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.

[–] KristenStewartForever 9 years ago

The only thing the 2003 version did not get right was the Wendy & Peter romance. I mean, yes Wendy is in love with Peter but there is no kiss. Wendy never does kiss Peter. And Peter never does return her feelings as he does in the film. But I do think I can overlook that because I love romance genre.

[–] DickyBettsBass 9 years ago

Wendy never does kiss Peter. And Peter never does return her feelings as he does in the film. But I do think I can overlook that because I love romance genre.

I'm afraid I have to correct you again. Yes, of course the romantic element was reinforced in the 2003 movie, and the final kiss and the pink 'rejuvenation' were invented, but the first kiss is in the book source, as it was in the movie (okay, in the original play they merely try to kiss, but are interrupted by Tinkerbell):

“Oh dear,” said the nice Wendy, “I don’t mean a kiss, I mean a thimble.”
“What’s that?”
“It’s like this.” She kissed him.
“Funny!” said Peter gravely. “Now shall I give you a thimble?”
“If you wish to,” said Wendy, keeping her head erect this time.
Peter thimbled her, and almost immediately she screeched. “What is it, Wendy?”
“It was exactly as if someone were pulling my hair.”
“That must have been Tink. I never knew her so naughty before.”

Alice B. Woodward's book illustration:

http://www.atlantidezine.it/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/415px-PPPictureBook-kiss.png

Also, Wendy does ask Peter in the play and the book: "What are your exact feelings for me, Peter?", and feels snubbed when he thinks of her just like a make-believe mother.

Dicky

[–] Live_Dream 9 years ago

I was a fan of it then and I'm a fan of it now. We're not paying the price for not supporting it, we're paying the price of Hollywood having no faith in child-actors despite much evidence that points out how children's films with child casts do well, and casting adults in roles that should be for kids.

Where's Rufio? Why was Nibbs left behind? Where are any of the Lost Boys? Why did we get young Hook and old lady Tiger Lily - who's supposed to be a kid? We need to believe kids can act, and let them. The 2003 Peter Pan proves this.

[–] jailbyrd 9 years ago

This is the best version, seen it numerous times. It is fantastically presented. And Jason Issacs as Hook and Jeremy Sumpter as Peter were superb.

[–] pcyiu9 9 years ago

I think Sumpter was the weakest part of the movie. He was okay, but it could have been so much better.

Rachel Hurd-Wood was amazing as Wendy.

-----------------------------
I miss Giles.

[–] Darwinskid 9 years ago

It's true, the 2003 version is the best to date and hit the mark far more than most other adaptations, but don't put all the blame for it's box office failure on general movie goers, at the time they had Return of the King to flocked to and the studios behind the 2003 did not know how to market it very well.

[–] speedolitec 9 years ago

I love the 2003 version! I saw it in the theater and own it on DVD.