Billy Moon wrote:2099net wrote:As for films, some of the sequels I think are better than the originals are Bride of Frankenstien, Scream 2, Gremlins II, Ghostbusters II and Return to Neverland.
Excuse me? I haven't seen Return to Neverland, it just didn't seem like something I'm willing to waste my time with, so I'm extremely interested in hearing why and in what way do you prefer it over Peter Pan?
This is, of course, only my opinion but I never actually saw what Peter Pan was actually about. It's nothing more than a sequence of barely related events. This is not a critique of the Disney movie, but a critique of the actual stage play as well.
My biggest problem is that the moral or point to the story seems to be confused. It would appear that the whole film is celebrating childhood - after all, all of Peter's jolly japes are nothing but adventure games to him, but at the end Wendy does, in effect 'grow up' by announcing that she is ready to leave the nursary. Something she didn't want to do at the start of the film. So what is the film actually saying? Is the film for growing up or against growing up?
When discussing the success of Pixar films and the lack of success for other recent Disney animated films, I always see the point "The Story is all that matters" and to me, Peter Pan has a weak story. Peter Pan's introduction is nothing but a contrivance, Wendy's and the children's motivations throughout are weak, and apart from Hook most of the characters are bland and interchangable. What do the extended Darling family actually add to the plot? What is the whole point of the Tiger-Lilly kidnapping other than filler?
Return to Neverland has a wonderful opening set in London during WW2, which unlike the opening of Peter Pan actually adds to the story. We see how a girl like Jane grew up the way she did.
We get a much better reason for going to Neverland with Hook's kidnapping of Jane, and thanks to the darkness of war torn London, Neverland seems much more magical.
We get a main character (Jane) who has clear motivation throughout the film.
We get a meaner Hook who actually succeeds in tricking Jane and does finally accomplish his goal.
We get a nod to the "believe in fairies" part of the stageplay, which was for some reason dropped from the original Disney film.
And most important of all, we get a proper ending with a proper meaning - it's important to remain a child at heart, even when grown up.
This Peter Pan story has a proper Beginning, Middle and End.
It's not perfect - the Octopus is pointless and they may as well have used the crocodile again (or nothing at all). But in my opinion the story and script are head and shoulders above the original.
And the animation, while not up to the standard of the original, is far from being bad (and is actually fantastic given it was animated on a budget of 1/7th of Treasure Planet's). But quality of animation isn't everything is it? Or else you'd be so narrow minded that you'd never have watched the Simpsons, or (the original) Scooby Doo, or Duck Tales, or any other worthwhile and entertaining television programme or film that doesn't have a Disney Feature budget.
Oh, and thomashton, Ghostbusters II is much better than one, because it has a much stronger villain. And the stronger the villain, the stronger the heroes.
(although the Statue of Liberty section apes the Marshmallow Man section too much).
)...but still, RTN is a stinker, I think.
