I feel like Disney keeps leaning a bit too far into the realism thing with these remakes. I agree with you that Disney could have made Neverland look a bit more magical. I don't know why Disney is so set on having everything look as realistic as possible. It really takes the heart and soul out of a lot of their stuff.
Actually I think it was because they didn’t give this movie a big budget as they did to Pinocchio for instance because they didn’t believe it would be successful and then decided to release it straight to Disney+
i mean the flight scene in that long green land with no trees. Why not add a herd of running unicorns. You could had mermaids and men jumping out of the water as they fly over the water when they first enter. kind of like Fantasia like image. You don't need to reshow them just give the kids a sense of wonder.
It's especially weird since Neverland is supposed to be a land of childish dreams realized. It's supposed to be by definition fantastical and by no means realistic. Like a fey realm basically.
You know what would've been realistic? All the stereotypical joke from the original, which was normal back then, so Disney is leaning away from realism tlnot toward it
ikr, all those mermaids just throwing their fish at peter but he doesnt care nor defend the near drowning of wendy. savage but not as bad as the og he's based off of.
My biggest problems with this remake are: - why is it so fricking dark and washed out? - why isnt Tinkerbell shiny? Poor girl just blends into the background - the girls among the Lost boys completeky erasing the whole point of Peter bringing Wendy - Hook
the importance of “the lost boys” having no girls, is that when Wendy arrives she becomes the boys “mother figure” she even sings about the importance of mothers and how they love and care for us. Wendy is the main reason why tne boys then realize that the do want to leave neverland, have a mother and grow up.
Well tbh, the whole concept of "the lost boys" was a bit weird in general since any child can not have a motherly figure in their life, not just boys. Lost children would make more sense and it would make even more sense for there to be more boys than girls. Think about it, if there were more boys than girls the girls may just go along with the title of "Lost boys" because they themselves are tomboyish (considering how there are more boys and so they would be influenced by them) Wendy would still be necessary to be a mother to the lost kids because it would still be a foreign idea to everyone in general since a child without a mother despite their gender, would naturally still be curious about what a "mother" even is.
The lost boys thing is mostly from the Industrial Revolution era where orphan girls were far more likely to be adopted than boys, so it was a sort of social commentary at the time, I’m pretty sure that was the point anyway.
I think it was much better this way because even when I was little I never understood why there were no girls in Peter Pan’s gang, I doubt Peter couldn’t find a girl that would like to go to NeverLand before Wendy so I can’t think about any reason for that except misogyny (either Peter only wanted boys in his gang or Tinker Bell wouldn’t let him take them)
The main point of why Wendy never wanted to grow up was because of her father. He's always angry, very serious, and strict. She thought that if she grew up, she would be like her father. Also, I hate the fact that they destroyed Wendy's entire character. She's always been extremely feminine and elegant-like. She never compared herself to the boys, she loved and protected her brothers, and she loved and took care of the Lost Boys and Peter despite their stupid antics. The fact that they changed her and the Lost Boys just to "destroy gender stereotypes" is extremely stupid.
Agree. Ironically in the live-action remake, Wendy became the exact same traits of her father which she hated about growing up: angry, very serious, strict; all for the sake of making her a "girlboss" 😠😤 It just shows how the writers of the movie seriously missed the point of Wendy's character for the sake of being "woke" 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
She was supposed to be the mother figure of the lost boys. Which is why everyone was so eager to listen to her even though she was just slightly older than them. Peter became like a somewhat childish father figure who's never serious about anything. He cares about the lost boys but equally lost as they are
I do like tomboyish characters but there's nothing wrong with 100% feminine characters but it seems that nowadays it's avoided like the plague, as if behing feminine isn't "strong"
I’ve always seen Peter as the villain since he was a psychopath, so I’m glad you made the hilarious line of “Jeez we gotta stop this kid, how is he the good guy in this story?” You literally read my mind
He literally is a villain, albeit one that doesn't have evil intent, even in the original story. He takes kids to Neverland, which is kidnapping. Taking them there prevents them from growing up, meaning that they will literally be children forever. And he has all these girls around him who desire him, but because his maturity is stagnant due to being an eternal child, he will never be capable of reciprocating those feelings with any of them. He isn't deliberately villainous, but he was written to be dangerous in the sense that he pulls people into a world where they will never be able to move forward with their lives and never realize how terrible that is. He's sort of like a cursed monkey paw for kids that can't come to grips with growing up.
He's not a "villain"; he's a child in constant "play" mode. He and all of Neverland in the movie represent the fantasy world of child's play. It's fun when you are playing pretend yourself, but to enter a world of that creation is tumultuous, dangerous, and exhausting, and it never ends. Peter and the pirates are always at war, the Lost Boys and Indians are always hunting each other, etc. There are no adults, specifically mothers, around to say, "That's enough. Play time's over". All of this is realized by Wendy as she becomes disillusioned with the very world she helped create. She didn't like entering the stories that were exciting to tell or meeting the "fun" characters who she was so entranced by. They didn't interact with her in the ways she fatasized; They didn't like her. In contrast, her brothers were quickly becoming part of the Lost Boys, even forgetting their mother, until Wendy snapped them out of it as she realizes takes the "motherly" role and realizes the necessity of growing up.
Universal made a better live action Peter Pan 20 years ago. 2003 Pan makes Neverland look absolutely magical, the pirates are a perfect blend of realistic and cartoonish, the mermaids are entrancing, they got actual Native Americans to play the Neverland Indians and had them speaking their own language for as much authenticity as they could get. The film was firing on all cylinders and it's hard to imagine it ever being topped, Disney certainly wasn't going to in it's current state.
I had a giant crush on Peter when I was 9. I loved that movie to death. But now I’m kinda crushing on hook. Because damn his performance was insane, absolutely stunning.
Adding girls to the lost boys is hysterical. I swear the conversation was probably like “why aren’t there any girls“ and then, rather than actually going through and trying to find out why in the story this would be the case they just immediately said “probably sexism, let’s add girls!”
Which again proves that no one involved has even watched the movies. I've heard so many shitty takes from people involves with this movie and they could all be answered by anyone whose even remotely a fan. For example, the director was asked why tinkerbell doesn't glow and his answer was "We all imagine Tinker Bell glowing, but then you're like, 'Where's the light actually coming from? Do her wings light up?". Literally anyone who watched the tinkerbell movies would know that fairies glow because they're covered in glowing pixie dust. And anyone's who knows Peter Pan knows why they need wendy and why the lost boys are not girls 💀
@@jsas2047 *"For example, the director was asked why tinkerbell doesn't glow and his answer was "We all imagine Tinker Bell glowing, but then you're like, 'Where's the light actually coming from? Do her wings light up?""* ---------------------------------------------------- Please tell me someone proceeded to ask the director to explain the whole concept of Neverland if he wants to bring in realism to the magic glowing pixie.
@@wakkaseta8351 It's not really about how she glows in reality, it's about where they place the light source to give her that glowing effect. In the original, they just had to give her a vague glowing aura, and that was fine, she was an animated character. In live action, it's trickier, because they have to decide whether the glow comes from her skin, her wings, etc. It's still a cop-out to say "I dunno where it's coming from, so we didn't bother." I personally would've liked to see the visual effects studio try a few variations before they gave up, but...as Alex alluded to in this video, Disney goes out of their way to give them as few billable hours as they can, and the studios are massively underpaid due to not being unionized on top of it.
@@jsas2047 more to the point, nobody seems to have read the original play/book, where Peter specifically explains the exact reason why there are no lost girls is bc "girls are too clever to fall out of their prams." Lost boys are boys who fall out of their prams when nobody is watching and they aren't claimed in 7 days. Then they are sent off to Neverland.
This is just why the 2003 live Peter Pan is superior to me. There's some silly bits of course, but they kept it very faithful to the original book, which I love, and it was plenty magical and lovely.
The thing that bothers me about the constant race-swapping is not that poc are being featured in films, but that it's lazy, kinda racist, and completely disregards the concept of character design. Instead of give poc REAL representation, they slap a different race on an existing character and call it a day. It's lazy, it's STUPID, it's cheap, and it's thinly-blanketed racism. I'm so done with all of this.
As long as they keep making remakes I don't care if they raceswap, at least it's slightly different. Also just to add, the race swap is never a main character, just a side character, you know so they can sell more stuff.
I agree. People expect us to be happy abt it but it is racist XD how can I be glad a black actor was randomly use for race swap in a badly made low budget movie as a publicity stunt? Specially when Disney can clearly do a lot better
Fun fact: Back in like the 1910s, they had to add the fairydust part to 'in order to fly you need happy thoughts and fairy dust', because originally it was just happy thoughts and, well... kids were getting into accidents...
What's funny is, in the book, the Darlings have to do a whole lot of math to figure out whether they can afford to keep each of their kids as they're born. So leaving all the lost boys in their care would almost certainly bankrupt them. Disney's approach to "girl power" has always given me so much second hand embarrassment as a woman. Wendy had her strengths in the original story, and instead of building off them, they completely erased them and gave her some of Peter's roles instead, which makes the movie boring because there's no balance when all the characters have the same abilities. I wish it wasn't taboo these days for a film to suggest that being kind and motherly is a good strength for a woman to have. I'm a huge fan of badass female characters like Ellen Ripley from the Alien franchise, but even the "badass" female characters we get these days are poorly written and far less believable. It's insulting that they are putting so much spotlight on female inclusivity and empowerment, yet they still end up one-dimensional and boring. And why doesn't Tinkerbell hate Wendy?!? Her entire role in the story is to create conflict with her jealousy and then turn a new leaf to save her. It's called character development! They're afraid of putting a woman with flaws on screen, even if those flaws are replaced with positive growth, and that's why these characters are so flat. No flaws = no growth, and no growth is boring.
Yes! This bothers me too, nowadays for a female character to be strong, she will basically have to be a man. I want movies showing that you can be strong, even if you are feminine- in every movie now a female character has to trade in her dress for pants to show that NOW she's stronger than she was!
Yes to the 2nd hand embarrassment! I am finding myself getting more and more grumpy about "girl power", and things I used to like I am starting to not like because the new stuff is so disgusting!
All the flaws in this version stood out even more because we have the 2003 live-action movie to compare it to, which is INCREDIBLY good while being faithful to the book. Honestly I think the pacing in this movie was its biggest flaw; it felt like they spent three hours total in Neverland. Additionally, I think this is the only version that didn't have Captain Hook and Mr. Darling as a double role. It's been played that way for ages as a commentary on Wendy's feelings about her father, who is the one pushing her to grow up. The character designs were very different in the animated movie, so maybe they felt they didn't need that? And as a last random note: Peter's actor never smiles? That's a weird decision for a character always looking for fun and adventure. Anyway, the 2003 movie and "Hook" are quintessential Peter Pan movies and this one will be quickly forgotten, I'm sure.
As a Native American, I love it when we get representation cause we don't have a lot of it compared to others.. But they could have just not had Natives in the movie. The reason they show up is because it's like they are fantasy creatures, Like the mermaids or the fairies, instead of an actual race of people. But that is just my opinion. Also 2003 Peter will always be my favorite Peter!
Yeah the whole “the island is populated with fantasy creatures, like fairies, mermaids, and Native Americans” part always made me uncomfortable, even as a kid.
I could be wrong, but I always thought it was populated with the natives and pirates (which were also real, not fantasy) because those were things little boys liked to play. The original movie has the lost boys (because girls are too clever to get lost) so it would make sense to have things that would interest boys. That's always been my take anyway.
Am I the only one who noticed that the "you can fly" scene was basically telling kids to jump? Like Peter literally tells Wendy to think happy thoughts and take a step off the edge. Instead of the OG Peter having them practice over their beds.
I’m not surprised at all that they probably scoured it up and down for any reference they could find that was more politically correct than the o.g. movie, hence this example
Peter Pan was an allegory for childhood death. If you read the text, Wendy’s mom could see him and was frightened by Pan. In 1953 Disney glossed over that with Nana pouring out the “ bedtime medicine“ as you put it. When those kids were actually being treated for an illness without mentioning the illness, part. So in the 1950s Disney removed the specter of death angle and in 2023, they somehow managed to make the story even more bland?
Your point at 8:44 is exactly what’s wrong with so many movies now. It’s all so dark, dingy and washed out. We already feel those moods everyday, we don’t need them in movies too. I want color back.
So fun fact, the handing Peter a thimble and calling it a "kiss" is actually in the book! I'm impressed, I didn't think they'd actually consult the source material
My question is.. if they were going to drop the "romantic" relationship peter and wendy had on the previous movies, why would they include the "kiss" thing in the first play? It served no purpose at all. I don't care if it was in the books, i mean, they took away so many things from the original material, so why keep this?
@@conisuarez1 I mean, the romantic aspect was still there in the original play/book if I remember correctly, but Wendy was initially caught off guard, and was trying to distract him. The Disney version is where they get rid of the romantic subtext
@@reirei135 nah the 1953 version definitely had them flirt with each other too. The chemistry was there. They strip it away entirely in this new one and it’s bizarre
Wendy was INSUFFERABLE in this version. OG Wendy was joyous, longed for Neverland and always dreamed of meeting Peter, and the 2023 Wendy was a brat and not at all her character.
And the OG Wendy was anything but weak. She also calls the rest out if she is being treated unfairly. Just why do all recent female characters have to be like a female version of Gaston (Beauty and the Beast)???
The ONLY reboots I’ll support are Treasure Island, Atlantis, etc. give the movies that are much lesser known some love. Everyone already KNOWS Ariel and Stitch, we don’t need to revamp them. There’s literally just no point
I remember reading the Treasure Island book as a kid, it was one of those books where at first you'd think would be boring but immediatly gets you interested in the plot and characters
@@brittnicbee YES!!! Even a (sort of) reboot of Robin Hood would be amazing! (Not live action, but maybe better animation). Like SO many options that would actually benefit the stories and the company. But no. Let’s just redo Moana next year eh?
13:13 This is what annoyed me about the little mermaid remake because they basically didn’t change anything about the movie except make Ariel black and add a random black queen in the country. Ursula was still the same as the original and got no character development at all
To be fair Hook's backstory in this IS kind off based on the book. In the book Peter is the only one who doesn't age. The reason all of the lost boys are children is because once Peter feels like they've started to grow up he gets rid of them. It's not clear exactly what that means, but the book also says that the pirates are the lost boys who managed to become adults and that Peter kills them for fun. He also notably has a horrible memory and completely forgets who other characters are constantly throughout the book and doesn't actually care what happens to them. Also the ending with all of the lost boys being adopted by the darlings is from the book as well
Pretty sure either book or play says Peter 'thins them out' which is just a fancy wording for killing them. Also, if you're a Lost Boy and you get too big to fit through your hollowed tree thing into the hideout, Peter 'makes you fit' which also doesn't have the most wholesome implications... so yeah like Alex said in the video Peter Pan is a little psychopath.
I don't remember anything about the pirates being lost boys who grew up ever mentioned in the book, are you sure it's there? According to an annotated version I've read, Peter was originally the villain. Plus, I do remember the part where he... thins out... the lost boys. I do remember the adoption part, but I think there was something with them being adopted not by the Darlings but by other people? Or it's just a possible ending that I remember from the annotated version... Also, original Peter has a backstory in another story - Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens - where he went out of the window flying, thinking he is a bird, and after getting out of bird island he tried to return to his window but it was closed, or something like that. It's kind of weird, I guess.
I read Peter pan multiple times (one not too long ago) and I don't remember anything about the pirates being lost boys who grew up. Hook's back story is that he worked on Black beard's crew and left to get his own ship. He hates Peter pen because Peter was "proper", the way he was taught to be at Eton (because Hook went to Eton before becoming a pirate) although he didn't get any education. He was basically angry that Peter was charismatic even tho he was, as Alex points out, a psychopath. That, and the hand thing. And the crocodile thing. Peter also has a backstory in the book "Peter pan in Kensington garden" where James Barrie explains that all children were birds at some point, and they can still fly at the very begining of their lives as humans, which is why parents close the window of their baby's bedroom. Peter's mom forgot the window open and he flew away to Kensington's garden, on the bird island. He lives lots of adventures there, and fairies give him three wishes. He asks to be able to see his mother again and he sees that she is crying in her sleep, but he has so much fun at the gardens that he choses to keep on playing. He comes back a little while after (but it could be years later for his mom as time doesn't flow the same way in bird island) and sees that his mom replaced him with another baby. He felt betraid and that's where his hatred for adults come from. It's not explained in either books, but I'm pretty sure the last wish he had from the fairies was to find Neverland, a land where he could never grow up.
@@islembb8899 I just remember it being hinted at by some of his interactions with the pirates that they were lost boys who managed to escape the "thinning out" and joined the pirates. Although it's entirely possible that that came from a play or a different translation of the book and I'm misremembering it as being part of the English book
When I was younger I had a HUGE crush on Peter Pan, the animated one. I'd even leave pieces of my dinner out for him so he could eat it at night in case he was hungry. I think the worst mistake my parents made were writing me letters pretending to be him, because it broke my heart when he stopped writing back to me
@@kutloanodlamini4153 I grew up watching the 2003 live action version, and i absolutely would throw hands with Wendy for peter 😂 I used to be so jealous of her!
As a black woman I’m tired of race swapping. I like to watch accurate depictions no matter if it is fiction or nonfiction. I also have a feeling that they are going to start doing this with important historical black figures
After what they did with the Woman King I wouldn't put it past Hollywood to do exactly that, representing slave traders as if theyre supposed to be some figures of black empowerment, it's tasteless, tactless, insensitive. Hollywood wants their own stories, history/heritage/real-people be damned!
THANK YOU!! It’s in my top three favorite movies for so many reasons! I loved how Peter and Wendy got to develop feelings for one another (+ in a wholesome way, with the fairy ball and then their waltz 😍), how we saw Crochet felt lonely and old, how Peter was still shown unhinged (he wants to kill a Lost Boy for killing Wendy, yells when they want to go back home…), how Tink is in a maddening jealous rage, how Wendy’s dad and Crochet were (I just realized it a few months ago lol) THE SAME ACTOR (which also raises theories about them being the embodiments of reality chasing children)… and despite their young age, the actors had SO MUCH chemistry! I’ll end this comment of this quote "to die must be an awfully big adventure" ❤️✨
I thought that the kid who played Peter Pan just didn’t have enough energy for the character imo.. this is not to bash him at all, I think he did better than some of the other child actors, but he just didn’t have the right amount of child wonder that I kind of expected from a character like Peter Pan..
I agree there was no emotion or facial expression, like it could have changed the movie more or make it better , the only expression I was getting from his face was “😳” (without the eyebrows and blush) or “😐” he could’ve tried to be more happy or excited when meeting Wendy or flying back to neverland, more cautious when the pirates started attacking them.
The Once Upon a Time TV show did SUCH a good portrayal of Peter Pan, I think it was season 2 that had the Neverland arc but that was one of my most favourite arcs of the entire show! I would recommend it to anyone, its so good!
The best Tinkerbell was in 2003’s Peter Pan. Her expressions were perfect (they specifically hired the French actress because of her talent in facial expressions), her character was as close to JM Berries original Tinkerbell, and her relationship with Peter Pan was perfectly told. I wish we had more of that Tinkerbell than any of the ones Disney has produced in the past 30 years. I can’t stand the overly sweet versions.
The funny thing about the original Peter Pan (the book), is that it was cannon that Peter had a horrible memory and constantly forgot who Wendy was, the lost boys, and even tinker bell. I would’ve LOVED to see that nonsense unfold in a movie
@@queenbetty8862 I haven't seen Dumbo, but I forgot about the Beauty and the Beast remake. I didn't like it that much, but it was much better than many of the other ones
I think that 2003 Peter Pan is a really great movie. It sticks to the classic stories from the book more. It is bright colorful and a great story. It's quite underrated. You should see it. Besides this movie Hook is pretty good. With Hook, it's original. Peter is grown up and forgot who he was because of that. He had to discover who he was again. He also had to learn to be a good parent and that making money doesn't make you a good one.
My problem with Tinkerbell is not with her skin color, it’s with the fact that she’s not Tinkerbell. She is too kind and good to be Tinkerbell, which annoys me. The same with Peter Pan.
Why should we see characters on screen who aren’t super nice robots? Even the villains are good, just misunderstood. The only bad people are the ones who vote wrong.
I agree that Tinkerbell having always one intense emotion (a lot of times anger) was important part of her character and creature that she is. Making her purely nice, made her kinda bland and i felt she didn't have her agency.
@@nikkibleh8045 animated Tinkerbell (the Peter Pan one, not the one with her own series) was extremely possessive, jealous and quite mean. She had Wendy almost killed by the lost boys by telling them Peter wants her dead and she is furious when her plan fails. That’s not something someone nice would do.
@@BB-ed4om agreed tink was complex she tried to kill wendy but she also sacrificed herself for peter nearly dying for him. I always thought tink represented these kinds of messy adult emotions neither peter nor wendy could understand.
Exactly, because Tinker Bell (the original) is based on fairy's folktales. They were mean and mischievous and liked to play pranks on humans who they found to be foolish. Peter Pan also lost his fun and haughty personality and became a whole different character...
I finished recently OUAT and it was so good lol. It obviously had flaws but they didn't bother me too much (Well apart from the entirety of the last season just... why?) Definitely worth watching if anyone hasn't seen it
The main thing i hate about the "diversity" is not that "NOOOOOO THEYRE BLACK I CANT LIKE THEM NOW" Its just that we get this instead of actually original or cool diverse characters or at least this is clearly what disney wants to do instead of making new original diverse characters
This is what most people think there is virtually no movement geared toward racism to speak of. When politics bleed into entertainment the ladder ceases to exist
Agreed! It’s like a cop out instead of giving us a Princess and the Frog live action or just making new movies with new stories! Like I’d love a Korean princess movie or something too
@@peytonsmiley7951 I'm so very much waiting for a Korean princess too... Although I kind of wish if they did they'd go back to their 2d animation still (unfortunately this isn't going to happen).
For those of you that are wondering, the reason for the live action remakes is... a lot of these movies are about to enter public domain- or *were* about to enter public domain, before Disney renewed the IP.
@florencembah2626 Basically saying that other companies could use the original content to create something for themselves for money without getting in any trouble. It's the reason there were so many Pinocchio movies coming out at once. Hope this helps!
That does _not_ mean that the _original_ versions ain't about to enter the public domain. It won't even DELAY that by one measly second! Courts understand that there is a difference between the original versions & the remakes.
If I remember correctly, the reason why Lost Boys can't be Lost Kids is because Peter Pan wanted a maternal figure, hence the sole reason why he kidnapped Wendy. If there are other girls on an island, the entire plot of the story is kind of pointless, I guess 🤷♀
@@_Rick___Grimes_ But what its your point though? Are you just nitpicking or do you really dont get what they were trying to say? Cause it seems obvious that what the original coment failed to properly express is that there shouldnt be other girls on the Lost Boys, which the mermaids have nothing to do with (bit of a tangent, but would the mermaids even be considered girls? Like, they look female enough, but would they even have genitals? Wait, does fishes even have genders? Sorry, im going way too offtopic). Its a prety straightforward coment, even if theres a poor choice of words by the end, not sure how could you not grasp what were they trying to say.
I mean, I wouldn't say that changing the Lost Boys into Lost Kids was inconsequential. I'm glad you pointed out that in the original play and movie, they made it clear that girls wouldn't become part of the Lost because they were "too clever" but more than that, it also made Wendy's character introduction into the movie that much bigger to the Lost because she was (sans Tink and Tigerlilly) the only girl in their lives for a very long time. And Wendy was the one to introduce the concept of a mother to the Lost which again, made Wendy incredibly important since the Lost asked Wendy to be their mother. I understand Disney wanting inclusivity, but it seems that they push inclusivity without real reason and without thinking of the original stories they are adapting. Inclusivity would be a diverse cast for the Lost Boys, not just adding 5 girls and calling it a day. I also would disagree that Hook needed to be redeemed or even given a closer backstory to Peter. I was really looking forward to this movie, but Disney has been ruining villains for quite some time now and it sucks that this movie also fell to that "this-is-a-villain-but-just-kidding-because-everyone-has-good-in-them-and-friendship-was-the-solution-all-along" type ordeal. Sometimes villains just suck and that's okay! It makes it more fun to root for this kinda insane kid just messing with the pirates. I also really missed the crocodile here too. I clearly just need to rewatch Hook and the other Peter Pan live-action from 2003 😅
I mean look at Robin Williams' hook, the lost boys were super diverse and were all charming. They should've just done that. I still love Rufio to this day RIP.
I think that's the thing people are missing. Disney isn't using diversity to actually BE diverse. The race changes, the adding girls, etc is entirely done for PR. Some are praising this film for the diversity and little else, and that's the point, Disney knows that if they emphasize their diversity in the marketing they will draw a group that probably wouldn't have watched the film beforehand. It's all about money and not about creativity. Frankly, I hope they pander to us classic Disney fans more in the future with films like Wish instead of the crappy changed live action remakes.
I think so many people miss the point of what this movie is about. Wendy thinks she doesn't want to grow up in the beginning, but her mother was right about how she was changing and growing. This reveals itself throughout the movie because she naturally takes on a nurturing, mothering role for the lost boys. Neverland is not all fantastical for her because she sees the more practical side of things too. That's the reason that she decides to go home and grow up in the end. She found her own personal place in the world. She wanted to grow up and become a mother. Wendy was romantic and feminine and sweet and nurturing. That doesn't mean that all women/girls have to be that way, but there literally isn't anything wrong with being that way either. They butchered this remake. IMO, its one of their worst.
@@themr_wilsonYeah, it literally is. His name is on the title, but it's her story, just like Princess Zelda has never been the true focus of a Legend of Zelda game, it's always been Link.
Backstory of Peter kind of makes sense... In the book Peter ended up to leave to Neverland because parents were talking about his future and he did not want to grow up. When he came back, window was not left open for him. He said that mom have forgotten him and there was a other little boy sleeping in his bed. That is why he never came back. This is really sad, because Peter Pan might be based on writers own brother who died in accident at age 14. He left to the Neverland and never grow up. If that is true, maybe writer was blaming himself for taking his brothers place.
Peter Pan is definitely based off of Barrie’s brother. His brother never got to grow up, so he wanted to write a story about a boy who never grew up because of him.
"No one has thought about Tinkerbell in the last 20 years." Those animated evening filling films that created a whole new universe about Tinkerbell and her friends: 👀
@@creed8712 ukr this guy is so out of touch, Scooby Doo is literally beloved by EVERYONE and is nearly everyone's childhood. We literally have that Scooby Doo show called Mystery Inc that everybody loves and still talks about idk if he said that NoBodY tHouGht AboUt ScOoBy DoO to belittle people or what. because that's just not the case.
I adored that one movie where tink met her twin and the other one where she adventures out to get this blue crystal thing to make blue pixie dust in fall.. or that one where that rebel fairy switched tink and her friends’ talents with multicolored pixie dust
One of the ironies of Peter Pan that I never see people talk about is how he didn't want to grow up but is responsible for the well-being of multiple other children. Dude that's more adulting than a lot of us get to these days.
Never thought of it that way. I assumed it was the general leader position and they follow Peter because he's the cool big brother and knows what he's doing but yeah he's still totally responsible for them having beds, ,food, exercise, education, etc... If anything went wrong they'd all look to Peter to fix it.
This fundamentally changes his motivation (even if he doesn't realize it himself) for staying in Neverland and leading the Lost Boys. He didn't really want to "not grow up", but instead wanted control; control over his own affairs and the affairs of others. It is more about control than immortal youth. Edit: Although, the immortal youth part does allow him to keep that control, neigh indefinitely. So, there is that.
Except you misinterpreted it. He's not "responsible for the well-being". He sees them as playthings, he doesn't take care of them at all, they do that themselves.
Not really, they have to fend for themselves while he goes off and has fun, and in the original he off'ed them himself the moment they started getting too old.
If they wanted to refresh Peter Pan of all things with some new sadfeels spice, they could've adjusted it to reference the life of the author. The likely reason Peter Pan is a "boy forever" is that the author's older brother (and mother's favorite son) died when they were children, and he was troubled growing past the age his brother had lived. That's a pretty big contributing factor to writing a world where you live forever but never grow up. It would be an interesting take to treat Peter a bit more like a ghost, which could even make Hook a more tragic character too if that's the route they want for their villains.
Its very rare for big companies to ever listen to their fans, ofcourse that doesn't make them inexcusable, but its just the sad reaity that we must live with
Actually it looks like they watched a few theory videos about Peter Pan while they were writing this movie because things like Peter Pan and Hook being friends, Hook being a lost boy in the past, Peter not really understanding what Tinker Bell says and Peter Pan having a sad past is all stuff I heard or read about online in movie theories
13:07 I don’t know why, but this reminded me of a theory for that Peter Pan spin-off Jack and The Neverland Pirates, with the theory being the Jack was Captain Hook’s son and all the adventures was just a part of a game they like to play.
The original backstory between Peter Pan and Captain Hook was that Peter Pan is the only one who never grows up and so when the “lost boys” grow up Peter tries to kill them. So That’s why Captain Hook and his crew are the only adults on the island, because they are former “lost boys”. I guess they were trying to incorporate that somehow
Fun fact, in the OG play, “flying with happy thoughts” had kids throwing themselves off shit trying to fly. So they changed the line so that you need pixie dust as well😭😭
You should also compare with the highly entertaining 2003 _Peter Pan,_ with Jason Isaacs playing the _definitive_ cinematic portrayal of Captain Hook, fun Richard Briars as Smee, and the lovely and talented Rachel Hurd-Wood as Wendy... The "girls are _far_ too clever to fall out of _their_ prams" line is in there as well...
I love the 2003 version so much. Everyone nailed their roles perfectly. Hook was menacing and mesmerizing, Pan was a charismatic adrenaline rush junkie boy (who even had the look of the troublemaker de facto leader of the classroom), and Wendy embodied the epitome of feminine grace and motherly energy rarely matched by anyone her age. The Smee actor was spot on hilarious as well. I cannot recommend that movie enough.
Ironic isn’t it? The 2023 version tried to be more progressive than the one made during a sexist era that it ended up ignoring the subtle compliment towards women’s intelligence in the source material therefore being more sexist than the source material if you think about it hard It’s somewhat funny
I loved the 2003 version. When I saw the previews for this, I was like we already have a great live action Peter Pan, wtf. I haven’t seen this one but from the comments, I think I’ll pass and just rewatch the 2003 version.
3:01 The funniest thing about this argument is that tinkerbell had her own spinoff movies and there were multiple faries with different ethnicities, INCLUDING A BLACK FAIRY
The only good thing to come from this movie is seeing how many other people have a special place in their hearts for the 2003 Peter Pan since commentary communities weren’t really a thing then. That movie was full of magic and always warms my heart.
I never stopped loving it. It's literally one of the best versions of the story in film, if not THE best. It's bright and colorful... yet dark in places. The did the natives pretty well too with actually having Tiger Lily speak in a native language for parts of it. Also Isaacs is the best "younger" Hook. I will fight any who say otherwise. Hoffman still wins the "older" Hook category.
@@demo2823 where was that? The most I can think of would be the lost boys asking Wendy to be their mother but she and Peter acknowledge it’s a game of make believe. Next is the pirates offering her a job as a storyteller and cigars but she tells them she’s a little girl and smee and hook respect that.
The whole reason Peter even shows up in London in the first place is to take Wendy to Neverland so she can be the mother of the Lost Boys. But if there are already girls within the group, why does Peter bother with Wendy? He can just have the "Lost Girls" be mothers
because girls aren't motherly by nature lol that has to be taught, haven't you ever heard of a tomboy? There are female mermaids too, why bother with Wendy if Peter can interact with them? Same difference. It doesn't make any sense. Girls aren't feminine by nature, they are TAUGHT to be by other WOMEN and GENDER NORMS. Wendy is exposed to that because she was raised in london with an actual MOTHER and other feminine women around her. The girls in the lost boys are not exposed to that because they are around BOYS and MALES. They are raised in Neverland, so they wouldn't know what a mother is either. Every child would wonder that, I don't understand why it's so complicated?
THANK YOU! Peter Pan is my absolute favorite book, and the 2003 movie is my favorite comfort movie. This move is a sin against people with eyes and ears for so many reasons, this included!
Because she reads her brothers bedtime stories every night and is really good at it - he sees that as a prime quality in a mother, that's why he wants Wendy to come with him.
I think the 2003 Peter Pan is the definitive live action Peter Pan. They got the story exactly right, and they managed to keep the same themes and stuff! That was one of my favorites when I was little.
See, I loved the 2003 version. I also liked the 1960's version with Mary Martin. 2003 got it right though and I hope that we will see something as good in the future. Although my favorite live action has to be Hook with Robin Williams.
The best Peter Pan with a modern twist I have ever seen is a tv show called "The new Adventures of Peterpan". It expands Neverland in such a beautiful way. The Native Americans, the mermaids, Hook, the lost boys and there are so many more elements that are greatly expanded.
My biggest problems with this remake are: - Hook, Peter, and Smee are all boring characters, and were not casted well. - if Hook was a lost boy, wouldn’t he know where the lost boy hideout was? - They cut out too much of the world building from the original - The tic tock croc was underutilized. The original film did a good job showing why Hook was scared of the crocodile because it showed up multiple times. It felt like the crocodile was always a looming threat and had a reason to be there. Here it just feels like they put it in the movie because it was in the original. Same with Tinker Bell. - Neverland looks like a really boring place compared to the other more colorful versions.
I agree with everything you said especially the casting. The casting for this was so weird. The actors for Hook, Peter, Wendy, and Tinkerbell don't fit well into the roles. They don't look like the original actors and just don't really pull it off. I'm not sure what it is exactly, but they just don't work.
I, for one, think it's great the way Disney insists on teaching small children that scary adults who want to hurt them are just misunderstood, and should be shown trust and empathy. We wouldn't want kids to run away when some stranger tries to lure them into a van or anything. No, no. That might hurt the predator's feelings...
Unsaturated is the perfect one word summary for all these Disney remakes. Also, the way Disney tries to portray fEmInIsM and “girl boss personalities” makes me ill. The girl yelling “SO?” like she’s about to throw hands from how triggered and offended she was by Wendy noticing the Lost Boys weren’t all boys made me want to scream into a pillow. If Disney HAD to have girls in the lost boys for who knows what reason, why couldn’t they just be included and call them “the lost kids” and leave it at that? Or Wendy could ask the question and the girls could have a cheeky response like “we got outvoted on the name” or something light hearted for this KIDS movie. The cringy overreaction was unnecessary, uncomfortable, and not funny - and why would they want to make the only girls in the lost boys clan seem unpleasant to be around? Great representation there Disney! How can the company that created such strong, empowering, and respectable female characters like Mulan and Nani be so bad at portraying them today? Those “lost girls” just seem like entitled brats.
They didn't even need to add girls because if I remembered correctly, the lost girls were friends with tiger lily and lived separately from the boys...
Honestly I just find it hilarious that they tried their usual pandering shit by making tinker bell black. But then shot themselves in the foot by keeping that character as a mute. The irony is incredible.
I grew up on the 2003 Peter Pan, and had my first ever crush on that Peter! The music was incredible, the cast (the legend that is Jason Isaacs) was amazing, and those realistic mermaids always terrified me! But it was amazing and will always be my favourite rendition of Peter Pan.
Another person commented that and I responded but I also have to thank you for saying this!! I want to make this film more known that it is because damn I love it so much, def in my top three movies
I will say it. The 2003 movie was a masterpiece. I've watched every adaptation of Peter Pan from every country ever made and the best one was the 2003; It made me read the whole book and I liked it better. Pan from 2015 was also a good prequel and an amazing side story for the characters. But the best adaptation for me it's still Peter Pan (2003). EDIT: I also loved the Peter Pan of the TV show Once Upon a Time as a villain. It was amazing to see and it's still also one of my favourite adaptations of the main character. My list would go like this: -Best heroe Peter Pan: 2003 movie adaptation. -Best villain Peter Pan: OUAT Peter Pan. -Best "more human and relatable" Peter Pan: the movie Pan (2015).
Pick any scene from Peter Pan 2003 and it's still better than this remake. Pan was only good because of Hugh Jackman, everything else especially the casting of Tiger Lily was awful
The lost girls being in the lost boys actually does make a big deal because in the original book and movie Wendy was supposed to be some sort of mother for the children.
Well, we know why Disney changed Wendy's character in this new 2023 version, because being motherly, maternal, or crushing on a boy doesn't jive with the modern feminist narrative message they're pushing out onto today's young skulls full of mush. Unfortunately, we're going to see the same crap rewriting again in The Little Mermaid.
Sorry, but I never liked how Wendy was put in motherly role when was kid. She just wasn’t relatable and too mature for age. But I bet y’all just call me fucking feminist or whatever. (which I’m not)
@@smcphee8499 that’s okay I understand your point of view👍. I don’t mean to be but this movie was released in 1953 and the book way before that, so women kind of were seen like that. To me I like it because it shows how women are very, very important in our life.
@@smcphee8499 well i guess you didnt get the original point of peter pan. The whole point is wendy is on the verge of adulthood, shes growing up and doesnt want to. Then after going to neverland and learning how you cant stay a child forever after seeing its downsides has a character arc and learns that its ok to grow up. Yes she is a little young for todays standards but back when this was written you were expected to mature earlier.
The 2003 version is really the best for me! The action is great, the characters are well developped and you really feel something for Hook, especially since it’s the same actor playing the father, you really feel the child in him wanting to live again. Netherland also really looks magical in it. The house of the lost boys being under a tree felt so cool as a kid. The colors were vibrant, not like this washed out green filter put al over the film. It’s a shame so few people know about it cause it deserves a much bigger recognition in my opinion.
The problem is Disney being lazy. It wasnt twenty years ago that I thought of Tinkerbell because they made movies ABOUT tinkerbell in the last ten years. And I even recently purchased the book that inspired the movies and has all the concept art. There IS A BLACK FAIRY!!! And shes BEAUTIFUL! Shes a light fairy and I would LOVE to see her in the spotlight.
I remember Iridessa and the other Disney fairies! I think they might be Disney's answer to Winx Club back in the 2000s and early 2010s. This was a franchise that also had diversity and fairies with different powers. The fairies were voiced by several celebrities like Raven Simone, Lucy Lu, and Jesse McCartney.
TinkerBell had her own movie spin-offs (several of them, taking place before she met Peter Pan). That's probably why people are talking about the change in character appearance
That is the most value these remakes have, to provide entertaining breakdowns by youtubers. This breakdown though, while a well made video for sure, was far too soft and positive for my taste.
I think it's kinda important that lost boys are all boys, because when Wendy gets there she turns into a mother figure to them. She doesn't kick ass or fight with a sword, she uses soft infuence which even pirates succumb to because there was noone like that before on an island. But oh well...
@@Slap_Pappy there was a statement in the original story that says that girls were too smart to fall out of their prams. so basically, this new change implies that girls are also not the brightest
@@Slap_Pappy The key point they made was how there was no one like that before on the island. The Lost Boys are all boys because a group of boys will behave differently than if there's a girl present. Wendy's effect on Peter, the Lost Boys, and even the Pirates, was that their behavior drastically changed in the presence of a girl. Every one of them goes on "best behavior" mode, even the pirates are less villainous and want her to be /their/ mother because they all recognize that a feminine presence is something they need even if they might not know why. It's like that scene in Brave when the mother (and later, Merida) walks through the chaos of the men fighting and that's enough to get them to stop. That was Wendy arriving in Neverland. The overall commentary was that boys left on their own won't change or grow much, especially emotionally, but having a woman around holds them to a higher standard and they grow up as a result. Women are powerful simply by being women and men recognize that. Having other girls be there the whole time completely undermines how all of the boys/men change their behavior due to a female presence. This is something addressed a lot more obviously in the 2003 Peter Pan which I highly recommend watching instead of this remake. **It is worth noting, Tiger Lily in the play is also treated with a bit more care when being tied up as bait ("Not so rough, Starkey. Roughish, but not so rough"), but she is a more dangerous character who leads warriors, so the pirates and Lost Boys tend to stay way from her. She's also grouped in with fairies and mermaids as a "magical/exotic other" because racism, so that also plays a part.
@@katymartin9026 I was also wondering about why they were so unfamiliar with acting around girls, cause fairies and mermaids were clearly females, and Tiger Lily was a straight up human girl.
@@anubis7457 they are fantasy creatures. You rlly gonna assume that a 'girl' fairy can assume a mothers role ? She's just a speck of light in front of the kids. The mermaids only interact with peter and are not rlly human. Tiger lily... is a special case. It feels like she's not supposed to exist. Boys would roleplay as indians, it feels like they added T. lily just because pan is populer with 'females' so she was just added in.
After watching the original, I never noticed that all the kids' initial happy thoughts before they flew for the first time were what Neverland became - Wendy thought of a mermaid lagoon, John and the pirates, then Michael with his passion for Indians. It made me question everything I thought, in the same way that Hook ended up allowing you to determine if you believe it was real or just make-believe.
Welcome to Disney! We have: - Feminist Wendy! - Race-swapped Tinkerbell! - Race-swapped Ariel! - Lost Girls! - Bratty Wendy! - Snow White and the Seven People of Varying Heights, Races, and Genders! - Demonic Scuttle! - 'Misunderstood' Captain Hook! - The most Horrifying Pinocchio of All Time! - Shitty Star Wars Sequels! - Feminist Snow White! - Girls who Fall Out of Prams And most of all, - No ears! Because if we did, we'd listen to our audiences, who are practically BEGGING us to stop! Please! Stop! Seriously! I'm crying!
It's quite funny that you complain about the fact that they are feminist when the original films were influenced by the feminist fight at the time 🤦🏻♀️
The amount of remakes Disney is making is outrageous, they’re like the second version of Bollywood, but this time they’re remaking their own animated films to live adaptation. 😂
@@ilmianafirmantika8079 But at least "RRR" as recent movie, where this viral "Naatu Naatu" Dance came from, was kinda good tho, even if the action scenes where absolutely over the top 😅, like it's usually happening in these Bollywood movies. But kinda true Disney and Bollywood had their height in the 90s/early 2000s, and even tho sometimes their is still good stuff coming from them it still flattened a bit, specifically with these terrible, lifeless, live action remakes that Disney puts out.
Now hold on, let's not insult Bollywood like that. I can actually sit down and watch some of the stuff they make without turning it off after 10 minutes.
The movie Pan (2015) covered the relationship of Hook and Peter becoming friends in much more depth, maybe that's where Disney got the idea from. It was a prequel that covers the story of how Peter got to Neverland that was much more interesting than Peter being upset about being scolded.
It also had Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard singing Nirvana with Peter being a World War 2 orphan and Rooney Mara playing Tiger Lily. I thought it was pretty bad overall, but If any movie deserved the term "curious failure," it's that one. The number one thing I remember from that movie though, is Captain Hook's (Garrett Hedlund) really odd voice.
@@harrisdaver the concept was oddly executed, but the score was great. And the magical aesthetic of Neverland was decent, I think a major issue in Hollywood is assuming that magic captured in animation will translate well to live action. It often doesn't.
@@harrisdaver My theory about Blackbeard singing the Nirvana song was that it originally was supposed to be a placeholder song during production until Warner Bros comes up with a better replacement. Perhaps an original pirate song or an old popular song from the early 1900s? But then for some reason, Warner Bros exes decided to keep this out-of-place song in at the last minute.
@@sunspotmill1291 My thought was that it was to make Neverland feel 'out of time and of all times' (kind of like how they make Peter come from the 1940s instead of the 1900s), but nothing else in the movie has that mix-and-match quality (everything seems pretty standard to Peter Pan lore) so it feels especially out of place.
Ok. I know im kinda late, but pleaase you HAVE to watch Peter Pan (2003), it's just one of the best adaptation to the original story, although kinda cheesy, it's much more thoughtful than this crap. (im sorry if some words are a typo, english it's not my first language)
The problem is that they know people will watch it, if we all just ignored their enslaught of remakes, hopefully they will get the memo, its why I watch Alex Meyer's reviews instead of watching them, if I'm going to procrastinate and help someone with views, id rather it be a creator who actually needs the money to pay their bills and aren't overflowing with cash.
That blandness of never land is legitimately a reflection of where we are as a society we’re going toward a bland modern era where everything will be just smooth lol
Watch “Beau is Afraid”, it will help you because it is the exact opposite of bland modern movie. Don’t give up hope, where parts of our culture go towards the production line others get their chance to shine out of that monotony!
I feel compelled to point out from 2008 to 2015 there were 7 films with Tinkerbell as the main character so people have grown to love her from that as well as Peter Pan. I used to work with a girl who had a tinkerbell bumper sticker on her ute.
@@sadespain01 Esepecially since the movie series had a range of diverse fairies they could have made a film about instead. Heck make the one that got cancelled and you've fairies of multiple races.
Can proudly said that I care about Tinkerbell. Watched all her movies, listen to the songs often, had costumes (that I had to throw away cause they weren't in a state I could wear), still have merchandise. And pretty much the only thing I didn't do is read her books, cause they are hard to find in my country. In my opinion they could have put her friend who is black, Iridessa in the movie, instead of raceswaping her. The trend of raceswaping is getting tiring cause they only do it for drama and promotion and forget to give value to old diverse characters or create new ones.
@@theVictor-isVonDoom I have been in the party for a while. People already called me a neonazi for not agreeing with raceswaps. It's social cohesion on its finest, some will try to paint you as the villain, others try to attack you, a group will say that it's dumb or shallow for you to care and the list goes on.
@@lelegus7732 it's so dumb as a fan of these franchises it pisses me off when they race swap Hawkman with the dude that SHOULD BE John Stewart, or Kang who would've been a good Black Panther instead (despite the controversy), Idris Elba could've been Beta Ray Bill instead of a race swap Heimdall, Sam Jackson is AMAZING love the guy I would've loved an original character maybe a partner of the ACTUAL Nick Fury or another agent from a separate division or something the og Nick was awesome I loved him as a kid in ultimate alliance I hate that they COMPLETELY REMOVED HIM to make room for a race swap it's madness that needs to end
I feel so bad for the actors who have to play race-swapped characters because they have to deal with basically being an human prop to get people talking about the movie.
@@antagonizingprotagonist8721 Yeah, especially when they are children. I'm fan of the Percy Jackson franchise and there's this 13 year old black girl playing a white character. I may not agree with the casting choice, but I hate how Disney is using her as a shield for criticism. They did the same for Halley Barry, but at the very least she is an adult woman who probably has enough emotional maturity to deal with this. A thirteen year old girl going through this is so fucked up.
My minor gripe with Tinkerbell isn't that they had her portrayed by a black actress, that's great good for her to be honest. It's more the fact that The Disney fairies brand already had a black fairy, Iridessa😅 like if they wanted to highlight more casting variety they could have made Tink's friends join the canon of Peter Pan and Wendy at some point. Pixie Hollow has so much potential for a wide range of casting since every fairy has different abilities. But that's just my opinion 😅
@Mel Nguyen yeah😅 but until Disney sees this affect their pockets they're not gonna listen. Cuz they cancel shows that people love (The Owl House cough cough) but then do this for cash.
Brooooo the thing where the girl gives peter one of those metal things and says its a kiss at about 6:15 is acctually based of the book and that reference just took me waaaaayyy back when i read it for the first time. Thats really cool
Only issue I got so far is the lost boys being boys and girls. Wendy was the mother figure to the boys because they never had a mom. But it is minor. It could work
Personally i'm fine with the idea of it being boys and girls and honestly wondered why that wasn't the case before and I also think it could work since in general, any child might need a mother figure if they never had a mom
Honestly my only gripe with it is that I loved Peter’s line about the lost boys having fallen out of their carriages, saying “Girls are much too clever to fall out of their carriages.”
I think it was much better this way because even when I was little I never understood why there were no girls in Peter Pan’s gang, I doubt Peter couldn’t find a girl that would like to go to NeverLand before Wendy so I can’t think about any reason for that except misogyny (either Peter only wanted boys in his gang or Tinker Bell wouldn’t let him take them)
4:20 Fun fact, Tinkerbell was modelled after Marilynn Monroe! Literally, there is a scene in a movie, where she gets stuck in a ship window, because she measured her hips and assumed she could fit in it! So... i'm just sad to see fun references like that gone. But i suppose, she would be modelled after today's hottest woman? never heard of this girl before XD who is she supposed to look like?
I do seem to recall a certain cartoon where they were sprinkled with fairy dust and then told to think happy thoughts.. and I remember liking Michael's pouch cause he always hid candies or other goodies in it, and I had my grandma make me one of my own and kept sweets in it too LOL.
I actually do think about tinkerbell daily as she's on my coffee cup... and I didn't realise there was a live action remake. It makes sense with how many remakes there are, but I'm more upset disney can't produce something new. Also, I have to say the OG Hook is one of the most relatable disney villains. Who hasn't held a grudge against a child after they cut off your hand and fed it to a crocodile.
I'm actually curious about this fallacy that a lot of people seem to believe in. Why do you think "Disney can't produce something new" when there's constantly new original Disney movies coming out every few years along with the remakes? For example Wish is coming out this November, and movies like Strange World, Disenchanted, and Turning Red came out just last year. I'm wondering where this misconception came from.
@@annika6592disenchanted wasn’t as good and strange world was a complete flop so we really wanna talk about Disney coming out with new movies and mention those..? If you’d said encanto or coco or Moana even raya to smaller degree I would’ve agreed those were all amazing but those others in my and a lot of others opinions were not it
The first 1,000 people to use the link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare
skl.sh/alexmeyers05231
Ok.
I will use skill share
@@Robin_Is will you use skill share
Can you do an episode about Johnson family from agents of shield season 2
@@kpopworld3851 he will not do that
I feel like Disney keeps leaning a bit too far into the realism thing with these remakes. I agree with you that Disney could have made Neverland look a bit more magical. I don't know why Disney is so set on having everything look as realistic as possible. It really takes the heart and soul out of a lot of their stuff.
Actually I think it was because they didn’t give this movie a big budget as they did to Pinocchio for instance because they didn’t believe it would be successful and then decided to release it straight to Disney+
i mean the flight scene in that long green land with no trees. Why not add a herd of running unicorns. You could had mermaids and men jumping out of the water as they fly over the water when they first enter. kind of like Fantasia like image. You don't need to reshow them just give the kids a sense of wonder.
Agreed! Why no mermaids! At least add in some other creatures! Put a color filter over the movie at the VERY least so its not grey😭
It's especially weird since Neverland is supposed to be a land of childish dreams realized. It's supposed to be by definition fantastical and by no means realistic. Like a fey realm basically.
You know what would've been realistic? All the stereotypical joke from the original, which was normal back then, so Disney is leaning away from realism tlnot toward it
"we were only trying to drown her"
the fact that she said it so nonchalantly and with confidence is crazy 😂
That's part of the ✨️humor✨️
That's what mermaids DO!!
Mermaids are carnivores, after all.
ikr, all those mermaids just throwing their fish at peter but he doesnt care nor defend the near drowning of wendy. savage but not as bad as the og he's based off of.
And here I thought that watery tarts only throw swords at you.
You learn something new every day.
The most atrocious thing about this movie is how they robbed us of Hook's luscious flowing locks.
Yeah wtf was up with that hair they gave him? Whoever designed that for his character needs to be fired
Fr
that was one of my only complaints about the movie lol like did they not have a single curling iron on set?? 🙄
Hook never had that. He always wore a wig.
fr
The main issue I have with Tinkerbell’s redesign is her body doesn’t glow so she’s not very visible at all especially in the dark/nighttime scenes.
cause she black?
And didn't she used her glow to show Peter the way to Neverland and his way to the human world to visit children? 🧚🏻♀️
My biggest problems with this remake are:
- why is it so fricking dark and washed out?
- why isnt Tinkerbell shiny? Poor girl just blends into the background
- the girls among the Lost boys completeky erasing the whole point of Peter bringing Wendy
- Hook
💯
Im just quoting a comment I read, but seemingly they didn't make tinker bell shine cause it would "lighten up the skin tone of the actress" 🤦🏻♀️
@@naokoshiuzuke1693 this just in - black people can't go into the light, otherwise they'll turn white, apparently
Wonder what the stories matter group will do once Disney goes out of business?
@Ranch Lord 🔥 nahhhh you down bad💀
the importance of “the lost boys” having no girls, is that when Wendy arrives she becomes the boys “mother figure” she even sings about the importance of mothers and how they love and care for us. Wendy is the main reason why tne boys then realize that the do want to leave neverland, have a mother and grow up.
Well tbh, the whole concept of "the lost boys" was a bit weird in general since any child can not have a motherly figure in their life, not just boys. Lost children would make more sense and it would make even more sense for there to be more boys than girls. Think about it, if there were more boys than girls the girls may just go along with the title of "Lost boys" because they themselves are tomboyish (considering how there are more boys and so they would be influenced by them) Wendy would still be necessary to be a mother to the lost kids because it would still be a foreign idea to everyone in general since a child without a mother despite their gender, would naturally still be curious about what a "mother" even is.
Also the reason there were no girls was because the girls were too smart to fall out of their prams
The lost boys thing is mostly from the Industrial Revolution era where orphan girls were far more likely to be adopted than boys, so it was a sort of social commentary at the time, I’m pretty sure that was the point anyway.
@@bridgettelair370 that's honestly pretty interesting
I think it was much better this way because even when I was little I never understood why there were no girls in Peter Pan’s gang, I doubt Peter couldn’t find a girl that would like to go to NeverLand before Wendy so I can’t think about any reason for that except misogyny (either Peter only wanted boys in his gang or Tinker Bell wouldn’t let him take them)
The main point of why Wendy never wanted to grow up was because of her father. He's always angry, very serious, and strict. She thought that if she grew up, she would be like her father.
Also, I hate the fact that they destroyed Wendy's entire character. She's always been extremely feminine and elegant-like. She never compared herself to the boys, she loved and protected her brothers, and she loved and took care of the Lost Boys and Peter despite their stupid antics. The fact that they changed her and the Lost Boys just to "destroy gender stereotypes" is extremely stupid.
Agree.
Ironically in the live-action remake, Wendy became the exact same traits of her father which she hated about growing up: angry, very serious, strict; all for the sake of making her a "girlboss" 😠😤 It just shows how the writers of the movie seriously missed the point of Wendy's character for the sake of being "woke" 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
Also, the fact that they have two different actors to play Hook and Mr. Darling.
She was supposed to be the mother figure of the lost boys. Which is why everyone was so eager to listen to her even though she was just slightly older than them. Peter became like a somewhat childish father figure who's never serious about anything. He cares about the lost boys but equally lost as they are
I do like tomboyish characters but there's nothing wrong with 100% feminine characters but it seems that nowadays it's avoided like the plague, as if behing feminine isn't "strong"
@@hi12345613 they used the same voice actor for the two of them?
I’ve always seen Peter as the villain since he was a psychopath, so I’m glad you made the hilarious line of “Jeez we gotta stop this kid, how is he the good guy in this story?” You literally read my mind
He literally is a villain, albeit one that doesn't have evil intent, even in the original story. He takes kids to Neverland, which is kidnapping. Taking them there prevents them from growing up, meaning that they will literally be children forever. And he has all these girls around him who desire him, but because his maturity is stagnant due to being an eternal child, he will never be capable of reciprocating those feelings with any of them. He isn't deliberately villainous, but he was written to be dangerous in the sense that he pulls people into a world where they will never be able to move forward with their lives and never realize how terrible that is. He's sort of like a cursed monkey paw for kids that can't come to grips with growing up.
He's not a "villain"; he's a child in constant "play" mode. He and all of Neverland in the movie represent the fantasy world of child's play. It's fun when you are playing pretend yourself, but to enter a world of that creation is tumultuous, dangerous, and exhausting, and it never ends. Peter and the pirates are always at war, the Lost Boys and Indians are always hunting each other, etc. There are no adults, specifically mothers, around to say, "That's enough. Play time's over". All of this is realized by Wendy as she becomes disillusioned with the very world she helped create. She didn't like entering the stories that were exciting to tell or meeting the "fun" characters who she was so entranced by. They didn't interact with her in the ways she fatasized; They didn't like her. In contrast, her brothers were quickly becoming part of the Lost Boys, even forgetting their mother, until Wendy snapped them out of it as she realizes takes the "motherly" role and realizes the necessity of growing up.
Universal made a better live action Peter Pan 20 years ago. 2003 Pan makes Neverland look absolutely magical, the pirates are a perfect blend of realistic and cartoonish, the mermaids are entrancing, they got actual Native Americans to play the Neverland Indians and had them speaking their own language for as much authenticity as they could get. The film was firing on all cylinders and it's hard to imagine it ever being topped, Disney certainly wasn't going to in it's current state.
Yeap, that version was the best for me.
Sí, sí y sí a todo! 2003 Peter Pan is one of my favorite movies ❤
I had a giant crush on Peter when I was 9. I loved that movie to death. But now I’m kinda crushing on hook. Because damn his performance was insane, absolutely stunning.
That was the BEST
@@mystii8134 lol me too
Adding girls to the lost boys is hysterical. I swear the conversation was probably like “why aren’t there any girls“ and then, rather than actually going through and trying to find out why in the story this would be the case they just immediately said “probably sexism, let’s add girls!”
Exactly what I was thinking! Every story has a story behind it after all!
Which again proves that no one involved has even watched the movies. I've heard so many shitty takes from people involves with this movie and they could all be answered by anyone whose even remotely a fan. For example, the director was asked why tinkerbell doesn't glow and his answer was "We all imagine Tinker Bell glowing, but then you're like, 'Where's the light actually coming from? Do her wings light up?". Literally anyone who watched the tinkerbell movies would know that fairies glow because they're covered in glowing pixie dust. And anyone's who knows Peter Pan knows why they need wendy and why the lost boys are not girls 💀
@@jsas2047
*"For example, the director was asked why tinkerbell doesn't glow and his answer was "We all imagine Tinker Bell glowing, but then you're like, 'Where's the light actually coming from? Do her wings light up?""*
----------------------------------------------------
Please tell me someone proceeded to ask the director to explain the whole concept of Neverland if he wants to bring in realism to the magic glowing pixie.
@@wakkaseta8351 It's not really about how she glows in reality, it's about where they place the light source to give her that glowing effect. In the original, they just had to give her a vague glowing aura, and that was fine, she was an animated character. In live action, it's trickier, because they have to decide whether the glow comes from her skin, her wings, etc.
It's still a cop-out to say "I dunno where it's coming from, so we didn't bother." I personally would've liked to see the visual effects studio try a few variations before they gave up, but...as Alex alluded to in this video, Disney goes out of their way to give them as few billable hours as they can, and the studios are massively underpaid due to not being unionized on top of it.
@@jsas2047 more to the point, nobody seems to have read the original play/book, where Peter specifically explains the exact reason why there are no lost girls is bc "girls are too clever to fall out of their prams."
Lost boys are boys who fall out of their prams when nobody is watching and they aren't claimed in 7 days. Then they are sent off to Neverland.
This is just why the 2003 live Peter Pan is superior to me. There's some silly bits of course, but they kept it very faithful to the original book, which I love, and it was plenty magical and lovely.
Thats what happens when you DON'T rely on Disney to tell a good story
This is my favorite version by far.
The 2003 version is kinda better
it's way better, it's my fav movie actually
The thing that bothers me about the constant race-swapping is not that poc are being featured in films, but that it's lazy, kinda racist, and completely disregards the concept of character design. Instead of give poc REAL representation, they slap a different race on an existing character and call it a day. It's lazy, it's STUPID, it's cheap, and it's thinly-blanketed racism. I'm so done with all of this.
EXACTLY
Completely agree. I really wish more people shared this opinion
As long as they keep making remakes I don't care if they raceswap, at least it's slightly different. Also just to add, the race swap is never a main character, just a side character, you know so they can sell more stuff.
I agree. People expect us to be happy abt it but it is racist XD how can I be glad a black actor was randomly use for race swap in a badly made low budget movie as a publicity stunt? Specially when Disney can clearly do a lot better
@@TempestKnight16 Okay. Never a main character?? Did you forget about the Little Mermaid??
Fun fact: Back in like the 1910s, they had to add the fairydust part to 'in order to fly you need happy thoughts and fairy dust', because originally it was just happy thoughts and, well... kids were getting into accidents...
I can totally see children doing this, "it worked in the movie" is rarely a credible defense!
Same thing happened w princess n frog, actual children smooched frogs and got infections from them
@@resta-kain "Actual" children?
Haha, that is interesting. And a good fix.
1910s? Wasn’t the movie made in the 1940s?
What's funny is, in the book, the Darlings have to do a whole lot of math to figure out whether they can afford to keep each of their kids as they're born. So leaving all the lost boys in their care would almost certainly bankrupt them.
Disney's approach to "girl power" has always given me so much second hand embarrassment as a woman. Wendy had her strengths in the original story, and instead of building off them, they completely erased them and gave her some of Peter's roles instead, which makes the movie boring because there's no balance when all the characters have the same abilities. I wish it wasn't taboo these days for a film to suggest that being kind and motherly is a good strength for a woman to have. I'm a huge fan of badass female characters like Ellen Ripley from the Alien franchise, but even the "badass" female characters we get these days are poorly written and far less believable. It's insulting that they are putting so much spotlight on female inclusivity and empowerment, yet they still end up one-dimensional and boring.
And why doesn't Tinkerbell hate Wendy?!? Her entire role in the story is to create conflict with her jealousy and then turn a new leaf to save her. It's called character development! They're afraid of putting a woman with flaws on screen, even if those flaws are replaced with positive growth, and that's why these characters are so flat. No flaws = no growth, and no growth is boring.
Exactly. Well said!
Yes! This bothers me too, nowadays for a female character to be strong, she will basically have to be a man. I want movies showing that you can be strong, even if you are feminine- in every movie now a female character has to trade in her dress for pants to show that NOW she's stronger than she was!
Yes to the 2nd hand embarrassment! I am finding myself getting more and more grumpy about "girl power", and things I used to like I am starting to not like because the new stuff is so disgusting!
YES THANK YOU.
As a woman i feel all of this, they are trying to push zero consequences on us
All the flaws in this version stood out even more because we have the 2003 live-action movie to compare it to, which is INCREDIBLY good while being faithful to the book. Honestly I think the pacing in this movie was its biggest flaw; it felt like they spent three hours total in Neverland. Additionally, I think this is the only version that didn't have Captain Hook and Mr. Darling as a double role. It's been played that way for ages as a commentary on Wendy's feelings about her father, who is the one pushing her to grow up. The character designs were very different in the animated movie, so maybe they felt they didn't need that? And as a last random note: Peter's actor never smiles? That's a weird decision for a character always looking for fun and adventure. Anyway, the 2003 movie and "Hook" are quintessential Peter Pan movies and this one will be quickly forgotten, I'm sure.
As a Native American, I love it when we get representation cause we don't have a lot of it compared to others.. But they could have just not had Natives in the movie. The reason they show up is because it's like they are fantasy creatures, Like the mermaids or the fairies, instead of an actual race of people. But that is just my opinion. Also 2003 Peter will always be my favorite Peter!
Yeah like they got rid of mermaids but kept us??? Like just don't have us in the movie at all please
honestly it was a film from the 40s casual r@c1sm was lunch back than.
Yeah the whole “the island is populated with fantasy creatures, like fairies, mermaids, and Native Americans” part always made me uncomfortable, even as a kid.
@@ddjsoyenby Still fucked up. Its one of a couple of good reasons why I prefer the sequel to Peter Pan.
I could be wrong, but I always thought it was populated with the natives and pirates (which were also real, not fantasy) because those were things little boys liked to play. The original movie has the lost boys (because girls are too clever to get lost) so it would make sense to have things that would interest boys. That's always been my take anyway.
Am I the only one who noticed that the "you can fly" scene was basically telling kids to jump? Like Peter literally tells Wendy to think happy thoughts and take a step off the edge. Instead of the OG Peter having them practice over their beds.
at least OG peter walked them through...
omg lol😂
Let's hope children don't copy the "just jump" out of the window.
@@MarkCreed007 I tried that and almost died so yeah
I’m not surprised at all that they probably scoured it up and down for any reference they could find that was more politically correct than the o.g. movie, hence this example
Peter Pan was an allegory for childhood death. If you read the text, Wendy’s mom could see him and was frightened by Pan. In 1953 Disney glossed over that with Nana pouring out the “ bedtime medicine“ as you put it. When those kids were actually being treated for an illness without mentioning the illness, part. So in the 1950s Disney removed the specter of death angle and in 2023, they somehow managed to make the story even more bland?
God that's terrifying
Why do I wish they kept that?? What is wrong with me?!
omg....
@@starlight4065 because it makes for an interesting layer to the story
Wait explain about the childhood death more??
Your point at 8:44 is exactly what’s wrong with so many movies now. It’s all so dark, dingy and washed out. We already feel those moods everyday, we don’t need them in movies too. I want color back.
They Zach Snyder-fied it!😆
So fun fact, the handing Peter a thimble and calling it a "kiss" is actually in the book! I'm impressed, I didn't think they'd actually consult the source material
That’s in the 2003 film as well.
My question is.. if they were going to drop the "romantic" relationship peter and wendy had on the previous movies, why would they include the "kiss" thing in the first play? It served no purpose at all. I don't care if it was in the books, i mean, they took away so many things from the original material, so why keep this?
@@conisuarez1 I mean, the romantic aspect was still there in the original play/book if I remember correctly, but Wendy was initially caught off guard, and was trying to distract him. The Disney version is where they get rid of the romantic subtext
@@reirei135 nah the 1953 version definitely had them flirt with each other too. The chemistry was there. They strip it away entirely in this new one and it’s bizarre
I was looking for this comment! I believe the thimble was also what kept her from being shot by the lost boys, but I could be wrong
Wendy was INSUFFERABLE in this version. OG Wendy was joyous, longed for Neverland and always dreamed of meeting Peter, and the 2023 Wendy was a brat and not at all her character.
Good way to sum up most the recent Disney live action reboots
And the OG Wendy was anything but weak. She also calls the rest out if she is being treated unfairly. Just why do all recent female characters have to be like a female version of Gaston (Beauty and the Beast)???
She makes she hulk relatable 😂
@@Fuzz82 😂
The ONLY reboots I’ll support are Treasure Island, Atlantis, etc. give the movies that are much lesser known some love. Everyone already KNOWS Ariel and Stitch, we don’t need to revamp them. There’s literally just no point
You got some good taste
I remember reading the Treasure Island book as a kid, it was one of those books where at first you'd think would be boring but immediatly gets you interested in the plot and characters
The Black Cauldron and the Sword in the Stone would be so good too.
@@brittnicbee YES!!! Even a (sort of) reboot of Robin Hood would be amazing! (Not live action, but maybe better animation). Like SO many options that would actually benefit the stories and the company. But no. Let’s just redo Moana next year eh?
I just hope they dont do a brother bear liive action lol
13:13 This is what annoyed me about the little mermaid remake because they basically didn’t change anything about the movie except make Ariel black and add a random black queen in the country. Ursula was still the same as the original and got no character development at all
And they ruined Flounder and the crab
@@raelicaste1759Sebastian
To be fair Hook's backstory in this IS kind off based on the book. In the book Peter is the only one who doesn't age. The reason all of the lost boys are children is because once Peter feels like they've started to grow up he gets rid of them. It's not clear exactly what that means, but the book also says that the pirates are the lost boys who managed to become adults and that Peter kills them for fun. He also notably has a horrible memory and completely forgets who other characters are constantly throughout the book and doesn't actually care what happens to them.
Also the ending with all of the lost boys being adopted by the darlings is from the book as well
Pretty sure either book or play says Peter 'thins them out' which is just a fancy wording for killing them. Also, if you're a Lost Boy and you get too big to fit through your hollowed tree thing into the hideout, Peter 'makes you fit' which also doesn't have the most wholesome implications... so yeah like Alex said in the video Peter Pan is a little psychopath.
I don't remember anything about the pirates being lost boys who grew up ever mentioned in the book, are you sure it's there?
According to an annotated version I've read, Peter was originally the villain. Plus, I do remember the part where he... thins out... the lost boys.
I do remember the adoption part, but I think there was something with them being adopted not by the Darlings but by other people? Or it's just a possible ending that I remember from the annotated version...
Also, original Peter has a backstory in another story - Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens - where he went out of the window flying, thinking he is a bird, and after getting out of bird island he tried to return to his window but it was closed, or something like that. It's kind of weird, I guess.
I read Peter pan multiple times (one not too long ago) and I don't remember anything about the pirates being lost boys who grew up. Hook's back story is that he worked on Black beard's crew and left to get his own ship. He hates Peter pen because Peter was "proper", the way he was taught to be at Eton (because Hook went to Eton before becoming a pirate) although he didn't get any education. He was basically angry that Peter was charismatic even tho he was, as Alex points out, a psychopath. That, and the hand thing. And the crocodile thing.
Peter also has a backstory in the book "Peter pan in Kensington garden" where James Barrie explains that all children were birds at some point, and they can still fly at the very begining of their lives as humans, which is why parents close the window of their baby's bedroom. Peter's mom forgot the window open and he flew away to Kensington's garden, on the bird island. He lives lots of adventures there, and fairies give him three wishes. He asks to be able to see his mother again and he sees that she is crying in her sleep, but he has so much fun at the gardens that he choses to keep on playing. He comes back a little while after (but it could be years later for his mom as time doesn't flow the same way in bird island) and sees that his mom replaced him with another baby. He felt betraid and that's where his hatred for adults come from. It's not explained in either books, but I'm pretty sure the last wish he had from the fairies was to find Neverland, a land where he could never grow up.
@@נעם-קליין I don't think it said specifically , that they were lost boys, but there were places where it implied that they were
@@islembb8899 I just remember it being hinted at by some of his interactions with the pirates that they were lost boys who managed to escape the "thinning out" and joined the pirates. Although it's entirely possible that that came from a play or a different translation of the book and I'm misremembering it as being part of the English book
The fact they had to put a warning to tell kids to stop jumping off of things trying to fly will never not make me laugh😭😭💀
yoo my little sister tried once after she spell glitter all over herself soooo😭😭😂
i’m pretty sure a toddler jumped off a 4 story building and died thinking he was superman
GOD...may he rest in peace 😥🤍
But sadly there are more and more stories some survived and others didn't so I guess am glad for "warnings"
These things are common, my brother tried jumping from the window thinking he was goku or something like that
When I was a small kid I jumped from the stairs because I thought I could fly like Peter Pan and broke my arm so yeah 😂😅
When I was younger I had a HUGE crush on Peter Pan, the animated one. I'd even leave pieces of my dinner out for him so he could eat it at night in case he was hungry. I think the worst mistake my parents made were writing me letters pretending to be him, because it broke my heart when he stopped writing back to me
Bro pulled a DiCaprio and stopped when you hit a certain age 💀
@Keelin Barron I have a question if you were in Neverland back then would you throw hands with Wendy for Peter?
Thanks for sharing this
@@kutloanodlamini4153 I grew up watching the 2003 live action version, and i absolutely would throw hands with Wendy for peter 😂 I used to be so jealous of her!
This is so funny, cute, and sad at the same time.
As a black woman I’m tired of race swapping. I like to watch accurate depictions no matter if it is fiction or nonfiction. I also have a feeling that they are going to start doing this with important historical black figures
After what they did with the Woman King I wouldn't put it past Hollywood to do exactly that, representing slave traders as if theyre supposed to be some figures of black empowerment, it's tasteless, tactless, insensitive.
Hollywood wants their own stories, history/heritage/real-people be damned!
Yeah but I also don’t care since their are more things to be worrying then a movie that means nothing
@@countessofmontecristo3849where you see Tiana flop…she a popular princess and getting her own ride..
There’s a difference between real people and fake people 😂
@@Aromik__lmfao and you see so many people are very UPSET about the ride💀.
The 2003 Peter Pan film is severely underrated and probably the best straightforward film version of the original story
I love that movie so muchhh
Legit was combing through the comments to see if someone else mentioned Peter Pan 2003. My absolute favorite adaptation too!
I remember that and loved it when I was a kid
Thankyou!! I’m so surprised Alex didn’t reference it, it was easily my favourite movie as a kid! Jeremy Sumpter was my first ever crush😍
THANK YOU!! It’s in my top three favorite movies for so many reasons! I loved how Peter and Wendy got to develop feelings for one another (+ in a wholesome way, with the fairy ball and then their waltz 😍), how we saw Crochet felt lonely and old, how Peter was still shown unhinged (he wants to kill a Lost Boy for killing Wendy, yells when they want to go back home…), how Tink is in a maddening jealous rage, how Wendy’s dad and Crochet were (I just realized it a few months ago lol) THE SAME ACTOR (which also raises theories about them being the embodiments of reality chasing children)… and despite their young age, the actors had SO MUCH chemistry! I’ll end this comment of this quote "to die must be an awfully big adventure" ❤️✨
I thought that the kid who played Peter Pan just didn’t have enough energy for the character imo.. this is not to bash him at all, I think he did better than some of the other child actors, but he just didn’t have the right amount of child wonder that I kind of expected from a character like Peter Pan..
Jeremy Sumpter did it 10x better
Totally agree
I agree there was no emotion or facial expression, like it could have changed the movie more or make it better , the only expression I was getting from his face was “😳” (without the eyebrows and blush) or “😐” he could’ve tried to be more happy or excited when meeting Wendy or flying back to neverland, more cautious when the pirates started attacking them.
@@lizbethcandelero474 It's ok, he was picked for being the best available actor. Yup. No other reason at all.
I can imagine that this was the Directors/Disneys fault not the actor
I hate how he didn't bring up The 2003 Peter Pan movie at all. That one is literally peak Peter Pan.
Hook(1991) is a classic
@@chasehedges6775 Classic ≠ Peak
@@chasehedges6775 Sequels dont count
Right! I was waiting for it
HOOK AND 2003 PETER PAN YESSS i remember having a massive crush on peter when i was younger
The Once Upon a Time TV show did SUCH a good portrayal of Peter Pan, I think it was season 2 that had the Neverland arc but that was one of my most favourite arcs of the entire show! I would recommend it to anyone, its so good!
The best Tinkerbell was in 2003’s Peter Pan. Her expressions were perfect (they specifically hired the French actress because of her talent in facial expressions), her character was as close to JM Berries original Tinkerbell, and her relationship with Peter Pan was perfectly told. I wish we had more of that Tinkerbell than any of the ones Disney has produced in the past 30 years. I can’t stand the overly sweet versions.
My fav is Julia Roberts
2003 peter pan is the best version imo 💚
Nah, it was horrible because she was white and not black
@@Xaixiu okay you fucking racist
@@Xaixiu lol 😂
The funny thing about the original Peter Pan (the book), is that it was cannon that Peter had a horrible memory and constantly forgot who Wendy was, the lost boys, and even tinker bell. I would’ve LOVED to see that nonsense unfold in a movie
So the original Peter Pan was like Dory the blue tang fish?
The 2003 one played on it for one scene. Wendy asked where her brothers were and Peter just straight up looks at her and goes "Who?"
@@thespaceoddity4730 that movie is so well done even to them points of it being Wendy focused like the story inadvertently is😊
Sounds like a lot like 50 First Dates ngl.
Dear Disney,
Stop remaking the classics. No one asked you to, no one wanted you to.
I agree. The only ones I enjoyed were Alice in wonderland and Aladdin (Aladdin wasn't great, on second thought)
Agreed too. I only enjoyed Alice and wonderland, dumbo and Beauty and the beast.
@@queenbetty8862 I haven't seen Dumbo, but I forgot about the Beauty and the Beast remake. I didn't like it that much, but it was much better than many of the other ones
The beauty and the beast live action was also pretty bad.
Actually, it was Walt Disney's dying wish to make his creations "come to liFe," meaning they are looking at least in live-action.
I think that 2003 Peter Pan is a really great movie. It sticks to the classic stories from the book more. It is bright colorful and a great story. It's quite underrated. You should see it. Besides this movie Hook is pretty good. With Hook, it's original. Peter is grown up and forgot who he was because of that. He had to discover who he was again. He also had to learn to be a good parent and that making money doesn't make you a good one.
My problem with Tinkerbell is not with her skin color, it’s with the fact that she’s not Tinkerbell. She is too kind and good to be Tinkerbell, which annoys me. The same with Peter Pan.
Why should we see characters on screen who aren’t super nice robots? Even the villains are good, just misunderstood. The only bad people are the ones who vote wrong.
I agree that Tinkerbell having always one intense emotion (a lot of times anger) was important part of her character and creature that she is. Making her purely nice, made her kinda bland and i felt she didn't have her agency.
@@nikkibleh8045 animated Tinkerbell (the Peter Pan one, not the one with her own series) was extremely possessive, jealous and quite mean. She had Wendy almost killed by the lost boys by telling them Peter wants her dead and she is furious when her plan fails. That’s not something someone nice would do.
@@BB-ed4om agreed tink was complex she tried to kill wendy but she also sacrificed herself for peter nearly dying for him. I always thought tink represented these kinds of messy adult emotions neither peter nor wendy could understand.
Exactly, because Tinker Bell (the original) is based on fairy's folktales. They were mean and mischievous and liked to play pranks on humans who they found to be foolish.
Peter Pan also lost his fun and haughty personality and became a whole different character...
Peter as a psychopath is one of the reasons I loved the Once Upon A Time take on Peter
The casting for that was amazing the kid did such an amazing job
Everything about that show was amazing.
I finished recently OUAT and it was so good lol. It obviously had flaws but they didn't bother me too much (Well apart from the entirety of the last season just... why?) Definitely worth watching if anyone hasn't seen it
Amen!!! Robbie Kay was the absolute perfect fit!
Once Upon a Time is one of my favorite shows of all time!
The main thing i hate about the "diversity" is not that "NOOOOOO THEYRE BLACK I CANT LIKE THEM NOW" Its just that we get this instead of actually original or cool diverse characters or at least this is clearly what disney wants to do instead of making new original diverse characters
This is what most people think there is virtually no movement geared toward racism to speak of. When politics bleed into entertainment the ladder ceases to exist
That's checkbox diversity for you, Disney just doesn't put into thought about this diversity stuff
Agreed! It’s like a cop out instead of giving us a Princess and the Frog live action or just making new movies with new stories! Like I’d love a Korean princess movie or something too
@@peytonsmiley7951 yeah korea or japan themed story would be interesting instead we get mulan which is med at best
@@peytonsmiley7951 I'm so very much waiting for a Korean princess too... Although I kind of wish if they did they'd go back to their 2d animation still (unfortunately this isn't going to happen).
For those of you that are wondering, the reason for the live action remakes is... a lot of these movies are about to enter public domain- or *were* about to enter public domain, before Disney renewed the IP.
What does that mean??
@florencembah2626 Basically saying that other companies could use the original content to create something for themselves for money without getting in any trouble. It's the reason there were so many Pinocchio movies coming out at once. Hope this helps!
@@noodles8528 yeah thanks
That does _not_ mean that the _original_ versions ain't about to enter the public domain. It won't even DELAY that by one measly second!
Courts understand that there is a difference between the original versions & the remakes.
If I remember correctly, the reason why Lost Boys can't be Lost Kids is because Peter Pan wanted a maternal figure, hence the sole reason why he kidnapped Wendy. If there are other girls on an island, the entire plot of the story is kind of pointless, I guess 🤷♀
theres literally mermaids in the original lol
and tiger lily. jesse what the fuck are you talking about
@@_Rick___Grimes_yeah, but they're not called "the lost mermaids" are they?
@@ShiningAndStarstruck op said "other girls" not "lost girls" so idk what your point is
@@_Rick___Grimes_ But what its your point though? Are you just nitpicking or do you really dont get what they were trying to say? Cause it seems obvious that what the original coment failed to properly express is that there shouldnt be other girls on the Lost Boys, which the mermaids have nothing to do with (bit of a tangent, but would the mermaids even be considered girls? Like, they look female enough, but would they even have genitals? Wait, does fishes even have genders? Sorry, im going way too offtopic). Its a prety straightforward coment, even if theres a poor choice of words by the end, not sure how could you not grasp what were they trying to say.
I mean, I wouldn't say that changing the Lost Boys into Lost Kids was inconsequential. I'm glad you pointed out that in the original play and movie, they made it clear that girls wouldn't become part of the Lost because they were "too clever" but more than that, it also made Wendy's character introduction into the movie that much bigger to the Lost because she was (sans Tink and Tigerlilly) the only girl in their lives for a very long time. And Wendy was the one to introduce the concept of a mother to the Lost which again, made Wendy incredibly important since the Lost asked Wendy to be their mother. I understand Disney wanting inclusivity, but it seems that they push inclusivity without real reason and without thinking of the original stories they are adapting. Inclusivity would be a diverse cast for the Lost Boys, not just adding 5 girls and calling it a day. I also would disagree that Hook needed to be redeemed or even given a closer backstory to Peter. I was really looking forward to this movie, but Disney has been ruining villains for quite some time now and it sucks that this movie also fell to that "this-is-a-villain-but-just-kidding-because-everyone-has-good-in-them-and-friendship-was-the-solution-all-along" type ordeal. Sometimes villains just suck and that's okay! It makes it more fun to root for this kinda insane kid just messing with the pirates. I also really missed the crocodile here too.
I clearly just need to rewatch Hook and the other Peter Pan live-action from 2003 😅
I mean look at Robin Williams' hook, the lost boys were super diverse and were all charming. They should've just done that. I still love Rufio to this day RIP.
hook was such a good movie
I think that's the thing people are missing. Disney isn't using diversity to actually BE diverse. The race changes, the adding girls, etc is entirely done for PR. Some are praising this film for the diversity and little else, and that's the point, Disney knows that if they emphasize their diversity in the marketing they will draw a group that probably wouldn't have watched the film beforehand.
It's all about money and not about creativity. Frankly, I hope they pander to us classic Disney fans more in the future with films like Wish instead of the crappy changed live action remakes.
I'm not a boy but I would much rather be a Lost Boy than a Lost Kid. That just sounds like I ran away.
@@DaGraffitiKid16 RU-FI-OH! RU-FI-OH!
I think so many people miss the point of what this movie is about. Wendy thinks she doesn't want to grow up in the beginning, but her mother was right about how she was changing and growing. This reveals itself throughout the movie because she naturally takes on a nurturing, mothering role for the lost boys. Neverland is not all fantastical for her because she sees the more practical side of things too. That's the reason that she decides to go home and grow up in the end. She found her own personal place in the world. She wanted to grow up and become a mother. Wendy was romantic and feminine and sweet and nurturing. That doesn't mean that all women/girls have to be that way, but there literally isn't anything wrong with being that way either. They butchered this remake. IMO, its one of their worst.
This is spot on
I've always seen Peter Pan as Wendy's story
People don’t realize that the story is actually Wendy’s story.
@@themr_wilsonYeah, it literally is. His name is on the title, but it's her story, just like Princess Zelda has never been the true focus of a Legend of Zelda game, it's always been Link.
6:27 just passed the thimble/kiss and it officially moved in my mind from a cartoon Peter Pan remake to a Hook prequel.
Backstory of Peter kind of makes sense... In the book Peter ended up to leave to Neverland because parents were talking about his future and he did not want to grow up.
When he came back, window was not left open for him. He said that mom have forgotten him and there was a other little boy sleeping in his bed. That is why he never came back.
This is really sad, because Peter Pan might be based on writers own brother who died in accident at age 14. He left to the Neverland and never grow up. If that is true, maybe writer was blaming himself for taking his brothers place.
The part about peter coming back and finding the window shut and another boy sleeping in his bed is from the original book.
@@faerlywell so sad that happened.
Peter Pan is definitely based off of Barrie’s brother. His brother never got to grow up, so he wanted to write a story about a boy who never grew up because of him.
But Disney now claim "Peter" is a selfish and useless without women doing everything for him, and Alex just called him a psychopath.
@@orionhan2431 Did he? Or did he just point out that Peter is an a-hole (which is apparently true to the books) and that Tinkerbell's magic carries?
This is why I liked the once upon a time version of Peter Pan where Peter WAS a psychopathic villain and Captain Hook was just hot
Same
same
Same
Absolutely love that version.
Definitely an amazing take about a boy who didn’t grow up by presenting a father who abandoned his own son and was selfish to the end.
"No one has thought about Tinkerbell in the last 20 years."
Those animated evening filling films that created a whole new universe about Tinkerbell and her friends: 👀
**Gasped dramatically** Someone actually remember them? 🤯
@@NathasyaStellaHermanusThose movies were a huge part of my childhood. I still watch them from time to time!
Dude really said nobody has cared about Scooby Doo since….
Well I’m not even sure since we’ve had Scooby Doo content since 1969 almost continuously
@@creed8712 ukr this guy is so out of touch, Scooby Doo is literally beloved by EVERYONE and is nearly everyone's childhood. We literally have that Scooby Doo show called Mystery Inc that everybody loves and still talks about
idk if he said that NoBodY tHouGht AboUt ScOoBy DoO to belittle people or what. because that's just not the case.
I adored that one movie where tink met her twin and the other one where she adventures out to get this blue crystal thing to make blue pixie dust in fall.. or that one where that rebel fairy switched tink and her friends’ talents with multicolored pixie dust
This is Disney's cheap way of trying to include different races instead of just making up a new story of different races.
One of the ironies of Peter Pan that I never see people talk about is how he didn't want to grow up but is responsible for the well-being of multiple other children.
Dude that's more adulting than a lot of us get to these days.
Never thought of it that way. I assumed it was the general leader position and they follow Peter because he's the cool big brother and knows what he's doing but yeah he's still totally responsible for them having beds, ,food, exercise, education, etc... If anything went wrong they'd all look to Peter to fix it.
This fundamentally changes his motivation (even if he doesn't realize it himself) for staying in Neverland and leading the Lost Boys. He didn't really want to "not grow up", but instead wanted control; control over his own affairs and the affairs of others. It is more about control than immortal youth.
Edit: Although, the immortal youth part does allow him to keep that control, neigh indefinitely. So, there is that.
Except you misinterpreted it. He's not "responsible for the well-being". He sees them as playthings, he doesn't take care of them at all, they do that themselves.
Not really, they have to fend for themselves while he goes off and has fun, and in the original he off'ed them himself the moment they started getting too old.
Oh for the love of... I'm referring specifically to the Disney version.
If they wanted to refresh Peter Pan of all things with some new sadfeels spice, they could've adjusted it to reference the life of the author. The likely reason Peter Pan is a "boy forever" is that the author's older brother (and mother's favorite son) died when they were children, and he was troubled growing past the age his brother had lived. That's a pretty big contributing factor to writing a world where you live forever but never grow up. It would be an interesting take to treat Peter a bit more like a ghost, which could even make Hook a more tragic character too if that's the route they want for their villains.
One thing Disney’s good at is NEVER listening to audiences😭⚰️
Its very rare for big companies to ever listen to their fans, ofcourse that doesn't make them inexcusable, but its just the sad reaity that we must live with
Money makes the world go around.
Yc
That's pretty much every big company nowadays
Actually it looks like they watched a few theory videos about Peter Pan while they were writing this movie because things like Peter Pan and Hook being friends, Hook being a lost boy in the past, Peter not really understanding what Tinker Bell says and Peter Pan having a sad past is all stuff I heard or read about online in movie theories
"A shallow movie with some cool CG parts"
Yeah, that's about right for the Disney remakes lmao.
13:07
I don’t know why, but this reminded me of a theory for that Peter Pan spin-off Jack and The Neverland Pirates, with the theory being the Jack was Captain Hook’s son and all the adventures was just a part of a game they like to play.
The original backstory between Peter Pan and Captain Hook was that Peter Pan is the only one who never grows up and so when the “lost boys” grow up Peter tries to kill them. So That’s why Captain Hook and his crew are the only adults on the island, because they are former “lost boys”. I guess they were trying to incorporate that somehow
I never knew that. Dang Alex was right, Peter is psycho killer
@DemonRee69 Once Upon A Time too portrays him as a villain and the fact there is a syndrome named after him XD
Thank you!! I don't know why this is hardly ever mentioned. If Disney wanted to do a remake they could have leaned into that a lot more.
Yes true also in Christina Henrys book the lost boy it is about Peter pan being a narcissist and killing a lot of the lost boys
@@olandir because it's kid movie they make it TOO dark so they tried
Fun fact, in the OG play, “flying with happy thoughts” had kids throwing themselves off shit trying to fly. So they changed the line so that you need pixie dust as well😭😭
😂 omg i would do that when I was younger and my mom told me that I need to stop because I can’t fly😂😂😂😂
Oh, that's why they change the world into such a depressing place... to avoid that again.
You should also compare with the highly entertaining 2003 _Peter Pan,_ with Jason Isaacs playing the _definitive_ cinematic portrayal of Captain Hook, fun Richard Briars as Smee, and the lovely and talented Rachel Hurd-Wood as Wendy...
The "girls are _far_ too clever to fall out of _their_ prams" line is in there as well...
I love the 2003 version so much. Everyone nailed their roles perfectly. Hook was menacing and mesmerizing, Pan was a charismatic adrenaline rush junkie boy (who even had the look of the troublemaker de facto leader of the classroom), and Wendy embodied the epitome of feminine grace and motherly energy rarely matched by anyone her age. The Smee actor was spot on hilarious as well. I cannot recommend that movie enough.
OMG YES I LOVED THIS MOVIE SM IT DESERVES MORE HYPE
Ironic isn’t it?
The 2023 version tried to be more progressive than the one made during a sexist era that it ended up ignoring the subtle compliment towards women’s intelligence in the source material therefore being more sexist than the source material if you think about it hard
It’s somewhat funny
I loved the 2003 version. When I saw the previews for this, I was like we already have a great live action Peter Pan, wtf. I haven’t seen this one but from the comments, I think I’ll pass and just rewatch the 2003 version.
Yeah but 2003 was sooo homophobic of a time, so we can’t like anything from then
3:01 The funniest thing about this argument is that tinkerbell had her own spinoff movies and there were multiple faries with different ethnicities, INCLUDING A BLACK FAIRY
The only good thing to come from this movie is seeing how many other people have a special place in their hearts for the 2003 Peter Pan since commentary communities weren’t really a thing then. That movie was full of magic and always warms my heart.
One of my favorite movies ever 😍
Literally just went and bought it after watching that new one since it was rubbish. 2003 Peter Pan is far superior 🥰
I never stopped loving it. It's literally one of the best versions of the story in film, if not THE best. It's bright and colorful... yet dark in places. The did the natives pretty well too with actually having Tiger Lily speak in a native language for parts of it.
Also Isaacs is the best "younger" Hook. I will fight any who say otherwise. Hoffman still wins the "older" Hook category.
That movie was full of perversion and overly sexualizing a girl who doesn't want to grow up.
@@demo2823 where was that? The most I can think of would be the lost boys asking Wendy to be their mother but she and Peter acknowledge it’s a game of make believe. Next is the pirates offering her a job as a storyteller and cigars but she tells them she’s a little girl and smee and hook respect that.
The whole reason Peter even shows up in London in the first place is to take Wendy to Neverland so she can be the mother of the Lost Boys. But if there are already girls within the group, why does Peter bother with Wendy? He can just have the "Lost Girls" be mothers
because girls aren't motherly by nature lol that has to be taught, haven't you ever heard of a tomboy? There are female mermaids too, why bother with Wendy if Peter can interact with them? Same difference. It doesn't make any sense. Girls aren't feminine by nature, they are TAUGHT to be by other WOMEN and GENDER NORMS. Wendy is exposed to that because she was raised in london with an actual MOTHER and other feminine women around her. The girls in the lost boys are not exposed to that because they are around BOYS and MALES. They are raised in Neverland, so they wouldn't know what a mother is either. Every child would wonder that, I don't understand why it's so complicated?
THANK YOU! Peter Pan is my absolute favorite book, and the 2003 movie is my favorite comfort movie. This move is a sin against people with eyes and ears for so many reasons, this included!
@@antilikka I wouldn't go that far, the movie is nice enough but bringing girls into the Lost Boys does negate the whole purpose of the Lost Boys
Because she reads her brothers bedtime stories every night and is really good at it - he sees that as a prime quality in a mother, that's why he wants Wendy to come with him.
@@persgodiva Ah yes good point
I think the 2003 Peter Pan is the definitive live action Peter Pan. They got the story exactly right, and they managed to keep the same themes and stuff! That was one of my favorites when I was little.
And it still is in my top three favorite movies today haha
Peter Pan 2003 needs more love!
It was really good
That was truly a magical film that did everything right.
See, I loved the 2003 version. I also liked the 1960's version with Mary Martin. 2003 got it right though and I hope that we will see something as good in the future. Although my favorite live action has to be Hook with Robin Williams.
The best Peter Pan with a modern twist I have ever seen is a tv show called "The new Adventures of Peterpan". It expands Neverland in such a beautiful way. The Native Americans, the mermaids, Hook, the lost boys and there are so many more elements that are greatly expanded.
My biggest problems with this remake are:
- Hook, Peter, and Smee are all boring characters, and were not casted well.
- if Hook was a lost boy, wouldn’t he know where the lost boy hideout was?
- They cut out too much of the world building from the original
- The tic tock croc was underutilized. The original film did a good job showing why Hook was scared of the crocodile because it showed up multiple times. It felt like the crocodile was always a looming threat and had a reason to be there. Here it just feels like they put it in the movie because it was in the original. Same with Tinker Bell.
- Neverland looks like a really boring place compared to the other more colorful versions.
I agree with everything you said especially the casting. The casting for this was so weird. The actors for Hook, Peter, Wendy, and Tinkerbell don't fit well into the roles. They don't look like the original actors and just don't really pull it off. I'm not sure what it is exactly, but they just don't work.
I, for one, think it's great the way Disney insists on teaching small children that scary adults who want to hurt them are just misunderstood, and should be shown trust and empathy. We wouldn't want kids to run away when some stranger tries to lure them into a van or anything. No, no. That might hurt the predator's feelings...
Yeah
Unsaturated is the perfect one word summary for all these Disney remakes.
Also, the way Disney tries to portray fEmInIsM and “girl boss personalities” makes me ill. The girl yelling “SO?” like she’s about to throw hands from how triggered and offended she was by Wendy noticing the Lost Boys weren’t all boys made me want to scream into a pillow. If Disney HAD to have girls in the lost boys for who knows what reason, why couldn’t they just be included and call them “the lost kids” and leave it at that? Or Wendy could ask the question and the girls could have a cheeky response like “we got outvoted on the name” or something light hearted for this KIDS movie. The cringy overreaction was unnecessary, uncomfortable, and not funny - and why would they want to make the only girls in the lost boys clan seem unpleasant to be around? Great representation there Disney! How can the company that created such strong, empowering, and respectable female characters like Mulan and Nani be so bad at portraying them today? Those “lost girls” just seem like entitled brats.
You're mad just because a fictional character said "so?" 😭😭😭 What???
Well remeber how the bastardized mulan in the remakes. They even thanked a fuckin concentration camp for letting them film nearby in the credits.
@Will N A tomboy isn't a different species.
You are either a boy or a girl.
They didn't even need to add girls because if I remembered correctly, the lost girls were friends with tiger lily and lived separately from the boys...
I totally agree. If you’re gonna do something like that, try not to make it so on the nose
Honestly I just find it hilarious that they tried their usual pandering shit by making tinker bell black. But then shot themselves in the foot by keeping that character as a mute. The irony is incredible.
I grew up on the 2003 Peter Pan, and had my first ever crush on that Peter! The music was incredible, the cast (the legend that is Jason Isaacs) was amazing, and those realistic mermaids always terrified me! But it was amazing and will always be my favourite rendition of Peter Pan.
Another person commented that and I responded but I also have to thank you for saying this!! I want to make this film more known that it is because damn I love it so much, def in my top three movies
I had crushes on Jeremy and Jason 😅 My obsession with that movie was intense
The movie was fantastic!
The 2003 movie is fantastic and Alex ought to review it.
That movie is perfect.
I will say it. The 2003 movie was a masterpiece. I've watched every adaptation of Peter Pan from every country ever made and the best one was the 2003; It made me read the whole book and I liked it better. Pan from 2015 was also a good prequel and an amazing side story for the characters. But the best adaptation for me it's still Peter Pan (2003).
EDIT: I also loved the Peter Pan of the TV show Once Upon a Time as a villain. It was amazing to see and it's still also one of my favourite adaptations of the main character. My list would go like this:
-Best heroe Peter Pan: 2003 movie adaptation.
-Best villain Peter Pan: OUAT Peter Pan.
-Best "more human and relatable" Peter Pan: the movie Pan (2015).
I fully agree
This is my first time seeing anyone praising Pan (2015).
OUAT Peter Pan was so creative. And the actor did such a great job!!!
The 2003 one was really good
Pick any scene from Peter Pan 2003 and it's still better than this remake. Pan was only good because of Hugh Jackman, everything else especially the casting of Tiger Lily was awful
The lost girls being in the lost boys actually does make a big deal because in the original book and movie Wendy was supposed to be some sort of mother for the children.
It was also a play too.
Well, we know why Disney changed Wendy's character in this new 2023 version, because being motherly, maternal, or crushing on a boy doesn't jive with the modern feminist narrative message they're pushing out onto today's young skulls full of mush. Unfortunately, we're going to see the same crap rewriting again in The Little Mermaid.
Sorry, but I never liked how Wendy was put in motherly role when was kid. She just wasn’t relatable and too mature for age. But I bet y’all just call me fucking feminist or whatever. (which I’m not)
@@smcphee8499 that’s okay I understand your point of view👍. I don’t mean to be but this movie was released in 1953 and the book way before that, so women kind of were seen like that. To me I like it because it shows how women are very, very important in our life.
@@smcphee8499 well i guess you didnt get the original point of peter pan. The whole point is wendy is on the verge of adulthood, shes growing up and doesnt want to. Then after going to neverland and learning how you cant stay a child forever after seeing its downsides has a character arc and learns that its ok to grow up. Yes she is a little young for todays standards but back when this was written you were expected to mature earlier.
The way they totally just took the Pirate Fairy (overboard pirate) Scene for the ending 💀
The 2003 version is really the best for me! The action is great, the characters are well developped and you really feel something for Hook, especially since it’s the same actor playing the father, you really feel the child in him wanting to live again. Netherland also really looks magical in it. The house of the lost boys being under a tree felt so cool as a kid. The colors were vibrant, not like this washed out green filter put al over the film. It’s a shame so few people know about it cause it deserves a much bigger recognition in my opinion.
It had lots of magical lighting. This one is very dull.
its still one of my favorite comfort movies!
Now that one changed my preteen self, Jeremy sumpter is my all time favorite Peter Pan
I would love if Alex watched it! It’s one of my fave movies, the best Peter Pan for sure!
yes! the 2003 version is still on of my favourites.
The problem is Disney being lazy. It wasnt twenty years ago that I thought of Tinkerbell because they made movies ABOUT tinkerbell in the last ten years. And I even recently purchased the book that inspired the movies and has all the concept art. There IS A BLACK FAIRY!!! And shes BEAUTIFUL! Shes a light fairy and I would LOVE to see her in the spotlight.
I remember Iridessa and the other Disney fairies! I think they might be Disney's answer to Winx Club back in the 2000s and early 2010s. This was a franchise that also had diversity and fairies with different powers. The fairies were voiced by several celebrities like Raven Simone, Lucy Lu, and Jesse McCartney.
That line "All you need is happiness"
"Oh crap, well thanks anyway Peter"
Ouch, I knew where it was headed but it was still priceless.
That could be a (classic) SNL skit for how hard that one hits home. I'm laughing because I'd rather laugh than cry.
Why does Disney keep swapping race?
why Don't they make new characters that represent other races instead of swapping
Laziness and lack of talent
TinkerBell had her own movie spin-offs (several of them, taking place before she met Peter Pan). That's probably why people are talking about the change in character appearance
Plus, Iridessa exists??
also the bluray/DVD logo on certain CDs, they blew her up so much
@@hannahkillian689 wow...😨 I'll pass the word on we should shut up, be grateful for the "token" and fade into the background
@@hannahkillian689 Exactly. When you change nostalgia facts, fans are not going to be happy.
@@jayb8137 You were never "faded" into the background and yes you should... Check your privilege.
I’m quite excited for remakes! Not because I care about them but to have youtubers tear them to shreds
😆😆😆👍🏻
Frankly I'm starting to wonder if that what they're being made for.
That is the most value these remakes have, to provide entertaining breakdowns by youtubers. This breakdown though, while a well made video for sure, was far too soft and positive for my taste.
I only like them because each of them bring DInsey closer to bankruptcy and NIntendo closer to reaplacing them
I think it's kinda important that lost boys are all boys, because when Wendy gets there she turns into a mother figure to them. She doesn't kick ass or fight with a sword, she uses soft infuence which even pirates succumb to because there was noone like that before on an island. But oh well...
But why would that change with girls involved? Girls don’t need mother figures? That critique doesn’t make sense to me
@@Slap_Pappy there was a statement in the original story that says that girls were too smart to fall out of their prams. so basically, this new change implies that girls are also not the brightest
@@Slap_Pappy The key point they made was how there was no one like that before on the island. The Lost Boys are all boys because a group of boys will behave differently than if there's a girl present.
Wendy's effect on Peter, the Lost Boys, and even the Pirates, was that their behavior drastically changed in the presence of a girl. Every one of them goes on "best behavior" mode, even the pirates are less villainous and want her to be /their/ mother because they all recognize that a feminine presence is something they need even if they might not know why. It's like that scene in Brave when the mother (and later, Merida) walks through the chaos of the men fighting and that's enough to get them to stop. That was Wendy arriving in Neverland.
The overall commentary was that boys left on their own won't change or grow much, especially emotionally, but having a woman around holds them to a higher standard and they grow up as a result. Women are powerful simply by being women and men recognize that.
Having other girls be there the whole time completely undermines how all of the boys/men change their behavior due to a female presence. This is something addressed a lot more obviously in the 2003 Peter Pan which I highly recommend watching instead of this remake.
**It is worth noting, Tiger Lily in the play is also treated with a bit more care when being tied up as bait ("Not so rough, Starkey. Roughish, but not so rough"), but she is a more dangerous character who leads warriors, so the pirates and Lost Boys tend to stay way from her. She's also grouped in with fairies and mermaids as a "magical/exotic other" because racism, so that also plays a part.
@@katymartin9026 I was also wondering about why they were so unfamiliar with acting around girls, cause fairies and mermaids were clearly females, and Tiger Lily was a straight up human girl.
@@anubis7457 they are fantasy creatures. You rlly gonna assume that a 'girl' fairy can assume a mothers role ?
She's just a speck of light in front of the kids. The mermaids only interact with peter and are not rlly human.
Tiger lily... is a special case. It feels like she's not supposed to exist. Boys would roleplay as indians, it feels like they added T. lily just because pan is populer with 'females' so she was just added in.
“How hott is Tinkerbell?” 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I would’ve rather seen a live action Fairies franchise movie. At least those were cute cash grabs.
Plus they had a fun backstory for Hook in the pirate one
After watching the original, I never noticed that all the kids' initial happy thoughts before they flew for the first time were what Neverland became - Wendy thought of a mermaid lagoon, John and the pirates, then Michael with his passion for Indians. It made me question everything I thought, in the same way that Hook ended up allowing you to determine if you believe it was real or just make-believe.
This is like a fanfiction version of the 2003 Peter Pan... That movie was everything this one is hoping to be.
Shoot I think I saw that maybe 2 times I forgot that even existed. I always preferred hook or the animated movie.
Welcome to Disney! We have:
- Feminist Wendy!
- Race-swapped Tinkerbell!
- Race-swapped Ariel!
- Lost Girls!
- Bratty Wendy!
- Snow White and the Seven People of Varying Heights, Races, and Genders!
- Demonic Scuttle!
- 'Misunderstood' Captain Hook!
- The most Horrifying Pinocchio of All Time!
- Shitty Star Wars Sequels!
- Feminist Snow White!
- Girls who Fall Out of Prams
And most of all,
- No ears! Because if we did, we'd listen to our audiences, who are practically BEGGING us to stop! Please! Stop! Seriously! I'm crying!
you forgot "turned evil because dogs killed her parents, not because she's a greedy narcissist" Cruella
💯🎯
It's quite funny that you complain about the fact that they are feminist when the original films were influenced by the feminist fight at the time 🤦🏻♀️
The amount of remakes Disney is making is outrageous, they’re like the second version of Bollywood, but this time they’re remaking their own animated films to live adaptation. 😂
At least Bollywood have those 'they are so bad to the point it's good' type of movies 😂
@@ilmianafirmantika8079 Well I guess that’s one way to putt it. 😂
@@ilmianafirmantika8079 Don’t forget those 700+ episode serials as well. I always get a hoot over how insane they can go on some of those.
@@ilmianafirmantika8079 But at least "RRR" as recent movie, where this viral "Naatu Naatu" Dance came from, was kinda good tho, even if the action scenes where absolutely over the top 😅, like it's usually happening in these Bollywood movies. But kinda true Disney and Bollywood had their height in the 90s/early 2000s, and even tho sometimes their is still good stuff coming from them it still flattened a bit, specifically with these terrible, lifeless, live action remakes that Disney puts out.
Now hold on, let's not insult Bollywood like that. I can actually sit down and watch some of the stuff they make without turning it off after 10 minutes.
The movie Pan (2015) covered the relationship of Hook and Peter becoming friends in much more depth, maybe that's where Disney got the idea from. It was a prequel that covers the story of how Peter got to Neverland that was much more interesting than Peter being upset about being scolded.
It also had Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard singing Nirvana with Peter being a World War 2 orphan and Rooney Mara playing Tiger Lily. I thought it was pretty bad overall, but If any movie deserved the term "curious failure," it's that one.
The number one thing I remember from that movie though, is Captain Hook's (Garrett Hedlund) really odd voice.
@@harrisdaver the concept was oddly executed, but the score was great. And the magical aesthetic of Neverland was decent, I think a major issue in Hollywood is assuming that magic captured in animation will translate well to live action. It often doesn't.
and Levi Miller was all the energy an vibe to the Peter Pan in the books!
@@harrisdaver My theory about Blackbeard singing the Nirvana song was that it originally was supposed to be a placeholder song during production until Warner Bros comes up with a better replacement. Perhaps an original pirate song or an old popular song from the early 1900s? But then for some reason, Warner Bros exes decided to keep this out-of-place song in at the last minute.
@@sunspotmill1291 My thought was that it was to make Neverland feel 'out of time and of all times' (kind of like how they make Peter come from the 1940s instead of the 1900s), but nothing else in the movie has that mix-and-match quality (everything seems pretty standard to Peter Pan lore) so it feels especially out of place.
Nothing can compare to Peter Pan 2003. The best live action of the original.
Let's be fair, here: Who can compare to Jason Isaacs villainy in his roles? He's always perfect in them
Peter pan was so attractive in 2003 unlike this current ugly child. I don't understand, Peter Pan is a fey, so why is he ugly?
Peter Pan 2003>>>>>
Ok. I know im kinda late, but pleaase you HAVE to watch Peter Pan (2003), it's just one of the best adaptation to the original story, although kinda cheesy, it's much more thoughtful than this crap.
(im sorry if some words are a typo, english it's not my first language)
Love how no one asked for this to be made and Disney doesn't learn
The problem is that they know people will watch it, if we all just ignored their enslaught of remakes, hopefully they will get the memo, its why I watch Alex Meyer's reviews instead of watching them, if I'm going to procrastinate and help someone with views, id rather it be a creator who actually needs the money to pay their bills and aren't overflowing with cash.
@@Ditto.007👍👍👍
@@Ditto.007Exactly, this man saves us from watching these movies
I’m scared to watch it cause that Alice movie with Angelina Jolie was so damn morbid…
The problem is you don't care about new movies like strange worlds which failed. While the remakes are making billions. Money talks.
That blandness of never land is legitimately a reflection of where we are as a society we’re going toward a bland modern era where everything will be just smooth lol
Fitting, as only the truly smooth-brained could consider this an upgrade.
Ah yes, I have always wanted to visit...
*THE VOID*
Watch “Beau is Afraid”, it will help you because it is the exact opposite of bland modern movie. Don’t give up hope, where parts of our culture go towards the production line others get their chance to shine out of that monotony!
I feel compelled to point out from 2008 to 2015 there were 7 films with Tinkerbell as the main character so people have grown to love her from that as well as Peter Pan. I used to work with a girl who had a tinkerbell bumper sticker on her ute.
God I loved the Tinkerbell movies, Silvermist was my fave.
That would be the only reason I'd have a problem with Tinkerbell having dark skin was the series.
@@sadespain01 Esepecially since the movie series had a range of diverse fairies they could have made a film about instead. Heck make the one that got cancelled and you've fairies of multiple races.
The Disney Entertainment industry is not about the Entertainment anymore. It's now the woke/ awareness industry.
The 2003 Peter Pan is so underrated. This looks atrocious compared to that.
Exactly!
Can proudly said that I care about Tinkerbell.
Watched all her movies, listen to the songs often, had costumes (that I had to throw away cause they weren't in a state I could wear), still have merchandise. And pretty much the only thing I didn't do is read her books, cause they are hard to find in my country.
In my opinion they could have put her friend who is black, Iridessa in the movie, instead of raceswaping her. The trend of raceswaping is getting tiring cause they only do it for drama and promotion and forget to give value to old diverse characters or create new ones.
Literally been saying this with the mcu and DC for years welcome to the party bro
@@theVictor-isVonDoom I have been in the party for a while. People already called me a neonazi for not agreeing with raceswaps.
It's social cohesion on its finest, some will try to paint you as the villain, others try to attack you, a group will say that it's dumb or shallow for you to care and the list goes on.
@@lelegus7732 it's so dumb as a fan of these franchises it pisses me off when they race swap Hawkman with the dude that SHOULD BE John Stewart, or Kang who would've been a good Black Panther instead (despite the controversy), Idris Elba could've been Beta Ray Bill instead of a race swap Heimdall, Sam Jackson is AMAZING love the guy I would've loved an original character maybe a partner of the ACTUAL Nick Fury or another agent from a separate division or something the og Nick was awesome I loved him as a kid in ultimate alliance I hate that they COMPLETELY REMOVED HIM to make room for a race swap it's madness that needs to end
I feel so bad for the actors who have to play race-swapped characters because they have to deal with basically being an human prop to get people talking about the movie.
@@antagonizingprotagonist8721 Yeah, especially when they are children. I'm fan of the Percy Jackson franchise and there's this 13 year old black girl playing a white character. I may not agree with the casting choice, but I hate how Disney is using her as a shield for criticism.
They did the same for Halley Barry, but at the very least she is an adult woman who probably has enough emotional maturity to deal with this. A thirteen year old girl going through this is so fucked up.
My minor gripe with Tinkerbell isn't that they had her portrayed by a black actress, that's great good for her to be honest. It's more the fact that The Disney fairies brand already had a black fairy, Iridessa😅 like if they wanted to highlight more casting variety they could have made Tink's friends join the canon of Peter Pan and Wendy at some point. Pixie Hollow has so much potential for a wide range of casting since every fairy has different abilities. But that's just my opinion 😅
Im kinda disappointed that they make her black
@@sakura_starlight Its fine, it doesn't hurt or hinder the story in anyway.
@@sakura_starlight Its fine, it doesn't hurt or hinder the story in anyway.
@sakura_starlight That's very rude of you to say.
@Mel Nguyen yeah😅 but until Disney sees this affect their pockets they're not gonna listen. Cuz they cancel shows that people love (The Owl House cough cough) but then do this for cash.
I Love Disney Fairy And white version Of Tinkerbell Not Black Tinkerbell
Brooooo the thing where the girl gives peter one of those metal things and says its a kiss at about 6:15 is acctually based of the book and that reference just took me waaaaayyy back when i read it for the first time. Thats really cool
Only issue I got so far is the lost boys being boys and girls. Wendy was the mother figure to the boys because they never had a mom. But it is minor. It could work
Personally i'm fine with the idea of it being boys and girls and honestly wondered why that wasn't the case before and I also think it could work since in general, any child might need a mother figure if they never had a mom
@@tippi143 Yeah girls are just a stupid as boys equality ✊🏼
Honestly my only gripe with it is that I loved Peter’s line about the lost boys having fallen out of their carriages, saying “Girls are much too clever to fall out of their carriages.”
I think it was much better this way because even when I was little I never understood why there were no girls in Peter Pan’s gang, I doubt Peter couldn’t find a girl that would like to go to NeverLand before Wendy so I can’t think about any reason for that except misogyny (either Peter only wanted boys in his gang or Tinker Bell wouldn’t let him take them)
Is this a Change that actually impact the story?
4:20 Fun fact, Tinkerbell was modelled after Marilynn Monroe! Literally, there is a scene in a movie, where she gets stuck in a ship window, because she measured her hips and assumed she could fit in it! So... i'm just sad to see fun references like that gone. But i suppose, she would be modelled after today's hottest woman? never heard of this girl before XD who is she supposed to look like?
Im kinda disappointed that they make her black
@@sakura_starlight you already commented that
I'm 100% for the 90's live action movie.... peterpan was perfectly cast, and a literal heart throb 😍
13:10 They took the Once Upon a Time story arc for peterpan and hook! 🤯
At 8:42 idk if I was the only one who realized but it looks like the place in how to train your dragons look it up
Fun fact: the author of Peter pan had to add pixie dust in later because kids were hurling themselves off beds trying to fly
I do seem to recall a certain cartoon where they were sprinkled with fairy dust and then told to think happy thoughts.. and I remember liking Michael's pouch cause he always hid candies or other goodies in it, and I had my grandma make me one of my own and kept sweets in it too LOL.
Nothing will beat the 2003 remake of Peter Pan
YES! Not enough people talk about this version!!
Forgot about that movie. Yea, it was a fun one for sure!
yeah! i love that one!
That kid was a spitting image of my nephew
Jason Isaacs as Hook? More, please! He's easily one of my favorite villain actors, he's always perfect in them
I actually do think about tinkerbell daily as she's on my coffee cup... and I didn't realise there was a live action remake. It makes sense with how many remakes there are, but I'm more upset disney can't produce something new. Also, I have to say the OG Hook is one of the most relatable disney villains. Who hasn't held a grudge against a child after they cut off your hand and fed it to a crocodile.
I'm actually curious about this fallacy that a lot of people seem to believe in. Why do you think "Disney can't produce something new" when there's constantly new original Disney movies coming out every few years along with the remakes? For example Wish is coming out this November, and movies like Strange World, Disenchanted, and Turning Red came out just last year. I'm wondering where this misconception came from.
@@annika6592 can't even really say Disney came up with most of their old movies since they were based off stories written by other people
@@annika6592disenchanted wasn’t as good and strange world was a complete flop so we really wanna talk about Disney coming out with new movies and mention those..? If you’d said encanto or coco or Moana even raya to smaller degree I would’ve agreed those were all amazing but those others in my and a lot of others opinions were not it
@@tarynriver so you agree with my point that disney makes original movies all the time?? what are you even trying to say 😭
@@overlorddante not the ones i just mentioned, so my point stands 👍