For a Peter Pan movie...

[TheWendybird]

I am interested in opinions on this especially Andrew's. For a Peter Pan movie to not be a let down or as Andrew says "dismal" what do you all think are musts for it to contain? I really liked the 2003 movie but do feel it lacked a lot and wish Peter had a brit accent. I did like the development of Peter & Wendy together but think they should have been a little bit younger. I wanted to see more of the mothering aspect. I wanted to see the Pillow Fighting in the Home Under the Ground. Thoughts?

[AlexanderDavid]

The mothering aspect is a must, yes, as well as Wendy and Peter's relationship with each other, but it's easier for me to think of what NOT to have than what to have.

Two things in particular come to mind as what NOT to have: the "living shadow" and the "flying pirate ship."  Neither comes from Barrie and neither makes sense even according to Barrie's own rules.

Personally, though, what I'd like to see in a Peter Pan movie is a "subjective" Peter Pan.  In other words, depending on who encounters him and what they think of him, Peter is different.  So for example he'd start out like a demonic threat (as Mrs. Darling sees him), but then turn into a charming, cocky boy (as Wendy sees him), and then as a leader to be both admired and feared (as the Lost Boys see him), and as an irritating menace (as Hook sees him).

I think that's a rather Barrie-ish notion, and would aid in the mystique of the Peter Pan character.  I still don't imagine any particular boy (not even Jeremy Sumpter) when I think of Peter Pan.

[TheWendybird]

The mothering aspect is a must, yes, as well as Wendy and Peter's relationship with each other, but it's easier for me to think of what NOT to have than what to have.

Two things in particular come to mind as what NOT to have: the "living shadow" and the "flying pirate ship."  Neither comes from Barrie and neither makes sense even according to Barrie's own rules.

Personally, though, what I'd like to see in a Peter Pan movie is a "subjective" Peter Pan.  In other words, depending on who encounters him and what they think of him, Peter is different.  So for example he'd start out like a demonic threat (as Mrs. Darling sees him), but then turn into a charming, cocky boy (as Wendy sees him), and then as a leader to be both admired and feared (as the Lost Boys see him), and as an irritating menace (as Hook sees him).

I think that's a rather Barrie-ish notion, and would aid in the mystique of the Peter Pan character.  I still don't imagine any particular boy (not even Jeremy Sumpter) when I think of Peter Pan.

Very good idea....I've noticed that it never says they fly through outer space or anything to get to Neverland so why would they need a flying ship to get back? It just says they went across the ocean...perhaps neverland is like a bermuda triangle effect that takes you into another dimension lol I dunno. Or maybe it's just an island. I like the idea you have about the different ways of seeing him though that's pretty neat.

[AlexanderDavid]

Very good idea....I've noticed that it never says they fly through outer space or anything to get to Neverland so why would they need a flying ship to get back? It just says they went across the ocean...perhaps neverland is like a bermuda triangle effect that takes you into another dimension lol I dunno. Or maybe it's just an island. I like the idea you have about the different ways of seeing him though that's pretty neat.

They wouldn't need a flying ship anyway--they flew to the island without a ship.  Barrie says they sailed home and then flew the rest of the way (since flying tired them out).

I don't know about the nature of the island....

But thanks!   

[Hannah High]

Mrs. Darling as Hook.

Peter as a boy (demon and wonderful boy).

No morals (they always seem to stick those in).

[TheWendybird]

Mrs. Darling as Hook.

Peter as a boy (demon and wonderful boy).

No morals (they always seem to stick those in).

Well there must be SOME morals..it's not complete Lord of the Flies but also there is a respect for Wendy...Peter even says in one situation with her to the Lost boys "It would not be sufficiently respectful".
As for Mrs. Darling as Hook....this is an interesting thought. How would you want this portrayed? Do you just mean the actress play both like the same actor has played George and Hook or Hook still be male though Mrs. Darling is female?

[AlexanderDavid]

Mrs. Darling as Hook.

Peter as a boy (demon and wonderful boy).

No morals (they always seem to stick those in).

Well there must be SOME morals..it's not complete Lord of the Flies but also there is a respect for Wendy...Peter even says in one situation with her to the Lost boys "It would not be sufficiently respectful".
As for Mrs. Darling as Hook....this is an interesting thought. How would you want this portrayed? Do you just mean the actress play both like the same actor has played George and Hook or Hook still be male though Mrs. Darling is female?

Speaking for myself, I've looked at the notes and it appears to me that the character was meant from the start to be male, and it was only in one note that I recall that he mentioned having the character played by the same actress as Mrs. Darling.

As for the moral idea, I think they just need to not use the sledgehammer approach with it and CERTAINLY not enforce a moral that wasn't even in the original story....

[Hannah High]

yea...actress play both Mrs. Darling and Hook. I'm not talking about an obvious overthetop gag reel (as Hook is often protrayed as) but very ambigous way between male and female...beautiful and dangerous, switching between different sex space boundaries (as in how a male/female moves or keeps to themself)...somewhat like an actor in a Kabuki play (a man playing a woman playing a man, visa versa in our case...that's thrilling when felt and stylized).

As for morals, well...I always thought the film versions put these other themes to it that were pretty annoying. And each filmmaker does have to bear what he thinks the story is saying (films and books/plays are different no matter what people say!), but with Peter, he's been so simplified and mauled in a ghastly way. Barrie's book and play were very complex, yet at the same time very pure in emotions and thoughts of the kids and the adults too (remember one of his fairy notes: no one has grownup ideas in this play). The movies often add these things that seem more "problmatic" (like Wendy being groomed to be a lady in 2003 version) that kind of looses Peter's spirit - I thought Barrie presented the real problems well. Also I always think Mrs. Darling is made too angelic in versions...she that devil in her too.

sorry my words are so garbled! I am deep in a bunch of other books and plays now for school. But...

[TheWendybird]

yea...actress play both Mrs. Darling and Hook. I'm not talking about an obvious overthetop gag reel (as Hook is often protrayed as) but very ambigous way between male and female...beautiful and dangerous, switching between different sex space boundaries (as in how a male/female moves or keeps to themself)...somewhat like an actor in a Kabuki play (a man playing a woman playing a man, visa versa in our case...that's thrilling when felt and stylized).

As for morals, well...I always thought the film versions put these other themes to it that were pretty annoying. And each filmmaker does have to bear what he thinks the story is saying (films and books/plays are different no matter what people say!), but with Peter, he's been so simplified and mauled in a ghastly way. Barrie's book and play were very complex, yet at the same time very pure in emotions and thoughts of the kids and the adults too (remember one of his fairy notes: no one has grownup ideas in this play). The movies often add these things that seem more "problmatic" (like Wendy being groomed to be a lady in 2003 version) that kind of looses Peter's spirit - I thought Barrie presented the real problems well. Also I always think Mrs. Darling is made too angelic in versions...she that devil in her too.

sorry my words are so garbled! I am deep in a bunch of other books and plays now for school. But...

Yes I dunno why there has to be a particular problem for Wendy to go to Neverland...shouldn't the lure of the place..the idea..Peter...be enough ? Not that family problems can't exist there but I don't know about the idea of "oh she flew away to escape a bad family". I'd like to think perhaps she just a longing for another place.

The idea of no one having grown up ideas in the play is kinda funny...especially when you take into consideration that George Darling is a big baby! lol Oh I'll just slip the dog the medicine no one will notice lol

I agree on Mrs. Darling completely.

[TheWendybird]

As for the moral idea, I think they just need to not use the sledgehammer approach with it and CERTAINLY not enforce a moral that wasn't even in the original story....

Ah you mean the beat you over the head with a moral idea? lol Like a pre-school lesson or something? Can you give an example of morals in different versions not enforced in the original story? I've seen multiple versions, read the play and book and what not...I can't think off the top of my head cause I'm tired at the moment haha I'd love to hear it though.

[AlexanderDavid]

I think Hannah High should answer that question, since she brought it up.

Anyway, from reading Barrie's original, it seems that it isn't even a longing for another place that prompts her to go (at least not before she MEETS Peter Pan), but CERTAINLY she's not trying to ESCAPE anything.

I see it that she's just being a child and thus lured by the idea of something new and exciting and isn't yet grown up enough to take her parents' feelings into account.  She only once briefly thinks of "Mother," and then forgets about it when Peter entices her with the talk of the mermaids, and flying, and how "we shall all respect you!"

And for the record, I could never see Mrs. Darling as angelic after saying outright that puppies don't have souls.  NYAH! 

[TheWendybird]

Oh don't even get me started on when people say animals don't have souls I can't stand that!

[AlexanderDavid]

Oh don't even get me started on when people say animals don't have souls I can't stand that!

I've more or less been trying to train myself to laugh at that kind of thing rather than get upset.  I know it was the early 20th century (hence the erroneous portrayal of the Indians), for one thing, and for another, it's just silly to think we're the only species with souls--as if we're so good.

A dog is man's best friend, but behind the man's back a dog laughs at him for believing in rainbows.