MovieChat Forums > Pan (2015) Discussion > We should have supported 2003's Peter Pa...

We should have supported 2003's Peter Pan when we had the chance

posted 9 years ago by ReelReviews14
18 replies | jump to latest

Peter Pan (2003) was the first and only FAITHFUL live-action adaptation of Peter Pan. It had the misfortune of being released at a bad time, and got lost in the shuffle competing against bigger budgeted and better marketed films.

Since Hollywood thinks audiences didn't care for a faithful rendition of Peter Pan -- or didn't connect to the material -- we're now stuck with a slew of Peter Pan In Name Only films that ignore the source material, "re-imagine" the main characters, and tell some half-baked supposed prequel/sequel story that actually has nothing to do with the events of the J. M. Barrie novel or play.

The films prior to 2003 also missed the mark. Of course there's the classic Disney film, which attempted to do the original story justice, but it was was an animated music. Prior live action adaptations had adult women play the part of "Peter Pan", or were "What if?" stories, like 1991's Hook.

2003 nailed the original story and characters. For example, in contrast to Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily, the 2003 film cast Carsen Gray as Tiger Lily. The actress is a real-life member of a first nations tribe in northern Canada, and she is also fluent in an Iroquois language.

Bottom line, we should have flocked to see Peter Pan done faithfully in 2003. We didn't, and now we're paying the price.

[–] DickyBettsBass 9 years ago

Exactly! Needless to say by now, I did see it at the time, saw it with kids, loved it, bought the DVD and the soundtrack, gave it as a present to a number of other friends with children.

Of course not all is lost, as we can still buy the DVD, Blu-ray or do a (legal!) movie rental download - for just a few dollars! 😉

http://www.avclub.com/article/best-peter-pan-film-one-youve-forgotten-about-225923

Dicky

[–] new_path 9 years ago

Agree 2003 version was great and it's honestly a shame that film didn't do better box office

[–] Thenewnexus 9 years ago

2003 nailed the original story and characters. For example, in contrast to Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily, the 2003 film cast Carsen Gray as Tiger Lily. The actress is a real-life member of a first nations tribe in northern Canada, and she is also fluent in an Iroquois language.

Thank you for bringing up Carsen Gray, proof that it is possible to cast a Native Actress they did not have to cast Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily

I'm gonna show you something beautiful everyone screaming for mercy

[–] Al_Roker 9 years ago

I supported it. I saw it in theaters, bought the soundtrack, bought the DVD, and to this day, I still recommend the film to as many people as I can. So no regrets on my part. :)

[–] DevilYouKnow 9 years ago



Yep, I think I've single-handedly sold about 12 copies of the DVD just by showing it to people who've never seen it before.

http://werewolvesbeatingadeadhorse.blogspot.com/

[–] aredo3604gif 9 years ago

The 2003 version sucks. Just plain simply. A lazy production.

This new Pan is far better.

It doesn't matter how much faitful an adaptation is if it ends up being lazy, boring and lacking quality overall.

[–] pp312 9 years ago

Lazy production? What the hell is a lazy production? And where does it "lack quality"? It's easy to throw these phrases around but backing them up with concrete examples to prove you're not a troll could prove rather more difficult. The 2003 version is a sumptuous production beautifully realized, and certainly the definitive version to this point. And it has the best ever Pan in Jeremy Sumpter.

[–] DevilYouKnow 9 years ago

Oh yes it was beautiful, the music was stunning so were the visuals.

Jason Isaacs studied Hook from the book very carefully, he was excellent and Peter and Wendy had dead on portrayals.

And yes, there was an actual Native American actress as Tiger Lily. Yes, it can be done.

http://werewolvesbeatingadeadhorse.blogspot.com/

[–] loper32 9 years ago

i actually still watch the 2003 movie from time to time. i always catch it when its on tv. its one of my favorite book-to-movie adaptations.
its a shame it didnt do too well at the box office, but it was well received by my family/friends lol they all praised it. My best friend loves to show it to her little one. They both LOVE Peter Pan.
She wont be watching this movie tho the actress they chose for Tiger Lily... yeah nagl at all

*chases Justin* do not tom cruise run from me!

[–] tminutti2 9 years ago

I was gonna write the same post! The 2003 version was way better. At the time I went to see it with my family and friends and bought the DVD. It's a better and more faithful adaptation but the actors were also way better (surprisingly, I didn't mind the young Hook here as much as I thought I would). But it really flows that it came at a horrible time. When I left Pan on Sunday, I heard many people saying how they liked the old one better.

I just didn't like the kid portraying Peter here and his Avatar Last Airbender pixie powers at the end! Wtf was that?

[–] KristenStewartForever 9 years ago

The musical with Cathy Rigby and the 2003 version are the only two I've seen that were most faithful.