Peter Pan & Wendy (Live-Action)

[tsom]

Tsom, it'd be cool if as my friend once upon a time you explained your opinion instead of silently facepalming me. I still want to be a friend regardless if you don't because you think I'm racist. At least I am an honest person if you think I'm a racist one.

You know I love you, but there are just some things that can be left unsaid. Your post was definitely your opinion, but even you said it might sound racist, which it lowkey was.

[Disney Duster]

Thank you for talking to me. I love you, too. But I think people should say honest things as long as they are not mean things meant to hurt people. I do not consider wanting the kind of ethnicity a character was probably intended, or imagined, to have, with context and hints from the original source as well as taking into account the source's author, to be in a film, to be lowkey racist. But if you disagree with me, you do have a right to say things about me I feel are untrue, even though that does hurt.

Edit: I couldn't sleep, I had to write this. I want to add something. I wanted to say, I hope I didn't hurt you with my words. I can't remember all the indicators, but I remember at least one indicator of Peter's ethnicity from the book. He ran away and didn't want to grow up because he heard his parents talking about the great things he would do when he became a man. I read that non-whites in Britain in the early 20th century were mostly soldiers, and from what I gleaned, most were also lower class, if not all. Why would Peter's parents talk about hoping he becomes a soldier? So it can be gleaned he was upper class, and thus white.

Now I can concede, that this is fantasy, and we can just let someone who is not the historically accurate ethnicity play an upper class Brit from the early 20th century. That's not something "bad".

I just don't like my post or opinion being called racist for wanting historical accuracy.

[JeanGreyForever]

So, I saw Peter Pan 2003 and...well...it was ok. I liked parts of it, I really did, but when I read the book I felt so much emotion for the characters and then the ending battle was so scary. The movie kind of was too light and comedic for my tastes. Peter had a great actor, at least in terms of nailing the innocence and cockiness while still being likeable, though he couldn't cry for real it seems. It's ok that's usually hard for young children to do. Wendy was ok, didn't reall engage me. I liked Hook. I did like some additions like the aunt and Mr. Darling's personality and the added scenes before they go to Neverland, as well as the changes to the Cinderella story they told. I thought they did the "I believe in fairies" scene pretty well and I thought Peter and Wendy dancing was romantic. Some of the scenes looked beautiful, too, but they stole things from the Disney film like imprisoning Tinker Bell and making the ship fly. But I dunno, I think they were trying to balance the fun, light, happy tones with the melancholy tones and it didn't work as a whole. I must say, I prefer the Disney version. It feels more cohesive. But neither has lived up to the book.

I like Tinker Bell's personality even in Disney's version, but I more so like her as a mischievous Disney program host, lol.

DisneyFan97, that's cool that you like the Tinker Bell films, a lot of people do.

It's a shame you didn't like it very much but that can be understandable. I think the film would appeal more to children. The movie is pretty whimsical but to be honest, that's the tone of the book as well. Never did I ever get the impression that the book was supposed to be scary, even in the final battle, especially considering how Peter is always on top of things (literally). The film climax actually adds some tension by taking away Peter's ability to fly when he stops believing in himself thanks to Hook taunting him that he won't end up with Wendy. There's some much-needed added stakes there.

Wendy seems to be a character that people either like or they don't. I've always been a fan of her but I know many people consider her a nag or colorless. Alice gets the same amount of flack typically. Peter and Wendy have wonderful chemistry though and in real life, Jeremy Sumpter was madly in love with Rachel Hurd-Wood. I've heard they even dated for a while but I believe Rachel always viewed Jeremy as a friend and nothing more but they still remain close to this day. If nothing else, I think the Peter in this film is far more charming and charismatic than the Disney one any day, in both looks and personality. Jason Isaacs was born to play a villain between Hook and Lucius Malfoy and he can always rock any hairstyle.

Aunt Millicent tends to be one of the most praised changes to the film. The Black Castle set piece (a replacement for Skull Rock in the Disney Film and Marooner's Rock in the book which was pretty bare and lacking in thrills) was also a much needed improvement in my book. The "I believe in fairies" scene was exactly what they should have done in the Disney film although Walt Disney cut that because he didn't believe the audience would engage with it I think. This film definitely takes influence from the Disney film like John's hat (unless that was in the book, because I can't remember), Michael's teddy bear, and Hook imprisoning Tink, to name a few. I think the film's score is remarkable though especially during the flying scene and there's a reason Disney Parks commercials poached that.

Thank you for talking to me. I love you, too. But I think people should say honest things as long as they are not mean things meant to hurt people. I do not consider wanting the kind of ethnicity a character was probably
intended, or imagined, to have, with context and hints from the original source as well as taking into account the source's author, to be in a film, to be lowkey racist. But if you disagree with me, you do have a right to say things about me I feel are untrue, even though that does hurt.

Edit: I couldn't sleep, I had to write this. I want to add something. I wanted to say, I hope I didn't hurt you with my words. I can't remember all the indicators, but I remember at least one indicator of Peter's ethnicity from the book. He ran away and didn't want to grow up because he heard his parents talking about the great things he would do when he became a man. I read that non-whites in Britain in the early 20th century were mostly soldiers, and from what I gleaned, most were also lower class, if not all. Why would Peter's parents talk about hoping he becomes a soldier? So it can be gleaned he was upper class, and thus white.

Now I can concede, that this is fantasy, and we can just let someone who is not the historically accurate ethnicity play an upper class Brit from the early 20th century. That's not something "bad".

I just don't like my post or opinion being called racist for wanting historical accuracy.

Wasn't it also heavily hinted at in the book that Peter's story about his mother abandoning him wasn't even real but pure make-believe? He has a tendency to spout out lies which he firmly believes in at the time and I think it was said that because he had no connection to mothers, he was getting irritated that everyone else was talking about them and he had nothing to say so he comes up with this story about a mother abandoning him right on the spot which is pretty true to his nature. For some reason, everyone seems to think this was part of Peter's tragic backstory and even Walt Disney nearly implemented it in his film. Then again, there's also a scene where we learn that Peter has nightmares while he's sleeping and he needs Wendy to comfort him, but even then, that could just be from loneliness or fears of growing up rather than repressed memories of a mother who abandoned him.

As essentially a faerie creature, a character like Peter can easily be recast with any ethnicity without having to adhere to historical accuracy. For the same reason you could have an American Peter in the 2003 live-action film, although even that got flack at the time. It might be a bit more difficult to imagine Wendy recast since she was supposed to be from a typical middle-class (or upper middle-class, I can't remember) British family although maybe in the early 1900s in London, you could possibly find someone who was South Asian or Black in a similar class. I'm assuming this is also why they felt that they could recast Ariel, a mythological creature, rather than a princess like Cinderella or Belle or Jasmine who would need to adhere to historical standards.

[Disney Duster]

The 2003 film definitely did a lot to appeal to children. But there was a much-needed whimsical tone for some scenes that I never felt while reading the book. I still think the ending was scary, but that was my take on it, I can see how it can be taken another way. I didn't like Peter losing his ability to fly, just because I felt that would never happen, or Hook flying because I thought Hook was supposed to be too grown up to fly. Wendy didn't make me dislike her, I just wasn't taken by her acting. I liked the Wendy from Disney's better. I didn't know Peter's actor really loved Wendy's actress but she just thought of him as a friend. That's sad for him. Oh well, like he won't find someone else. This Peter Pan was a more likable one than Disney's, in looks and personality, that I admit.

The castle was cool, but I felt like it should have been a scary rock. I didn't know till now, that it being a skull was pure Disney invention. Yes, "I believe in fairies" was done how Disney could have done it, though I do also like Disney's version to be honest, because I like the shadow and light and Peter's profession of love reviving Tink. I can't remember about John's hat, either. I can't remember the music, but I remember it was nice.

What you say about Peter Pan's ethnicity I must admit is true. I feel like his sad dreams were actually about how he left his parents and now will never have them, and the pain that comes with ever growing up, but that is my take, it's not written. I believe the Darlings were upper middle class but I don't remember either. I don't believe Peter was born a fairy but became like one when he went to Neverland. Otherwise, why would he be sad if he never had a human past to wish he never left or a human future he is sad he will miss out on? I understand the British vs. American thing but I've never needed it to be that authentic just like the recent Harriet movie that came out. So, yes, Peter Pan can be any ethnicity. It's not something that I feel was intended, something feels amiss to me, but it wasn't written out in stone so, I must lose this argument about it. You may be right about the human princess thing, but actually I suspect that Disney just wanted a way to appear really progressive when they kept remaking stories where their characters originally were depicted as white.

[JeanGreyForever]

That's really surprising that you didn't feel that the book was very whimsical because that's usually one of the first things people point out especially with the narration. Things like Nana being a nurse to three school children and walking them around the park for example. Or a lot of the bits featuring Mrs. Darling or the children's dreams. I thought it was a good addition that Peter lost the ability to fly because he's always happy which being able to fly requires, happy thoughts at least. He pushes aside any other feeling and his only weak spot is Wendy. He thinks Wendy will be with him forever and when Wendy admits her feelings towards him and her desire to grow up with him, he immediately dismisses that and tries to pretend that he feels nothing towards her. It's only when Hook confronts him with the reality that Peter is forced to consider the fact that she will inevitably leave him and his happy thoughts are gone. So that was an addition I really liked and a lot of people praised it but Hook being able to fly was super controversial and got a lot of flack. It doesn't bother me too much but I can se why people hated that addition.

Yes, Skull Rock was purely Disney so I can see why the film wouldn't go that route. Hmm, I don't remember the Disney film reviving Tinker Bell the way you said it. One second Tinker Bell is believed to be dead and Peter says how much she means to him in the rubble and that's sort of it. No magical revival or transformation. It's really rushed and basically an afterthought and that got a lot of complaints actually. The sequel, Return to Neverland, actually does this scene way better so maybe you are getting it mixed up with that. This is the iconic score from the flying scene, aptly titled flying. And Disney liked it enough to use it for their Disney Parks commercials because of how magical and fantastical it sounds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5KiIsA93Vg
https://www.disboards.com/threads/music ... s.2962346/

Peter's origin is in The Little White Bird, the first Peter Pan novel, but I don't remember too much of it. I don't think Neverland exists in that book so Peter was already the Peter Pan we know before he went to Neverland. You could still be sad without having a normal human past, so I don't think that is integral to him. What happened in the recent Harriet movie? I agree that Disney wanted to appear progressive with TLM remake but that's why I think they only chose to do a colorblind casting (even though we now know it wasn't colorblind since they were only looking at black actresses) for Ariel because she was the only princess they felt it could still make some sort of sense with unlike any traditional princess.

[Disney Duster]

I think when I read I always take everything too seriously. I liked that the movie made some things feel happier, and appropriate, like building the house over Wendy. Your explanation of why Peter loses his ability to fly is a good one, I must admit. I just thought because he was a different kind of boy he could never lose it. Your idea makes me take that idea in the movie better. I guess it was a good idea.

That music is so beautfiul, and yes I remember it now that you played it! I guess I thought all the music was pretty good so I forgot that was a standout. It's so funny Disney decided to use it!

Oh, ok, well, then Peter is mystery. I just thought he must have been human before, because it says "all children grow up, except one", and I don't think that resonates if he was always a fairy child or some inhuman creature. I am making an assumption that I thought came from hints in the book that he was always human and came from the same kind of family Wendy did. I just thought that's how it all made sense. You are probably right about TLM's case.

Oh, for Harriet, some people were upset a Black British woman was playing her instead of an African American woman.

[JeanGreyForever]

Have you ever read the Alice in Wonderland books? I'm curious how you would take those then lol because I can't imagine those being serious so how you perceive it would be really interesting then. I'm glad my explanation or take on Peter losing his powers made sense to you.

I'm happy you remembered the score then and felt it was all pretty good. Yeah, that always surprises me when Disney acknowledges the competition and uses some of their stuff themselves (also like showing Harry Potter, Secret of NIMH, or Ice Age on Disney Channel). BTW, this is a bit off-topic but while we're discussing scores, have you ever seen the film Mary Queen of Scots with Saiorse Ronan and Margot Robie? I read on Twitter sometime back that the score for the film was breathtaking just like the live-action Cinderella's. I watched the movie myself but tbh I don't remember anything about the score at all so I'm curious if you've seen the film, and if so, if you liked the score and felt it was comparable to Cinderella's.

From that line of all children growing up except one, I always took it that Peter was not a normal child. Perhaps human still but a human child who was magical or gifted for some reason and thus wouldn't ever grow up. In The Little White Bird, the idea is that all babies are like birds so they can fly but eventually they grow up and lose that ability so Peter, for whatever reason, never loses that ability.

Oh, I didn't realize that the actress who played Harriet was British. Funny because I even watched the Oscars with her and it clearly didn't register with me that she's British so I must not have thought anything of it.

[Disney Duster]

Yes, I read both Alice books. I took them seriously as well. I think my sense of humour is off lol. I mean, ys everything is going weird and odd but I thought of it all as like very solemn. Maybe it's the words.

I didn't want to see Mary Queen of Scots when the film didn't get much buzz and the costumes looked blah. If you recommend it I will give it a watch. Cinderella (2015)'s score is good, has many distinctive melodies, but sometimes I find it a bit too saccharine, and sometimes the wrong feel like when Ella's mother dies and that violin annoys me. Still, it is a very good score actually. If Mary's score is that good at least that's one good thing about it, but you said you didn't even notice it!

Oh, what you say about Peter Pan actually does make sense. Why does Peter not grow when the Lost Boys do? It's weird, and yet, the mystery makes us Pan fans intrigued.

Oh, I forgot to say, for Tinker Bell's death in the Disney version, wasn't there a lot of darkness, then the dying glow of Tink, with faint bells, and Peter, well you're right he doesn't so much proclaim love but when he says she means more to him than anything in the world I consider that showing love. I actually think that scene is done really well.

Lol it's ok about Harriet I just happened to read a little about that controversy somehow.

[JeanGreyForever]

Actually you thinking the Alice books were solemn isn't really incorrect because a lot of the Wonderland characters take themselves very seriously and act very solemn so I can totally understand why you felt that way!

Yeah, Mary Queen of Scots didn't end up being as big a film as I predicted it would have been. I like Mary's costumes in the film but I guess they really aren't that groundbreaking either. I do like the general story though and Saoirse Ronan's performance but I'm a huge fan of hers anyway. I need to rewatch that scene with Cinderella's mom's death scene to see if I feel the music feels off or not. Like I said, Mary's score was likened to Cinderella's but when I watched it, nothing really caught on with me but I think I pulled an all-nigher the night I was watching this so maybe that's why I was oblivious.

A lot of people have the misconception that if you go to Neverland, you'll never grow up but even in Neverland, the Lost Boys would slowly grow and Peter would get rid of them if he noticed them aging. And of course, the fairies had very short life spans and would die within a couple of months. So actually Peter never growing up had nothing to do with Neverland. Neverland was just the island where children's dreams came true because in the beginning, we see that the Darling children all dream of an island with something specific they want and at Neverland, everything they dreamed of exists there. Like the mermaids for Wendy and her wolf cub or the Indians for Michael I think or maybe it was John.

Yes, it was a lot of darkness in that scene where Peter is searching underground in the rubble for Tink but it's really quick and not given a lot of emotion imo. They did a much better job in the sequel to actually pay attention to Tinker Bell's dying form and how to revive her because we don't even see her revived in the original.

[Disney Duster]

Ah, so yes, so true of Alice's books!

Well, perhaps I will Prime Mary Queen of Scots provided I have enough money. So you liked her costumes?

Yes, of course, you are right about flying and lifespans and what Neverland is. I used to think no one grew up in Neverland. It's odd that people wouldn't think that when it appears Peter thinks Wendy, Michael, and John can live with him forever and gets upset when they won't. After learning you don't stay young forever in Neverland, I just thought Peter was a human who refused to grow up super hard and thus got to.

I like the way Disney's original Peter Pan did it. Then the 2003 one's way. I didn't really think the Disney sequel did it well. I mean, you don't even hear Jane say, "I do believe in fairies!" And the song sucks and Tinker Bell overacts.

[JeanGreyForever]

Maybe you could find it at Redbox if it's available there. I'm not sure if it is. Yes, the costumes for Mary were nice enough in my opinion.

Yeah the whole aging thing on Neverland is pretty confusing but from what I've heard, the idea is that only Peter Pan is special enough to never grow up. Neverland is just the place where he brings children for adventures because that's what they dream of.

I actually liked the song in Return to Neverland but I know a lot of people have dissed it. I still found it more emotional than the original movie and even if Tinker Bell is overacting, at least we actually get to see her die and be revived unlike in the original. I'd rather too much of a reaction than no reaction at all otherwise it's like the live-action BATB with Emma Watson during the transformation scene lol.

[Disney Duster]

I'll Prime Mary.

Yes, Peter flying and never growing up is a mystery.

OMG the transformation scene from BatB 2017 lol. Yes, not very emotional.

[JeanGreyForever]

The flying comes from The Little White Bird. The idea that all small children are part-bird or something like that and can fly. Children lose this ability as they start to grow up but Peter rejects this idea so he never grows up and thus can always fly.

A bit like how in the Mary Poppins books, we find out that all babies can understand animals and vice-versa. However, around the age of 1 or so, they lose this ability. Mary Poppins is the only adult who can communicate with animals and babies.

[Disney Duster]

All that is cool!

[DisneyFan97]

I hope we get casting soon for the adult roles !

I really want Marget Robbie as Tinkerbell !!!

[Sotiris]

Additionally, Disney Studios has removed an untitled live-action film also dated for March 12, 2021 off their release calendar. The untitled film moved off that date I hear was for Disney’s live-action Peter Pan film, Peter Pan and Wendy, directed by David Lowery (Pete’s Dragon).

Source: https://thedisinsider.com/2020/04/13/pi ... arch-2021/

[Sotiris]

Well, Margot Robbie apparently is still circling the role of Tinkerbell in Disney’s Peter Pan and Wendy, now there is a rumor Scarlett Johansson is in the mix, which is a name I couldn’t confirm. Robbie is Disney’s top choice for the role as far as I know.

Source: https://twitter.com/SkylerShuler/status ... 0372290561

[Farerb]

I like Margot Robbie, but I don't think playing Tinkerbell is her thing, at least I hope not cause so far she made smart choices regarding the characters she plays, I'd hate to see her devolve into mediocrity by playing in a Disney remake. Same with Scarlett Johansson.

[Farerb]

Also wondering what changes they going to make to Wendy in order to turn her into a #girlboss™, cause you know that dreamy story loving Wendy, who learns that it is okay to grow up, is not good enough anymore. She has to be a scientist or an inventor in order to have some value in viewers minds, god forbids her weak feminine traits will be shown.

[Disney Duster]

^ LOL!

But, I do want to point out, Cate Blanchett was in Cinderella and she in no way devolved into mediocrity. She even got nominated for Best Actress since then.