What the fuck was her damage?

She was attracted to someone who wouldn't fit her.

Couldn't get laid due to size.

Fairies are assholes.

wanted that forever-a-boy cock to herself

>>91580567
>>91580579

Tragic really. Would rather mess around with her than that plain jane Wendy my god that would frustrate the shit out of me if I were pete

>>91580524
turbo femlet

File: 1406606917450.gif (354KB, 320x243px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 320x243px

why is every frame of tinkerbell perfect
is she not the magnum opus of female animation character design?

>>91580673
It frustrates Tink every damn day.

>>91580524
Basically, she's too small to feel anything but one feeling at a given time. So whatever she's feeling at the moment completely consumes her, be it sorrow, rage, lust, jealousy, ennui, lust, joy or lust.

File: Jane-Peter-Pan-jane-peter-pan-2-33915914-500-293.jpg (41KB, 500x293px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x293px

>>91581218
Is that why Jane almost killed her in the sequel? She was so consumed by the thought of someone not believing in her that she actually started to stop existing?

She knew if Peter left he would grow up and that would fuck over Neverland and that girls are boys' weakness.

She ends up married to a dude fairy in a later book.

File: tinkerbell.webm (2MB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 720x540px

>>91580868
Clearly we need to examine the footage more to find out.

File: Tinkerbell7huffy.jpg (43KB, 454x342px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 454x342px

>>91582473
She dies in the first book and Peter replaces her. Fairies have a short lifespan ranging from days to months, and Tink was only around for like a summer.

>>91583430
did he just call her tink 2 or did they not even pretend the new fairy was different

>>91583467
> Peter came for Wendy at the end of the first year. She flew away with Peter in the frock she had woven from leaves and berries in the Neverland, and her one fear was that he might notice how short it had become; but he never noticed, he had so much to say about himself.

>She had looked forward to thrilling talks with him about old times, but new adventures had crowded the old ones from his mind.

>"Who is Captain Hook?" he asked with interest when she spoke of the arch enemy.

>"Don't you remember," she asked, amazed, "how you killed him and saved all our lives?"

>"I forget them after I kill them," he replied carelessly.

>When she expressed a doubtful hope that Tinker Bell would be glad to see her he said, "Who is Tinker Bell?"

>"O Peter," she said, shocked; but even when she explained he could not remember.

>"There are such a lot of them," he said. "I expect she is no more."

>I expect he was right, for fairies don't live long, but they are so little that a short time seems a good while to them.

>Wendy was pained too to find that the past year was but as yesterday to Peter; it had seemed such a long year of waiting to her...

>>91583708
I suspect that Barrie would have changed a few things had he known how popular the Peter Pan story would become.

File: 1423507471964.jpg (43KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 720x576px

>>91584191
I'm not sure of the whole history, but I kinda think he did change some stuff around a few times. There's at least, I think, 4 versions? The White Bird, Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens, the stage play, and the novel (which is the version usually cited). I can never keep track of which is the "original," and which ones are sort of like preliminary works just leading up to the fuller more developed story. But yeah, if he could have known it would still be a big deal more than a hundred years later I guess he would have tried to do the definitive version a bit differently.

>>91584191
He wouldn't have made Tinkerbelle long-lived because that was the point of fairies. They're flightly little things that only exist for a moment.

>>91583341
>tfw this was actually supposed to make her less attractive by 1950s beauty standards
If only they had known...

File: 5595323056_2e1c4868da_o-788745218.jpg (1MB, 2206x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2206x2448px

>While human women tend to be carried off, men tend to be seduced by fairy women. While the activity is more pleasant, it still doesn’t end well for the men. Yeats describes a type of fairy called the Leanhaun Shee (Fairy Mistress) If a man refuses her love she becomes their slave, but if they accept her love they are trapped by the fairy until they find another to take their place. She is considered the Gaelic muse and the inspiration for art and poetry, but she dries a man up and leaves him a wreck. It is said this why the Irish poets die young. The poem La Belle Dame Sans Merci is an interpretation of Keats about a seductive fairy leaving a man a wreck. “The Dream of Angus” is an ancient legend where a proud warrior is brought low by pining for a supernatural woman.

>There is a male fairy seducer called gean-cānach (love talker) who's described by Yeats. He seduces shepherdesses and milkmaids and ruins their reputations.

Hot. also isint there lore that says faries do have genders and genitalia but they have no clue how to specificaly use them or they are kinda like children in that aspect so they have men on men and girl on girl regularly.

File: Beldam1.jpg (21KB, 640x336px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 640x336px

>>91584990
The fairies in older poems like La Belle Dame Sans Merci aren't very much like the tiny insect winged tinkerbell-ish fairies in lore from centuries later. Mostly they just share the name and only a couple of qualities. The older ones are full size, non winged humanish things that look like regular people but possess mysterious powers and otherworldly charms and whatnot. They'd be more like Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty, or Aisling in Secret of Kells, or the Other Mother in Coraline.

Not that there's anything wrong with liking those kinds of fairies, it's just that noting the differences is important when trying to get a good picture of what's being spoken of in their respective works.

>>91583708
>"I forget them after I kill them," he replied carelessly.
Jesus, Pan of Murder

>>91580524
Women get crazy jealous when they smell strange vagina around their man, anyone who's had a girlfriend would know this.

>>91580579

Couldn't you just let a fairy ride your junk while you're jerking it

>>91586013
One of the reasons I thought Tink and Peter are one true paring is that he's too big for her to murder during her natural random fits of insanity.

>>91585379
I like how Barrie doesn't shy away from how disturbingly innocently cold children can be.

File: 1435043080893.png (39KB, 321x322px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 321x322px

>tiny fairy
>couldn't actually fuck her
>could just literally cover her in cum
That's kind of hot actually

>>91586098
>>91587475
>she can give your dick a massage with her entire body

>>91587475
>>91587529
>not using her as a living onahole and bloating her womb with your cum

step up your game senpai

>>91588023
If your dick fits in her anon, then I'm so sorry to hear that.

File: oh_my.gif (831KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 500x281px

>>91587529
I didn't know how much I wanted this.

>>91588052

If you believe she can stretch, she can.

>>91580524
Because according to the guy who wrote Peter Pan:
>“Fairies have to be one thing or the other, because being so small they unfortunately have room for one feeling only at a time.”

So when she gets jealous/mad she goes full bitch mode. It's just how fairies are.

>>91587529
>>91588079
Man, are you in for a treat. Search for
>[Zankoku Doumei] Liry-shee Rohi & Vis ver1.1

>>91588203
Thank you, based Anon.

>>91588224
It's fine. Spread the love. I only happened to come upon it by chance a few years ago, even though I knew of it even farther back due to browsing random "porn game" sites. Didn't even know it was part of a series of fucking tiny fairies. It's great.

>>91580567
>>91580579

There are plenty of ways to sexually please each other, despite the size difference

>>91580524
A friend of mine during a toasty bake sesh suggested that her "Fairy dust" is like spores and that everywhere she sprinkles, fairies might grow.

Then the two of us were taking about what that did to those kids, how they'd start growing these weird, sparkly tumors.

"Hope you had fun flying around and all, kids! Your bodies are now fairy nurseries!"

>>91588150
Suspension of disbelief, mate.

>>91581346
A fairy dies any time someone says they don't believe in fairies.

File: hey.png (3KB, 197x159px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 197x159px

When I was a kid, my friends parents took us to see return to never land in the theater. At some point in the movie I developed a crush on Tinkerbell, and when it got to the part where she was sick and dying I was quietly losing my mind. At the same time I was so autistic that I didn't want anyone to know I was so worried about her, because I'd been teased for having a crush already once before.
After the movie his parents asked my favorite part, and I distinctly remember wanting to say when they saved her, but lied and said something else.

Nowadays I just blame her for my short hair fetish

Good times

>>91588741
I don't believe in fairies.

File: 1491845044662.jpg (754KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 1024x1024px

>>91580524
Tink was the original magic-girl cuckquean

File: hook-glenn-close.jpg (51KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 620x400px

>>91588972
into the Boo Box with you!

>>91589053
i don't get it.

>>91589073
Streep was in Hook, Anon.

File: the-boo-box-o.gif (2MB, 320x138px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x138px

>>91589073

>>91580524
She's a fairy. They're possessive, fickle and frivolous by nature. Pixies are especially obnoxious.

>>91580567
>>91580579
She's not so weak that she couldn't change her size for a few minutes. I'm pretty sure she did just that in Hook. Her real problem is that she's immortal and can only imitate mortal feelings like love and regret, but malice and envy are her natural state.

>>91580524
Too much fairy dust

File: trapped in some guys basement send help.jpg (15KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 320x180px

>>91583341

>>91589391
Hook is pure fanfiction, doesnt count

>>91589391
>Immortal
>Can change size
You clearly dont know a lot avout the world of PP, not only can she not change size, she has a very short lifespan like all fairies. The book literally ends with her having died during the tine skip, Peter not even remembering her name as is his nature

>>91589752
This. Spielburg really didnt care much about the original book when he made Hook

>>91586689
>no prob of Tink using some kind of magic to shrink Peter (or grow herself) so that they may fully consummate their relationship
Having this desire for my OTP is suffering.

>>91580524
Literally small-minded

>>91581218
This is the actual canon explanation from the original book.

>>91588286

It's like bees and pollen/nectar. The bees benefit, the plants benefit, everyone's better off in the end.

>>91589091
I'm convinced she some sort of a chameleon alien from Planet Y.

>can only feel one emotion at a time because small
That's pretty fucking stupid and sounds like it was made up on the fly.

Like, pretending for a moment that fairy brains somehow have enough neural pathways to form a sapient mind(we'll assume their heads are dimensionally transcendental, since fae likely have several mystical physiological traits), that's not how brains work in the first fucking place.
>B-but magic!
Magic cannot, and never will excuse a blatant lack of logic. Unless fairy brains have separate emotional cores ala Portal, that can only be active one at a time, then the idea that they can only feel one emotion at a time makes no sense.

>>91590380

Wrong. It is magic and it does excuse leaps in logic.

>>91590703
Only if you're a total hack who has no business writing.

She's a fucking fairy, bro, they're all nutjobs.

>>91590802

Wrong. Barrie performed plenty of business as an author, still does. The guy produced a crazy amount of business and wealth. It's not sci-fi, it's fantasy, and the word 'supernatural' is key here.

>>91580524
"Fairies arent all bad. Sometimes they are all good. But, you see, they are so small that they only have room for ine feeling at a time."

Fairies of Pan lore aren't meant to be thought of as real people. That's why Disney fucked up when they made the Tink movies. Fairies are meant to have more in common with leaves, flowers and the innocence of childhood then they do with people. They are immortal but also fleeting.

Tink had special significance as a symbol of Peters childhood. The arrival of a girl (almost woman) posed a threat to the ignorant innocence she represented and, as such, was seen as a threat to Tink. Such a nuance might be manageable people, who are used to dealing with complex emotion but for a fairie, for whom there could only be all good and all bad, the presence of a threat like Wendy justified attempted murder.

Furthermore:
>What the fuck was her damage?
1d4-3, blunt

>>91583708
>>91583467
>>91583430
The hospital that holds the canon determination rights commissioned a sequel a few years ago. Tink gets resurrected.

>>91591106
>he's been in the game a long time, so you're not allowed to criticize him
Good to know we can all stop talking shit about George Lucas, because he's never EVER written anything that doesn't make logical sense.

The Force did it? Well that's okay then, cause as viewer, I have no standards whatsoever.

Seriously though, kill yourself. This is why magic is cancer.

File: Tinkerbell.jpg (292KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 600x600px

>>91583430
>>91583467
>>91583708
>fairies have a short lifespan
So did their movies.

>>91591617
They were fun while they lasted.

>>91588749
Man, hearing "i like the part where they save Tink." is the cutest thing to hear a child say.

In the original stage play, the part that inspired that scene was written for kids. Pan breaks the fourth wall in that scene and turns to the audience and says "clap your hands if you believe in fairies!" Originally, Barrie thought this might not go over well if there were only adults in the audience and specifically made sure a group of kids sat in near the front row so they could provide the necessary audience participation in the scene. He was surprised when the entire theater started clapping right away instead of just the children.

>>91591617
oh shit they killed of those direct to dvd tink movies?

The porn was fucking fantastic

File: mermaid with text.jpg (145KB, 500x372px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 500x372px

>>91590380
>sounds like it was made up on the fly
Canonically this is how all of Neverland was created. If you don't like that kind of imagination you're really not going to like this particular story.

File: 3e3 (1).jpg (84KB, 488x516px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 488x516px

>>91591544

File: Tinkerbell-peter-pan-6585238-300-226face.jpg (36KB, 300x226px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 300x226px

>>91591353
I'm still gonna go ahead and consider it non canon.

>>91592455
Nothing from Disney is canon.

>>91592408
>Neverland is equivalent to a hyperactive retard child's fever dream
You're right, that does sound like shit.

File: Tinkerbell intro.webm (2MB, 1000x562px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1000x562px

>>91592378
Yes. Comics and books are apparently still being made, but Neverbeast was the last movie they put out.

File: 1423526416587.gif (499KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 500x370px

>>91592487
Yeah, but I still enjoy the book and movie separately, and like to headcanon that some of the book may apply to the movie where not explicitly stated otherwise. I may check out this sequel someday and treat it as its own separate entity as well, though I really prefer to think of the book as a standalone.

>>91580567

Couldn't he just wear Tinker Bell as a condom while he fucks Wendy?

>>91592582
I don't think fairies can stretch like that

>>91591544

The mystery of the nature of the Force is the defining theme of Star Wars, though. By leaving such a core component of the story so mystical, audiences are able to reflect on philosophically and spirituality on the story. The fantasy element in Star Wars is one of its biggest successes, its a fantasy story, just like Peter Pan. Both are specifically designed to have the audience interacting with supernatural elements.

Whether or not George Lucas is timeless is still up for debate because people don't agree if he is even responsible for what was good about his team's best work.

>>91592848
>The mystery of the nature of the Force is the defining theme of Star Wars, though. By leaving such a core component of the story so mystical, audiences are able to reflect on philosophically and spirituality on the story.
Thematic "storytelling" is also a cancerous tumor that needs to be excised. Story and setting consistency are always more important than spewing faux-philosophical whoreshit. And yet, most writers will bend their narrative and derail their characters for the sake of making the work "deep".

Any writer's first and last priority should be on telling a good story with interesting characters. Then and only then, should you even approach an overarching thematic element, and only if it does not come at the expense of the narrative or characters.

Themes. Toss that pretentious drivel in the trash where it belongs.

>>91593271
He's using ancient philosophies and mystic mumbo-jumbo as an intrinsic part of his setting, not as a "theme". The Force is vaguely taoist bullshit and that's okay, just like D&D draws on a lot of European Mythology (especially viewed through the lens of near-modern literature)

>>91584191
If anything I think he'd double down if he knew his book would last throughout the ages.

The entire point of his book is that while being a kid is fun, everyone has to grow up at some point and having the mentality of a little kid your whole life would have really messed up implications.

File: l-20141109170040.png (241KB, 463x335px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 463x335px

>>91592706
Excuse me, gentlemen, but what this man said is factually incorrect. They absolutely can. Source: I am a scientist from /d/ and happen to be an expert on this subject.

>>91593271

Not every story is a documentary. Myth exists.

File: curiosity killed these cats.jpg (27KB, 300x383px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x383px

>>91594012
Very interesting, professor, a marvelous discovery. Would you care to share your knowledge of the subject for the benefit of /co/?

>>91594110
And your point is? Yes, myths exist, and they're all wildly inconsistent bullshit that pretentious idiots pretend to assign meaning to because they want to use public domain material without seeming every bit the uncreative retards they are.

File: brave knights.jpg (451KB, 1280x1052px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 1280x1052px

>>91594403
>>91593271
>>91591544
>>91590802
>>91590380
If you hate traditional storytelling methods so much, why don't you write some of your own stories?

>>91594803
Ah yes, the well worn battle cry of the creatively bankrupt. "I'd like to see you do better!". As if my lack of output somehow excuses your hackery.

You can try to change the subject all you like, but you ain't changing the fact that you(or rather, the works and writers you're defending) suck due to a needless focus on philosophical ramblings instead of on crafting a cohesive narrative about well designed characters.

File: tolkein.jpg (82KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 500x335px

>>91595026
>I'd rather sit and whine like an infant about what actual creative people put out than attempt to make an effort of my own

Men like Tolkein and Bradbury are laughing at you from somewhere

>>91595140
>"Only writers may criticize writers."
Yes, please, keep saying stupid shit. It'll only further reveal how much of a 2deep4u hipster you are.

File: chesterton.jpg (76KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 850x400px

>>91595366
That's not at all what I'm saying, and your denseness seems to imply you don't even know what you're saying, let alone what the other view is.

I'm not a published author, yet I know a crappy story when I hear one; a dry, boring tale with no moral whatsoever constitutes this. Nobody wants to read a book or watch a movie about Jimmy's uneventful day at school.

Since this conversation is increasingly belonging on /lit/ than /co/, let's keep this animation related. Name me a single animated film that doesn't have an overarching theme, or some moral to it. Go on, I'll wait.

Obviously nobody wants to watch a heavy-handed, anvilicious "save the planet" hack job, but people also don't want to watch Stewie's entire morning routine either. Characters and plots are simply tools to get the author's message across, and certainly nothing to be as angry about as you clearly are.

>>91595649
>A story needs to dictate morals to the audience, or it's bad.
Okay, I'll play. Why is that? Why does a story NEED a meaning? So armchair philosophers can circle jerk over insubstantial nonsense? Fuck that.

>Name me a single animated film that doesn't have an overarching theme, or some moral to it. Go on, I'll wait.
Obviously I can't, but said overarching themes are invariably the weakest part of the film.

>Characters and plots are simply tools to get the author's message across, and certainly nothing to be as angry about as you clearly are.
That is a frankly sickening attitude. You are the kind of pretentious snob Lewis Carroll was satirizing. Hell, Alice in Wonderland is the only work I've seen that has a message I like. That being that stories do not need a lesson to be entertaining.

>>91591617
It's too bad, those movies are underrated.

>>91580524
She was a xenophile

>>91587475
>>91587529
This has been my fetish for years. Knowing it can never happen is suffering.

>>91590380
https://youtu.be/ZZEJ3T3ryQY

File: chesterton1.jpg (77KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x500px

>>91596257
It's not that "a story needs morals or it's bad," it's that "audiences vastly prefer films with morals." It's not even "armchair philosophers" injecting their diatribe into stories- I hate that just as much as you do- I prefer a more nuanced, subtle moral to the story, not having it hit me over the head like an anvil. Everyone has their convictions and wishes to tell them through the pen; some are obviously better than others at letting their characters find the moral, rather than having the moral dictate to the characters. Little Red Riding Hood is about sexual predators, but it's subtle and the moral doesn't detract from the story.

If you can't even name a movie that doesn't have a moral to it, how can you claim they would be better without them? Again, this is where I encourage YOU yourself to explore the concept and write a story with no moral or theme.

Finally, yes, while you may not like it, characters and plots ARE in fact tools for storytelling. Humans, from the time we first sat around a fire in a cave somewhere, have always used stories to convey truths, examine ideas, or speculate on the future- all coming with morals.

Characters aren't real people, and plots aren't real events; they're used by the author as tools to let us know what things are important in life and what things we should put aside.

Remember, anon, tools are not good and tools are not bad. They're neutral; it's what the author DOES with them that makes them good or bad.

If you've honestly never seen a film with a message you liked or agreed with- which I seriously doubt- then broaden your horizons, because I guarantee there is a niche out there for you. Or, heck, maybe there are films with morals you agree with, but the film did such a good job of nuancing it you didn't even notice the moral was there.

File: sides.gif (2MB, 615x413px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 615x413px

>>91596492
10 out of fucking 10

Who is best fairy and why is it Pfil?

>>91596774
>Pfil
It's been awhile since I read that one. Thanks for the reminder.

>>91580524
Why is she so popular?
Is it because they didn't make her annoying like most of the small sidekick characters in Disney films?

>>91597875
Yeah, she's also got an actual personality. People tend to like characters with character

>>91597875
Legs

>>91595026

So you sincerely believe that the very clear explanation that Tinkerbell is a mystical creature who only had enough 'self' to have one emotion at a time, fundamentally breaks the cohesion of the narrative at large? It breaks the story beyond narrative or understanding?

Your edgy bravado isn't impressing anyone, the fact is you are irrationally conflating simple story telling methods with the total failure of of a story, and can't provide a damn single reason why to explain yourself except an apparent belief that stories can't function without a scientific analysis of each of its elements.


Tinkberbell has a clearly explained behavior and character. It allows her to serve the purpose of a childlike envious thing in a story about the importance of growing up. Tinkerbell is a great character, she functions according to the story's purpose in every scene that she's in, and people love her then and now. The fact that you are tone policing the people who disagree with you tells me that you spend a lot of time arguing your unconvincing point with people who don't care to hear it:

>>91596257

Meaning means purpose. If something doesn't have purpose then for what purpose was it made? That purpose could be to entertain, to inform, to inspire, to cause thought, or anything. Peter Pan entertains while giving a chanc for the audience to reflect on the stages of life.

You for some reason are acting like anything short of an instruction booklet or some traveler's digest doesn't count as a story because they might include imaginative elements or attempt to illicit emotion.

>>91598687
>So you sincerely believe that the very clear explanation that Tinkerbell is a mystical creature who only had enough 'self' to have one emotion at a time, fundamentally breaks the cohesion of the narrative at large? It breaks the story beyond narrative or understanding?
No. It's just stupid and doesn't make any logical sense. My point was that the idea is emblematic of an all too common issue in fantasy works, that being that magic is employed in ways that don't work when you actually stop and think about it. Magic is supposed to be a means of manipulating physical laws beyond what real world technology is currently capable of, but said manipulation often likes to pretend physics suddenly stop existing. I'm all for fudging the rules a little, but you can't outright cheat like this. Put some effort into the mechanics of your made up fantasy shit. I don't think that's too much to ask.

>>91580524
Fuck you and fuck these threads.

File: Screenshot_41.png (542KB, 791x613px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 791x613px

>>91599046
calm down tink

>>91598932
You might want to think back to about the year 1900 if you want to complain that people of that time were more open, less read, experienced nature, took things slower, took things on faith, believed in magic and god, and weren't taught that the only emotion to exist is anger. A fairy having only one emotion at a time isn't a stretch. Ever spent any time with a baby? Ever had a cat or a dog? Gone bird-watching?

>>91598932

What do you mean 'don't work when you stop to think about it'. Peter Pan clearly and overtly takes place in a place of fantasy, Neverland, where spirits and unseen forces guide the world in a way that works but isn't outwardly understood. It's written that way to mimic the way a child can't be expected to know or understand anything, and accepts the way of the world as something fantastical and beyond their selves.

But for the sake of argument, why wouldn't there be a humanoid insect who has a smaller frontal lobe, and who is lacking in emotional memory? And who's to say that a yet unforeseen guiding principle didn't take place in making this creature? A faity is fantastical to adults in the way a jellyfish is gantastical to children, it seems beyond reason that such a thing could exist, and yet it does. The purpose of Peter Pan is to make all age she of audience feel like what it is to be a child again, for a while.

>>91584990
I'm always on the look out for stories that show the old style of the Fair Folk. Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrel was probably the closest I have seen.

>>91588052

Could you not just like....have her spread her shit, and then try to get the tip close, and then nut in? I mean she could explode but it'd be worth it.

Thanks for the argument keeping the thread alive.

>>91599346
You read any of the Disworld Elves? They're more a modern reimagning of that traditional ideal but they count. Neil Gaiman's also done a more traditional Fair Folk in Stardust and a few issues of Sandman.

File: Screenshot_298.png (674KB, 1314x531px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 1314x531px

>>91600429
Just doing my job anon

>>91600592
So you have more Neil Gaiman fey folk beyond just Sandman? What where when please spoonfeed me

>>91580524
Good question, especially with all those fairy movies they made.>>91580524

>>91602516
Tinker Bell from the Peter Pan movie was more like the book, a more impulsive creature who had fits of jealousy. Tinker Bell from the books/comics/movies was more of her own character, taking on a few characteristics of the movie version (like turning red when upset) but otherwise having her own different personality.

Heck, you could almost say the Disney Fairies just took inspiration from the Peter Pan fairies and otherwise did their own thing. They have their own society, have their own problems, manage things on their own, and run into a bunch of stuff irrelevant to Peter Pan.