disneychris04 wrote:2099net wrote:Peter Pan is the movie with no plot! Almost nothing in Peter Pan has any concequence for the characters. (True, Wendy does decide to move out of the nursery at the end of the film, but the reason is not clearly stated in the film).
Return to Never Land has a plot, as it actually follows the development of Jane's character. Her character development has a beginning, a middle and an end.
Although
Return to Never Land has a more significant plot than the original, the original beats this 2002 MovieToons film by 100 times. The original is simply funnier, more entertaining, more exciting than the sequel. Lack of plot doesn't always mean that the film is bad, especially when you're talking about a
classic like
Peter Pan.
Return to Never Land doesn't even come close to its predecessor's quality. Period.
But who decides it's a classic? Disney with their own egotistical labeling? Reviewers and critics? Or do people actually make up their own mind? I've never thought the original was a "classic".
Personally I think the original Peter Pan is nothing more than an episodic mess. True, the blame for this can be placed on the original story, but things keep happening for
no reason. It doesn't mean it's a bad film - I love the South America compilation features. But they don't pretend to be something else. I think most of Peter Pan is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Peter looses his shadow. This is nothing more than a device to introduce us to Peter. Nothing in the rest of the story references this.
Tiger Lilly's kidnap and subsequence rescue from Captain Hook serves no purpose other to, presumably, show how cruel Captain Hook can be. In fact, the whole affair with the indians doesn't really add anything to the story (a brief fable with the moral "don't judge by appearences" maybe?)
I'm also confused as to the whole Wendy as mother thread too. Is this why she decides to move out of the nursery when she gets back? Surely her experiences with the Lost Boys would have made her more determined to remain with her siblings? Or does she acknowledge that children have to grow up after her experience? Does this mean Peter Pan is actually a film which is about discouraging childhood imaginings and innocence? Is it saying there comes a time when we must leave childhood behind? Because if it is, I much prefer the message of the sequel!
As for the sequel, I think it tops the original in almost all respects (apart from the animation, but the animation is still darn good, and it would never match the "look" of the original 100% as production methods have significantly changed.) It has a dramatic opening, which hopefully will be educational to young children as well as perfectly introducing Jane and her outlook on the world. It has a logical reason for Jane to be taken to Never Land. Hook is (in my opinion) shown as being more evil when he approaches Jane and Jane actually has a decision to make, and the audience is actually aware of some of the thoughts in Jane's mind and can see how her outlook is changing.
I think the ending it perhaps a little twee with the extended Peter and Wendy meeting, and I don't see the point in replacing the crocodile with an octopus, but it is a story with a proper beginning, middle and end.
Some complain about it being a re-run of the original story, something I don't agree with - as I say this film actually has a story unlike the first. And even if you do, its hardly the crime most people here seem to think it is.
I think its not really a question of one being better than the other. I think the sequel is better, but that's only an opinion. But I do think it is a question of which is more relevant for today, and I do think Return to Never Land is.
From the somewhat dark opening to the fact that it encourages children to hold onto their childhood (in a time when the media is encouraging children to grow up faster than ever) I think DisneyToons (or whatever) have made a film that is not only entertaining but also a film that offers something that may just stay with its viewers. Something more than the vapid bodily function jokes and pointless slapstick that passes for most family entertainment these days. And yet people continue to endlessly critisise Disney for doing this?
(no they didn't bore me AT ALL 