Tinkerbell and Jas. Hook

[JCSalomon]

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?

[Dani1923]

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.