Peter Pan & Wendy (Live-Action)

[Patricier21]

A few comments about this movie and Peter Pan in general:

Regarding Tigerlily's use of her native tongue... ridiculous.
I am fully bilingual, and I have been in groups where everyone was bilingual. We may switch from one language to the other occasionally, but I have NEVER been in a situation where each speaker stuck to a different language.
That said... it is basic courtesy (and logic) that if I am bilingual, and the other person speaks only one of the languages I speak, that I will use that language with them, so we can communicate. Tigerlily would have stuck to English when a) she realized Wendy didn't speak her language and b) when she was WAY outnumbered by characters whose first language is English.

So it seems that the Lost Boys being brought to the real world is from the original book. And this is something that I think Disney improved upon in the '53 version. Putting in the idea that kids from the past (and from the future) will be taken to Neverland to enjoy an adventure and then be brought back home when they realize they cannot stay a child forever. But in this new version (and the book, it seems), if any other kid were to be taken to Neverland after the events of this movie, they would encounter a sulking, lonely Peter Pan. No more adventures with the Lost Boys.

I think Peter Pan was always somewhat unlikeable (even in the 53 version)... arrogant, conceited, self centered incosiderate... but also fun and charismatic. He represents the arrogance of youth... and this is a story of letting go of the carelessness of childhood and taking on starting to become an adult.
And it shows the other side of adulthood too: the fear of our time alive running out (Hook, the ticking crocodile).
We inevitably move on from childhood to adulthood, knowing the our days are numbered. Pretty heavy theme, but very true.

Something missing from the new version is the idea that it's all a game: Pirates vs Lost Boys vs Indians (the 53 movie states the Indians let them go when captured)... not in this new version.

As for the depiction of Neverland... it's just a bare, grassy land in this new version. The film Hook is hardly perfect, but look at that fun, imaginative version of Neverland! Plants that move and sneeze, several moons, beautiful mermaids, the ability to manifest food from imagination... I wanna go THERE!!!

You’re all really overthinking Tigerlily sticking to her native tongue. What’s to get about that? It’s something you literally see in every other movie, such as Lord of the Rings where Legolas Switches back between English and Elvis when talking to Aragorn and Gimli, not to mention Aragorn and Arwen‘s pretty much every conversation and interaction with each other always has them constantly switch back-and-forth between Elvish and English, even around other characters; My mom Literally asked me the second time watching the theatrical edition of two Towers, “Why do they sometimes speak in English and sometimes not?” Again, what’s the difference here?

Also, as for Neverland’s look, It actually looks very much like how it’s portrayed in some of the kingdom hearts games, but in live action. Again, it’s also like what never land would look like if portrayed realistically As a place to escape which would (need to) look familiar as an appealing spot for one to connect to instead of coming up to this random “alien” Like foreign place which would more likely make them want to turn around and go home/leave even if you were a child. And again, unfortunately it’s also result of that very dated 2003 movie and Pan (2015) Having already portrayed Neverland as such, This would look too much like a rip off and wouldn’t fit with the overall take and style they’re going forward with this version/be its own thing

[Patricier21]

Also, She does the exact same thing in the 2003 movie. And once again, besides these and lord of the rings, I know that all of you have seen countless other movies that do this exact same thing, So…… What’s the difference? Why is it such a big deal?

[Marce82]

I have not seen the 2003 movie, and barely remember LOTR, but that is irrelevant. I am not going to compare this to other movies (which may have gotten it wrong as well); I am going to compare it to real-life behavior, of what feels natural and courteous in a bilingual setting.

The reason it matters, is because it does feel politically/ideologically motivated. "This POC is not going to give up speaking her language for the white man!". Same reason female characters in the movie display no negative traits, are generally more powerful than men and Wendy says something like "this magic belongs to no boy!", and her visions of her future do not include a husband or kids.

Patricier21, I disagree with the notion that Neverland should look like Earth for it to feel comfortable to the kids. The whole point of being taken to a place of FANTASY is that it is not like reality. Peter Pan may as well have taken them to the coast of Ireland.

What Kingdom Hearts, PP2003 and P2015 may have done is irrelevant. I brought up Hook (1991) before simply because it took a more fantastical approach to Neverland. But I would not have suggested the new PP movie should copy or resemble that. It should have had an original approach to the land, or base it more on the 1953 film, since this claims to be a remake of that film.

I think someone mentioned that this Neverland isn't colorful cause that is what it used to be... before the constant fighting got repetitive. That concept only works for people who are already aware of what Neverland used to be like. This movie is supposed to be it's own thing, not count on people having seen other version of the movie.

[Sotiris]

The reason it matters, is because it does feel politically/ideologically motivated. "This POC is not going to give up speaking her language for the white man!". Same reason female characters in the movie display no negative traits, are generally more powerful than men and Wendy says something like "this magic belongs to no boy!", and her visions of her future do not include a husband or kids.

That line of dialogue was so cringe-worthy. Were they trying to rip-off the line "I'm no man" from Game of Thornes? The visions of her future were not empowering at all. They were pitiable. Who would even want to grow up after seeing those? Her lying alone on the couch as an old woman was plain sad. Couldn't they have at least given her some friends or show her hanging out with her brothers? Or is that considered not feminist either?

[lord-of-sith]

Watched this last night. I honestly can't muster up a lot of emotion towards it because I mostly found it very bland. Sure it's "better" than say Pinocchio, but way more forgettable. Just kind of competent but boring.

I found the cinematography incredibly dark. I was watching it while the sun was still out, and had to do my best to close every curtain and source of light to have a chance of seeing what was on screen. I know that "movie is poorly lit" is becoming a tired critique these days, but damn if this movie didn't deserve it.

The actors all showed up and did their jobs. No stand outs, but no failures for me. What really failed for me were the attempts at humor. Captain Hook and Mr. Smee kept having these long drawn out bits that just never landed. The "did you hear a splash?" from the original is now drawn out into what seems like a 5-minute long joke. We get it! Move on! Mr. Smee is a comedic character that just didn't land at all. And Jude Law is a good actor, but totally didn't work in this. So many lines were mumbled and barely audible.

The script in general was just kinda lazy. Glancing over other posts here, I agree that the pacing was very fast. I love a short movie, and this didn't need to be super long, but barely anything was fleshed out. Then we'd get crazy info dumps that seemed very contrived.

Finally the concept of the movie. While I can appreciate them trying to go in a different direction than the typical Peter Pan movie, the concept didn't work in a couple ways for me. If the twist is that Neverland is supposed to be kind of drab and just a mirror to the real world aesthetically, it really takes away the wonder the audience is supposed to feel. When Peter, Wendy, and the boys first got to Neverland, Wendy had a line like "it's more than I ever imagined" or something to that effect. But they were just running/flying on a couple grassy islands. There was no fantasy element to the surroundings, so it didn't warrant Wendy being so amazed. Overall it was just bland to look at.

Just to make sure I wasn't being biased because of nostalgia, I pulled up the trailer to the 2003 version after I finished this, and it felt refreshing to see so many colors and brightly lit sets

[Disney's Divinity]

I thought the vision was very pretty. I just didn't know where it came from. Why would she have thought of a future life when trying to think of a happy thought with no buildup like that? I get her sort of seeing the consequence of not growing up from Pan and Hook throughout the film, but it just seemed like a random moment to me somehow. Maybe if she'd tried to get her brothers to want to go home in an earlier scene by talking about all the things they could grow up to be or something like that? Or maybe have her mother's words when she's trying to comfort her about going to boarding school echo back as she starts to walk the plank? IDK, the lack of build up was my only negative about it, it was a decent idea in itself.

Maybe her "happy thought" could've been getting out of her predicament and escaping Neverland (and all that would entail--going home, being sent to school, etc.) as in the scariness of the moment made her see going to boarding school as a "happy thought" in comparison to dying, but they could've made that more apparent, if so (showing Wendy and her brothers escaping Hook somehow in her mind's vision, arriving home and hugging her parents, being packed off to school, then the adult stuff from there).

[Patricier21]

Well, regardless of “how hard” the 2003 movie may hit,It still doesn’t change/make up for the fact that it is overall completely inconsistent and therefore hard to care about and truly engage with what is going on. Looking at something overall does not always necessarily mean majority, but what it’s bigger picture and therefore true experience within appropriate and relevant context, and unfortunately, the 2003 movie, regardless of what good moments it may have is not enough to look past its MAJOR inconsistent and overly distracting flaws which therefore do not truly enable overall enjoyment of what it is. Even when I was younger, I always felt that it overall seemed a little off, regardless of the knowledge of it not doing well, even regardless of factors like RotK (which is overall a different kind of target audience btw), Cheaper by the Dozen 1 (which is a very similar kind of audience) and even its marketing that may’ve been against it.

Peter Pan and Wendy again just feels more consistent and focused for what it is, which despite being overdone, different and even underdeveloped in some places, more then justifies its existence for competently trying and delivering on what it has to say: detailing what growing up is truly about in various different ways, that again even if not what you’re used to, still feels justifiably like Peter Pan, like what quite a lot of people feel about Man of Steel with Superman, The Dark Knight, Joker, and The Batman with Batman, Riverdsje, the later Harry Potters etc (and I myself do not personally agree with some of those,eh?)

To speak of a few more points, well whose to say that not all girls are necessarily “smart enough” to NOT “get lost”? Maybe just maybe like the boys who did, they realized/had the gall to actually run away and escape (like WENDY for instance? With all due respect, she can’t be the only GIRL to have those kind of desires and instincts,eh?). If you also have a problem with Tiger Lily speaking in her native tongue and quite ignorantly won’t go back and reflect on when Lotr/the hobbit (let alone the 2003 movie itself,eh?) did that exact sane kind of thing, then that only proves how blinded by ignorance and naively you are, as how can you prove yourself right, let alone have others believe you if you won’t provide the proof and evaluate? No matter what no matter how otherwise it may seem

[Patricier21]

As for Wendy’s “happy thought” at the end of the movie, well it’s well built up from not only being an evolution of her happy thought they got her to fly at the beginning,but again from all of her experience in different forms of growing up from Tiger Lily, to Hook, to even Peter Pan himself with his kind of leadership, especially in how they conveyed her arc of not wanting to grow up within the overall context of this movie: growing to accept all the kinds of growths that she will go through, from going to school to getting married (she is shown with a husband after all), to growing old, even outliving her spouse and living alone.

This was all conveyed quite well, and not exactly feminist, as That is more likely/commonly what happens with the wife out living the husband, and either way regardless of gender, there’s always truly one that outlives the other no matter what no matter how otherwise it may seem

[Sotiris]

According to Samba TV, the film debuted #2 on the streaming chart.

In an enviable second place this week, Disney brought one of its all-time classic animated films to life with “Peter Pan & Wendy.” Audiences who grew up with a VHS or DVD of the animated original seemed to be the most excited for the reimagined film and for a return to Neverland. Of the 762,000 households that streamed the movie on Disney+ during its opening weekend, Gen Z (ages 20-24) and older Millennial (ages 35-44) households overindexed relative to the rest of the country by 5% and 10%, respectively. Further indicating a strong launch for the film, “Peter Pan & Wendy” blew past other reimagined classics hitting the streamer, including “Cruella” by 52% in the same time frame.

Source: https://www.thewrap.com/ted-lasso-apple ... -rankings/




According to Whip Media, the film debuted #4 on the streaming movie chart.

Those three entries, along with “Peter Pan & Wendy” and “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” which has been a ranker mainstay this year, helped make it a huge weekend for Disney+. The service’s five movies in the top 10 easily smoked the competition, with the next closest service, Netflix, accounting for just two spots on the ranker.

Source: https://www.thewrap.com/scream-vi-guard ... ie-ranker/




According to Nielsen, the film debuted #2 on the streaming movie chart.


Source: https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/nielse ... 235625712/


According to Nielsen, the film fell to #6 on the streaming movie chart during its second week of release.


https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/citade ... 235637650/

[Sotiris]

Terrific and hilarious review, Sotiris! Thanks for sharing!

I've found another good one, if you're interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUGvvcJMYuU

[carolinakid]

I really enjoy Disparu. His Little Mermaid piece is spot on too!

[Patricier21]

Terrific and hilarious review, Sotiris! Thanks for sharing!

I've found another good one, if you're interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUGvvcJMYuU

I find it very sad, not to mention disturbing that you are going to rely on reviews to help fuel your negativities. Especially when it’s done in this kind of way reminiscent of filth like fellow You Tuber Adam Dies Movies aka Adam Olinger, who is honestly one of the worst people I’ve ever met in my life. You think that because they make fun of and express the same kind of negativities that you do that they are justifiably right? You’re allowed to think the way that you do about something, but the way that you’re going about it in ways like this is just very immature and despicable. You actually want to be negative and miserable. Yes, things may still be the way they are, but it doesn’t mean you have to enforce let alone therefore overall encourage things like this, as if you didn’t do so, you may actually find something of value in them. Peter Pan and Wendy here does not have to be as good as the original or even any other Peter Pan, but you should always be looking at it, let alone every other kind of thing overall as its own thing and its own values.

It takes all sorts of things to make a world, and just because you either don’t like them or look at them in a cynical, even psychotic kind of way, does not mean that they don’t have value or even deserve to be ridiculed like you are doing here. Despite my claims on something that is actual garbage like Adam Does Movies, for whatever reason, people actually like him, and yet you don’t let my claims bother you. I wouldn’t let the rest of you ruin my value and like for Peter Pan and Wendy, but in this toxic psychotic way that you are doing so, I cannot allow it because this kind of thing is only going to keep continuing, and therefore not only ruining yourself, but others and other things, as it is one of the main reasons why you think the way you do towards these movies when maybe just maybe if you had a different attitude, they maybe wouldn’t be so bad, regardless of how you overall think about them, no matter what no matter how otherwise it may seem

Like Peter Pan and Wendy itself here says: Grow Up! And with that, please actually GROW, because like you claim this movie to, you know that YOU yourself can be truly better, no matter what no matter how otherwise it may seem

[Disney's Divinity]

There's no need to take the criticism so personally, Patricia. All remakes get a sizeable amount of criticism--from many different directions--even if the few cases they end up being okay or good.

[Disney Duster]

Divinity, Patricier21 is a guy, not a girl named Patricia.

Anyway, I liked this movie. I liked the visions Wendy had. I thought her acting was was pretty good. I liked Hook's backstory. I really liked the two pirate songs. Tinker Bell was in uncanny valley for me. Neverland was not the amazing magical place Wendy and her brothers would want to go and have fun in. I was really surprised by how sad Peter's backstory was. I was also happily surprised he went back to Neverland not to be alone but to reconnect with James. I wouldn't watch this again, but it was enjoyable and exciting at times while I watched it for the first time.

[Disney's Divinity]

I didn't call them "she" (or "he" either for that matter)? Usernames seldom indicate gender, so I usually don't use pronouns when responding to people. Anyway, the phone must've corrected Patricier to Patricia when I was writing and I didn't see it, sorry about that Patricier.

[Patricier21]

I didn't call them "she" (or "he" either for that matter)? Usernames seldom indicate gender, so I usually don't use pronouns when responding to people. Anyway, the phone must've corrected Patricier to Patricia when I was writing and I didn't see it, sorry about that Patricier.

No worries I just hope that you and others will be considerable of what I have to say, just like I am with you in a lot of your posts. While I do admittedly disagree with a lot of what you said here and in other places, you do raise a lot of good critical thought points, Such as when you state that there are criticisms about that are justifiable, it’s just the way that you and others approach it I like that Disney Duster Gave it a chance and approached it with an open mind, and for the record, I would recommend re-watching it, as I found I actually liked it even more the second time, and didn’t have as many issues with it, as a big thing is that if you have a lot of glare coming from the windows etc. then it can be hard to see a lot of the dark scenes, but then again that’s also a given with literally any other movie/show etc. Like I said, deathly hallows part 2 Is still near impossible to see, regardless of glare or not whereas this one I can at least say is way better than that

[Disney's Divinity]

Thank you, Patricier. I've always felt the same about you, too. Even though we may never agree, I never feel like you're trying to have a go at somebody intentionally, you simply get passionate about what you're saying, I can understand that. And I feel the same about Sicoe Vlad, Marce82, Sotiris, and Duster as well (among others), you all add a lot of good to the forum, imo.

I actually think I'm pretty positive about this film. I honestly went in thinking it was going to be horror of horrors, but it ended up being decent. I don't know if it's one I'd want to watch again or that I'd buy though. I agree, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a very darkly lit movie as well.

[Disney Duster]

I didn't call them "she" (or "he" either for that matter)? Usernames seldom indicate gender, so I usually don't use pronouns when responding to people. Anyway, the phone must've corrected Patricier to Patricia when I was writing and I didn't see it, sorry about that Patricier.

Oh. OK, then I'm sorry, my bad.

[Vlad]

I wanted to like the film, I really did. I went into it with an open mind, thinking maybe the trailer did not do it justice. But I just didn't like it. The filmmakers really made an effort to ruin the animated classic - from the dark visuals, to the characters. I didn't mind the race-bent Tinker Bell, but I did mind the fact that she didn't have a personality. I hated how Wendy was turned from a caring, sweet, elegant girl into a total b***h (remember the scene where she threw her brothers under the bus, only to say "it's every man for himself"?). I hated how Peter Pan was a wuss, and how Captain Hook, turned from a fun villain into a boring character.

I'm not hating the actors, they did their best with what they were given. It seems to me the filmmakers focused more on fixing the racist issue in the original and to shove diversity and inclusivity down our throats, and left out, well, the story.

[Marce82]

Teppy....(Vlad).... AGREED!! On everything you said.

I did go into this film with an open mind as well. My main issues with what i had seen in the trailer was how dark/drab everything looked, but nothing else.

DisneyDuster... glad you like the Hook backstory. To me, it makes no sense for those two characters having been friends. And it even puts Peter Pan in a severely bad light (suddenly, he went from arrogant immature kid to more cruel than Hook). But mainly, it starts to destroy the logic of Neverland: can pirates go back and forth between the real world and Neverland? If so, wouldn't everyone on Earth be aware that Neverland is a real place?

From the '53 version, it made sense to me that the people who live in Neverland don't age... and they have always been this age. Like they live in a time-loop where pirates, indians and lost boys are always fighting each other (and always escape or are released, only to "play" again tomorrow), so that kids from Earth can go there... experience some of the games, and then realize that they do have to grow up, and go back to our world. Almost like spending a night in Neverland it a right-of-passage into adulthood. Hence Mr.Darling vaguely remembering his own one-time adventure in Neverland at the end of the '53 film.

From the bits I know of the original book/play, I would say the 1953 movie improved on the existing material. No offence to mr. Barrie!