Peter Pan vs Alice in Wonderland

[Jay]

Both films are based off of classic English novels and are fantasy stories of young children going into different worlds. Which film do you prefer? What one do you think has the better characters, animation, music and overall story telling?

[Flanger-Hanger]

Alice for sure! I've always disliked Peter Pan to a degree on the basis that Neverland itself never lived up to its supposed, amazing, "every dream that you dream will come true" appeal. A place where everyone tried to kill Wendy featuring obnoxious kids, unfunny "injuin" stereotypes, bumbling pirates and bitch mermaids is really not of great interest to me. The whole place is best observed from a distance, even with the enjoyable Captain Hook and Crocodile.

Alice built up Wonderland to an extent, but not so much that you could feel disappointed afterwords, especially when so many suprises awaited her. With Neverland the Darlings knew it all before they even got there and spelt it out in great detail to the audience.

I do however like the London scenes, two of the songs ("The Second Star to the Right" and "You Can Fly!) and some of the imagery. The camera/perspective work during the flying scene is amazing thanks to the multiplane system. All the more impressive when you consider it's just flat drawings and paintings.

[Victurtle]

I tend to believe Alice and Wendy are the same people and each movie is really just an extension of the other and is just one big happy movie

I used to hate Peter Pan, but I forced myself to appreciate the artwork, the animation (character floating in air!) and the comedy. I do believe you are fully immersed in a magical island, more-so than Wonderland. I'd say I prefer Alice, but I don't know why.

[Tristy]

Alice in Wonderland for me. Peter Pan does have some nice moments and Captain Hook is an entertaining villain. But Alice in Wonderland is just more fascinating in how unrelentingly crazy it is. On top of that, Alice is a pretty appealing heroine. She starts off kind of selfish and wanting her own thing but then realizes that too much of what she wants is not good. Also, I love the casting. Richard Hadyn as the Caterpillar, Sterling Holloway as the Cheshire Cat and Jerry Colonna as the March Hare. It's also interesting that they didn't soften up the characters' personalities like they did with Pinocchio as well as...sigh...that OTHER Disney version of Alice in Wonderland.

So, all in all Alice in Wonderland wins hands down.

[Super Aurora]

Alice in Wonderland, HELL YEAH!

Alice is so moe.

[Disneykid]

Do I really have to say it? Really?

[Jay]

Do I really have to say it? Really?

Well I wan't too sure with the Mad Hatter as your avatar but once I saw your signature had Alice I took a stab in the dark

[rodis]

What?? I was sure I was gonna see everyone voting for Peter!

Of-course Peter Pan. The story is much more appealing to me (not wanting to grow up).

The settings - from the beautifully illustrated London to Neverland (which always reminded me of Disneyland).

Captain Hook is a great villain, and so is The Queen of Hearts but she's only there in the last 10 minutes.

Music - not a big fan of either.


So Peter Pan for me.

[Neal]

Atlantis

<_<

>_>

[Lazario]

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JoDlkYPVNic" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I MEAN...

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Nql1_RKwQt0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Dr Frankenollie]

-

[Wonderlicious]

I will probably go with Alice in Wonderland, as it's a nostalgic favourite and a bit hard to knock down as far as I'm concerned. I suppose that Peter Pan also is, but probably to a lesser extent.


In comparison to the books:
I can safely say that I know both Peter and Wendy and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass really well (I've never read the script for the original stage version of Peter Pan). They're both very multi-levelled books, exploring a number of topics and themes. Both Disney films are reasonably faithful adaptations in a literal sense, but tend to neglect some of the themes of the original. The original Alice books are both explorations into general make believe, and, through use of fantasy, a child's view of the adult world - eccentric, rude, oppressive, illogical, and unable to thoroughly comprehend others, especially children. Disney's version does go with the theme of a misunderstood child in a crazy adult world, but kinda gives it the spirit of The Wizard of Oz by having a put-upon Alice end up longing to go home à la Dorothy, whereas Alice in the original books is more passive and seems more focussed on the current moment (as we often all are in dreams). As for Peter Pan, both Barrie's original and Disney's version explore the theme of staying young and having to abandon childhood. Disney's version is a romantic ode to childhood, but ultimately suggests that childhood fantasies can only go so far, and that growing up is a rite of passage we all must take. Barrie's original, however, goes one step further. Peter is stuck at a certain age, is truly savage and uncivilised (he no parents or guardians to guide him, naturally), and must watch any loved ones grow old. I would thus say that Alice in Wonderland slightly wins, though it's not saying that much. I can understand why both Disney versions probably are quite light, though. They did come out not too long after WW2, and moody films with tormented characters wouldn't be of interest to popular audiences as chirpy films with a "no place like home" message would be.

Story:
Both films are episodic. Alice in Wonderland could on the surface lose some points for being more episodic, but it is really a parade of observation and characterisation more than anything else, and generally grinds to a halt less for having less tagged on gag scenes than Peter Pan

Characterisation:
Compared to the book, Peter Pan isn't all that interesting. Alice probably has more zing than Wendy, which gives Alice in Wonderland some advantage in leads, however Tinkerbell probably beats Alice in terms of characterisation. Alice in Wonderland has a large cast of mainly interesting characters, but Peter Pan has less characters to get round, and Captain Hook and Tinkerbell are easy to get involved with. In terms of comic characters, though, Alice in Wonderland probably wins.

Animation:
Peter Pan is probably a bit more successful in terms of character design as the caricatures and "realistic" humans seem to gel a bit better than in Alice in Wonderland (and Cinderella), though Peter Pan probably had the advantage of coming after those films.

Art direction:
I personally prefer the slightly more stylised art direction of Alice in Wonderland a bit more than that of Peter Pan. I just do.

Music:
The score for Alice in Wonderland seeks to copy the effect of having sporadic verses like in the novel, as opposed to being a traditional musical (like with Peter Pan), so a comparison would be difficult. Both scores have some real classics in them, either way.

[Lazario]

I actually think some of the colors in Alice aren't so great. But it is such a marvelously colorful movie- it's like they just tried everything they could think of until the end (the march of the cards scene starting) where you have those mustard greens and pink/grey clouds. Ew. I've put the Peter Pan DVD on twice and both times, my eyes nearly bugged out of my skull. I didn't realize what an unbelievably gorgeous movie it was. It is, at times, a little more visually impressive than Alice. And then, when you figure that a character like Dinah for an animal figures in Alice about as much as the crocodile does in Peter, I don't think the character looks either cute or creepy (that's my basic gauge, my compass, for the best of either side- if it's definitively either, I think it would qualify as top Disney work). The croc looks better than Dinah. But, during the Caucaus (?spell?) Race scene, the fish running around the staff/pole/whatever were so damn cute, I could have hugged them. So, since there seem to be more characters in Alice- I would say even there the film is as successful as Peter Pan.

I used to dislike both films, especially Alice, but Lazario helped me realise that it was't heartless, it just held its emotion in until the Tulgey Wood scene. I prefer Alice in Wonderland as it's a more fun and entertaining film, and although Peter Pan has great animation, better music and the brilliant characters of Hook and Smee (voiced by the marvellous Hans Conried and Bill Thompson), Alice has a more likable protagonist, more vibrant and colourful animation, and has moments of both style and substance. Neither are perfect, though.

As a story, I think Peter Pan is clearly flawed. And I believe it was Aaron's review where he mentioned the songs were generally weak (though... ?Oliver Wallace?'s music score was awesome, especially the "Mermaid Lagoon" theme). But as a comedy, the villains are great fun. Although, compare that to Alice, and you have the better of just about everything in story and, obviously in music. People may think Alice is not sympathetic, but is Wendy any moreso? Hardly. One "Mother" song isn't enough in my book. They reduce her to a typical jealous "girl" too, much like the bitchy mermaids.

[Disney's Divinity]

Alice. I'm not crazy about either one. Alice is a bit dull, but I just hate Peter Pan. Besides, Alice has some pretty good characters: Chesire Cat, Queen of Hearts, and Alice. I like Wendy in PP, but it always seems as if she's the brunt of one huge joke. Hook and Smee are good villains in a bumbling-idiots kind of way, but you can't take them seriously.

I think both Wonderland and Neverland are disappointing though.

[DancingCrab]

PETER PAN for me. The spark it sets of in my imagination to just fly away to a land where I never had to grow up, always appealed to me as a kid.

[Lazario]

I think both Wonderland and Neverland are disappointing though.

Well, compared to the worlds in what other Disney animated films? (PRE-Little Mermaid to the 90's huge renaissance, obviously.)

[Dr Frankenollie]

-

[Jay]

As a story, I think Peter Pan is clearly flawed. And I believe it was Aaron's review where he mentioned the songs

.

I've always felt that the Disney Studio adapted Peter Pan in the wrong way. In J.M. Barrie's Peter and Wendy, Peter is even worse than in the Disney film, and is implied to have not just killed several pirates, but also several lost boys too.

However, Barrie’s somewhat evil character of Peter Pan isn't too shocking, as he isn’t hailed as a hero; the book and the play’s Peter is representative of the evils of childhood, showing that adventurous and creative children can be shockingly selfish and cruel. Furthermore, the book Peter’s cruelty is somewhat justified, as the original Captain Hook was a completely evil, murderous and amoral monster.

Disney’s Peter Pan is flawed because of the understandable toning down of Hook’s character, and in the Disney adaptation Hook doesn’t seem to be entirely evil-yes, the first time we see he shoots one of his own crewmembers, but other than that, Hook just wants revenge: Peter cut his hand off and fed it a crocodile who has since been trying to get the rest of the pitiful captain, so Hook wants to kill Peter, and he’s willing to take down anyone in his way-whether it’s the Indian Princess Tigerlily or Wendy’s youngest brother Michael.

Also, the Disney Peter is given the main part, or portrayed as the main character, whilst it’s really Wendy (note that the book is called Peter and Wendy and Walt named his film Peter Pan). Wendy was the star of J.M. Barrie’s book, but like with the Mole in Kenneth Grahame’s Wind in the Willows was shoved aside to a supporting character role in the Disney adaptations and most subsequent adaptations to make room for the more colourful and interesting characters (Peter Pan and Mr Toad).

The one thing in Peter Pan that irritates me more than anything else is that when Tinkerbell saves Peter by taking the bomb from Hook and fleeing, leaving the Lost Boys’ treehouse destroyed. Peter starts coughing and spluttering, and crawls through the rubble, and starts looking for Tinkerbell tearfully, declaring that she means more to him than anything else in the world. Before the character can be developed further, however, the action cuts to Hook’s ship where Wendy and the Lost Boys are held captive.

If only more time could’ve been given to Peter and Tinkerbell in the rubble, it might have made Peter a likable character, but this valiant attempt at humanising Peter is quickly spoiled.

I agree that Disney adapted Peter Pan the wrong way. In the film Captian Hook is far more likable than Peter Pan is and I think Peter is just kind of annoying in the film overall. I kind of wish they had made Hook more on the level of evil like The Evil Queen or The Coachman in Pinocchio so Peter would be a bit more sympathetic but I guess they wanted to go the really goofy route with him. I read Disney didn't want to kill Hook at the end of the film because he knew the audience would like him by the end and he didn't like Peter Pan himself. Aside from Hook, Smee and Nana( and to an extent Wendy) none of the characters in Peter Pan are that interesting or fun to watch or likeable.

Alice is fiesty but more likeable than Peter is and overall I think the characters in Alice are more likeable/interesting.

[Prince Edward]

Alice! The colors, the theme/setting, the music and the songs, the characters and the animation... It's a masterpiece! But I also like Peter Pan. I think it's a charming film, but a bit more "simple" than Alice.

[Goliath]

I watched Alice in Wonderland on dvd recently and it was much better than I remembered it. I especially liked the parts with the Mad Hatter and the March Hare and the Queen of Hearts, those were just hilarious. The rest is nothing too special. I like Peter Pan better. Even if Peter is obnoxious and Wendy is a dud (so is Alice), it still has Captain Hook and Smee, Tinkerbell, the Indians and the superior songs (Alice's were dull). Both aren't among Disney's best; they're failry conventional run of the mill productions.