I'm rewatching The Lost Boys. It's been quite a few years, but I'm crying once again. It's not just the remarkable turn of events. AB's words and the cast's acting...I don't know - I can just feel their pain/joy for life and through death. The magnificent dialogues cause me to write myself, but this miniseries has me not only write creatively, but read creatively. AB's script, of course, is poetic in heart as well as connections - lovely and lyrical. I also read the quiet moments. The actor's expressions are beautiful. Ian Holm's gazes are powerful (the one that really hits me is when he's looking out the window just upon Arthur's death). And the time passing. Wow. Just wow. The red hat, captain swarthy's hung on the trees, Porthos' absence, empty roots. Time changing things. When I watch young George (Barnaby Holm) look up at the sky and later Barrie notice George again, older doing the same, I am reminded of Anno Birkin's poem (which was actually read by Barnaby Holm on the audio version of Who Said the Race is Over?. It goes like this:

"I want to know permanent things.
The whole world is constantly changing
and dying and being born.
I wish I had thoughts that were
warm and were clear like the mornings.
These summer days have me in mourning dress,
touching my head to my sex to my breasts,
wishing for Westerly winds that
will bring me some fear in religion.
Let the spring of my faith now begin."

I could imagine the characters creatively reading themselves in this poem.

Beautiful photos! ❤️

Welcome aboard JCSalomon!
There?s people who can answer this question better than I can, but I don?t think Barrie ever changed those plot points that you mentioned.

Though Barrie?s Peter Pan will always be the best of course, there are story problems. Actually, for me, Hook finding the Home Under the Ground by accident doesn?t bother me, what does bother me is that he does not attack the house until towards the end of the play! Why would he wait? Why didn?t he and his crew attack that night while the Lost Boys and Peter (and the Darling children since they would have arrived by that point) were asleep and kill them all?
I saw that you read my post about my Peter Pan stage adaptation, and in my version, I changed Hook finding the hideout until much later in the story.

Also, I think in all the versions, the play, 1953 film, and the 2003 film, Tink does not interact with Peter again between the time of him banishing her and her saving him from the poisoned medicine. Though I could be misremembering something.

The 1953 Disney Peter Pan has one plot point that seems a real improvement over Barrie's versions:

In Barrie's published versions, (a) nothing comes of Peter banishing Tinkerbell, and (b) Hook's discovery of the House Under the Ground is unmotivated coincidence.

Disney fixes this, by having Hook seduce the forlorn Tink, getting her to betray the location.  Tink's near-death when she rescues Peter is also her redemption from her betrayal.  From a storytelling perspective, this change is just about perfect, tying together loose ends and turning unconnected events ("this happens and then that happens") into a plot ("this happens and caused that to happen").  The 2003 movie also uses this technique (though they return to Barrie's device of Hook poisoning Peter's medicine).

But was this really Disney's invention, or is there something in Barrie's revisions which precedes this?

Happy Peter Pan Day 2023!

I hope everyone has a wonderful day!