Peter Pan & Wendy (Live-Action)

[Sotiris]

Another day, another announcement of a Disney remake.

Disney will make its own live-action Peter Pan film, and has set David Lowery to direct a script that he will write with Toby Halbrooks. They teamed to write and Lowery directed Pete’s Dragon, a new version of Disney’s 1977 live action/animated musical.

Source: http://deadline.com/2016/04/peter-pan-l ... 201736940/

[Disney's Divinity]

I'm not surprised at all. I'm just pissed it's not The Little Mermaid already, darn it all.

[unprincess]

what are they left with now?
I suppose they want to do Snow White but are waiting a few years for the Huntsman franchise to die out.
I think Pinocchio is coming is it?
if Jungle Book is a success, will they now go down the list of all their animal films, will Bambi & Lion King be next? I know we're getting a Tim Burton Dumbo.

Robin hood? with cgi anthro-animals?

Little mermaid may just be too costly

the post-Renaissance films they probably feel arent popular enough except maybe Mulan & Lilo & Stitch.

and I guess we'll get Tangled & Frozen some day...

[Disney's Divinity]

Little mermaid may just be too costly

As compared to a film where the cast are all animals like The Jungle Book? I don't buy it.

[Sotiris]

I'm just pissed it's not The Little Mermaid already, darn it all.

I was just thinking of that! Hopefully, after the inevitable success of the live-action Beauty and Beast, they'll fast-track it. And they better make it a musical!

[disneyprincess11]

Jesus, has every classic WDAS movie, besides the animal ones (minus TJB, Pooh, and Dumbo) been announced for a remake, minus Little Mermaid?

EDIT: Huh.

For those complaining - I attended a film seminar a year or so ago (around when Cinderella came out) and a rep was there from Walt Disney Studios' live action department. He explained that all these live action films are literally just happening to keep the stories in Disney's copyright.

[Sotiris]

I suppose they want to do Snow White but are waiting a few years for the Huntsman franchise to die out.

Well, they are making a movie about Snow White's sister, Rose Red. They may revive The Order of the Seven, although now that they're making Mulan it's highly unlikely.

Robin hood? with CGI anthro-animals?

They are making a Robin Hood movie with humans called Nottingham & Hood.

I think Pinocchio is coming is it?

Yeah, it's in development along with dozens of others. There's no way Disney will follow through with all of them.

[estefan]

EDIT: Huh.

For those complaining - I attended a film seminar a year or so ago (around when Cinderella came out) and a rep was there from Walt Disney Studios' live action department. He explained that all these live action films are literally just happening to keep the stories in Disney's copyright.

What? That doesn't make any sense. Most of the stories they're adapting are in the public domain. Andy Serkis is even working on his own version of The Jungle Book.

[unprincess]

Little mermaid may just be too costly

As compared to a film where the cast are all animals like The Jungle Book? I don't buy it.

I just know underwater effects(both CGI & practical) are supposed to be very expensive and time consuming.

[Lady Cluck]

OH GOD. Not only are they doing far too many of these live action remakes, this one is for a movie that's been covered to death already. There have been so many god awful live action Peter Pan adaptations. Just KILL ME NOW.

Disney's version will probably be better than the likes of "Pan" but this is still overkill.

[Atlantica]

I'm truly not feeling the constant live action remake after remake .... One or two seem logical, and can even add to the legacy, but this is just overkill now ! (as previously mentioned).

And I'm in total agreement; Peter Pan has been done again and again and again. I'm unsure what could be added to make Disney's version stand out from all the others...unless it was made into a musical ? Highly unlikely but it would make it stand out from the others. But then again, we could just watch the Disney original in the first place

[TheSequelOfDisney]

And I'm in total agreement; Peter Pan has been done again and again and again. I'm unsure what could be added to make Disney's version stand out from all the others...unless it was made into a musical ? Highly unlikely but it would make it stand out from the others. But then again, we could just watch the Disney original in the first place

See, we could just watch the Mary Martin musical shown on TV in '56. Or the 2000 version starring Cathy Rigby.

This is one that we just really don't need. It's been done to death.

[Wonderlicious]

I'm going to be unpopular here and say that I think this could work and could be worthwhile, probably more so than a lot of the live-action films Disney has in the pipeline (the Mary Poppins sequel, live-action Dumbo movie, live-action Tinkerbell movie etc.). I know there have been quite a number of Peter Pan films, but relatively few are actually adaptations of the original book. There's also the possibility (based on the recent Jungle Book and Cinderella films) of going back to the source material as much as going back to the animated film, which would be a good thing given the sheer richness of Barrie's original Peter Pan. The original novel/play has quite a haunting and wistful atmosphere to it, which the Disney animated film only touches on rather lightly. Not to mention that various locations and characters aren't explored that much in detail. Plus, I can think of a few great actors who could play Captain Hook. It's a shame Alan Rickman passed away as, although probably too old to play the Mr Darling role, he'd have made a wonderful Hook.

[nomad2010]

I too can see why they would do this for a couple reasons:

1.) There have been many Peter Pan adaptations in recent years, but not one has taken on the "definitive" live action version title as their animated one claimed for animation. The 2003 film came closest to that but it is barely remembered these days. Funny enough, Disney uses the score from that film for adds for their parks. I think Disney knows there hasn't been a Pan adaption that has really touched audiences and I have to agree with that. Even the 2003 version (my personal favorite) lacks any kind of emotional connection. They have the books and their film to base it off of, and if they do it right, it could be so much more fun, and wistfully creepy, and emotional.

2.) I think Disney knows their animated version is the end all be all Peter Pan, and thus just like the Jungle Book, they know whatever live action version they do will become the definitive version also. Clearly, they'll stick to the style of the animated one which everyone knows and loves, and obviously it will pay off as long as it captures the look and feel (to an extent) of their animated version. I think that's why Cinderella and Jungle Book have done so well. They've both captured the original but expanded on them all while remaining true to the look and feel of those films.

I've personally always hoped Disney would do this one, mainly because I feel it could be so much more of an emotional journey and far more of a reflection on the death of childhood. I see no reason why Peter Pan can't be another film that adults and children can both connect with on different levels. I'm excited to see what happens. My only qualm really is that Mermaid isn't being done first. I know it would be pricey and casting anyone to play Ariel would be a nightmare, but I think they could do something incredibly special with it.

[Vlad]

what are they left with now?
I suppose they want to do Snow White but are waiting a few years for the Huntsman franchise to die out.
I think Pinocchio is coming is it?
if Jungle Book is a success, will they now go down the list of all their animal films, will Bambi & Lion King be next? I know we're getting a Tim Burton Dumbo.

Robin hood? with cgi anthro-animals?

Little mermaid may just be too costly

the post-Renaissance films they probably feel arent popular enough except maybe Mulan & Lilo & Stitch.

and I guess we'll get Tangled & Frozen some day...

I seriously hope if they decide to remake Snow White, that they will treat with the same care and respect as they did with Cinderella and The Jungle Book. In Maleficent, they changed Aurora completely, and I would hate to see them do the same to Snow White.

[JeanGreyForever]

what are they left with now?
I suppose they want to do Snow White but are waiting a few years for the Huntsman franchise to die out.
I think Pinocchio is coming is it?
if Jungle Book is a success, will they now go down the list of all their animal films, will Bambi & Lion King be next? I know we're getting a Tim Burton Dumbo.

Robin hood? with cgi anthro-animals?

Little mermaid may just be too costly

the post-Renaissance films they probably feel arent popular enough except maybe Mulan & Lilo & Stitch.

and I guess we'll get Tangled & Frozen some day...

I seriously hope if they decide to remake Snow White, that they will treat with the same care and respect as they did with Cinderella and The Jungle Book. In Maleficent, they changed Aurora completely, and I would hate to see them do the same to Snow White.

Rather than Tangled, I'd love a darker, more mature retelling of Rapunzel like Glen Keane's initial vision for it. I feel like that would work well in live-action. Much better than Tangled anyway.

Frozen I wouldn't mind in live-action although I'd prefer the original Snow Queen story here as well. There hasn't been any definitive adaptation of The Snow Queen imo either. Besides maybe the Russian animated one.

I don't want a Maleficent-type Snow White at all either. I would love a movie on the perspective of the Evil Queen (like the Disney published book they have on her), but I'm afraid if Disney went that route, they would completely whitewash the character like they did with Maleficent.

Concerning Peter Pan, I'm quite excited for this. Much more than that Tink movie which I hope gets scrapped. It seems superfluous now anyway if Disney is going ahead with Peter Pan. I loved the 2003 live-action movie as well as the animated one, but I'd still love to see a version that is closer to the original book. Hoping this one blends the animated film with the book and maybe casts Peter Pan in a more gray spectrum than traditional young hero or villainous devil.

[Disney Duster]

Rather than Tangled, I'd love a darker, more mature retelling of Rapunzel like Glen Keane's initial vision for it. I feel like that would work well in live-action. Much better than Tangled anyway.

How much do you know about Glen Keane's original version? I didn't know it was dark and mature...

[unprincess]

what are they left with now?
I suppose they want to do Snow White but are waiting a few years for the Huntsman franchise to die out.
I think Pinocchio is coming is it?
if Jungle Book is a success, will they now go down the list of all their animal films, will Bambi & Lion King be next? I know we're getting a Tim Burton Dumbo.

Robin hood? with cgi anthro-animals?

Little mermaid may just be too costly

the post-Renaissance films they probably feel arent popular enough except maybe Mulan & Lilo & Stitch.

and I guess we'll get Tangled & Frozen some day...

I seriously hope if they decide to remake Snow White, that they will treat with the same care and respect as they did with Cinderella and The Jungle Book. In Maleficent, they changed Aurora completely, and I would hate to see them do the same to Snow White.

yeah, I am absolutely sick of seeing every princess character in live action portrayals being badass warriors. its so cliche and lame now. The worst was Anna in OUAT being the one to teach David how to sword fight. Really?

[JeanGreyForever]

Rather than Tangled, I'd love a darker, more mature retelling of Rapunzel like Glen Keane's initial vision for it. I feel like that would work well in live-action. Much better than Tangled anyway.

How much do you know about Glen Keane's original version? I didn't know it was dark and mature...

Here's a thread where I posted more info and concept art from the version Keane wanted.
http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic. ... el+bastion

[Disney Duster]

Wow, that is soooo much information! Thank you JeanGreyForever! How did you find it? If it's too complicated or secret or illegal you don't have to tell, lol. How did you know that Tangled is set in the 1780's though? I have long thought it was decided to never be set in a certain time.

I wish we could have seen Glen Keane's Rapunzel, except that I would want Mother Gothel dying and Rapunzel's magic tear included in the ending, if it wasn't going to be.

So, in that one picture of the palace guard riding on a horse in the village with two chickens on the ground near him and there's two blue-roofed buildings with loooots of turrets, those buildings are the "French Renaissance" type castle? Whatever it is, I love it... Where could I see more of the French Renaissance-type castle for this film? I own "The Art of Tangled", is it in there? I would rather find pictures online, my book is packed away somewhere.