. It revolves around a boy who can fly with the help of fairy dust and who continually faces off against a grown man and always comes out the victor. He also has the help of other boys and mermaids and he will never age and is forever immortal. This story in particular shows that the women/girls who go to Neverland always remember it and the adventures there but the men/boys who go there will forget in a matter of days (or in the case of Peter: minutes).
And we're thinking it's completely outside the realm of possibility that the croc could come back and kill Hook?
A little less literal is needed when trying to figure out the ifs of the story. -
norman891 — 14 years ago(January 29, 2012 03:42 PM)
<
Only because Pan cheats by the very act of flying. As long as Peter flies, there is no way he & Hook can have a "fair" fight, and no way for Hook to win, short of shooting him down which would have been "bad form". Literary Hook was obssessed with showing good form, which is why he didn't shoot Peter out of the sky (& ain't no one fast enough to evade a hunk of lead moving at thousands of feet per second).
<Not necessarily you are assuming that Peter and Jack forgot their adventures in Neverland; never assume. Also, Tootles was one of the original lost boys & HE didn't forget about Neverland, so your theory is as full of holes as a sieve. This story got lost on some diatribe about the joys of parenthood/fatherhood and became less about Hook, which is what it was supposed to be about (that was the title & subject of the film, after all).
<Well, using your logic, then Rufio should be able to come back to life also, right? Except that Hook killed him (albeit in self-defense), so Rufio is dead, permanently. So if dead is really dead for Rufio, then it would also apply to every other living thing in Neverland, which would have, at one time, included said crocodile.
It's a violation of a film principle known as the "plausible impossible". A perfect example of this is that we believe that with happy thoughts & a sprinkling of fairy dust, children and Peter Pan can fly. Now, if Hook runs Rufio through with his sword thereby killing Rufio, Rufio is dead for all eternity. That then also applies to the crocodile, which was not only KILLED but STUFFED ( i.e. - taxidermy) mounted like a tanned bear skin over a frame, there is no skeletal or muscular remains, only a stretched hide.
Therefore the crocodile would have been skinned out, the hide tanned, and stretched over whatever wooden frame the pirates could build for it, to include tying that stupid clock in its jaws. But the crocodile was DEAD permanently (nothing left in it to come back to life), for all eternity, just like Rufio, so the notion of it coming back to life is ludicrous, implausible, and impossible end of story.
<Again, not so. Dead is dead, even in Neverland, and death is a permanent state, so reanimating a taxidermied crocodile hide is pushing the plausible impossible beyond plausible, let alone possible.
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." Jethro Tull -
Ash-lee — 14 years ago(January 29, 2012 07:04 PM)
Not necessarily you are assuming that Peter and Jack forgot their adventures in Neverland; never assume. Also, Tootles was one of the original lost boys & HE didn't forget about Neverland, so your theory is as full of holes as a sieve. This story got lost on some diatribe about the joys of parenthood/fatherhood and became less about Hook, which is what it was supposed to be about (that was the title & subject of the film, after all).
Peter did forget his time in Neverland, which is why when he returns to Neverland, the Lost Boys and Tink keep trying to make him remember everything. Jack forgot his time on earth because he didn't recognize his own father after a few days. I'm not saying they forgot at the end of the movie, but it is clear that the males have a much harder time remembering the alternate universe than the females.
And case in point, you're
assuming
that Tootles always remembered - we don't know that. We know he did remember when he wakes up from a dream saying, "Hook," but we have no idea if he remembered anything before that or if a dream triggered it (or the dog barking, which started to sound like "Hook" the more it barked). Tootles may or may not have remembered everything - the audience is never told. We know he remembers at the end when he gets his marbles back and sees the fairy dust, but before that we only have the ramblings of a senile old man. This is also a man who has been in Wendy's care for decades and Wendy clearly remembers, so perhaps they talk about Neverland and the memories never faded. We don't know.
Well, using your logic, then Rufio should be able to come back to life also, right? Except that Hook killed him (albeit in self-defense), so Rufio is dead, permanently. So if dead is really dead for Rufio, then it would also apply to every other living thing in Neverland, which would have, at one time, included said crocodile.
Hook may be dead or he may not be - I would be more inclined to think he was alive because they would want to leave the option of a sequel open. It's open-ended for a reason. Maybe he did die - it's open to interpretation and that is my interpretation, but I see nothing wrong with others believing he died. I've always thought he was still alive - that the statue fell and he climbed inside the belly of the beast to get away from the one person he always considered a threat. In fact, I think Spielberg led us to believe he survived for a reason because: "What would the world be, without Captain Hook?"
Rufio was stabbed through the torso with a sword - very definitely dead.
Again, not so. Dead is dead, even in Neverland, and death is a permanent state, so reanimating a taxidermied crocodile hide is pushing the plausible impossible beyond plausible, let alone possible.
The croc was not reanimated - he never got up and started to walk away, he never closed his mouth after Hook disappeared, never chewed to indicate that Hook was being killed, never showed any indication other than some sound effects (which may have been the groaning of a huge taxidermied crocodile falling) - it simply fell and stayed where it landed. -
norman891 — 14 years ago(January 29, 2012 09:09 PM)
<
Em, not quite. Actually the croc opens its mouth, dropping the clock (this occurs after Hook punches a hole in it when Tinker Bell intereferes with his killing of Peter),and its head tilts down to look at Hook. It then makes a growling sort of sound, the scaffolding around it breaks away, the croc falls forward and Hook is supposedly propelled inside by the concusive force. Then it belches. Now, that sounds like it has "come back to life", if only for a few minutes, and eaten Hook again; why else would there be a very loud 'frat-boy' belch? And that is definitely not plausible, let alone possible.
It was just another one of Spielberg's flubbed multiple endings to the "final battle" between Peter & Hook. It was like he had several scenarios, didn't know which one to use, so he used them all turning the end into a "humiliate Hook before finishing him off" fest, & as I've always like Hook Better than Peter it pissed me off.
Think about this - we will buy vampires, werewolves, zombies, aliens, etc in movies (or books) so long as they are presented in a believable way - Stephen King is a master at this. So why spoil the 'illusion' with a dead crocodile (or its ghost) coming back to life to finish off Hook. It doesn't make sense its a big flashing neon "screw up" sign in the middle of a not so bad movie (which I have watched more than a few times because aside from flubs like that, its a pretty good sequel).
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." Jethro Tull -
The_Kingpun — 14 years ago(April 02, 2012 01:14 PM)
I like the idea that Hook didn't quite kill the croc and there was still enough life in it to eat him. There's no reason to think the croc was hollowed out and had its skin stretched over a frame because if people don't age in Neverland, then it's entirely possible that the croc wouldn't decompose. Maybe its dead body was just propped up and has dried out over the years. This is fantasy we're dealing with after all.
-
-
MCAN87 — 14 years ago(February 08, 2012 11:41 AM)
I always thought it had something to do with the magic of neverland. After Hook's hook went into the croc it came back to life and moved didn't it? The croc's spirit inhabited the croc-clock and came back for revenge, eating Hook.
-'What do you look for in another human being?'
-'Stone Cold Steve Austin'