Page 2 of 4
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:48 am
by XxSuRgEoxX
It looks really good. I never cared for Disney's Peter Pan, especially after reading the play. I hope this one is more true to the story
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:20 pm
by Captain Hook
I talked to my friend who watched the preview, she loved it, and I think I'll have to go see it now.
Hook
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:14 pm
by Lady
does anyone know why Disney backed out? it seems like a financially profitable venture.
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 9:05 am
by Disneykid
This explains it all:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... php?t=1957
Rather idiotic of them to drop out of this film. It's like they want to lose business. They've turned down this, Lord of the Rings, and the one thing that would've suited them perfectly (Chronicles of Narnia) is already being made by Walden Media. Their only chance, now, is to make a deal with Walden Media to release Narnia since Disney desperately needs to hop onto the big-budget movie series wagon all the other studios are on.
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 11:06 am
by 2099net
Especially when the Great Ormand Street Hospital for Children is the premiere Children's Hospital in England and is an NHS hospital. All money earned by them from Peter Pan is basically charity and put into treating the children.
http://www.gosh.org/index.html
or for more on The Great Ormand Street Hospital and Peter Pan see
http://www.gosh.org/about_us/peterpan/index.html
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:47 pm
by Rebel
Jack wrote:I don't have much of an interest in seeing it. IMO, Disney's Peter Pan is the best it can get, and Hook was enjoyable too. There's nothing in the new one that catches my eye as worth paying 8 bucks to see.
"Hook" started out good and went downhill from there. I saw it in the theatre when it came out, but do not expect to ever sit through it again.
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:57 pm
by Lady
it is funny how Disney thinks they own Peter Pan just because they made an animated film and theme park attraction based on it.
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:49 pm
by Fletcher
Please no Disney for "The Chronicles Of Narnia." I like Disney, but I cringe at what they would do to some of my favorite fantasy books, and based on the fact that Miramax was willing to accept a two-movie version of "The Lord of the Rings," (and then demand it to be cut down to one,) I don't think that would have been much good either.
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 4:02 pm
by Disneykid
But now's a little late for Disney to make anything drastic out of Narnia. The reason being is Walden Media is at the moment doing The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, meaning if Disney ends up being a distributor, the production will be well enough underway that they can't make any (or many) last minute changes. If Wardrobe is successful, Walden plans on doing the other 6 books in order of publication (which is how it should be, IMO).
To make this post a bit more on topic, I really hope the new Peter Pan gets excellent DVD treatment next year. The question is, will this be a Columbia DVD or a Universal one? I hope Columbia because Universal has stopped making inserts even on their 2-disc sets, is dropping trailers, and then there's those forced ads at the start of a disc.
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 1:12 am
by Grunches
I want to see it. It looks good
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 1:45 am
by 2099net
To make this post a bit more on topic, I really hope the new Peter Pan gets excellent DVD treatment next year. The question is, will this be a Columbia DVD or a Universal one? I hope Columbia because Universal has stopped making inserts even on their 2-disc sets, is dropping trailers, and then there's those forced ads at the start of a disc.
According to the IMDB it's Columbia for US (and a few other countries) and Universal for the rest of the world (including the UK)
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 2:22 pm
by Choco Bear
well this basically bombed at the box office only get 15 mill over a 4 day period...im kind of happy though
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 2:36 pm
by Lady
did anyone see it? any reviews in yet? does anyone prefer this version to the disney version?
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:30 pm
by Joe Carioca
What a shame... it seems "Peter Pan" bombed, while the real bomb, "Cheapen By The Dozen", did pretty well!
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/ch ... 52a&p=.htm
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:53 pm
by Luke
So you saw "Cheaper By The Dozen"?
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 7:04 pm
by Joe Carioca
Luke wrote:
So you saw "Cheaper By The Dozen"?
Well, hmmm, cough, cough...
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 1:20 am
by Grunches
I saw Peter Pan
and I prefer the Disney version
. Cheeper by the Dozen looks better. Even though I haven't seen it yet, I plan too.
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:22 pm
by Captain Hook
I saw Peter Pan and REALLY liked it. It was very good. However, I would have to say that I enjoyed the Disney version better. The new Peter Pan was exceptionally close to the story (which was MUCH darker than the Disney version). The mermaids were awesome and terrifying, Hook was great
and the cast was superb. Though I saw it with some younger children, I would suggest that the 6-7 below range should stay home, the violence definitely deserved a PG rating and there was some brief nudity.
Overall, it deserves about an A- and I'm sure it's better than that rip off Cheaper by the Dozen.
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:16 pm
by Maerj
Captain Hook wrote:
Overall, it deserves about an A- and I'm sure it's better than that rip off Cheaper by the Dozen.
Actually isn't Cheaper by the Dozen a remake of the classic 1950 film, which was adapted from a book about the true story of the Gilbreth family?
Also...there was nudity in Peter Pan??
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 4:13 pm
by Disneykid
According to Leonard Maltin's review of it on Hot Ticket, Cheaper By the Dozen has nothing to do with the 50's movie or the book.
I still haven't seen Peter Pan, yet, but hopefully I will Saturday. Every review I've seen it of it has been extreme-people either love it or hate it. Leonard Maltin hated it (which is bizarre because he's a Peter Pan fan in general) yet Roger Ebert loved it.