Movies We've Just Watched discussion

Fantasy/Sci-Fi > The upcoming movie "Pan"/Neverland Syfy movie which I've just watched recently

Comments Showing 1-8 of 8 (8 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Abby (new)

Abby Rose (abby-rose) | 10 comments So there's a lot of buzz going around about this new origin story for Peter Pan, "Pan" directed by Joe Wright. And even though I really admire Joe's work and I LOVE almost all things "Peter Pan" related, my reaction to the trailer/buzz was "we're doing this AGAIN?"

In this day and age of improved CGI, it MIGHT be a good time to remake/reimagine a Peter Pan film, but the problem is we LITERALLY JUST Had a Peter Pan origin tale in 2011! It was called Neverland and after watching it I gotta admit it has more appeal than the Pan trailer. It already explained all the stuff Pan seems to be set to (how Peter and Tiger Lily met, how Peter and Hook used to be friends, etc..) So this just seems like a desperate attempt to be a higher budgeted remake of THAT movie rather than its own thing.

Anyone else think that if Joe was so desperate to make a Peter Pan film he should have considered brining a full reimagining to the screen? I mean, between the star catchers books and Neverland this has really been done to DEATH. Having seen Atonement and Hanna, I really think someone like Joe could have done more justice to a film version of "Betwixt and Between" (which reimagines Peter as a guardian of dead little boys) or even "Tiger Lily" (which is a vaguely historical/romanticized version of Peter Pan's story).

This Pan thingummy, well, I kind of want to see it, but think maybe I won't enjoy it as much as syfy's Neverland.

Thoughts? Anyone?

message 2: by Tom (new)

Tom | 5363 comments There was a Broadway play, PETER AND THE STARCATCHERS, based it seems on the series, and I just wish they'd leave Peter Pan alone. Like permanently... I really resented the reconfiguration of Peter Pan as a sad little orphan abandoned by his parents. There's already a perfectly good origin story for Peter Pan, originated by J.M. Barrie himself, which makes it perfectly clear that Peter himself did the abandoning: he hears his parents making plans for his future and splits to live with the fairies in the park, who eventually send him to Neverland -- he's a fully liberated figure who absolutely rejects all of civilized bourgeois adulthood. Peter Pan is NOBODY's victim, dammit.

That PAN thing -- the trailers just look hellish.

message 3: by Abby (new)

Abby Rose (abby-rose) | 10 comments Tom wrote: "There was a Broadway play, PETER AND THE STARCATCHERS, based it seems on the series, and I just wish they'd leave Peter Pan alone. Like permanently... I really resented the reconfiguration of Pet..."

I know right? This whole thing about Peter being abandoned is kinda lame! I mean, HE'S supposed to be the one who heartlessly leaves any chance at a family behind. If he wanted a family so gosh darn badly, he could have just been adopted by the Darlings along with the other lost boys, so clearly he's not a "poor little orphan whom everyone abandons". It's getting silly. I couldn't agree more.

Yeah the Pan trailers do look a tad hellish, but they are also kinda dazzling; I might see it at least once, then probably immediately regret doing so afterwards.

What do you think of the 2003 version of Peter Pan? The one with Rachel Hurd Wood as Wendy?

message 4: by Tom (new)

Tom | 5363 comments I didn't see it. I've gotten to be a fan of Jason Isaacs, who I believe plays Captain Hook.

The less said about Spielberg's monstrosity HOOK the better...

message 5: by Abby (new)

Abby Rose (abby-rose) | 10 comments I liked Spielberg's Hook a lot as a little kid, but rewatching it as a grown up I do see that there are several things about it that are disrespectful to the original. I still watch it when it's on cuz of fuzzy childhood memories but it's far from being my favorite take on Peter Pan.

I really love the 2003 one. You should see it, if you get the chance. It DOES add some things (Wendy's aunt, for example) and heavily romanticize the Peter/Wendy aspect, but it's still the only remotely faithful adaption of J.M. Barrie's book/play I've ever seen.

What do you think of the Disney version?

Also, have you ever read "Betwixt and Between"? It's a really dark, touching take on Peter Pan's origins but it's less of a slap in the face to Barrie's work that most tales of that sort. If you can stomach Peter being the guardian of an afterlife, you'd probably like it.

message 6: by Abby (new)

Abby Rose (abby-rose) | 10 comments So I just saw PAN the other day! It was GOD AWFUL. Worst Movie I've sat through in a long, long time...

message 7: by Feliks (last edited Apr 09, 2016 11:29AM) (new)

Feliks (dzerzhinsky) I'm in the camp that responds with 'What this again?!?" :D

Lately there's a spate of (what I consider) 'milking' of these old, long-running, rather stale and leftover fantasy materials that seem like producers are really digging for something, anything to air---if its in any way fantasy-related ('Peter Pan' or 'Wizard of Oz' or 'Winnie the Pooh' epecially)... they'll keep resuscitating it no matter how dead.

They'll trade in on any kind of fantasy 'name that people know'. Is this really the best they got? Sheesh. It doesn't even matter whether any of these outings are good; I'm just getting tired of everything constantly referring back to these ancient children's books that have been mined and re-mined so often there's no longer any freshness.

So in addition to the never-going-away-while-there's-revenue-to-be-made 'Wicked' we now have 'Pan' and 'Neverland' and this other shyt called 'The Woodsman' and (although unrelated) have you noticed this season there is a glut of projects all similarly-named like 'The Hunt', 'The Huntsman', 'The Hunters', 'The Hunter' and 'The Hunted'? Geez.

For cryin out loud I am beyond sick of this weak swill they offer us. How is 'woodland hunting' (with dogs and horns and horses, etc) related in any way to contemporary American culture and the problems this country is undergoing? Why must culture be kept in a constantly baby-fied, infantile state with entertainment geared for children?

The other day at work I overheard three supposedly 'grown men' heatedly discussing 'what the effect of a punch by Superman's fist would really be on the jaw of Batman'. Hello. Can we all just return to reality please? Maybe just five minutes each day? Is there anyone left in this country who is a mature adult?

Just sayin'

message 8: by Abby (last edited Apr 09, 2016 11:54AM) (new)

Abby Rose (abby-rose) | 10 comments Feliks wrote: "I'm in the camp that responds with 'What this again?!?" :D

Lately there's a spate of (what I consider) 'milking' of these old, long-running, rather stale and leftover fantasy materials that seem l..."

I understand your frustration, as the market -- and people's minds in general -- do seem oversaturated with this stuff.

However, I don't think it's ALWAYS a bad thing.

To refer to an old story uncreatively and make something really offensive or that truly has been done to death is an annoyance, but there IS richness to be found in old fairytales and children's literature.

Two of my favorite books are a prime example of this one is "East" by Edith Pattou. It is a retelling of an old northern fairytale. Pattou puts the story in a real historical setting and fleshes out the characters and there is a real beauty to how she does it. Another is "Betwixt and Between" which is an adult novel retelling of Peter Pan reset in the afterlife; bittersweet and moving it's definitely something my days would have been a little less bright without reading. Needed, no. I can live without it. But a little sugar in the coffee so to speak, a little passing smiling on a gloomy day? Yep.

The reason these stories are visited again and again is because they have staying power.

And while I agree with you that we should be mature adults (perhaps a coffee shop after work would be a better place to discuss batman's jaw and superman's fist rather than work, for instance as a job is supposed to be just that, A JOB, not a playground), I don't think it's fair put down people who enjoy a certain kind of entertainment (be it fairytales or superheroes) just because they take it "too seriously".

There is, my friend, a time and place for all things. Work is not the place to discuss batman, but I see nothing wrong with doing so over a beer later if the men are so inclined, provided their family responsibilities are cared for prior to this.

Age isn't a factor in enjoying children's literature. A good children's book is still just that "A good book".

Also, sometimes remakes aren't a bad thing. And not everyone will agree on every single remake.

For example a lot of people disliked that the new Cinderella film allegedly "offered nothing new".

I disagree. Having seen almost every Cinderella movie out there, I've never seen one that follows the original French version of the fairytale so closely and with such good CGI. Back when the old versions of the film were made, cheap props were all we had, now we can have a dazzling experience; one I personally enjoyed.

At the end of the day, these are just our silly opinions. Live and let live.

Let your work friends enjoy their batman, though perhaps if it offends you so greatly suggest they discuss it out of your presence rather than in it.

Oh, and one more thing, I think you need to realize Entertainment is just that: Entertainment.

It doesn't HAVE to cover the issues we're facing. We should make time for that in our lives themselves. The problem is that we have got our movies and stuff on so many dang devices that entertainment is taking over our lives. People can't stand in line at the bank without binge watching their favorite show. If they never look up, they will never see the problem.

We need to change OURSELVES not just entertainment.

Best wishes,

back to top