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

Rambozo

Rambozo

Well-Known Member
PrinceCharming617 said:
I'm just happy Will Smith turned down the role of Captain Hook. Who knows what damage he could have caused to Chris Rock with a hook on his hand.
Click to expand...

I've heard the Will Smith rumor too, he seems like someone Disney would go with. He would have been an awful choice for the role.

Besides he's already played the Genie (badly), they want him to ruin Hook as well. Biggest overactor in the business, besides Jim Carrey (but it works for comedy).

Laaaazy!
 
Last edited:
The Great Gonzo

The Great Gonzo

Well-Known Member
I'm sure they are all fine young actors and being Jewish I know how important diversity is in films. But it's hard to suspend my belief and think I'm looking at Peter Pan and Tinkerbell. When they obviously look nothing like the characters.

It would be much better if they got their own characters. That we can love and believe them as. Instead of going the unnatural path and ruining movies and shows from the get go.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
The Great Gonzo said:
LOL, he should have never been female either.

I guess they wanted to have an adult play the role back then and females looked the most boyish. Pretty stupid when you look at it with todays eyes though.
Click to expand...

James Barrie, the author of Peter Pan, never wanted Peter to be played by a female (for obvious reasons). But the producer of the play wanted to build up the career of one of his contract actresses, so she got the part.

I remember seeing a video of the Peter Pan TV special from the 1960's, starring Mary Martin. I was a kid then, and thought it very weird that a lady was playing a boy. But the rest of the play - the flying, the pixie dust, Peter battling Captain Hook - made up for it. A lot.
 
G

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
If the concept is to have some kind of manufactured controversy about a female playing (portraying) the character Peter Pan, well sorry / not sorry, there have been 15 females that have portrayed Peter Pan beginning in 1904. Nothing new nor controversial but rather old history. History can be very revealing if actual research was done. By all means look it up.
 
G

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
Magenta Panther said:
James Barrie, the author of Peter Pan, never wanted Peter to be played by a female (for obvious reasons). But the producer of the play wanted to build up the career of one of his contract actresses, so she got the part.

I remember seeing a video of the Peter Pan TV special from the 1960's, starring Mary Martin. I was a kid then, and thought it very weird that a lady was playing a boy. But the rest of the play - the flying, the pixie dust, Peter battling Captain Hook - made up for it. A lot.
Click to expand...
Yes! Sandy Duncan too!
1678113819145.png
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Magenta Panther said:
James Barrie, the author of Peter Pan, never wanted Peter to be played by a female (for obvious reasons). But the producer of the play wanted to build up the career of one of his contract actresses, so she got the part.

I remember seeing a video of the Peter Pan TV special from the 1960's, starring Mary Martin. I was a kid then, and thought it very weird that a lady was playing a boy. But the rest of the play - the flying, the pixie dust, Peter battling Captain Hook - made up for it. A lot.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for the objection to the pantomime tradition of the Principle Boy being carried over?
 
Frankenstein79

Frankenstein79

Well-Known Member
It seems like Disney is unable to make a good new story (Strange World, Lightyear, Turning Red) or remake (Pinocchio, Aladdin, Maleficent). The main reason is they've got a bunch of idiots running the show. Who couldn't come up with a good idea, if someone handed them one.

They probably spend more time trying to figure out how they can fit in their agendas and opinions.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
MickeyMouse10 said:
The main reason Peter Pan is often played by a female in "Plays" is simple... their voices. For "Plays" you can't cast a 13 year old boy, because his voice will drastically change as he gets older. With an adult female it stays relatively the same, thus they feel they fit the part more.
Click to expand...
That is not the reason for the Principle Boy tradition.
 
oogie boogie man

oogie boogie man

Well-Known Member
I would rather see Princess and the Frog be made into a live action. I think Peter Pan is played out because it's in the public domain.

At least with Princess and the Frog, it's their own unique version of The Frog Prince. With an actual P.O.C., whose a strong character. Since she had to work to get what she wanted and wasn't just handed things. A very important character for the P.O.C., and she's even more relevant because of her new attraction.
 
RunForestRun

RunForestRun

Active Member
oogie boogie man said:
I would rather see Princess and the Frog be made into a live action. I think Peter Pan is played out because it's in the public domain.

At least with Princess and the Frog, it's their own unique version of The Frog Prince. With an actual P.O.C., whose a strong character. Since she had to work to get what she wanted and wasn't just handed things. A very important character for the P.O.C., and she's even more relevant because of her new attraction.
Click to expand...

I agree, it would be nice to have it and a new black princess. The handmedowns aren't fair to them or the people who grew up with the characters.

They messed up Sleeping Beauty as well, which was my favorite when I was a kiddo.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
Do you have a source for the objection to the pantomime tradition of the Principle Boy being carried over?
Click to expand...

...assuming you're asking about the tradition of a woman playing Peter Pan, yep, I've got the receipts.

slate.com

Why is Peter Pan Usually Played by a Woman?

Earlier this week, NBC announced plans to follow their hugely successful live version of The Sound of Music with a live adaptation of the musical...
slate.com slate.com

A couple of excerpts from the article:

In his 1979 book, J.M. Barrie and the Lost Boys: The Real Story Behind Peter Pan, English writer and director Andrew Birkin recounts the backstory for the first stage productions. Broadway producer Charles Frohman enthusiastically agreed to produce the play, and he made a couple of suggestions to the author. First, that it be titled, simply, Peter Pan; Barrie’s working title was The Great White Father, which is what Barrie has the Indians call Peter. (That phrase has uncertain origins but was—and is—used by some Native Americans to refer to white leaders.) Second, Frohman asked that, in America, the starring role of Peter be played by his protégé, Maude Adams. Frohman reasoned that a man would be wrong for the part, and if they cast a boy, the other children “would have to be scaled down in proportion.” English law prohibited the use of minors under 14 on stage after 9 p.m. So a woman it was.

And:

According to Birkin, Barrie always wished to see a boy play Peter on stage, though he never lived to see it occur.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom