Favourite Peter Pan film ..?

[shibbydm]

Hook?
Peter Pan (Disney)?
Peter Pan (2003) Live action
Finding Neverland?

I personally have a little soft spot for the 2003 version as it follows the book so closely plus i think Jeremy Sumpter does a wonderful job of being Peter!!! I remember going to the cinema to see that film at Christmas and feeling all lovely and happy afterwards.

Cheers Barrie.
x

[Peter@heart]

 I myself must confess to having fallen rather in love with Jeremy Sumpter the first time I saw that version of Peter Pan. But nothing can ever compare to the book.

[Hannah High]

ooh! Don't bring the pitch forks after me, but can't say I share this enthusiam about the 2003 film...I really couldn't see or hear Peter in acting or any aspect of the film. Also hated the adding of the aunt, and Hook flying (sorry I have a pet peeve against films that have "power falling into the wrong hands!" themes...especially if it's fairy dust). Also missed the mother theme. That was cynical, but then again, I don't like ANY of the Peter Pan films (except The Lost Boys). Hook is always so boring or pathetic in the movies, and I've never watched someone capture Peter or his relationship with others (though 2003 had an interesting take on Peter's love affair, and I liked Peter's struggle about Wendy leaving him). For me, it's not really a matter of the film being different than what I imagined the book to be (though they always are!), it's that they're usually too filled with grownup ideas, and worse of all...MORALS! They seem to protray Neverland so lost in the translation that you can't even hear Barrie's voice...no heartlessness, no sense of humour, and none of the films have any of the haunting or tearjerking ways that book/plays do. It's a pity, cause everyone thinks Neverland and Pan are the junk in the Disney film or rubbish in Hook, and has no idea about Barrie, much less the very real and heart rendering story. Actually, haven't seen these films in years, nor will i see any of the new ones being released. I loved Peter Pan as a kid, so my mum got me the films mentioned above, and I tried to devour each one, but once she bought me The Lost Boys, and I watched Ian Holm become Barrie and heard Birkin's script...never went back to the others!

[Hannah High]

Also, not enough death in any of the Peter Pan adaptations.

[shibbydm]

I agree the 2003 version is very Barrie-less which is a shame but i suppose they are just trying to get a film out to a mass audience i suppose - at whatever cost even if it is the voice of Barrie!!

I wasnt fussed on Hook flying either but i loooooove the love story and the fairy dance and utterly hearted the "i do believe in fairies" sequence i thought that was soooo sweet!!

[Hannah High]

but i loooooove the love story and the fairy dance and utterly hearted the "i do believe in fairies" sequence i thought that was soooo sweet!!

Yes, i did too. Both those scenes were two I could bear and quite enjoyed. I only wish they showed more kinds of children like barrie imagined (eg not just several nippers in London, but elsewhere like "and naked papooses in their baskets hung from trees." but that's asking a little much for a film budget. And it was cool how they added the adults in - Mr. Darling saying it to his coworkers made me laugh!) Still the scene was moving. In fact, a few years ago, my baby nephew was dying in the hospital, and after doing all we could do, except wait, I remember, sobbing on the floor, praying and then popping in this blasted video, and crying along with the scene (and then sending letters across cyberspace for others to clap with me, "I do believe, I do, I do!") My nephew made a sudden recovery and came home the next day...true story!

Ah, I wish I remembered this sooner! 

[TheWendybird]

2003 live action ALL THE WAY...BUT...I do think more Barrie-isms should have been included and I don't care for the Hook flying either. I love the fact that the Peter/Wendy love is shown more in depth..honestly I think i read in some of Barrie's notes stuff about boy and girl falling love and one where Wendy had some mark on her that meant she could return to Peter and what not..I love the ..well..love aspect that is shown more of in the movie. But I think the mother stuff shoulda been in there more and more er...brattiness hehe Though I think the love/mother stuff would creep some people out..some people just don't have half a brain cell to understand how that could work lol Peter doesn't know much but i think he feels much...though he won't admit it half the time lol Including in the '03 movie. But still it ends and you know he loves her. It's very sweet. Me and my boyfriend met through our mutual love of originally the movie...but also the book. I read the book after I saw the movie.

[CiaranHaggerty]

its still waiting to be made.....

[jodegal]

As a child I enjoyed watching the Disney version of Peter Pan. I enjoyed Finding Neverland although that's more about the author than Peter Pan, I would say. I am interested in seeing The Lost Boys, and currently have it on my rental list. I think I will choose Hook because it's not meant to be the actual Peter Pan story it's more like a sequel or a differt interpretation of what happens after or what if Peter did stay. Whereas the Disney version and the 2003 version are meant to be based on the book but they changed several things. Although it has been a while since I have seen the 2003 version and do not really remember it anymore, I would like to rewatch it again.

[AlexanderDavid]

I'm with CiaranHaggerty in that it has yet to be made, and may not be made at all, sadly, but....

With those four as the choices, it's really hard to say for me.  I guess Finding Neverland, though, because even though it's not technically a Peter Pan film, we get to see part of the authentic play as J. M. Barrie wrote it--rather than the derivative musicals so often seen nowadays.  So ironically, even with the inconsistencies of the historical "story behind the story," that's probably the closest they've gotten to Barrie's vision in a movie so far, and I fear it may be as close as they ever come, at least in the near future.

The Disney version is hard to get out of my head since it's my first experience with Peter Pan (and I've almost got it memorized now), although frankly I don't really care for it that much, and not just because of the inconsistencies with Barrie (even as a kid it didn't impress me as much as other Disney fare, and there was too much physical humor), and now I note the similarities with their version of Mary Poppins, which kind of bothers me--and also their "all just a dream" ambiguity such as is found in the film version of The Wizard of Oz (but not the book).

Didn't really like the 2003 version a whole lot either, though in some ways it was better than the Disney version (like more faithful to Barrie).  In other ways, though, it seemed worse: too much CGI special effects, for example, and worst of all, it gives the impression of needing to have a passing familiarity with the story before you watch it (NEVER a good idea in a film), as some things aren't fleshed out (like the Lost Boys).  At least Disney's version didn't feel like that (even though we still never knew the Lost Boys' names).  Plus I never cared for Aunt Millicent and would have preferred seeing Liza instead (for once)....

As for Hook, I'm kind of in two minds about that.  I recently saw it again on TV and this time noted all the references to J. M. Barrie's original, and the Great Ormond Street Hospital, and all the things I didn't get when I first saw the film.  While I liked that, as far as it went, the very premise of the film goes completely contrary to Barrie's point, so quite frankly that was probably a BAD idea for this kind of film, to make so many references to Barrie's original.  In addition, I felt it was poorly named, as the movie seemed less about Hook himself than about Peter Banning--it's really just a typical "father being reunited with his family and his past" type story (not an un-Disney-ish notion), only in this case the father is Peter Pan all grown up and needing to remember his past to defeat his old nemesis and save his children.  I guess I find the premise interesting, but I think it could have been handled better.

I also agree with Hannah High in that I prefer The Lost Boys to Finding Neverland, but aside from it not being listed in the first post, I didn't bring it up because you see so little of Peter Pan itself in The Lost Boys (though I did like the special performance for Michael in the second part of the miniseries).  Thus it really counts even less as a PETER PAN film than Finding Neverland does.

[Hannah High]

good points, Alex. I admit I certainly don't judge the Peter Pan versions fairly as I just can't see Peter without Barrie, but if I had to judge the films on their own, I probably wouldn't care for them. I certainly didn't as child before I knew Barrie even existed. And I'm NOT gonna see them again for a second opinion. Googling PP, I just found the Mia Farrow one on youtube. Never seen it before and am watching it now. Only about 15 minutes in, and I thought I would hate it. Andrew Birkin wrote it, and his scripts are awesome, but artwork usually gets mauled, and indeed, I think we could do without the songs and have more from the story. Still when I'm not fast-forwarding their singing, I find that the rest has somehow captured me. Mary Martin versions and others make me want to throw up (and not just because of the songs!), but Farrow seems so real as Peter...a careless boy, there's something about her emotion. Can't exactly say. Maybe I'll write more later after I finish watching it, but for now, this is the only performance of Peter's character I've seen that I've actually liked - really liked!

[andrew]

Thanks for that, Hannah - but I only co-wrote that adaptation, along with an amicable Hollywood hack brought in to write gags for Danny Kaye. I loathed the songs, but loved Mia...

[mikey2573]

I still think the definitive PETER PAN film has yet to be made. I do have a fondness for the 2003 film simply because Peter is actually played by a boy and not a woman.  The only female I have seen who was able to capture the "boyness" of Peter was Sandy Duncan on stage.  No feminine mannerisms at all--she was all boy.  I also like the fact that, in the '03 film, Hook almost beats Peter.  I have never really felt that Hook was an equal nemesis for Peter -he is usually played by someone old, and not very threatening.  So when Isaac's Hook actually turns the tables on Peter by pointing out that Wendy was leaving him, and then we see Peter lying on the deck of the ship...it looks like Hook has finally beaten Peter.  I really liked that.  Hook was more of an equal to Peter and therefore you really felt that Peter could lose.  Not so in any of the others.
I also just finished watching the Mia Farrow/Danny Kay TV version.  I liked the way Farrow played Peter.  I agree that most of the songs were forgettable, though I really liked the song for the Lost Boys about mothers.  They sing disdainfully about mothers, but end the song by asking "Who needs a mother?" and they each sing "I do" "And I do"  Very sweet.  I also liked some of Kaye's funny bits (sorry Andrew).  Especially his line about the croc.
HOOK:  But, he swallowed a clock that goes "tic-toc" inside him.
SMEE: Lucky for you, Captain.
HOOK: Yes........They don't always do that.
That cracks me up every time!
Mary Martin's TV version is ok, but Martin is so feminine in the role.  I really dislike her Peter.
I really dislike the Disney version.
BUT, don't forget the silent movie.  I read PETER PAN to my 3rd grade students every year.  Then I show them the movie.  They think they will see the cartoon or the 03 movie.  I show them the silent version. WHAT?? It's in BLACK AND WHITE! And they don't talk!!But, the kids sit very quietly through it and laugh a lot.  They really like it.  And it is important for them to see how movies were makde back before color and sound.  It's a bit of a history lesson.
 But I guess, until something better comes along. the 2003 movie will have to do.
I am surprised, PETR PAN being such a British work, that there aren't any BBC productions of PETER PAN.  We here in the USA have 3 TV versions (Mary Martin, Mia Farrow and Cathy Rigby).  You folks in the UK have none!

[TICKING]

members, does anyone recall the reason or choice why females always played peter pan ? i justed ordered the 2003 version and when i recieve it and read the original novel , i will comment on it. i believe that we will never see a movie as good as any book really. i think peter jackson did a wonderful job with tolkien's works.perhaps andrew could be involved in something in the future..........ralph [ticking]

[AlexanderDavid]

members, does anyone recall the reason or choice why females always played peter pan ? i justed ordered the 2003 version and when i recieve it and read the original novel , i will comment on it. i believe that we will never see a movie as good as any book really. i think peter jackson did a wonderful job with tolkien's works.perhaps andrew could be involved in something in the future..........ralph [ticking]

I heard it was because of child labor laws not permitting an actual child to portray the role (and then that just became a tradition in later adaptations), but I'm not sure if that's entirely the case.

That was in The Lost Boys, and Charles Frohman even added that having a grown woman in a trouser role would add an extra "oomph" factor to bring in money, but Barrie didn't like it--it was too much like a pantomime.

That's about all I can say, but I'll leave it to Andrew or someone else in the know to answer you better.