RandomPrincess
Keep Moving Forward
First clip with a tiny bit of singing and dancing. You can also see sets and costumes.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Peter Pan Live on NBC
- Thread starter Allym146
- Start date
RandomPrincess
Keep Moving Forward
An article about the changes to the music lots of songs are being added.
http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/11/18/peter-pan-live-new-songs/
How they will handle the song Ugg-a-Wugg
“Amanda has consulted with our Native American consultant [Jerod Tate], just in terms of replacing ‘Ugg-a-Wugg’ with something more traditionally Native American—which has been approved by them and the rights holders. Now and forever, this will hopefully be the version [in the show],” Meron said. Green said the process involved “stripping it down and taking out things that were silly in the day it was written and offensive today.” The new version of the song has Native American phrases, while “nonsense syllables” have been replaced with nursery rhymes.
http://insidetv.ew.com/2014/11/18/peter-pan-live-new-songs/
How they will handle the song Ugg-a-Wugg
“Amanda has consulted with our Native American consultant [Jerod Tate], just in terms of replacing ‘Ugg-a-Wugg’ with something more traditionally Native American—which has been approved by them and the rights holders. Now and forever, this will hopefully be the version [in the show],” Meron said. Green said the process involved “stripping it down and taking out things that were silly in the day it was written and offensive today.” The new version of the song has Native American phrases, while “nonsense syllables” have been replaced with nursery rhymes.
Mickey_777
Well-Known Member
Yeah I can't get into a play filmed for TV. Walken like that reminds of of Saturday night live. This isn't the first time Pan has been has with a female. I wonder why that is. Spiderman can be skinny and lanky dude, why not cast a guy like that for Pan?
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
A female was cast as Peter Pan for the story's very first performance, Maude Adams. A man wasn't considered a good choice at the time, and they couldn't have a boy playing Peter Pan because of an age limit law in England. After Adams' performance, a woman Peter Pan became the norm and tradition.
Mickey_777
Well-Known Member
A female was cast as Peter Pan for the story's very first performance, Maude Adams. A man wasn't considered a good choice at the time, and they couldn't have a boy playing Peter Pan because of an age limit law in England. After Adams' performance, a woman Peter Pan became the norm and tradition.
Now I know. And knowing is half the battle.
RandomPrincess
Keep Moving Forward
Although there are plenty of young men who could play Peter now.
disney4life2008
Well-Known Member
A female Peter Pan? Im good
imagineer boy
Well-Known Member
"And I wore this hook up my @$$ for two years."
FoozieBear
Well-Known Member
As if the NBC special doesn't look bad enough, WB released this trailer for their Peter Pan retelling, lamely named "Pan".
RandomPrincess
Keep Moving Forward
I don't think it looks bad. It's an origin story.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
This looks amazing, IMO. I saw it a few days ago, and I'm pumped for it. How is "Pan" lame? It's the name of the main character. Disney did the same thing, they just added the first name.
This film so far looks better than anything Disney's put out within the past decade.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
I'm shocked so many people didn't realize Peter Pan is typically played by a woman
Same.
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure about this one.
On the one hand I'm sick to spitting death of origin stories, especially those that take liberties with the original material.
On the other hand, it looks gorgeous.
There's precedent for that.
Last edited:
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
I understand. J.M Barrie, the author of Peter Pan, wrote an origins story for the title character, and it came after the original. It's called Peter in Kensington Gardens. No, this new film coming out is not like Kensington Gardens, but I always appreciate different takes of the general story of Peter Pan, mainly because I'm completely obsessed with it. Peter Pan is my all-time favorite literary character, and one of my top three favorite novels. So far, I have enjoyed every cinematic version (that I've seen) of the story, including Disney's version (although it's flawed), Hook, Universal's Peter Pan, Finding Neverland, SyFy's Neverland and hopefully this one. I have high hopes for both this film and NBC's production.
FoozieBear
Well-Known Member
I find it lame. Taking a classic movie and changing it to sound cooler, like Sony is doing within the next few years, taking the Robin Hood stories and calling it "Hood". They're trying to make it unnecessarily epic, and the end result is just lame. Disney didn't take the Oz origin story and call it Oz. They called it "Oz the Great and Powerful". Studios should be more original with their titles if they aren't going to stick to the proper story.
Anyway, the movie looks pretty awful. It's a bland boring remake of a story no one wanted to see. I'm pretty sick of these retellings at these points...the only one I semi enjoyed was Maleficent, other than that, they really have got to stop.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens was published before the play as part of a larger work and they're not really too connected in terms of plot. However, in both it and Peter and Wendy we learn that Peter ran away. Making him an orphan who is apparently abducted is a rather radical change. Hook is also the most feared of pirates.
FoozieBear
Well-Known Member
Somehow I feel "Hook" works better than "Pan". Why couldn't they just call it "Peter Pan". It just gets me annoyed.
It doesn't look like anything matches up to the original story. I don't even know why they bother basing it off the Peter Pan story if they are going to make such radical changes.
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
Presumably because the events in the plot of this movie are not the events in the play.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Peter and Wendy, aka Peter Pan debuted as a play in 1904, and Peter in Kensington Gardens was published in 1906, if I'm correct. I could be wrong.
Yes, it is a radical change, but I don't mind it. As I said earlier, I've always been open to dramatic changes made to the story, if the take is supposed to be entirely different, like Pan.
Peter Pan is mentioned as just "Pan" multiple times in the original work, so there's that. There's no change.
How can you call the entire movie bland and boring when you haven't even seen it? And stop speaking for everyone. You're entitled to your opinion, but please don't say things like "no one wants to see the movie".
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The Little White Bird was published in 1902 and included what became Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens.