Thread:Uskok/@comment-27295021-20180325125431/@comment-27295021-20180409185322

Uskok wrote:There is a quote button in the bottom right corner of everyone's post. You can't see it?

Yeah, just didn't notice the "code" button so I could go in and place the code around specific parts of your posts. Thanks. :-)

Uskok wrote: Yes, it was. What we saw in DMC and its novelization is all the official info about Captain Hawkins.

Yes, we don't have any specific facts about Captain Hawkins himself, but since the commentary confirmed he was the father of Jim Hawkins, and Jim Hawkins embarked on the adventure of Treasure Island not too long after his father's passing, we also know that those events did occur in POTC canon in some shape or form. Anything else would be like rejecting the idea of Reginald Marmaduke Bracegirdle-Penwallow being the Director of African Affairs for the EITC just because he have been stated to hold the tile but we don't actually "see him in action", as it were.

Uskok wrote: Unknown, unknown, unknown, and unknown. And all that will probably remain unknown. Some stories are never meant to be told, especially if those are the stories about the background characters with zero importance to the main story.

A story untold is not a story non-existent. Especially since this particular story is one we already know and don't need to have repeated.

Uskok wrote: All those deities of the Norse pantheon were officially adapted for Marvel Comics. Peter Pan and the Treasure Island characters were never adapted for Pirates of the Caribbean.

Oh, I'm sorry, am I to understand I imagined it when James Hook was confirmed to exist in POTC canon by the merit of having been mentioned in a canon source, then?

Uskok wrote:No, it's not the same thing. Treasure Island and Peter Pan never made an appearance in Pirates of the Caribbean and they were never mentioned in Pirates of the Caribbean. Ergo, they don't exist in Pirates of the Caribbean.

...

That's all we know about James Hook in Pirates of the Caribbean. There's nothing else. There is no Neverland, there are no Lost Boys, there are no fairies, there is no Peter Pan, there's nothing! Nothing, nada, néant, ništa, nenio, ничто, nulla, etc.

So - you're denying the mention and confirmation of Hawkins and James existing in the POTC canon? You might as well be. Okay, chief, I can sot of see where you're coming from, but that's not how storytelling works. Storytelling is a many-layered and fickle friend, and you can't cherry-pick stories like that and get the actual full picture. And you most certainly can't have one without the other. You can't have the father if Jim Hawkins exist without Jim Hawkins existing, his mother existing, Admiral Benbow existing, Squire Trewlany, etc. Because then he wouldn't be the father of Jim Hawkins, as confirmed in the commentary, he would just have been named after the character of Jim Hawkins, which he is not. He is his father. The same thing goes for James.

James was gone for decades on end, and when he appeared, he was not a day older than when he disappeared, and he feared children. These facts hints at his time spent in Neverland, where time stands still. I believe the book also mentioned that James lost his hand and had gotten a Hook? How did he lose it if it wasn't for Peter Pan? How did he stay ageless without Neverland, the Fountain of Youth notwithstanding? The answer is he couldn't. The implications of the character's lives given by these tidbits of information, at least as far as we can logically trace them without speculation due to pre-existing knowledge of what they mean (pre-existing POTC lore, that is), is as much part of canon as the characters themselves. Just because they Jack or Beckett isn't there to witness Long John Silver marshal disaffected former buccaneers to commit mutiny, dosent meant that others weren't there to witness it without those two knowing.

If Hawkins had been confirmed in the commentary to have merely have been named after Jim Hawkins, and James given another name, such as "George", and that there was a George with a fear of kids, not having aged and lost a hand, with nothing suggesting he was anymore than inspired by the character of James Hook, I would have been behind your assertions 100%. But Captain Hawkins is Jim's father, and James is James Hook from Peter Pan. They might be 'borrowed elements', but that's irrelevant. They still have a place in POTC universe, and so, necessarily, will the events and circumstances leading to their presence there be as well, unless the official stories from where those characters hail directly contradict POTC canon.

I will, however, commend your knowledge on how to say "nothing" in several languages. The next time you decide to reject a notion for the lack of knowledge on something that way, please, feel free to add "ingenting" to the list, which is the Norwegian word. ^^' Uskok wrote: They did not. Captain Hawkins is a POTC character partly based on a character from Treasure Island-

I got to stop you there, because Captain Hawkins isn't based on a character from Treasure Island, he is a character from Treasure Island, as confirmed by the commentary, appearing in POTC canon. I could have bought that assertion very cheaply indeed if Jack Sparrow or any other main character at any point in On Stranger Tides had sat down at an inn/tavern called something like 'the Hanged Man' and struck up a conversation with a young lad gathering plates who told him, when inquired where his parents were at, that his mother was resting upstairs. Then Jack or whoever asked 'what about your father?', and the boy, let's call him Tim, got all sad-faced and told them that he died shortly before, but that they managed because a friend of theirs, a magistrate as well as a doctor, looked in on them from time to time. Okay, that would have been based on Jim Hawkins and his life, but there is a difference between something being based on something, and something being eluded to. If the creators and/or official, valid contributors to canon sources says "this is meant to be Jim Hawkins's father", then it is meant to be Jim Hawkins's father and not someone based on him. The commentary didn't say Captain Hawkins was based on Jim's father, it was supposed to be Jim's father. That's not the same thing.

Uskok wrote: -Their backstories and the timelines of the two universes simply don't fit.

What does that have to do with anything? The fact that the timelines don't fit don't mean that the two stories don't co-exist within POTC canon, it simply means that - again, within POTC's own canon, the events of Treasure Island has been placed at a different time.

Uskok wrote: As for Hook, it wasn't Disney who put that mention of him in the book. It was Ann C. Crispin, and even she meant it as a joke. When J Fan and I asked her about James she openly admitted that she doesn't represent Disney. I doubt anyone at Disney even knows about "James" in her book.

You've spoken with Ann C. Crispin? That's so cool! :-D

She don't need to represent Disney for her work to be a part of their extended universe. I doubt she would've been allowed to write and publish a POTC book without green light from Disney, who last I checked held all the rights.

Uskok wrote: I repeat, they never made an appearance in Pirates of the Caribbean. They were never mentioned in Pirates of the Caribbean. Ergo, they don't exist in Pirates of the Caribbean.

SO - just to be clear, that would also mean that human feces don't exist in Pirates of the Caribbean because we never see anyone depicted to take a dump either, right? And the Welsh language - that doesn't exist either because we never see anyone speak it in Pirates of the Caribbean?