Would you be interested in drawing 1987 Michelangelo with his buddy pigeon Pete?
(The dude could really just talk to pigeons. Truly so much to explore there)
for sure, compadre. thanks also to the other person who requested mikey!
aaaaand bonus:
80 notes
·
View notes
I've watched a few YouTube reviews of Return to Neverland in the past (spoiler alert all but maybe one or two were being a tad unfair towards it I'm so sorry RTN baby you deserve better no one gets you like I get you <3). And one question that pops up a lot that got me thinking and since I'm posting a lot more Peter in the last 2 days than usual, I figured I'd address the question.
The question is: If flying was really the only way out of Neverland, why couldn't Peter just carry her through the second star and take her back home himself?
And that, to my annoyance, was a pretty valid question to be asking.
Why didn't Peter just carry her back to London?
The first obvious answer to me is that if he did that, there'd be no story. That's the outside world answer.
The in-universe answer was lost on me, until now.
Thinking and confronting the revelation of Peter's character development from the 1st movie to JATNP to the movie sequel and beyond made me look further deeper into the story of Return to Neverland and made me look at Peter and Jane's interactions in a new light. And finally after what has been months of this question haunting the back of my brain, I finally have something close to a concrete answer that I am very satisfied with.
Why didn't Peter just take Jane back to London himself?
It's because he's noticed that there's something else in Jane that's weighing her down that's not just the situation in her family.
One of the bigger but not the biggest pieces of Peter's character that we see got developed and improved was Peter's ability to Read The Room.
In the first movie, he's awful at reading the room. Missing entire social clues and feelings like Wendy's jealousy and anger. In RTN, he catches on to people's feelings rather quickly and can sometimes effectively deal with them (like using Tink's jealousy to his advantage).
In Jane's first escape attempt with the raft, while she's building and checking everything, we see Peter has and is spending a good amount of time watching her very intently. He's so focused on Jane Tink even fails to get his attention. He's busy trying to figure out what exactly was wrong with her. Even while speaking with Jane, he's still trying to figure out what her problem was. He prods, asks invasive questions and watches her body language until he finally figures it out and everything clicks into place.
He sees Jane has lost her faith. Her hope. Her belief. He sees how badly the war has been affecting her and this in tandem was affecting her relationship with her family back home. That's why she wanted to go home so badly. To make things right and apologise. Though yeah, apologising will fix things, it won't get rid of the root of the big problem: which is Jane's lack of faith.
And that's where Peter steps up. He engages with her, banters with her and includes her in on the group. His personal goal is to reignite Jane's faith. And the only way he can see that truly is if Jane is able to fly on her own with pixie dust, which will align with the main goal of helping Jane return home. Even when the stakes get higher and Tinkerbell's life is on the line, Peter still has Jane's best interests at heart by including her into the Lost Boys and letting her let loose in a way she could've never have done back in war-torn London.
And he knows his goal was finally completed the moment he saw her soaring through the sky with the brightest smile on her face, looking at peace. It was then, he knew it was finally time for her to head home back to her mother.
He didn't fight to make her stay because while she's clearly having fun on Neverland, he knows she'll be her happiest back home with Wendy. And if there's one thing Peter wants for all his Lost Boys & Girls (but also especially for the Darlings), it's for them to happy and hopeful.
TL;DR: Peter didn't let Jane leave because he can see she's unhappy and hopeless, so he tries to cheer her up and reignite her hope and once it's reignited, only then does Peter help guide her home.
57 notes
·
View notes
You have no idea how excited I am for this. Atime26 is one of my favourite Thai production companies (if that's even a thing) and I loved Our Days so much. This also has Offroad Kantapon who was in LAZ1 and Saint in Our Days so this is (hopefully) going to be so good!
30 notes
·
View notes
The fuller Darcy next-gen headcanon, while I'm at it:
Elizabeth Jane (Lizzy) Darcy. She's quiet, withdrawn, dutiful, and intense. Strong eldest daughter vibes. She's very handsome and expected (not by her parents so much as their wider social circle) to be charming and witty to go with it, like her mother, and is neither; she low-grade resents her while also idolizing her. Gets on well with her father and most of her aunts, but rarely confides in anyone.
Edward Darcy (named for Mr Gardiner and Lord —). He's sensible, down-to-earth, loyal, earnest, and easy-going. Very much wants to live up to his strong sense of responsibility as The Heir. Most people like him well enough without having a strong impression of his feelings or personality. Gets along well with both parents, but is slightly intimidated by his father's sterling reputation and force of presence.
Christopher Darcy (Kit, named after Darcy's father in my headcanons). He's high-spirited, clever, friendly, and very content in his own skin, more so than any of his siblings. Like Edward, he's easy-going and practical, but more energetic. He can be a bit careless and outspoken, even impertinent, while also able to pull on a touch of hauteur when annoyed. His spirits and confidence can make him exasperating at times, but also endearing to pretty much everyone around him, including both parents.
Georgiana Darcy. She has quite a bit in common with her brother Kit; she's not quite as comfortable with herself, but she's at least as fearless and impulsive (Voted Child Most Likely To Give Her Caretakers Headaches). She's quick-witted and can get carried away with her own ideas, but is also gregarious and kind, and readily befriended the family's shy charity case, her cousin Fanny Price Bella Wickham.
Honorable mention next-gen characters: Bess Wickham, the most driven, intelligent, and calculating of the Wickham children; George Wickham, her closest sibling, less ambitious but more careless; Martha Bingley, a bubbly, inquisitive, matchmaking middle Bingley child; and Sarah Gardiner, born a few months after P&P ends, thoughtful, pragmatic, and courteous.
21 notes
·
View notes
"She had found it difficult to make the transition from a mistress with the upper hand to the submissive wife that Henry, a conventional husband, now expected her to be, and her tantrums sorely tried him, driving him to seek solace in other beds"
Interesting quote and a common sentiment, so let’s unpack this:
we know henry also had mistresses while married to c/oa, but...
w/eir et al insist she was the perfect wife, that she never argued with him (the latter of which is not even true, we have contemporary observation otherwise, even before the GM, but accepting the premise for the sake of argument)
so... was it in response to ' tantrums' or was it just henry and a pattern already established?
bcus in the very limited way they acknowledge her upset (which is generally just limited to the elevation of his mistress' son)
the infidelity is offensive but not the central point of the anger, not enough to risk loss of influence to fight against it
it is not written about as a 'tantrum' (nor should it be, i’m merely pointing out the double standard), it is the noble, righteous purpose of her wanting to preserve her rights and that of her daughter
these incidents don’t receive the same treatment even though their context is similar, bcus...at least two of henry's mistresses while he was married to anne were supporters of her opponent (mary, also a threat to her daughter’s status)
so... was it 'tantrums' or was she also not going down without a fight because she viewed them as risking her and elizabeth's security ?
but it doesn't get the same treatment.
and the anne hastings thing with catherine does seem more personal but i digress , it is definitely not spoken of as a 'tantrum' either (nor should it be, again, i’m just pointing out the different language that tends to be used, and the blame cast upon anne & not her predecessor)
what i find really gross here is the implication and double negative inherent within
henry would not have taken mistresses while married to anne if she had more submissive, calmer
dignified even
but catherine was the perfect wife and model of queenly dignity and never said a harsh word to or against him
so... interesting to imply to avoid this she should have been 'more like catherine ' (again, whatever that means) when...it also happened to catherine?
we have a disrespectful comment but no actual record (altho it was a very short space of time) of henry taking mistresses while married to jane s/eymour
but no one says shit like coa should have been more like JS
yet i have seen people argue JS was emulating catherine and that's why he didn't cheat on her..... while forgetting he did cheat on catherine??
8 notes
·
View notes