Choosing to direct a film with fairy tale elements by removing those elements as much as possible is the opposite of what a good director would do. If he had no interest in adapting the film in a fantastical and interesting manner, he should have chosen a different property to adapt because this film was always going to be compared to Disney's animated original and found lacking by the vast majority of viewers, especially the young children who are primarily watching it.
Besides fantasy fans love fantasy. Fantasy doesn’t need to be cartoon to look great. Lord of the rings didn’t have to be in black and white to appear realistic… it just shows they don’t know wth they’re doing if this wasn’t obvious. Wich like… I don’t get it man. They are Disney. Who is in charge of this? Sometimes is like an AI that never had childhood and watched actual great movies is doing this but AI actually does very beautiful stuff so it ain’t them either lol… seriously, I genuinely wanted to understand
Honestly I kinda miss having Disney villains be villains just for the sake of it. While I love adding more depth to character sometimes, it doesn’t always work well in the story (like this one of making him feel more sympathetic than an actual villain) and sometimes just is unnecessary. A villain doesn’t always have to have a super deep background, sometimes people/villains are just assholes because they’re assholes
If they wanted to humanize Hook, there are about a million better ways to do it. Off the top of my head, what if we find out that one of the lost boys is actually Hook's kid that ran away because Hook was a bad Dad, Hook has wanted revenge ever since because, from his point of view, Peter Pan kidnapped his kid. Literally came up with that as I was typing it. And I managed to add more depth to the Hook vs. Peter dynamic without completely assassinating the protagonist's character. Imagine that. Is it good or an improvement?I don't know, but I think that Disney has just started to overthink their movies too much. It feels like they are trying to make movies for teens and parents that kids can also watch, but they aren't made with kids as the focus audience. At least not well.
i think that would be pretty good as a change! especially if hook thought he was a good dad while very obviously doing bad things, but he’s been at this so long that he doesn’t remember the truth and is just blinded by rage
The best Disney songs are mostly villian songs ! My opinion Poor unfortunate souls Mine from Pocahontas Hellfire from Hunchback of Notre Dame Mother knows Best
@@curtiszyr Not forgetting McLeach singing and dancing a jig as he prepares to dangle a child over a crocodile pit in Rescuers Down Under. _You get a line, I'll get a pole, we'll go fishing in the crocodile hole_
I'm all for different or dark takes on Pan (I highly recommend the novel Kensington Gardens and the short story The Taking of Mr Bill), but you can't change core elements of a story that's so archetypal without ruining it. It's like if Frodo walked all the way to Mordor to hand back the Ring to Sauron instead of tossing it into Mt Doom or Hansel and Gretel except the witch's house is made out of tofu instead of candy.
@Brittney Reacts it's why I say Joseph Campbell's books should be required reading for everyone, because there are certain structures to storytelling that need to be there for it to work. Peter Pan is essentially a trickster character, "Pan" is supposed to make us thing of the god of chaotic frivolity or "pandemonium." I don't even know why Disney bothered with this one, it's truly baffling to me.
By the way, Disney’s direction of trying to make out bad guys to be just these misunderstood sweethearts who really are good people if only those they are awful and abusive toward will give then a few chances, a bit of understanding, and a hug with a cookie and some cocoa, is actually extremely dangerous. In reality, if someone is hurting you, you should NEVER decide they’re really good people who just need YOU to be there for them because their lives must have been awful. Disney is telling kids to stand by abusers. And in this movie, they’re doing it twice. Audiences are supposed to like Hook because he’s “misunderstood,” despite what he does, and despite Peter maiming him for missing his mother, once Peter says “Oops, I’m sorry,” Hook’s supposed to forgive the person who literally maimed him. The original villains reveled in their over-the-top villainy, and were fun, and no one really wanted to be like them. Their bad deeds weren’t imitable anyway. That’s something Disney-and the game Mortal Combat-once had so right. Make the actions impossible, and kids literally can’t imitate it in real life, and it’s that farce that makes it fun, knowing it can’t happen. Bad guys got to be fun, no one was told to forgive the bad guys, and there was no dangerous forgive-the-abuser-who-is-really-a-victim-of-life. As someone who forgave an abuser for too many years, trying to believe in my mother because her background was awful and it simply couldn’t be her fault for what she did (a cycle I broke), I can’t get on board with this new direction of forgiving the villains and blaming their pasts. Every child-raping serial killer had a bad background. Should we forgive them? Disney would say…yes, they’re just misunderstood. Fuck off, Disney. Fuck. Off.
I relate to this comment a lot! I hate when people tell you “to move on you have to forgiven! Even if the person is not sorry so it for yourself” no! If someone harmed me and I’m still keeping that in mind and learned from it and became the person I am today I’m not gonna forgive! I’m capable of moving on and doing my best in life even if I don’t forgive someone for the trauma they caused me! On a lighter note - I miss well written villains! It’s possible to write a villain and explain why they turned out the way they do without pity! The victimization of villain highly annoys me!
You are absolutely right. Just because evil comes from a relatable place/has understandable motivations does not then mean that we should go out of our way to sympathize with them, especially when those people are using those manipulations to perpetuate the exact same evils in slightly different renditions.
I don't mind Hook actually being a legit misunderstood character. As long as his berating came purely due to Peter constantly belittling him. Like in that theory where Peter was actually the ones kidnapping the lost boys and Hook was trying to save them? Yeah, put those twists to good use. It might even fit the grim tone of this film
Ikr. Plus psychopaths exist in real life too. Those "kill for no other reason except they just felt like it/want to" kind. Them old classic Disney villains are like that just toned down and made into a comedic moment that found the sweet spot of them being recognized as a real threat but that it's not too serious that it'll be R-Rated.
Something annoying while I watched, is this ruined the lore. #1 In The Little White Bird book, it says Peter was a 7 day old baby. And he overheard his mom and dad talking about his adult life, and that's why he few away to Neverland with Tink. *Spoiler Alert Not running away with Hook a.k.a James. #2 In the original Peter & Wendy book, it says the reason there's no girls in The Lost Boys group. Is because they were to clever to not get lost like boys. And now there is girls. So is Disney basically saying girls get lost too.
@@Author.Noelle.Alexandriasounds like potential of a joke in a scene between two siblings “So my brother will be a lost boy even if we leave” “I don’t think I would want to be a lost boy, I want to be-“ *instantly glares at his sister who is trying to hide her smug smile*
I think Disney needs to learn that you can make a villain sympathetic while also still making them a villain with their own agency who made their own choices. If disney is going to continue with this, they also need to focus on having the audience can emphasize with instead of sympathizing with them.
Mickey: So tell me about your childhood? Disney: You know I never had much as a kid. Just loving parents. Stability and a mansion, and a thriving entertainment juggernaut that I have created. Useless crap like that. Bam. That's how you write a villain.
Kinda reminds me of how people in the comic industry was trying in the 90s, where everyone tried to be like Alan Moore and Frank Miller in making a darker and more realistic type of stories while missing the whole point on what made the two writers successful.
My sister was like "they just silenced a black girl, isn't that more racist??" 😂😂 But fr the pirates were the best part. They had no obligation to be pc so it was just really fun watching them. Wendy was so insufferable we ended up rooting for the pirates to beat her while sword fighting 😂
I just want to know what exactly was all the money put into, because it wasn’t visual effects. The fact that 2003 Peter Pan movie exists without the technology we have today but managed to be visually appealing is what makes me so critical of the movie.
Disney is trying to appeal to Disney adults but in doing so, they aren’t even delivering what most of them want. They make everything too real and have stopped trying to be magical.
They even ruined Peter and tinks relationship.. it was so weird to watch Peter be portrayed as this awful very unlikeable person. I like realism, but this was just flat out depressing.
Is really hard not to compare to universal’s Peter Pan. There was so much color in there, so much heart and respect to the story and especially the children watching it. Also Jeremy’s acting was perfect for Peter and his and Rachel’s chemistry STILL makes you squeal like the first time you watched it as a young girl lol. I used to think not enjoying as many children movies anymore is just cus I grew up, but that’s not true, you always end up liking good movies when they’re good regardless, so much so not a single adult didn’t loved Nemo when it came, how to train your dragon, school or rock, 95 Jumanji, etc… my parents still stop to watch these when they’re on tv :) because these are precious movies that don’t rely on nostalgia to be good, they simply are. I can’t imagine the adults making this one and wanting to watch.. wich means you maybe need to change some things, because kids aren’t different beings, they enjoy good intelligent sh!t too.
I think these people are forgetting that the reason we watch these movies is to escape reality. We want to get lost in these worlds when our worlds are too overwhelming. Dark stories are fun sometimes and can provide this, but at least those usually still have fantasy elements where you can find yourselves falling in love with these worlds. Sometimes a good dark movie blurs the line where you know you shouldn’t want to stay, but you want to.
It feels weird how the director doesn't know that the glowing from Tinkerbell actually comes from the pixie dust she uses to fly around. The same pixie dust thats used as a plot point in the movie
i feel like this realism problem is something that is a big issue with adaptations in general. cartoons, comic books and videogames are inherently unrealistic and stylized art forms. thats why trying to make realistic adaptations of them doesnt work most of the time. i dont mind the live action cgi films but they need to give them that stylized art style. like the sonic movie started with a more "realistic" sonic and it was ugly and everyone hated it. and to my shock they actually fixed him and made him closer to the videogame design! id still prefer 100% animated though whether its 2d or 3d.
"He didn't understand where the sparkles come from" *Jaw drops to the floor* That has to be the most ... unscripted line ever. No one fails to understand magic, it's it lack of logic that's so appealling and so embedded in everyone's childhood. It runs of emotion. There's noting to NOT understand. He just didn't have a good argument against that critique. A shame Tinkerbell didn't at LEAST have a golden glow around her so we could always SEE her. Edit: Someone trying to make a world that's founded on magic as REALISTIC as possible has no right to be handed that material. All they'll do is kill the magic. Magic is Disney's core ... well, it used to be. I just don't know why they're so keen to kill their own magic - Oh wait, yes I do: They only go out of their way to kill magic in their own movies which have diverse people. Cinderella was very colourful but it all white lead characters. That was the last colourful magic Disney movie besides Maleficent. That can't be a coincidence.
I loved the 2003 version w Jeremy Sumpter. He was very famous in my middle school lol. If I wanted to watch Peter Pan I’d watch that or the original Disney. Or one of the Disney Tinkerbell movies- they are actually pretty enjoyable in a light and forgettable way. This new one just looks like a bummer.
Here in Peter Pan and Wendy, Hook's backstory was an interesting take on his relationship with Peter and why they hated each other, but this was the reason why I never watched Cruella. A friend of mine stated it was a good movie and I don't doubt that it was. However, to me, it was unnecessary because in 101 Dalmatians, Cruella wanted to unalive the puppies to make a fur coat. That's it. We did not need to know how she got into fashion. We did not need to know why she hated dalmatians specifically. It simply was Cruella wanting the puppies to make a coat. Basically I agree with you that villains don't need a backstory and directors giving this trope in remakes is getting a bit annoying.
Old Disney movie : let's make a colourful and full of imagination movies for kids so they can learn that world can be beautiful and full of imagination so they can learn about good stuff Today Disney movie : let's make movie as grimm as possible, less magic and imagination, and put reality as much as possible so children knows that world is not just pretty but grimm, sometimes sad and not like what you want. Let's teach kids the harsh of reality as much as we can Next movie.....kill the Bambi....
"If you're not into a sad, somber Peter Pan movie where Peter Pan literally dies for a couple of minutes, this is not the movie for you." Made me laugh out loud to hear this. I can't imagine that's the type of movie anyone would actually want. A story about magical fairy boy whose whole deal is he never grows up and flies due to thinking happy thoughts, and they made it sad and somber and killed him? Why? Who thought that would be a good idea?
If I’m not mistaken the relationship between Hook and Pan is actually closer to the novelization than the animated classic film. None of Disney fairy tails are actual retellings like the Little Mermaid doesn’t turn into seafoam. I actually like that they changed it but you’re right it isn’t a very Disney storyline.
Agree with you 100%. To be honest, when Disney announces another live action, I just acknowledge this and move on. I geniuenly have no desire to watch them, because everything is so dark and depressing. Actually, when you thing about it, it's really messed up - they want the movie to be realistic, so they make it dark and sad looking? That's a very sad message, even if they didn't intend it. Also, I'm just sick of every new villain being just misunderstood or harmed in the past person. It was a fun idea at the beginning, but come on! Now it's just annoying. I know as a society we're starting to notice not everything is black and white, and we're trying to be more empathetic and look deeper. I know a lot of people do bad things bc of what happend to them, and it's good we acknowledge this. But these are movies, most people watch it for fun (i guess) and we don't have to add tragic backstory to every villain. Personally, I read a lot about societal problems every day, bc it interests me a lot. But then i have to consume some, i don't know, happier content. In my opinion, it is possible to add depth to a fairytale without loosing the magic and happy vibes. Also, WHAT THE HELL, the action takes place mainly in Neverland, a MAGICAL PLACE, but Tinkerbell doesn't have sparkles because that's not logical??? Well, in my humble opinion, the creator's logic is not logical. Don't make live actions of fairytales if you cannot get past things you can't understand. Or just get rid of the Neverland and instead make it REAL realistic live action, where the action happens in real places, no magic, and everything is just metaphores for what happens in the original movie. I don't know if I would watch it, but i'm sure some people would be interested EDIT: okay, the last paragraph sounds more angry that I intented it to be, i'm not hating on the director, I just thing that this particular decision and his thinking about it is not the most logical. But again, that's just my opinion, and as Brittney said, it's a matter of what you're expecting this movie to be. In that case, I just expected sth different, and I'm more dissapointed at the general change and direction Disney is moving towards, than just this particular movie. No hard feelings everyone, please don't hate on me xd
I really really would love to see your thoughts on “Once Upon a Time” 👀 with that background, that there’s the Disney influence behind. Because with “Peter and Wendy” I basically start to compare both in some way, although I know it’s completely different, but one thing really got me in your video: if we are honest, then it’s literally that, what we don’t like about the movie: we expected something colorful from Disney. And when we look back, then it’s literally missing in all the live adaptions 👀
With how obsessed they are about the "realistic" aspects of the story, you'd think that the people from CinemaSins had a hand in this movie's production.
Disney doesn't seem to show the magic in their films anymore.. and making the villains someone who you can sympathize with is one thing, but it's another thing when you try to demonize the hero in the same story factor.
It’s a shame because the director, David Lowery, is actually a pretty great director imo. His previous films with A24 (A Ghost Story, The Green Knight) have been some of my favorite indie films in recent years. A Ghost Story especially is an incredible exploration into death, loss and grief that resonated with me deeply. Unfortunately, his thematic style really doesn’t mesh well with an IP like Peter Pan (you also have to wonder how much Disney was involved and realise that it’s not just Lowery’s vision). Hope he goes back to making more small-scale indies because that’s where his filmmaking shines. Edit: TLDR: David Lowery is a good director. Watch A Ghost Story instead of Peter Pan.
I'd say the Hook (1991) was a much better interpretation of that lost-boy/Peter Pan conflict. This movie was like the reverse of that in that in the Hook movie Peter, played by Robin Williams, is the one that grows up while, in this one Hook, played by Jude Law, is the one that grows up.
I really enjoyed your commentary. I agree, I liked that the director took some libreties with the story. But it's not a good Peter Pan movie. The 2003 version had the perfect Neverland in my opinion; with bouncy clouds, a vast jungle and magical weather. I personally thought giving Hook a backstory was a great idea, but they didn't even give us any flashbacks. Peter banishing hook was already bad but why did he cut off his hand, too? That makes him look worse than Hook, which is the problem. Maybe he was worse in the novel for all I know, but this is a kids' movie. And he definitely needed a better dynamic with Tinkerbell and Wendy.
The only misunderstood villain arc I liked was malfiecent. The idea of being betrayed by love and making her bitter towards humans an love kinda makes sense but this and cruella deville make zero sense
I liked the transition from Big Ben to Neverland, trippy and cool! I also loved the flashbacks when Wendy is thinking happy thoughts. I think the kids wanted to do more with the roles given but couldn't because idk DIsney didn't want them to lol. Lighting was a big issue definitely.
It’s absolutely baffling to me that the director left out Tinker Bell’s signature glow because he didn’t understand where it was coming from. It’s not explained in the original Peter Pan movie, sure, but looking a little farther will yield the dedicated Never Fairies content which explains that the fairies’ glow comes from pixie dust or fairy dust (depending on which part of the timeline you’re looking at). It’s right there in the extended lore and I hate that the director could’ve found that info relatively easily or even just added the glow just because Tinker Bell is supposed to glow like that, but ultimately he didn’t.
Feeling the pain of me watching Disney's Oz prequel and them making Glinda the princess of the Emerald City when the second book in the original series and almost every main book after it includes Ozma, lost daughter of the late King Pastoria and true princess of Oz. A recurring major character. Like, you only have to look past the first book to learn this. But I think the writers and directors only ever watched the old movie and then invented their own fanfiction completely ignoring the original source material.
I think the problem here is that this adaptation for this particular studio does not appeal to the primary audienc who will watch it: nostalgic adults and young kids. Most adults will be annoyed because the remake is largely unnecessary (I am happy it removed some of the worst elements like the racism, though) and not very similar to the cartoon while children will likely find the film largely dull and uninteresting due to the bland and dreary color pallet as well as the removal of most of the fantastical elements. I don't think it is right to say this director's take on the story is bad. The problem lies in the fact that Disney was the wrong studio for this take, and this was the opposite movie (a *remake*) for this kind of take to be well-received.
I have to also agree about nostalgic adult not receiving this movie well. Especially abroad where in everyone's mind Tink is glowing blonde white girl. Which explains why Japan hates this movie on sight since Tink is popular and her classic image is strong there. It doesn't help that this movie is so averse to giving Tink her iconic glow that she's less of a fairy and more of just some tiny flying woman.
I mean..to be fair the OG Peter Pan novel was hella dark. I just read it for an english course a few months ago and it was alot darker than the Disney movie lol. I was shocked 🤣🤣. Like the boy was killing off Lost Boys when they got too old, he basically kidnapped all of Wendy's descendants to be his mother figire when the previous one got too old. Peter was wildin yall 💀. But yeah I'm trying to figure out what Disney's obsession with dark and grittiness is all about. Definitely agree with that. Like wasnt the whole point of Walt Disney's cartoons to be this happy time in a world of darkness?
One of my favorite quotes: "It's magic, I don't have to explain it." George Lucas tried to explain the Force and we ended up with speeches about medeclorians(?). This movie does not look fun. What's wrong with fun, Disney?!?
This is a movie that I feel like was made just so the directors could be as argumentative with the audience as possible, literally everything is switched from the original. From the male and female characters switching gender traits, to the crocodile being dusty orange instead of classic green (orange is legit the opposite color for green). They wanted their children's movie to be heard for the wrong reasons, and will ignore any constructive criticism as they can't tell the difference between that and ridiculing. I rest my case.
I wish they would have explained how Tiger Lily and the Cree people got to Neverland, and I wish there was a flashback scene of when Peter and Hook were young together. Maybe they were friends in the real world and when Peter ran away from home he stopped by Hook’s house and was like “run away with me!”. We could have seen them discover Neverland and the moment when Peter turned on Hook for missing his mom. The movie was okay but I think this would have made it better :)
feels like Netflix made Riverdale and it's theme was apparently such a big hit that literally EVERYONE Netflix AND Disney are trying to make absolutely EVERYTHING exactly like Riverdale and it gets old VERY FAST. making everthing DARK and gritty. so many copies of what has already been done before, time and time again.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: This muppet of a director should have adapted Princess and Frog if they despise fantasy elements so much. Changing the frog magic into some political schemes would be a great way to avoid too much cgi AND let Tiana stay human for majority of the movie
Disney thinks they’re being soooo original sucking the magic out and making everything gritty and dark, but they’re original just like everyone else. The reason the Super Mario movie was so successful was because it was FUN. It was bright and colorful and magical and funny and no one had deep tragic motivations or generational trauma. THAT is what’s new and original these days.
This movie was supposed to 'fix' the original Disney version of Peter Pan. Every tales have their own original dark stories, like Cinderella and sleeping beauty Disney took it and make it seems as fairy tales. Tbh, this movie didn't fix shit 😭 it makes me cringe
@@mammonsimp6973 Oh, 100% AGREE. And honestly, I think she's giving this film too much credit. It's dark and ugly to look at, it doesn't make sense, it defeats all the themes and points all other Peter Pan stories have, the script is cringe garbage, and the completely unearned "this power belongs to no man" Wendy bad green screen moment is enough to make me vomit and put this thing away permanently. It makes me laugh that Disney seems to be trying to go for the "dark and gritty" nowadays, but not a single one of them has the guts to follow the original books and fairy tales.
Okay, it's been awhile since I read the book, but if I recall correctly, the point of Neverland was that they didn't grow older as long as they stayed there. (That's why Peter doesn't age, but he would grow up if he lived in London with Wendy. Also why Wendy wouldn't grow up if she stayed in Neverland with Peter.) So this notion that Peter killed the Lost boys when they started to grow up doesn't make sense. 🤔
It looks like something I could check out and maybe enjoy, I'm not sure. I don't like low fantasy really and this seems like it. Dark fantasy can still have a TON of magic. It's a shame that it feels like magic needs to be stripped in order for the movie to cater to adults, because that's really not true :/ We can have gritty and magic. And we can have films for adults with very serious themes + magic without them being completely melancholy, too. I'm going to be given such a hard time for this, I know it, because it's what people always use to point fingers at Disney doing something wrong. HOWEVER... Maleficent is one of my favorite movies and I love what they did with that trope. I think it works because the story told is completely different from the original. The problem with Disney remakes these days is that not being the case - it being TOO CLOSE to the original. Or, trying to turn a villain who really can't (in my eyes) be redeemed like Cruella and try to make people sympathize with her. But, anyway. Among Disney's live actions, I do really love Maleficent. (not the second one though). It's a shame they utilize that trope so much though and now cause people to use it as examples of a no-no. (It wasn't done here of course! just what I see in general.)
I agree with you to a point. It is okay to make a more mature version of a story with somber tones for adults. The problem is those moments can't be brushed aside or sped through quickly, they have to be developed to be enjoyed. The one problem Disney keeps making is their movies have always marketed to children and to parents in the past. That is their core customer base. You strip out the fun and bright colors and magic of the moment then kids are not going to be entertained by what they are seeing and parents are going to be annoyed with all of the messaging and not want to pay theater prices when the classics already provide that.
I like that hook was once a lost boy however would have loved it if he had an evil reason to be kicked out instead of ‘I miss my momma’. Maybe he did something that went too far and he knew this but still continued on, it was so bad that Peter needed to intervene and kick him out of neverland by force.
What's with Disney/Marvel characters not being able to save someone falling? Peter's "death" was almost a shot for shot remake of Mary Jane's death. Even down to closing the eyes right before hitting the ground
The crocodile was awsome, we just just needed more perspective of it and MORE of it in general. It was the best part of the film in my opinion. Jude Law was a win but it was just so…bland. And lackluster Smee was great tho.
"Tinkerbell doesn't glow because I don't understand where the sparkles would be coming from." "It's science, Bob. You're not supposed to understand it."
I’m sad to say that Disneys likely gonna continue doing these live action movies to cope with the loss of money from the writers protest (I’m pro-protest by the way, just realizing that disneys probably gonna double down on movies that already have stories while they don’t have many writers)
Why do they do Peter Pan movies like a decade after each ? I remember falling in love with Jeremy Sumpter in 2003 watching that one in theaters and still do
Disney really has a lot of brainless producers lately 'cause they keep picking the wrong directors for the wrong projects. The director here was definitely misplaced
I agree with most of your thoughts, and I think it makes sense for the director for wanting to take it differently sense there are already so many of these kinds of movies. Yes, he took the realism part to far, but the part of the movie were her life flashes before her, and I was like that's really cool! So, I think there were ideas that he could have taken more far. Or idk maybe its just a hot take? 6/10 movie. 👌.
Peter and Hook being lost boys together and then Peter kicking Hook out of it because he missed his mother (and a mother figure for the group) was actually how things happened in the original story, in the books (Or sg like this. I'm not a 100% sure I remember it correctly). It might sound weird compared to the Disney animation, but the book, in my opinion, is worse than the Disney animation movie.
That is not at all what Hook was like in the original stories, he was 100% a villain and a former Eton schoolmaster, because he represents the dark side of growing up while Peter represents the freedom of youth.
@TheSpaceBetweenOurHouses I don't know. Whilst reading the book, oftentimes I sympathised more with Hook and his opinions than with Peter Pan himself. Because in the book, Peter Pan was against Hook, because Hook had the opnions that boys like Peter Pan's age should have a mother by their side to raise them, but Peter Pan never really wanted to grow up thus didn't want to have a mother. But in the end, he gave in to Hook's ideas when he brought Wendy onto the island as a mother figure. Or at least that's how I interpreted J.M.Barrie's book.
@@alexandranagy6448 I recall an episode of Fox’s Peter Pan and the Pirates where Hook longed for his mother. With Tim Curry’s performance, it actually heart wrenching.
At its core level what Hollywood and in this case Disney is trying to do with this trend of humanizing the villains is insultingly simple minded and actually misses the point. I get that there have been people in the past that society deemed as "other" resulting in them being seen as "evil" (insert various ethnic groups over human history) and only upon further reflection and evolution that mindset has changed, but this is a dangerous trend. I agree with Critical Drinker who said (paraphrasing) that this trend will ultimately lead to the elimination of the concepts of "good vs evil" and "heroes" because how can a hero be "good" if the hero isn't perfect? Hence the rise of the Mary Sue. And if the hero isn't "good", then maybe the villain isn't so bad after all? And it's like of course most villains have a tragic backstory, but so do some heroes and whether a character is a hero or a villain is due to the choices they make consistently over time particularly when it's hard. I remember when these fairy tales would teach that choices mattered not your tragic backstory.
I liked the movie Hook with Robin Williams. The 90s stuff was so good. Tried watching the new Matilda, but turned it off halfway and rewatched the 90s version.
If they wanted to go for a dark peter pan I feel like they should've gone further with it, like make Peter Pan an actual villain or something, whos trying to manipulate the kids into staying forever idk. Like *commit* to making it a horror movie since it looks like one anyways lmaooo
I love your reviews so much. They're coming from a place of true enjoyment (or attempting to, TBH) instead of blank judgement. Thank you so much for that!
Isn't Disney more about checking all the Woke boxes than making good films and telling stories? Just from the trailer, we got the race swap for main characters, Wendy is more central than Peter (woman empowerment). We have to fix the native American stereotype from the first film. Lost boys are now girls (trans representation). I think Dude made the movie they wanted. It's gonna be a hit just like Girl Power Ghostbusters.
I could've accepted a somber, deeper movie if this thing was set in 2022, with all its cultural tropes, social tropes. Had this been an all-new, modern Peter Pan & Wendy adventure, yes, I could've accepted this. As it is, this film is a PARODY of the 1953 movie, a toxic fanfiction aimed to disgrace all dirty, stinky, stupid males. This is a distorted reflection of the animated classic that was, and it SHOWS.
Tinker Bell is a fairy, she should be constantly glowing. Where is that glow? Why I'm not seeing her glowing all the time? You can find an actress that isn't the prettiest to play Tinker Bell, but you can't have Tinker Bell without her glowing with magic all the time, she's a fairy and she should be glowing. And Neverland should somehow resemble somewhere that is out of a dream, they need to work on the light and the color to make it happen. I actually want to see villains being purely evil though, yes, they could have a backstory, but you can still make a villain purely evil with a backstory. And the way to do that is: Imply that the villain has a backstory, but never actually talk much about it. If you talk too much about a villain's backstory because you don't want to them to think that the villain is purely evil, then the villain will lose it's purpose of being a villain in a story. Maybe actually making him a dad would help this narrative? Because in the original story, Mr. Darling tell Wendy that she should grow up, she goes to Neverland and Hook is actually played by the same actor as the one that played Mr. Darling, this would imply Wendy's fear of growing up in the form of thinking her father is the villain in the story that is all grown up, and Peter Pan, who actually symbolizes Wendy's childhood, is constantly fighting Hook because Wendy didn't want to grow up.
I‘m pretty sure they got the story about Hook being a former Lost boy of the book Lost boy by Christina Henry 😅. She is an author that likes to take famous stories like Alice in Wonderland, the little mermaid or Peter Pan and give it an interesting twist. And in Lost boy it is exactly that - Peter is an ass and Hook was a lost boy (if I remember correctly, he was even there before Peter 🤔…). I like her books, but I know what I get with her stories, when I buy one of her books. Disney on the other hand… I don’t know… I just wish Disney would respect there source material (aka. the book or the play) a little bit more 😕. This is not Neverland! Neverland is the place where the dreams and games of children become reality! A lagoon full of mermaids, pirates, wild animals, flamingos, jungle, a big bird, fairies, native Americans, and a cave in form of a scull! How can you screw this up 🥺!?!
Ok but I kinda like this because it is string away from the Disney end, focusing more on the original telling of Peter Pan (which is dark af). In the original, telling Peter Pan is kind of the villain. The idea being that because he stays a boy forever, he never grows up, mentally or is able to commit to a code of conduct. He would be fighting pirates with the lost boys, one moment, and then suddenly say “you know, what would be fun? Being a pirate! Hey, Captain Hook! Let’s team up and murder lost boys together!” Then he would later change his mind and beg the lost boys to take him back and fight Captain Hook again. he would just go back-and-forth, depending on what mood he was in at the time. It’s pretty fucked up. Although it’s a horrible story, I like that Disney is trying to do some thing other than repeating their own material, because many of these famous tales did not start with Disney, but became marketed by Disney so much that most people don’t even know the original stories. I was kind of pissed when live action jungle book came out, because I really hoped they would try and make it like the original book, which is a much more beautiful tale than the Disney movie. (Don’t get me wrong the Disney jungle book is still beautiful with amazing songs, but the original story is just so many times better)
just yesterday i watched the 2003 peter pan live action and was still impressed how good it is, was the acting kinda bad yeah but it had a charm to it. also Jason Isaacs did a wondeerful job as the dad and hook, im sure jude law is amazing but not enough to have me watch this dark bland version of peter pan.
Disney lost "The magic" Funny universal and others are picking up that lead and are making colorful movies that seem to just want to entertain people. Even have good writing... Disney though!
Disney is going through it's moody goth teen phase, & we, like it's parents, just don't understand them.
M O R T A L I T Y !
- Goth girl from "Turning Red"
No, we do understand them, and we're tired of their crap.
Very true
No. It’s not that we don’t understand them, I would say we are just massively disappointed in them
. . . . I'm goth . . . and this crap movie is bullshit. Still want pretty, bright things . . . just not on me :D
Choosing to direct a film with fairy tale elements by removing those elements as much as possible is the opposite of what a good director would do. If he had no interest in adapting the film in a fantastical and interesting manner, he should have chosen a different property to adapt because this film was always going to be compared to Disney's animated original and found lacking by the vast majority of viewers, especially the young children who are primarily watching it.
It was a deliberate choice to make this movie different from other peter pan versions but I think it was the wrong one.
Besides fantasy fans love fantasy. Fantasy doesn’t need to be cartoon to look great. Lord of the rings didn’t have to be in black and white to appear realistic… it just shows they don’t know wth they’re doing if this wasn’t obvious.
Wich like… I don’t get it man. They are Disney. Who is in charge of this? Sometimes is like an AI that never had childhood and watched actual great movies is doing this but AI actually does very beautiful stuff so it ain’t them either lol… seriously, I genuinely wanted to understand
@@Brittney_Reacts_ Why don't you stop pandering and actually promote original BLACK MOVIES?
Honestly I kinda miss having Disney villains be villains just for the sake of it. While I love adding more depth to character sometimes, it doesn’t always work well in the story (like this one of making him feel more sympathetic than an actual villain) and sometimes just is unnecessary. A villain doesn’t always have to have a super deep background, sometimes people/villains are just assholes because they’re assholes
Yeah I miss good evil villains
@@Brittney_Reacts_ they always had the best songs too lol
@@keelinmacken9552 fr
Director: Hitler's father never hugged him! Isn't that sad?
Me: Yes, I suppose that is rather sad, but Hitler can hug himself in HELL!
Movie villains can be sympathetic. The problem is that the original Hook was never ment to be sympathetic in the first place.
If they wanted to humanize Hook, there are about a million better ways to do it. Off the top of my head, what if we find out that one of the lost boys is actually Hook's kid that ran away because Hook was a bad Dad, Hook has wanted revenge ever since because, from his point of view, Peter Pan kidnapped his kid. Literally came up with that as I was typing it. And I managed to add more depth to the Hook vs. Peter dynamic without completely assassinating the protagonist's character. Imagine that. Is it good or an improvement?I don't know, but I think that Disney has just started to overthink their movies too much. It feels like they are trying to make movies for teens and parents that kids can also watch, but they aren't made with kids as the focus audience. At least not well.
i think that would be pretty good as a change! especially if hook thought he was a good dad while very obviously doing bad things, but he’s been at this so long that he doesn’t remember the truth and is just blinded by rage
Ugh, I hate it when a random comment on RUclips is better than a billion dollar company
"Where's the magic?"
Pro critics & users on Rotten Tomatoes agreeing with eachother IS magic.
Its kinda ironic that after all the advances in technology, the 2003 look better than the 2023.
"Magic isn't realistic, so I made sure not to include it in the movie about magic"
Can we please have our crazy, flamboyant, "love to be bad" villains back? They're the best part of so many films!
The best Disney songs are mostly villian songs ! My opinion
Poor unfortunate souls
Mine from Pocahontas
Hellfire from Hunchback of Notre Dame
Mother knows Best
Hades,Scar,Ursula,Jafar, Cruella. I love these villains because they carried out their evil deeds with so much charm,personality and ZERO remorse
@@dw2777 "BE PREPARED!"
What better way to have a great hero than to have a wonderful villain? You need a villain before you get the hero.
@@curtiszyr Not forgetting McLeach singing and dancing a jig as he prepares to dangle a child over a crocodile pit in Rescuers Down Under. _You get a line, I'll get a pole, we'll go fishing in the crocodile hole_
THE SPARKELES ALSO MADE SENSE! SHE HAD PIXIE DUST ON HER WINGS (in the Tinkerbelle movies they explain this!)
Sparkle makes no sense but Neverland and flying children :P
I want Tinkerblack to fully glow.
@@TheLakey bUt tHaT wOuLD mAkE hEr lOoK wHiTe aNd tHeReFoRe bE wHiTeWaShInG hEr
When I heard that part it's like...she's a FUCKING FAERY.
I still cannot believe there are no mermaids. They were my fav part of the og. And because they "didn't make sense" they were cut😢. Imma go cry now 😭😭
It was a glaring omission
Wow - that's seriously lame. Ugh! 🧜♀🧜♀🧜♀
it sounds like the director can't comprehend fantasy
Someone who doesn’t understand fantasy has no business making a fantasy movie.
I guess "We were only trying to drown her" was just too controversial. 🤷♀
I'm all for different or dark takes on Pan (I highly recommend the novel Kensington Gardens and the short story The Taking of Mr Bill), but you can't change core elements of a story that's so archetypal without ruining it. It's like if Frodo walked all the way to Mordor to hand back the Ring to Sauron instead of tossing it into Mt Doom or Hansel and Gretel except the witch's house is made out of tofu instead of candy.
Also, if you want a good laugh, go read the Guardian's review of the Little Mermaid clip, it is hilarious.
That's my point exactly!
@Brittney Reacts it's why I say Joseph Campbell's books should be required reading for everyone, because there are certain structures to storytelling that need to be there for it to work. Peter Pan is essentially a trickster character, "Pan" is supposed to make us thing of the god of chaotic frivolity or "pandemonium." I don't even know why Disney bothered with this one, it's truly baffling to me.
The 1989 Little Mermaid is a counter example of this. In the original short story, the Little Mermaid fails, dies and then turns into sea foam.
@@Brittney_Reacts_ You are giving PICK ME energy.
By the way, Disney’s direction of trying to make out bad guys to be just these misunderstood sweethearts who really are good people if only those they are awful and abusive toward will give then a few chances, a bit of understanding, and a hug with a cookie and some cocoa, is actually extremely dangerous. In reality, if someone is hurting you, you should NEVER decide they’re really good people who just need YOU to be there for them because their lives must have been awful. Disney is telling kids to stand by abusers. And in this movie, they’re doing it twice. Audiences are supposed to like Hook because he’s “misunderstood,” despite what he does, and despite Peter maiming him for missing his mother, once Peter says “Oops, I’m sorry,” Hook’s supposed to forgive the person who literally maimed him.
The original villains reveled in their over-the-top villainy, and were fun, and no one really wanted to be like them. Their bad deeds weren’t imitable anyway. That’s something Disney-and the game Mortal Combat-once had so right. Make the actions impossible, and kids literally can’t imitate it in real life, and it’s that farce that makes it fun, knowing it can’t happen. Bad guys got to be fun, no one was told to forgive the bad guys, and there was no dangerous forgive-the-abuser-who-is-really-a-victim-of-life.
As someone who forgave an abuser for too many years, trying to believe in my mother because her background was awful and it simply couldn’t be her fault for what she did (a cycle I broke), I can’t get on board with this new direction of forgiving the villains and blaming their pasts. Every child-raping serial killer had a bad background. Should we forgive them? Disney would say…yes, they’re just misunderstood.
Fuck off, Disney. Fuck. Off.
I’m sorry that happened to you. That’s awful. Yeah it puts a really bad idea in everyone’s head when some people are just plain evil
I relate to this comment a lot! I hate when people tell you “to move on you have to forgiven! Even if the person is not sorry so it for yourself” no! If someone harmed me and I’m still keeping that in mind and learned from it and became the person I am today I’m not gonna forgive! I’m capable of moving on and doing my best in life even if I don’t forgive someone for the trauma they caused me!
On a lighter note - I miss well written villains! It’s possible to write a villain and explain why they turned out the way they do without pity! The victimization of villain highly annoys me!
You are absolutely right. Just because evil comes from a relatable place/has understandable motivations does not then mean that we should go out of our way to sympathize with them, especially when those people are using those manipulations to perpetuate the exact same evils in slightly different renditions.
I don't mind Hook actually being a legit misunderstood character. As long as his berating came purely due to Peter constantly belittling him. Like in that theory where Peter was actually the ones kidnapping the lost boys and Hook was trying to save them? Yeah, put those twists to good use. It might even fit the grim tone of this film
Ikr. Plus psychopaths exist in real life too. Those "kill for no other reason except they just felt like it/want to" kind. Them old classic Disney villains are like that just toned down and made into a comedic moment that found the sweet spot of them being recognized as a real threat but that it's not too serious that it'll be R-Rated.
The Peter Pan live action in 2003 was by far the best version for me
Something annoying while I watched, is this ruined the lore. #1 In The Little White Bird book, it says Peter was a 7 day old baby. And he overheard his mom and dad talking about his adult life, and that's why he few away to Neverland with Tink. *Spoiler Alert Not running away with Hook a.k.a James.
#2 In the original Peter & Wendy book, it says the reason there's no girls in The Lost Boys group. Is because they were to clever to not get lost like boys. And now there is girls. So is Disney basically saying girls get lost too.
No, Disney’s saying girls aren’t clever. Boys got lost since they weren’t clever enough not to.
@@Author.Noelle.Alexandria have you seen modern girls? i wouldn't call them clever
@@613-shadow9 Um…I’m talking about the book, not a modern TV show. In the book, girls were too clever.
@@Author.Noelle.Alexandria ah. well, as a girl, i'd much rather go to neverland than do endless chores
@@Author.Noelle.Alexandriasounds like potential of a joke in a scene between two siblings
“So my brother will be a lost boy even if we leave”
“I don’t think I would want to be a lost boy, I want to be-“ *instantly glares at his sister who is trying to hide her smug smile*
I think Disney needs to learn that you can make a villain sympathetic while also still making them a villain with their own agency who made their own choices. If disney is going to continue with this, they also need to focus on having the audience can emphasize with instead of sympathizing with them.
Mickey: So tell me about your childhood?
Disney: You know I never had much as a kid. Just loving parents. Stability and a mansion, and a thriving entertainment juggernaut that I have created. Useless crap like that.
Bam. That's how you write a villain.
Kinda reminds me of how people in the comic industry was trying in the 90s, where everyone tried to be like Alan Moore and Frank Miller in making a darker and more realistic type of stories while missing the whole point on what made the two writers successful.
My sister was like "they just silenced a black girl, isn't that more racist??" 😂😂 But fr the pirates were the best part. They had no obligation to be pc so it was just really fun watching them. Wendy was so insufferable we ended up rooting for the pirates to beat her while sword fighting 😂
I just want to know what exactly was all the money put into, because it wasn’t visual effects. The fact that 2003 Peter Pan movie exists without the technology we have today but managed to be visually appealing is what makes me so critical of the movie.
Disney is trying to appeal to Disney adults but in doing so, they aren’t even delivering what most of them want. They make everything too real and have stopped trying to be magical.
The 2003 Peter Pan movie was nice. The leading actor was very charming😊
They even ruined Peter and tinks relationship.. it was so weird to watch Peter be portrayed as this awful very unlikeable person. I like realism, but this was just flat out depressing.
Is really hard not to compare to universal’s Peter Pan. There was so much color in there, so much heart and respect to the story and especially the children watching it. Also Jeremy’s acting was perfect for Peter and his and Rachel’s chemistry STILL makes you squeal like the first time you watched it as a young girl lol.
I used to think not enjoying as many children movies anymore is just cus I grew up, but that’s not true, you always end up liking good movies when they’re good regardless, so much so not a single adult didn’t loved Nemo when it came, how to train your dragon, school or rock, 95 Jumanji, etc… my parents still stop to watch these when they’re on tv :) because these are precious movies that don’t rely on nostalgia to be good, they simply are.
I can’t imagine the adults making this one and wanting to watch.. wich means you maybe need to change some things, because kids aren’t different beings, they enjoy good intelligent sh!t too.
*AND MATILDA!!!
I think these people are forgetting that the reason we watch these movies is to escape reality. We want to get lost in these worlds when our worlds are too overwhelming. Dark stories are fun sometimes and can provide this, but at least those usually still have fantasy elements where you can find yourselves falling in love with these worlds. Sometimes a good dark movie blurs the line where you know you shouldn’t want to stay, but you want to.
I hope they don't make us try to sympathize with Ursula. She's straight up evil, keep her evil!
It feels weird how the director doesn't know that the glowing from Tinkerbell actually comes from the pixie dust she uses to fly around. The same pixie dust thats used as a plot point in the movie
i feel like this realism problem is something that is a big issue with adaptations in general. cartoons, comic books and videogames are inherently unrealistic and stylized art forms. thats why trying to make realistic adaptations of them doesnt work most of the time. i dont mind the live action cgi films but they need to give them that stylized art style. like the sonic movie started with a more "realistic" sonic and it was ugly and everyone hated it. and to my shock they actually fixed him and made him closer to the videogame design! id still prefer 100% animated though whether its 2d or 3d.
"He didn't understand where the sparkles come from" *Jaw drops to the floor* That has to be the most ... unscripted line ever. No one fails to understand magic, it's it lack of logic that's so appealling and so embedded in everyone's childhood. It runs of emotion. There's noting to NOT understand. He just didn't have a good argument against that critique. A shame Tinkerbell didn't at LEAST have a golden glow around her so we could always SEE her. Edit: Someone trying to make a world that's founded on magic as REALISTIC as possible has no right to be handed that material. All they'll do is kill the magic. Magic is Disney's core ... well, it used to be. I just don't know why they're so keen to kill their own magic - Oh wait, yes I do: They only go out of their way to kill magic in their own movies which have diverse people. Cinderella was very colourful but it all white lead characters. That was the last colourful magic Disney movie besides Maleficent. That can't be a coincidence.
I loved the 2003 version w Jeremy Sumpter. He was very famous in my middle school lol. If I wanted to watch Peter Pan I’d watch that or the original Disney. Or one of the Disney Tinkerbell movies- they are actually pretty enjoyable in a light and forgettable way. This new one just looks like a bummer.
Here in Peter Pan and Wendy, Hook's backstory was an interesting take on his relationship with Peter and why they hated each other, but this was the reason why I never watched Cruella. A friend of mine stated it was a good movie and I don't doubt that it was. However, to me, it was unnecessary because in 101 Dalmatians, Cruella wanted to unalive the puppies to make a fur coat. That's it. We did not need to know how she got into fashion. We did not need to know why she hated dalmatians specifically. It simply was Cruella wanting the puppies to make a coat. Basically I agree with you that villains don't need a backstory and directors giving this trope in remakes is getting a bit annoying.
Agreed
Its a movie about a *magical* place!!! It shouldn't be bound so strictly by *realism!!*
Old Disney movie : let's make a colourful and full of imagination movies for kids so they can learn that world can be beautiful and full of imagination so they can learn about good stuff
Today Disney movie : let's make movie as grimm as possible, less magic and imagination, and put reality as much as possible so children knows that world is not just pretty but grimm, sometimes sad and not like what you want. Let's teach kids the harsh of reality as much as we can
Next movie.....kill the Bambi....
"If you're not into a sad, somber Peter Pan movie where Peter Pan literally dies for a couple of minutes, this is not the movie for you."
Made me laugh out loud to hear this. I can't imagine that's the type of movie anyone would actually want. A story about magical fairy boy whose whole deal is he never grows up and flies due to thinking happy thoughts, and they made it sad and somber and killed him? Why? Who thought that would be a good idea?
If I’m not mistaken the relationship between Hook and Pan is actually closer to the novelization than the animated classic film. None of Disney fairy tails are actual retellings like the Little Mermaid doesn’t turn into seafoam. I actually like that they changed it but you’re right it isn’t a very Disney storyline.
I hate that Tinkerbell doesn’t glow most of all. She could have been a nice bright spot in this dark movie.
Agree with you 100%. To be honest, when Disney announces another live action, I just acknowledge this and move on. I geniuenly have no desire to watch them, because everything is so dark and depressing. Actually, when you thing about it, it's really messed up - they want the movie to be realistic, so they make it dark and sad looking? That's a very sad message, even if they didn't intend it.
Also, I'm just sick of every new villain being just misunderstood or harmed in the past person. It was a fun idea at the beginning, but come on! Now it's just annoying. I know as a society we're starting to notice not everything is black and white, and we're trying to be more empathetic and look deeper. I know a lot of people do bad things bc of what happend to them, and it's good we acknowledge this. But these are movies, most people watch it for fun (i guess) and we don't have to add tragic backstory to every villain. Personally, I read a lot about societal problems every day, bc it interests me a lot. But then i have to consume some, i don't know, happier content. In my opinion, it is possible to add depth to a fairytale without loosing the magic and happy vibes.
Also, WHAT THE HELL, the action takes place mainly in Neverland, a MAGICAL PLACE, but Tinkerbell doesn't have sparkles because that's not logical??? Well, in my humble opinion, the creator's logic is not logical. Don't make live actions of fairytales if you cannot get past things you can't understand. Or just get rid of the Neverland and instead make it REAL realistic live action, where the action happens in real places, no magic, and everything is just metaphores for what happens in the original movie. I don't know if I would watch it, but i'm sure some people would be interested
EDIT: okay, the last paragraph sounds more angry that I intented it to be, i'm not hating on the director, I just thing that this particular decision and his thinking about it is not the most logical. But again, that's just my opinion, and as Brittney said, it's a matter of what you're expecting this movie to be. In that case, I just expected sth different, and I'm more dissapointed at the general change and direction Disney is moving towards, than just this particular movie. No hard feelings everyone, please don't hate on me xd
I really really would love to see your thoughts on “Once Upon a Time” 👀 with that background, that there’s the Disney influence behind. Because with “Peter and Wendy” I basically start to compare both in some way, although I know it’s completely different, but one thing really got me in your video: if we are honest, then it’s literally that, what we don’t like about the movie: we expected something colorful from Disney. And when we look back, then it’s literally missing in all the live adaptions 👀
*Hollywood/Disney is Dark*
Look at what they did to all of the Super heroes. Dark. They made them all dark, laced with evil.
With how obsessed they are about the "realistic" aspects of the story, you'd think that the people from CinemaSins had a hand in this movie's production.
Disney doesn't seem to show the magic in their films anymore.. and making the villains someone who you can sympathize with is one thing, but it's another thing when you try to demonize the hero in the same story factor.
It’s a shame because the director, David Lowery, is actually a pretty great director imo. His previous films with A24 (A Ghost Story, The Green Knight) have been some of my favorite indie films in recent years. A Ghost Story especially is an incredible exploration into death, loss and grief that resonated with me deeply. Unfortunately, his thematic style really doesn’t mesh well with an IP like Peter Pan (you also have to wonder how much Disney was involved and realise that it’s not just Lowery’s vision). Hope he goes back to making more small-scale indies because that’s where his filmmaking shines.
Edit: TLDR: David Lowery is a good director. Watch A Ghost Story instead of Peter Pan.
I'd say the Hook (1991) was a much better interpretation of that lost-boy/Peter Pan conflict. This movie was like the reverse of that in that in the Hook movie Peter, played by Robin Williams, is the one that grows up while, in this one Hook, played by Jude Law, is the one that grows up.
I really enjoyed your commentary. I agree, I liked that the director took some libreties with the story. But it's not a good Peter Pan movie. The 2003 version had the perfect Neverland in my opinion; with bouncy clouds, a vast jungle and magical weather. I personally thought giving Hook a backstory was a great idea, but they didn't even give us any flashbacks. Peter banishing hook was already bad but why did he cut off his hand, too? That makes him look worse than Hook, which is the problem. Maybe he was worse in the novel for all I know, but this is a kids' movie. And he definitely needed a better dynamic with Tinkerbell and Wendy.
I think Disney is purposely making these awful boring remakes to annoy people
That would be such a bad business plan
Yes to everything you said. This movie had no magic. Just depression.
The only misunderstood villain arc I liked was malfiecent. The idea of being betrayed by love and making her bitter towards humans an love kinda makes sense but this and cruella deville make zero sense
I liked the transition from Big Ben to Neverland, trippy and cool! I also loved the flashbacks when Wendy is thinking happy thoughts. I think the kids wanted to do more with the roles given but couldn't because idk DIsney didn't want them to lol. Lighting was a big issue definitely.
Same, the Big Ben transition’s the only part of the film I liked! Sad to see it gone to waste…
Thank you for not making fun of the old Peter Pan that is my favorite Disney movie that make me feel like a little kid! Great review!
this isn't the beginning of Disney's downfall, it's the RISE of Disney's downfall
That color grading XD They made it look like A Series of Unfortunate Events
realism is the least of this film's problems
They’re going to do the same with Ursula ya know… give her a whole backstory and make her seem misunderstood 🤣
It’s absolutely baffling to me that the director left out Tinker Bell’s signature glow because he didn’t understand where it was coming from. It’s not explained in the original Peter Pan movie, sure, but looking a little farther will yield the dedicated Never Fairies content which explains that the fairies’ glow comes from pixie dust or fairy dust (depending on which part of the timeline you’re looking at). It’s right there in the extended lore and I hate that the director could’ve found that info relatively easily or even just added the glow just because Tinker Bell is supposed to glow like that, but ultimately he didn’t.
Feeling the pain of me watching Disney's Oz prequel and them making Glinda the princess of the Emerald City when the second book in the original series and almost every main book after it includes Ozma, lost daughter of the late King Pastoria and true princess of Oz. A recurring major character.
Like, you only have to look past the first book to learn this. But I think the writers and directors only ever watched the old movie and then invented their own fanfiction completely ignoring the original source material.
I think the problem here is that this adaptation for this particular studio does not appeal to the primary audienc who will watch it: nostalgic adults and young kids. Most adults will be annoyed because the remake is largely unnecessary (I am happy it removed some of the worst elements like the racism, though) and not very similar to the cartoon while children will likely find the film largely dull and uninteresting due to the bland and dreary color pallet as well as the removal of most of the fantastical elements. I don't think it is right to say this director's take on the story is bad. The problem lies in the fact that Disney was the wrong studio for this take, and this was the opposite movie (a *remake*) for this kind of take to be well-received.
Exactly! This is definitely a movie more for adults than kids
I have to also agree about nostalgic adult not receiving this movie well. Especially abroad where in everyone's mind Tink is glowing blonde white girl. Which explains why Japan hates this movie on sight since Tink is popular and her classic image is strong there. It doesn't help that this movie is so averse to giving Tink her iconic glow that she's less of a fairy and more of just some tiny flying woman.
Ikr
I mean..to be fair the OG Peter Pan novel was hella dark. I just read it for an english course a few months ago and it was alot darker than the Disney movie lol. I was shocked 🤣🤣. Like the boy was killing off Lost Boys when they got too old, he basically kidnapped all of Wendy's descendants to be his mother figire when the previous one got too old. Peter was wildin yall 💀. But yeah I'm trying to figure out what Disney's obsession with dark and grittiness is all about. Definitely agree with that. Like wasnt the whole point of Walt Disney's cartoons to be this happy time in a world of darkness?
One of my favorite quotes: "It's magic, I don't have to explain it." George Lucas tried to explain the Force and we ended up with speeches about medeclorians(?). This movie does not look fun. What's wrong with fun, Disney?!?
This is a movie that I feel like was made just so the directors could be as argumentative with the audience as possible, literally everything is switched from the original. From the male and female characters switching gender traits, to the crocodile being dusty orange instead of classic green (orange is legit the opposite color for green). They wanted their children's movie to be heard for the wrong reasons, and will ignore any constructive criticism as they can't tell the difference between that and ridiculing. I rest my case.
I wish they would have explained how Tiger Lily and the Cree people got to Neverland, and I wish there was a flashback scene of when Peter and Hook were young together. Maybe they were friends in the real world and when Peter ran away from home he stopped by Hook’s house and was like “run away with me!”. We could have seen them discover Neverland and the moment when Peter turned on Hook for missing his mom. The movie was okay but I think this would have made it better :)
feels like Netflix made Riverdale and it's theme was apparently such a big hit that literally EVERYONE Netflix AND Disney are trying to make absolutely EVERYTHING exactly like Riverdale and it gets old VERY FAST. making everthing DARK and gritty. so many copies of what has already been done before, time and time again.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: This muppet of a director should have adapted Princess and Frog if they despise fantasy elements so much. Changing the frog magic into some political schemes would be a great way to avoid too much cgi AND let Tiana stay human for majority of the movie
He wants sparkles to make sense FOR A FAIRY?!!!!! WTF?
Disney thinks they’re being soooo original sucking the magic out and making everything gritty and dark, but they’re original just like everyone else.
The reason the Super Mario movie was so successful was because it was FUN. It was bright and colorful and magical and funny and no one had deep tragic motivations or generational trauma. THAT is what’s new and original these days.
As someone from south East Asian, the island in my country is way better than Neverland 🤣🤣
I mean, in the original book, Peter Pan is kind of the villain who is implied to kill the Lost Boys whenever they got too old...
This movie was supposed to 'fix' the original Disney version of Peter Pan. Every tales have their own original dark stories, like Cinderella and sleeping beauty
Disney took it and make it seems as fairy tales. Tbh, this movie didn't fix shit 😭 it makes me cringe
@@mammonsimp6973 Oh, 100% AGREE.
And honestly, I think she's giving this film too much credit. It's dark and ugly to look at, it doesn't make sense, it defeats all the themes and points all other Peter Pan stories have, the script is cringe garbage, and the completely unearned "this power belongs to no man" Wendy bad green screen moment is enough to make me vomit and put this thing away permanently.
It makes me laugh that Disney seems to be trying to go for the "dark and gritty" nowadays, but not a single one of them has the guts to follow the original books and fairy tales.
Okay, it's been awhile since I read the book, but if I recall correctly, the point of Neverland was that they didn't grow older as long as they stayed there. (That's why Peter doesn't age, but he would grow up if he lived in London with Wendy. Also why Wendy wouldn't grow up if she stayed in Neverland with Peter.) So this notion that Peter killed the Lost boys when they started to grow up doesn't make sense. 🤔
It looks like something I could check out and maybe enjoy, I'm not sure. I don't like low fantasy really and this seems like it. Dark fantasy can still have a TON of magic. It's a shame that it feels like magic needs to be stripped in order for the movie to cater to adults, because that's really not true :/ We can have gritty and magic. And we can have films for adults with very serious themes + magic without them being completely melancholy, too.
I'm going to be given such a hard time for this, I know it, because it's what people always use to point fingers at Disney doing something wrong. HOWEVER... Maleficent is one of my favorite movies and I love what they did with that trope. I think it works because the story told is completely different from the original. The problem with Disney remakes these days is that not being the case - it being TOO CLOSE to the original. Or, trying to turn a villain who really can't (in my eyes) be redeemed like Cruella and try to make people sympathize with her.
But, anyway. Among Disney's live actions, I do really love Maleficent. (not the second one though). It's a shame they utilize that trope so much though and now cause people to use it as examples of a no-no. (It wasn't done here of course! just what I see in general.)
I agree with you to a point. It is okay to make a more mature version of a story with somber tones for adults. The problem is those moments can't be brushed aside or sped through quickly, they have to be developed to be enjoyed. The one problem Disney keeps making is their movies have always marketed to children and to parents in the past. That is their core customer base. You strip out the fun and bright colors and magic of the moment then kids are not going to be entertained by what they are seeing and parents are going to be annoyed with all of the messaging and not want to pay theater prices when the classics already provide that.
I like that hook was once a lost boy however would have loved it if he had an evil reason to be kicked out instead of ‘I miss my momma’. Maybe he did something that went too far and he knew this but still continued on, it was so bad that Peter needed to intervene and kick him out of neverland by force.
What's with Disney/Marvel characters not being able to save someone falling?
Peter's "death" was almost a shot for shot remake of Mary Jane's death. Even down to closing the eyes right before hitting the ground
The crocodile was awsome, we just just needed more perspective of it and MORE of it in general. It was the best part of the film in my opinion. Jude Law was a win but it was just so…bland. And lackluster
Smee was great tho.
"Tinkerbell doesn't glow because I don't understand where the sparkles would be coming from."
"It's science, Bob. You're not supposed to understand it."
He couldn't imagine how a fairy could glow?! It's freaking magic! That's the whole point of fairies!
This film just made me love the 2003 version even more !
I’m sad to say that Disneys likely gonna continue doing these live action movies to cope with the loss of money from the writers protest (I’m pro-protest by the way, just realizing that disneys probably gonna double down on movies that already have stories while they don’t have many writers)
I have seen garden building videos that are more colorful and magical than the Neverland in this movie 🙄
Why do they do Peter Pan movies like a decade after each ? I remember falling in love with Jeremy Sumpter in 2003 watching that one in theaters and still do
THE SPARKLES COME FROM THE DAMN PIXIE DUST SHE USES TO FLY HOW IS THAT SOMETHING THE DIRECTOR CANNOT UNDERSTAND
Peter Pan is now young Cantinflas mixed with speedy González.
No live action Peter Pan can live up to the 2003 version
They really tryna be Harry Potter 7 part 2 over here! 🤣🤣🤣
Disney really has a lot of brainless producers lately 'cause they keep picking the wrong directors for the wrong projects. The director here was definitely misplaced
I agree with most of your thoughts, and I think it makes sense for the director for wanting to take it differently sense there are already so many of these kinds of movies. Yes, he took the realism part to far, but the part of the movie were her life flashes before her, and I was like that's really cool! So, I think there were ideas that he could have taken more far. Or idk maybe its just a hot take? 6/10 movie. 👌.
That director is a plain JOKE 😂
The 2003 Peter pan was soo much better they actually brought the magick to life and was also pretty accurate to the book
Peter and Hook being lost boys together and then Peter kicking Hook out of it because he missed his mother (and a mother figure for the group) was actually how things happened in the original story, in the books (Or sg like this. I'm not a 100% sure I remember it correctly). It might sound weird compared to the Disney animation, but the book, in my opinion, is worse than the Disney animation movie.
Now from this paragraph alone i actually can symphatize with Hook
That is not at all what Hook was like in the original stories, he was 100% a villain and a former Eton schoolmaster, because he represents the dark side of growing up while Peter represents the freedom of youth.
@TheSpaceBetweenOurHouses
I don't know. Whilst reading the book, oftentimes I sympathised more with Hook and his opinions than with Peter Pan himself. Because in the book, Peter Pan was against Hook, because Hook had the opnions that boys like Peter Pan's age should have a mother by their side to raise them, but Peter Pan never really wanted to grow up thus didn't want to have a mother. But in the end, he gave in to Hook's ideas when he brought Wendy onto the island as a mother figure.
Or at least that's how I interpreted J.M.Barrie's book.
That's not in the original story at all.
@@alexandranagy6448 I recall an episode of Fox’s Peter Pan and the Pirates where Hook longed for his mother. With Tim Curry’s performance, it actually heart wrenching.
At its core level what Hollywood and in this case Disney is trying to do with this trend of humanizing the villains is insultingly simple minded and actually misses the point. I get that there have been people in the past that society deemed as "other" resulting in them being seen as "evil" (insert various ethnic groups over human history) and only upon further reflection and evolution that mindset has changed, but this is a dangerous trend. I agree with Critical Drinker who said (paraphrasing) that this trend will ultimately lead to the elimination of the concepts of "good vs evil" and "heroes" because how can a hero be "good" if the hero isn't perfect? Hence the rise of the Mary Sue. And if the hero isn't "good", then maybe the villain isn't so bad after all? And it's like of course most villains have a tragic backstory, but so do some heroes and whether a character is a hero or a villain is due to the choices they make consistently over time particularly when it's hard. I remember when these fairy tales would teach that choices mattered not your tragic backstory.
I liked the movie Hook with Robin Williams. The 90s stuff was so good. Tried watching the new Matilda, but turned it off halfway and rewatched the 90s version.
The movie “Hook” was all we needed. It was well made.
If they wanted to go for a dark peter pan I feel like they should've gone further with it, like make Peter Pan an actual villain or something, whos trying to manipulate the kids into staying forever idk. Like *commit* to making it a horror movie since it looks like one anyways lmaooo
I love your reviews so much. They're coming from a place of true enjoyment (or attempting to, TBH) instead of blank judgement. Thank you so much for that!
Awe thanks!
Let's face it. Disney classics just look better in their classic animation style. They aren't meant to be live action.
Isn't Disney more about checking all the Woke boxes than making good films and telling stories? Just from the trailer, we got the race swap for main characters, Wendy is more central than Peter (woman empowerment). We have to fix the native American stereotype from the first film. Lost boys are now girls (trans representation). I think Dude made the movie they wanted. It's gonna be a hit just like Girl Power Ghostbusters.
I could've accepted a somber, deeper movie if this thing was set in 2022, with all its cultural tropes, social tropes. Had this been an all-new, modern Peter Pan & Wendy adventure, yes, I could've accepted this.
As it is, this film is a PARODY of the 1953 movie, a toxic fanfiction aimed to disgrace all dirty, stinky, stupid males. This is a distorted reflection of the animated classic that was, and it SHOWS.
The only Peter Pan movie I need is HOOK. Sorry, Disney. HOOK is perfection.
you said existential dread which means i can safely skip this. i think about death way to often already.
Yeah I wouldn’t watch it then
For me Peter was the ,villain‘ in this version, and I couldn’t connect with him as a protagonist at all. I even liked Hook when he told his backstory.
Tinker Bell is a fairy, she should be constantly glowing. Where is that glow? Why I'm not seeing her glowing all the time?
You can find an actress that isn't the prettiest to play Tinker Bell, but you can't have Tinker Bell without her glowing with magic all the time, she's a fairy and she should be glowing.
And Neverland should somehow resemble somewhere that is out of a dream, they need to work on the light and the color to make it happen.
I actually want to see villains being purely evil though, yes, they could have a backstory, but you can still make a villain purely evil with a backstory. And the way to do that is: Imply that the villain has a backstory, but never actually talk much about it. If you talk too much about a villain's backstory because you don't want to them to think that the villain is purely evil, then the villain will lose it's purpose of being a villain in a story.
Maybe actually making him a dad would help this narrative? Because in the original story, Mr. Darling tell Wendy that she should grow up, she goes to Neverland and Hook is actually played by the same actor as the one that played Mr. Darling, this would imply Wendy's fear of growing up in the form of thinking her father is the villain in the story that is all grown up, and Peter Pan, who actually symbolizes Wendy's childhood, is constantly fighting Hook because Wendy didn't want to grow up.
I‘m pretty sure they got the story about Hook being a former Lost boy of the book Lost boy by Christina Henry 😅. She is an author that likes to take famous stories like Alice in Wonderland, the little mermaid or Peter Pan and give it an interesting twist. And in Lost boy it is exactly that - Peter is an ass and Hook was a lost boy (if I remember correctly, he was even there before Peter 🤔…). I like her books, but I know what I get with her stories, when I buy one of her books. Disney on the other hand… I don’t know… I just wish Disney would respect there source material (aka. the book or the play) a little bit more 😕. This is not Neverland! Neverland is the place where the dreams and games of children become reality! A lagoon full of mermaids, pirates, wild animals, flamingos, jungle, a big bird, fairies, native Americans, and a cave in form of a scull! How can you screw this up 🥺!?!
Ok but I kinda like this because it is string away from the Disney end, focusing more on the original telling of Peter Pan (which is dark af).
In the original, telling Peter Pan is kind of the villain. The idea being that because he stays a boy forever, he never grows up, mentally or is able to commit to a code of conduct. He would be fighting pirates with the lost boys, one moment, and then suddenly say “you know, what would be fun? Being a pirate! Hey, Captain Hook! Let’s team up and murder lost boys together!” Then he would later change his mind and beg the lost boys to take him back and fight Captain Hook again. he would just go back-and-forth, depending on what mood he was in at the time. It’s pretty fucked up.
Although it’s a horrible story, I like that Disney is trying to do some thing other than repeating their own material, because many of these famous tales did not start with Disney, but became marketed by Disney so much that most people don’t even know the original stories.
I was kind of pissed when live action jungle book came out, because I really hoped they would try and make it like the original book, which is a much more beautiful tale than the Disney movie. (Don’t get me wrong the Disney jungle book is still beautiful with amazing songs, but the original story is just so many times better)
Asking where the sparkles come from...on a tiny flying fairy lady. Dude, the implausibility ship already sailed there, big time. 😅
Tits wild how many people have to sign off on these movies for them to get all the way to our screens, and they are still soooooo bad.
just yesterday i watched the 2003 peter pan live action and was still impressed how good it is, was the acting kinda bad yeah but it had a charm to it. also Jason Isaacs did a wondeerful job as the dad and hook, im sure jude law is amazing but not enough to have me watch this dark bland version of peter pan.
Disney lost "The magic"
Funny universal and others are picking up that lead and are making colorful movies that seem to just want to entertain people. Even have good writing...
Disney though!