Disney Preparing Live-Action Peter Pan with Pete’s Dragon Director

[MisterPenguin]

May I excuse Togo from that list? I really liked it the first time I saw it, rewatched it again recently, and that last scene was just as devastating as the first time I saw it.

Togo was better than Call of the Wild. Too much CGI.

Togo was one of the few straight-to-D+ movies that good good ratings.

 

[Heppenheimer]

I watched this film over the weekend. Big "meh" for me.

Peter Pan is a tough story to pull off, the title character in particular. I agree with some of the others that even the 50s animated version missed some crucial aspects of the story, mainly Wendy deciding that it's time to leave childhood (and hence Peter Pan and Neverland) behind her. The difficult part is to show Wendy's choice as the correct decision while still leaving Peter as a generally fun and whimsical character. Peter can't be the villain.

Although I thought this film did Wendy better than previous attempts, except for some of the opening scenes, it largely lacked the fun and whimsy part. Neverland had far too much of a grim-dark appearance. Not the kind of place that could convince kids to never grow up.

In the initial scene where he shows up in the children's room, I thought the actor hit Peter Pan's essence. He has the kind of positive energy that attracts the other children, but is somewhat of a bratty kid who lacks emotional maturity. But then the rest of the script requires him to be morose, which just really doesn't work for the character or what the remainder of the plot requires.

For Tinkerbell, removing the jealousy subplot basically just turned her into a deus ex machina character.

I was disappointed in Jude Law as Captain Hook too. He seemed almost bored in the role.

One final nit-picking complaint. Turning the pilot's wheel of a ship turns the rudder, which adjusts the ships's heading, not the roll!

 

[LittleBuford]

I watched this film over the weekend. Big "meh" for me.

Peter Pan is a tough story to pull off, the title character in particular. I agree with some of the others that even the 50s animated version missed some crucial aspects of the story, mainly Wendy deciding that it's time to leave childhood (and hence Peter Pan and Neverland) behind her. The difficult part is to show Wendy's choice as the correct decision while still leaving Peter as a generally fun and whimsical character. Peter can't be the villain.

Although I thought this film did Wendy better than previous attempts, except for some of the opening scenes, it largely lacked the fun and whimsy part. Neverland had far too much of a grim-dark appearance. Not the kind of place that could convince kids to never grow up.

In the initial scene where he shows up in the children's room, I thought the actor hit Peter Pan's essence. He has the kind of positive energy that attracts the other children, but is somewhat of a bratty kid who lacks emotional maturity. But then the rest of the script requires him to be morose, which just really doesn't work for the character or what the remainder of the plot requires.

For Tinkerbell, removing the jealousy subplot basically just turned her into a deus ex machina character.

I was disappointed in Jude Law as Captain Hook too. He seemed almost bored in the role.

One final nit-picking complaint. Turning the pilot's wheel of a ship turns the rudder, which adjusts the ships's heading, not the roll!

I agree with pretty much all of this except your characterisation of Law’s performance, which I thought was the strongest of the film.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Universal’s Peter Pan is still the gold standard. That one hasn’t been topped yet.

 

[tcool123]

Universal’s Peter Pan is still the gold standard. That one hasn’t been topped yet.

Really? I thought it was Peter Pan - Live!

 

[lazyboy97o]

I was disappointed in Jude Law as Captain Hook too. He seemed almost bored in the role.

I feel we were robbed by not having Alan Tudyk play Mr. Darling and Captain Hook.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Really? I thought it was Peter Pan - Live!

I remember watching this when it debuted. Cringe.

 

[Californian Elitist]

I feel we were robbed by not having Alan Tudyk play Mr. Darling and Captain Hook.

I forgot to mention this in my post as well. I too wanted the traditional Mr. Darling/Captain Hook same actor dynamic.

 

[Heppenheimer]

I feel we were robbed by not having Alan Tudyk play Mr. Darling and Captain Hook.

I'm guessing the addition of the plot point of Captain Hook being an old friend of Peter's who grew up probably would have complicated the symbolism.

Plus, in this version, Mrs. Darling serves as more of the authority figure for Wendy to rebel against than Mr. Darling.

 

[Magenta Panther]

My apologies. When you said this:

I'm a bit surprised by the reviewer's honesty. That seems to be a no-no regarding unofficial Disney websites these days... ​

I thought you were referencing the oft posited theory that Disney forces vloggers to only say good things.

Apology accepted.

Anyway, I think this crappy remake will definitely get looked at on Disney+. People are curious, a la traffic accident. And what else are the customers gonna watch - Moana again?

 

[BuddyThomas]

Really? I thought it was Peter Pan - Live!

Really? I thought it was Peter Pan Goes Wrong

 

[dreday3]

Movie was okay.

Thought Jude Law was great as Hook.

Didn't like Peter, but I never liked him. He's a brat.

Tink was adorable and actress fit the part perfectly.

Barely noticed girls were part of the Lost Boys, because as they said, who cares.

Doubt will watch again

 

[doctornick]

I just finished it. I’m afraid I found it earnest to the point of tedium. I particularly disliked the idea that Peter and Hook had been childhood friends, and I missed the cheekiness of the animated Tinkerbell. It just wasn’t fun or whimsical enough for me. On the plus side, I thought the acting was strong all around (Jude Law’s Hook was my favourite), and they dealt well with Tiger Lily’s character.

This basically reflects my view. Some good stuff but the lack of whimsy made it kind of difficult to watch.

Off hand, I feel like this should have been a Hulu release (or Star in other countries) to set the proper expectations. Releasing it on D+ as a “Disney” film (castle and all to start) puts on some burden to be “true” to the animated film and/or more accessible to children than this was IMHO.

 

[Californian Elitist]

This basically reflects my view. Some good stuff but the lack of whimsy made it kind of difficult to watch.

Off hand, I feel like this should have been a Hulu release (or Star in other countries) to set the proper expectations. Releasing it on D+ as a “Disney” film (castle and all to start) puts on some burden to be “true” to the animated film and/or more accessible to children than this was IMHO.

I disagree that having the Disney logo somehow creates this notion that the live-action remakes have to be almost exactly like their animated counterparts. I think the film is perfectly suitable for children as well.

 

[erasure fan1]

I disagree that having the Disney logo somehow creates this notion that the live-action remakes have to be almost exactly like their animated counterparts.

And that's the catch 22 of it all. You can really argue it both ways in my opinion. If you remake it and keep it 100% the same. What's the point? You've already made that movie. If you change it too much. Why not just create something new? Make it within universe but with a new story and different characters at least. Any of these remakes, like it or not, will be compared to the original. So you will always have a split between fans.

 

[Californian Elitist]

And that's the catch 22 of it all. You can really argue it both ways in my opinion. If you remake it and keep it 100% the same. What's the point? You've already made that movie. If you change it too much. Why not just create something new? Make it within universe but with a new story and different characters at least. Any of these remakes, like it or not, will be compared to the original. So you will always have a split between fans.

Because creating something new means risking not making money.

I think it’s perfectly acceptable for the same company to re-imagine their products. They do it all the time. What we think is “new” really isn’t anyway, a lot of the time.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Apparently Disney got Rotten Tomatoes to pull reviews down for a few days, citing "review bombing" but they're back up and they haven't improved at all.

 

[doctornick]

This is just another example to me of Disney being bizarre with their IP. if you are going to do a remake or a sequel then the value is to build on the goodwill and nostalgia what the original. But Disney has been making these IP stuff in a way that often turns off the potential base audience and in ways that is not even surprising to occur. Peter Pan & Wendy isn’t the worst offender but still if you are going to use an IP, make sure whatever you do will be loved by those who love the original. That’s how you get hype and positive reviews.

Disney isn’t alone in this - witness Velma for example - but they have been doing it a lot partially because they have so much IP and are seeking to leverage it.