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

[RunForestRun]

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.

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.

 

[erasure fan1]

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

Unfortunately princess and the frog is too problematic. It's biggest complaint is, the first African American princess, and she's a frog for 90% of the movie. They won't make that mistake again.

 

[Screamface]

Unfortunately princess and the frog is too problematic. It's biggest complaint is, the first African American princess, and she's a frog for 90% of the movie. They won't make that mistake again.

But just imagine how terribly amazing it will look brought to life in CGI!!

The world can't be denied seeing that.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Do you have a source for the objection to the pantomime tradition of the Principle Boy being carried over?

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

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

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.

 

[Snow Queen 83]

 

[Phroobar]

Freaky Fairy Friday

 

[Magenta Panther]

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.

THERE ya go. I'd be interested in a live-action Princess and the Frog if it handled Dr. Facilier better. To me, he's the most sympathetic Disney villain. A black man in his time had very little power - so he sought out what power he could. His choice and use of that power was problematic, but I can certainly understand why he did what he did. If I could wave a magic wand and redo any Disney film, it'd be PatF. I'd make Dr. Facilier the leading man - not that bland weak Prince Naveen. With Facilier and Tiana as the leads, the movie could have told another Beauty and the Beast story - a good woman turning a bad man around. It'd be a lot more interesting than what we got. Anyway, it's fun to think about...

 

[MoonRakerSCM]

I was curiously intrigued by the realistic style they went with for Neverland. I'm quite curious for this one and looking forward to checking it out.

Only part that didn't grab me is Peter Pan himself, the portrayal comes off as bland at least in the trailer.

 

[Minnesota disney fan]

Another example of Disney raping it's own film library.

Why can't they come up with something original? All they do now is go live action of their old films.

 

[erasure fan1]

Why can't they come up with something original? All they do now is go live action of their old films.

The short answer is they don't need to. Remakes make money because people show up. It's low hanging fruit. No matter how many people complain about them, the money is all that matters.

 

[Phroobar]

The short answer is they don't need to. Remakes make money because people show up. It's low hanging fruit. No matter how many people complain about them, the money is all that matters.

That is the traditional answer but I don't know how true it is anymore.

(world wide)
Christopher Robin (2018) $197,744,377
Lady and the Tramp (2019) $0
Aladdin (2019) $1,054,304,000
Dumbo (2019) $353,284,621
Maleficent: Mistress of evil (2019) $491,730,089
Mulan (2020) $69,965,374
Curella (2021) $233,503,234
Pinocchio (2022) $0

Outside of Aladdin, nothing here is a blockbuster. Maybe they think new markets (China) won't watch old cartoons? They need a live action version?

 

[erasure fan1]

That is the traditional answer but I don't know how true it is anymore.

(world wide)
Christopher Robin (2018) $197,744,377
Lady and the Tramp (2019) $0
Aladdin (2019) $1,054,304,000
Dumbo (2019) $353,284,621
Maleficent: Mistress of evil (2019) $491,730,089
Mulan (2020) $69,965,374
Curella (2021) $233,503,234
Pinocchio (2022) $0

Outside of Aladdin, nothing here is a blockbuster. Maybe they think new markets (China) won't watch old cartoons? They need a live action version?

Jungle book and lion king each did around a billion if I remember right. And beauty and the beast was well over a billion. The first maleficent was pretty high too, 800+. Cinderella made money as well. When you have that success, they're going to keep trying. Im sure they feel that if Mulan had released under normal conditions it would have done better.

 

[Phroobar]

Jungle book and lion king each did around a billion if I remember right. And beauty and the beast was well over a billion. The first maleficent was pretty high too, 800+. Cinderella made money as well. When you have that success, they're going to keep trying. Im sure they feel that if Mulan had released under normal conditions it would have done better.

Except those movies were a long time ago. I was trying to be in the last five years. They released eight movies that did terrible except Aladdin.

 

[erasure fan1]

Except those movies were a long time ago. I was trying to be in the last five years. They released eight movies that did terrible except Aladdin.

Ok, I see what you're saying. That's true, but I don't think Disney is gonna give up on it anytime soon. Because if they did, they'd have to start being creative. Lol

 

[MoonRakerSCM]

Holy monkeys! I just fully comprehended the title of this thread! This is being directed by he dude who made Pete's Dragon???? That abomination of a film that had no right being called Pete's Dragon???? My interest has dropped a few noches...

 

[MickeyMouse10]

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.

Me too, I think that it would be more fresh. Since Disney is the only one that owns this particular version. Plus I'd like to see an African American in a role that was actually made for them. It wouldn't get any negative feedback based on it's casting choices either. Because Tiana actually looks and is black.

Lately Disney has actually been doing black people a disservice, by casting them in already established white roles. Which they look nothing like at all. Because of not only the negative feedback they unfortunately get, but the believability factor. It makes it impossible to get lost in the movie. The viewer can't really suspend their belief at all, because in the back of their mind they know Peter and Tinkerbell don't look like how they are presented.

 

[tcool123]

The only “issue” I have is that Peter Pan doesn’t have red hair beyond that truthfully? It has no bearing whatsoever on the plot therefore I could care less who or what plays that role - these are fictional characters people, get a grip on reality

If something like this causes you so much headache, I suggest taking a walk amongst nature.

 

[Phroobar]

The only “issue” I have is that Peter Pan doesn’t have red hair beyond that truthfully? It has no bearing whatsoever on the plot therefore I could care less who or what plays that role - these are fictional characters people, get a grip on reality

If something like this causes you so much headache, I suggest taking a walk amongst nature.

Or see a mental health therapist.

 

[khlaylav]

Can 99.9% of the people just go outside and touch some grass? Good lord.

 

[MisterPenguin]

The Walt Disney Studios

The Walt Disney Studios encompasses a collection of respected film studios, including Disney, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar Animation Studios, Lucasfilm, Marvel Studios, Searchlight Pictures, and 20th Century Studios.

www.disneystudios.com