MovieChat Forums > Peter Pan (1953) Discussion > Forgetable as independent and disgracefu...

Forgetable as independent and disgraceful as an adaptation [SPOILERS!]

posted 15 years ago by wolfoutlaw
19 replies | jump to latest

I don't wonder why this, as far as I know, is considered one of the worst Disney classics ever and I DO wonder how in the world did they manage to have this as the iconic theme for Disney? I guess it is Disney that has made Peter Pan's character well known throughout these decades but only seemingly. I think it's not fair that they take so much credit, when they have never ever told the original story or introduced teh original characters as they were meant to be or even got close. The only respectable Disney related Peter Pan film I know of, is the 2003 live action film. And I daresay Disney didn't have much to do with the production.

It's sad that the people of the Children's Hospital, to which Barrie sold the copyrights of Peter Pan, obviously didn't care about his work at all back then, as they allowed Disney to make this crap. I'm quite sure this isn't wahat we wouldn've seen if Disney asked the permission couple of years ago, before the original srory fell into public domain. The woman who I was adviced to contact for copyright matters in early 2007, cared a LOT about the original story and disliked even the 2003 film for a lot less significant changes than this film has.

First: The characters.
This movie makes Peter an elf in Robin Hood costume instead of a human boy in probably-not-Robin-Hood-costume and ignores all the persona characteristics in him that really matter. This movie makes Wendy a babbling idiot. And poor Captain Hook a TOTAL clown. The supposed-to-be-scary crocodile is a drooling puppy dog in this film. And of course as every Disney cartoon must have a character which has had too many hits in the head, they made one of the Lost Boys that one. The only character that has not been completely disgraced in this film is Tink. Even for an independent film that is a bad thing; none of the characters having any originality or depth in them.

The story itself then? The Darling parents don't even get the time to notice their kids are gone!!! Probably one of the most significant point in the original story and they ruined it! Also the famous nursery scene between Peter Pan and Wendy is a stunning piece of- There are no thimbles and no acorns - one of the little things that makes the original story such a unique one. It's a wonder he even had lost his shadow and she helped him stick it. (Even though to his shoes and it makes no sense to me.)

And the ending is happy through and through. The story made NO difference to any of the characters what-so-ever. Their adventure was POINTLESS even if they were making memories. For the viewer there was no memorable scenes either. I kept forgetting almost everything about this film over and over again, even though I saw this countless of times when I was a kid, like 5 years old or so. I tried to rewatch this a few time when I was a teen, but again - forgetable! Clever bastards! Making it so forgetable that people end up watching it over again.

Ruining a great story like this, just to amuse children should be illegal. So know now if you haven't known it before - this Disney version does not have anything significant in common with the original story - which is not really a children's story but just a great, great story.

And as said, this film is very forgetable all in all. It can be enjoyable for very small children but almost insulting their intelligence by not being... well, more intelligent! And more colourful and more original. This just annoys me to no end.

"I know now the secret of eternity."
http://hiddenkiss.net/lestatandmarius.php

[–] elgrandTA82 15 years ago

And it wasn't the last time Disney messed up a classic story and even a true story. Look at both The Little Mermaid or Pocahontas. There use to be a time when you didn't have to water things down so much for a younger audience. Fairy Tales were about introducing children to the real world and teaching life lessons. One wonders WTF happened to that?

Disney had an involvement with Peter Pan 2003? From what I could gather it seems that it was Universal and Columbia pictures that were the ones who made the live action movie. And I know that Columbia is owned by Sony and I don't think that Universal is owned by Disney. Unless they had to ask for permission from Disney to make the film.

From now on I speak my mind and I bow down to no one.

[–] wolfoutlaw 15 years ago

No I don't think Disney had any say on the production of the 2003 film, if they did, it wouldn't be as great as it is. But it's possible the studios needed Disney's permission because they used their concept of "the second star to the right" taken literally, as well as some of the looks for the characters literally, and even the nursery room scene has some obvious references to this *beep* cartoon.

The 2003 film has even been called a remake of this *beep* cartoon, which kills me in non-laughing way.

"I know now the secret of eternity."
http://hiddenkiss.net/lestatandmarius.php

[–] elgrandTA82 15 years ago

There was also making Wendy walk the plank (not in the book) though maybe it was done in the play. I don't know since I never saw the play except the Mary Martin musical when I was really little. But yeah I did notices some things in the movie that seemed to be taken from the Disney cartoon.

Yeah I never got how anyone could think this was a live action remake of the cartoon. While Jason Isaacs is very much a guy with a sense of humor from what I've seen of his work he doesn't seem like the type of actor that would play the bumbling, idiotic Hook of the cartoon. The day they cast Will Ferrel to play Captain Hook that's when there doing a live action remake the cartoon. And believe me I won't be paying money to see that. I don't think any of the actors in the movie would be spending their time to do Disney's Peter Pan live action. Something like that is way beneath the talents of everyone involved (and yes this includes Jeremy Sumptor and Rachel Hurd-Wood), hell even Richard Smears who played Smee would look ridiculous doing an imitation of the Smee from the Disney movie.

From now on I speak my mind and I bow down to no one.

[–] prterrell 12 years ago

Disney made major changes to the source material right from the beginning. Read the original versions of Snow White, Cinderella, and any of the other "fairy tale" based stories. They are all very different from the Disney versions.

Misidiotaicy - the dislike of idiots.

[–] mokf6 14 years ago

You taking the movie way to seriously, It's fun, great animation, some of the most memorable characters (Tinkerbell, Hook)and is as good now as it was then.

[–] wolfoutlaw 14 years ago

No, I'm not. You'd read a similar opinion to mine from any professional movie critic, only perhaps a little less passionate comparasion to the original novel, which however is an essential aspect so long as a movie is an adaptation of a book. So I don't claim my review to be anywhere near professional level but the point of a useful movie critic is to take an in depth look into and point out and reason also the flaws instead of just praising the film.

I just personally don't find anything so good about this film that it'd be worth mentioning. Good animation? Perhaps, but an enjoyable and memoriable movie takes a whole lot more than just a nice animation.

Tinkerbell & Hook are memoriable characters only because J.M. Barrie made them so in his novel. I don't see this film's versions of them adding anything memoriable to them. On the contrary it takes a whhole lot depth and originality away from them by turning Hook into the typical Disney cartoon clown and Tinkerbell into not much more but a b*tch.

I think good examples of characters Disney itself has made memoriable or increased that of an already memoriable character are the Beast from Beauty and the Beast, Simba and Scar from The Lion King, Lady and the Tramp and Bambi.

[–] lz_merrifield 14 years ago

You're entitled to your opinion, and think whatever you want.

What you don't know, is that this movie was an immediate success after its premiere and was rereleased 6 times plus it had a special screening in Philadelphia for it's 50th not to mention it was entered in the 1953 Cannes Film Festival and was the highest grossing film of that year.

[–] wolfoutlaw 14 years ago

In the OP I actually was critisizing its quality. Not its success.

Twilight (Stephenie Meyer books & movies based on them) are a huge success yet low quality in literature/movie standards and received mixed/mostly negative critics. My point: success doesn't necessarely equal quality. It just means tons of people appreciate something that isn't really that great in a long run and the arts standards, if even to begin with. Whether something is downright crap or not is of course a matter of an opinion.

But if you want to bring in the success, so be it.

"this movie was an immediate success after its premiere"

As have been many others as well. Many that are very different from this film.

"and was the highest grossing film of that year."

Anything can be that if the timing is right with the story themes or something that is "fresh" about the movie.

"and was rereleased 6 times plus it had a special screening in Philadelphia for it's 50th"

Some of the time's Disney classics were rereleased more than six times and receuved even awards. But would 'Peter Pan' have been released 6 times thaterically if it had a VHS release before 1990? I doubt. All those releases were when it was not available in any other but theatrical form. Most Disney classics are released immdeiately on VHS. So I wouldn't hold the theatrical release number as much of a proof of its "greatness". Especially as there wasn't even any awards won. If it was so darn succesfull, why didn't they release it on VHS and six times in tehaters at the same time?

"not to mention it was entered in the 1953 Cannes Film Festival"

Because the film makers paid for it to happen, just like all the other entered. So, I would hold that as a proof of its greatness only if the film actually won something there. But apparently, it didn't.

[–] Spongeyone 13 years ago

You'd read a similar opinion to mine from any professional movie critic,

Well, let's see... http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1016213-peter_pan/ 83% positive. Top critic blurbs:

A feature cartoon of enchanting quality.

Ornamented with some bright and lilting tunes, it is a lively feature-length Technicolor excursion into a world that glows with an exhilarating charm and a gentle joyousness.

Disney's depersonalizing habit of putting different teams in charge of different sections of the story really shows up here.

Generally, they thought it was a pretty good movie aside from the whole racism thing. #28 out of Disney's 50 animated movies.

[–] elgrandTA82 14 years ago

It's good for what it is, my problem with it (and what I think is the problem for many fans) is that this seems to stand as the definitive telling of Peter Pan. Whenever people think of Peter Pan its this movie, whenever he's shown in pop culture its always this movie's version of the characters that's shown. Pretty much everything Peter Pan seems to be related to the Disney movie and Disney seems to pretty much have the market on anything "Peter Pan" related despite him being a public domain character.

And of the course the biggest issue with that is that the Disney version of the story and characters doesn't match up with the stories and characters from the original story. One thing that seems have killed the 2003 movie in terms of responses from parents and critics was that it actually followed the original source material and not Disney. When it came out I do remember people complaining about it being to hardcore and some critics giving it thumbs down for the same reason.

From now on I speak my mind and I bow down to no one.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] elgrandTA82 13 years ago

I've noticed that actually, they didn't do a bad job with Tink. It's ironic because the newer depictions of Tinker Bell so to be so far away from even the original Disney version of the character. I have to wonder what a small child who only knows these recent movies and then sees the original Peter Pan Disney movie (only to see her attempt to have Wendy killed, get banished by Peter and then betray them all to Hook) would think.

[–] ninji19 12 years ago

Yeah I don't really get why in the hell that character is supposed to be the poster girl for Disney. I get that later on in the story she redeems herself and all, adding depth to her character but com'on...she tried to KILL someone for god's sake, on top of betraying ALL of her friends! If anything I would think moreso of them making Wendy the poster girl, cuz at least she had kind and redeeming qualities!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] StarskyandChinaHutch 12 years ago

Nope, they actually managed to make a pretty fine movie out of what isn't terribly good source material to begin with.

Who busts the Crimebusters?

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] getyerownpizza 12 years ago

Oh BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH get over yourself, you pretentious piece of *beep* Nobody wants to hear your stupid opinion -_- If you don't like it, don't watch it. I hardly believed the Disney version was a perfect depiction of Barrie's work SHEESH. This movie didn't ruin anything, you're being over dramatic. You have too much time on your hands if you can make a post that long and dull. Get a hobby, better yet, get a life.

[–] Oddark123 12 years ago

Lol. Someone being dramatic is you. You have to be in denial to not admit Disney committed atrocities against a lot of it's source material, in favor of kiddifying them. And in a lot of cases they pale in comparison to the good stories they come from, but make good movies in their own right.

Do YOU have a problem with people valuing the story more than anything else? Lots of people do and lots of people can tell you they prefer the source material better than the Disney version.

If you expect a good story from a book to go on screen and you get a mangled version instead, it's only natural people are going to dislike it. Some little film snobs like to act like their medium should stand on it's own but in reality film is just the inferior medium to telling a story because it had natural limitations. There's a reason it's a common saying that "the book was better". Most people who value stories know books often can do a lot more than a movie ever will

Gamefaqs has a far worse population than IMDB

[–] getyerownpizza 12 years ago

I don't believe I was talking to you...

Anyway, I myself actually like the original better than Disney's version, I just find it odd that people expect that Disney would do an spot-on portrayal.