I actually think this film should be cast into the Bog of Eternal Stench from Labyrinth, along with the likes of Pinocchio, She-Hulk and Rings of Power.
I've seen somewhere that Tinker isn't glowig bc Disney decided that 'people will wonder where the light is coming from' bc they are obsessed with answering the questions no one asked. Like, she a fairy/pixie. They glow bc magic.
Yet they have a POV shot of her entering the children’s bedroom CLEARLY casting light on their faces, yet in every shot of her she’s dim as can be. Just lazy lazy lazy
Its especially weird given Disney are traditionally the kings of "just take this weird special effect affectation as symbolic and enjoy how cool it looks".
That was one of things I really liked about Super Mario Bros. They didn't try to explain the unexplainable. They didn't try to explain why bricks float, why power ups work, etc. They just trusted that we'd go with it, like we have been doing for almost 40 years now.
Why would they want Wendy around if they already have girls? She’s supposed to be special and desired in the group because she is feminine and nurturing like a mother.
"It's not racist or misogynistic at least." Oh yeah, except they don't care enough to light the one black actress they made such a big deal about properly and don't even make her glow, so she's literally always lit TERRIBLY. Or having Tiger Lily's interactions with Wendy and her brothers make absolutely no sense because of when you choose to have her use her own language when literally everyone in the film but her tribe uses English. And why would she speak her language to people she doesn't know if she already knows everyone that uses her language and everyone else uses English? The elves didn't show up in LOTR speaking elvish to people they didn't expect to speak elvish, they spoke it when it made sense. So you just end up making Tiger Lily look stupid. Also heck ya for that equality! In the original source, girls were never Lost Boys because "girls are too smart to fall out of their carriages." Now everyone's equally stupid! Nevermind the whole reason to take Wendy in the first place is because they have no idea what a mother is and she could be their mother. The theme of little boys needing their mothers is completely null and void and you've completely defeated the point of taking Wendy to Neverland in the first place, and why she starts coming to terms with growing up. That's why her about-face in the live action comes out of nowhere. The reason she does isn't there anymore. And you don't get to have your Eowyn "I am no man" moment when you've done SQUAT to earn it and you're piggybacking off everyone else's strengths. It makes us women look SO CRINGE. Not to mention, having Peter not be able to understand Tink is a HUGE step backwards if they were trying not to come off as prejudiced against either men or women. Their friendship, despite him being such a jerk in the original, was beautiful and refreshing. Making the film more "progressive" without understanding the intricacies of how to implement changes into the storytelling and cinematography to do those things justice really just shoots themselves in the foot. Also, most people complaining about Tinkerbell's casting are complaining about her lackluster acting and giving "sloppy seconds" roles to diverse actors only for diversity points instead of taking the creativity to actually create new stories with diverse characters in mind. It's so clear even in JUST the fact that they don't even TRY to light Tinkerbell's actress correctly that they don't give a crap about the diverse actors themselves. And they didn't change anything about the film to adapt to their casting (that SHOULD have been adapted) to emphasize those actor's good qualities than if those roles were played by white actors. All that to say, to me, them "trying not to be racist and misogynistic" ends up being racist and misogynistic because they don't actually care and they're not smart, creative, or respectful enough to handle any of those topics properly. At least kids came out of the 1953 Peter Pan thinking Natives were cool and Tiger Lily was kind of a boss. (Fun Fact: When I was a little girl I wanted to name my hypothetical cat Tiger Lily...)
I will always defend the 1953 film against charges of racism because there's a big difference between being crude and being outright antisocial. To be a racist, you have to earnestly believe your race is superior and that every other deserves to be treated with condescension at best. And, well...I don't see that in ANY of Disney's films - not even SONG OF THE SOUTH. If anything, in PETER PAN I see the opposite: white characters WANTING TO BE Indian. The worst that could be said about that is, there's a possible element of self-loathing there, as well as a sense of cultural ennui. Peter is a narcissistic sociopath, but I'd never think of him as some sort of xenophobic colonizer. Does PETER PAN have tasteless humor in it? Sure it does - but, thematically, it's supposed to. And if we were to make a list of all the films - including children's films - that featured offensive humor, we'd have to spend at least an entire day sitting in front of the IMDB website. But no matter how offensive humor can get, it is never political as long as it remains funny. It turns political only when you get serious about it.
I’m kinda at a conflict now, this new movie just makes the original look like a masterpiece because the bar is so low! I can now ignore the probable rac ism with the Natives and Tiger Lilys depiction, because they *have character* and the new Tiger Lily is…nothing, she’s just a plot progresser. Sigh I really don’t know how to feel. It should be wrong, but this movie such a bastardized of its predecessor.
I’ve seen someone saying that they didn’t make Tinkerbell glow because it might make her skin appear lighter, which could set off the people that care about color. I wouldn’t even be surprised, if that’s the case.
@@Disneyfan82 Its kind of all over the place in tone from what other reviews tell me. One minute they'll show Wendy being an absolute up her rear end snob to her brothers over a mirror she broke, then Peter Pan is introduced being a droning robot with just a pinch of cheerfulness. Later on we see Wendy, Pan and her brothers become blasted away from a cannonball fired close to them blasting rocks near their faces and scattering them which surprisingly havent scratched them a little from closeness followed up by that ridiculous lost kids cringe humour.
To say the truth... This isn't even the cannon backstory of Capitan Hook. His cannon backstory is that he was born in England, attended Eton college, joined piracy, worked for black beard, became a capitan and stumbled upon Neverland and Peter Pan
I think the best Peter Pan live action is the 2003 version with Jeremy Sumpter and Jason Isaacs. Peter is on point, Wendy is sassy but not disagreeable, and Capt Hook is more threatening. And most importantly it's fun and visually breathtaking!
I love that they got rid of Wendy's gentle, nurturing personality that taught the lost boys about how important and natural it was to grow up. Which led the change in them. I adore how they got rid of the fact that the reason there were no girls who were lost was because girls were too smart to get lost. I love that they made everyone much less likable versions of themselves, even when the try to make hook more a more tragic character, all they manage to do is destroy Peter's character without improving Hook at all. Why does Disney think "modern audiences" want terribly written stories with forced diversity and bad messages that don't really stand the test of time like the original ones did? I'm sorry, but nothing in this movie was inspired. I was bored throughout the entire thing. Law's performance was great, but it's not enough to save this movie. Tinkerbell had no real personality- even Peter apparently can't understand her anymore despite them having been friends for many, many years. Wendy, of course, can take on full grown men in actual sword fights because she pretend dueled with her little brothers with wooden swords. Tiger Lily insists on speaking her native language, even to people who don't understand it-when she knows English and knows that they can't speak her language. This movie is very bland. Neverland is missing pretty much all of its charm, and there's very little color in this movie. Also, I wasn't convinced Tinkerbell actually cared about anything happening even in scenes where it's assumed she'd be upset. They made Peter much less charming, not only due to the acting, but just the actions and dialogue given to the character. Wendy had no real reason to slap him like that, but it's framed like she's in the right because i don't know, go girlboss Wendy with her happy thoughts of growing old and dying alone.
@@aliefalyansyah5996 I haven't watched that movie in years, and I was only about 3 when it came out. I'd have to go watch it, but somehow I doubt she'd be any worse.
@@SebasTian58323 they are mostly the same as in the original, but no tiger lily and crocodile with the only new character is just jane and an octopus. By the way this movie take place during ww2 and jane father is a pilot in the royal british air force. That's the reason why her character is justified.
Could you imagine how disappointed Walt Disney would be in the current state of Disney? I just watched a documentary about his history and that dude was so gifted at collaboration, creating amazing creation's, finding the right people for the right things. They were TRULY DIVERSE, genuinely talented like we rarely see. Dedicated and Passionate towards creating imagination bending works of art and they Really did understand all the aspects and processes that mattered. For what it took to create those works of art. *(I just saw that Ukraine just started creating 2d animation for their military videos and it really reminded me of what I saw Walt do during WW2) I love seeing cartoon styled animated video's being used again. Just how Walt Disney did (out of his own pocket) he believed it was the least he could do for his country and his countrymen who were giving so much to the war to protect our nation and the greater good in the world. (If you think about it. Walt Disney did a lot for pushing advancements in science/creativity. He made understandable information that taught so many people of all ages, and from all sorts of different walks of life, to inform on very important matters and subjects of the time. Things that might seem out of place or difficult now, were completely relative to the current situations everyone was dealing with at that point in time. (The passion Walt gained for science and technology is what sparked his passion for Epcot and learning how to build all these cutting edge devices, city planning concepts, animatronics puppets of Abe Lincoln or the talking/signing birds in the tiki lounge. Plus all the other puppets on all the other interactions around his theme park. I just watched a documentary covering the career of Walt Disney and he really was a amazingly uniquely talented person. Where he himself had a insane drive towards innovation and new ideas BUT what I think his best trait was: That Walt was SO GOOD at interacting with everyone around him and he just had this amazing ability to find the PERFECT person for different jobs, things, roles. To really bring out the best in OTHER people around him. I truly believe that's one of the most important traits in a great leader. If anyone is in a group of people who are set on creating anything. (It's rare when someone comes across with the unique style and approach like Walt Disney had and really all it takes is to watch the coverage documentary that covers all of this uniquely awesome stuff that positively impacted SO MANY PEOPLE in so many ways and places. It didn't matter who you were, the chance that something from the Walt Disney era impacting you in a positive way is nearly 100% a possibility. There really was some of the best attributes of humanity, teamwork, and motivated passionate creativity that occured thru this group of Walt Disney era team members and we all could learn something from them. In some way or another.)
It's now run by the same people who run hollywood. They'll grind Disney into the ground after extracting every penny from it. They'll take a garden and make it a desert.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. It hurts me to see how he is belittled nowadays, and children don’t even know him. I got the honor to visit his hometown, his dreaming tree, barn, and even go inside his apartment at Disneyland.
I just rewatched the 2003 version. It was beautiful, funny, magical, good characters, everything this movie is not. When Peter got wounded by Hook at the Black Castle, for the rest of the movie you can see that scar. The fairies were beautiful and GLOWED, music was fantastic, there was character growth. One shot from that movie had more color than this entire movie combined
I absolutely love that film. It's the only one that really tackles the book's subtext. The child actors were energetic and amazing and Isaacs is a fantastic Hook. Probably the most menacing one I've seen, while still having his funny moments.
What did they do to Tick Tock!? Not only did they diminish his role in the film, which included one of the best scenes in the original, but they turned him from a lovable comedic crocodile into a generic monster. Tick Tock is my favorite Disney character, and the reason I love crocodiles to this day. Seeing what the remake has done to him...In the immortal words of Don Corleone, "Look how they massacred my boy."
The thing that made what Chip n Dale did so bad wasn't anything to do with Peter Pan as a character, but how it mocked what happened to his original voice actor Bobby Driscoll.
It's not the *absolute* worst of the live-action remakes; I did like the extra backstory we got for Captain Hook. But my God it's one of the most boring remakes. Disney really needs to grow up and out of this Live-action phase.
The backstory for Captain Hook was so unnecessary and half baked. If makes Peter Pan look like a complete piece of shit and makes Hook look far less villainous. He’s just a bad guy!! There’s nothing wrong with that
I don't even like the twist of the story that Peter and Hook were once friends and Hook was the first Lost Boy. Peter Pan is arguably several hundred years old and canonically the only person in Neverland that never grows up. Barrie, I think, said that Peter is so stubborn that he simply refuses to grow up. It would chronologically make no sense to make Hook the first Lost Boy because he would grow up like a normal person and should long be dead during the events of the movie. Hook is maybe in his late 40s in this movie, yet he's supposed to be the first Lost Boy? This could only be true if Peter Pan was alone for a very long time until he eventually decided to look for boys with no home or boys that ran away/fell out of their cribs. The whole story implies that Peter Pan has not been Peter Pan, the hero of Neverland, for a long time, which makes no sense since in this movie version there are even stories about him in the real world. He has to be pretty damn old, so how can Hook be the first Lost Boy then? He was his best friend and they both arrived at Neverland at the same time which means they were both alive at the same time in real life. When Hook tried to go back to his mother but failed and was instead raised by pirates, he would be long dead before the events of this movie take place. It also makes no sense that Hook does not know where Peter's hideout is when they were best friends and he used to live there. Anyway, this movie is garbage and not worth anyone's time.
Also, they fucked up the connection between George Darling and James Hook (Yes, that's canonically his real first name.). As on stage tradition is that Hook and George share the same actor, and in every adaptation up til this point, it was always followed to a tee. And while it might not be intentional, it actually works from a symbolic point of view. As Wendy and her siblings are scared of their father due to him wanting his daughter to grow up, even though she clearly isn't ready for it. And so, when they first see and hear Hook, they'll immediately see their father in him. But this film completely fucked it up by having them be played by different actors, showing that they have no respect for J.M. Barrie's stageplay or novel. Have either Jude Law or Alan Tudyk play both Hook and George. I don't care which one, but they should've made them portrayed by the same actor out of respect for J.M. Barrie's stageplay/novel.
It's, entirely, possible, Jude Law refused to play, both, roles, and, Alan Tudyk's, not, nearly, a, big-enough, headliner, to get, top-billing, simple as that.
@@matthewdaley746 Jude Law couldn't play both. The director basically forced him to stay in character at all times, and to be curt and unpleasant around the kids on set to make them scared of him for real so it'd look more "authentic" on screen. I seem to recall a news article where Law felt so bad about it that he eventually broke character against instructions near the end of the shooting and apologized, bought ice cream for all the kids in the cast, and spent a significant amount of time just socializing with them between shots thereafter to make up for it and prove that he wasn't really a bad guy.
The writers behind this don’t care about respect for the original creators or earlier writers. In the latest Star Wars saga, look at what they did to Luke Skywalker and his lightsaber that was passed down to him by his father through Obi Wan, his caretaker from afar and first Jedi master. Luke tosses the lightsaber like it’s an empty beer can when it was returned to him after decades of it being thought forever lost. Even the actor felt that was out of character. These same type of writers don’t care about respect and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve never watched or read the original source material.
@Ninclow I suspected as much, that truly should have led to a recast as a hallmark of the original story, now, had to be completely replaced, how, terrible, really, terrible, period.
Can we just have the crocodile eat everyone? Like, everyone? Hook, Peter, Wendy, John, Michael, Tinkerbell, Tiger Lily, the mermaids, literally everyone.
You know the funniest bit for me today (i find difference bits funny each day) is that they go on about Wendy saves Peter cos she's a girl boss etc. However in Peter Pan 2003 Peter is torn down by Hook (quite viciously as he plays on Peter struggling with feelings) and Wendy saves him with a kiss and by believe in Peter - this version she's a nasty piece of work and there's no chemistry 😂😂
That remake & the jungle book remakes were fine It’s Cinderella (2015), The Lion King 2019, Mulan, Pinocchio, and now this I can’t stand and I bet you the Lilo & Stitch remakes gonna suck too
In fairness, the original Peter stalked Wendy, too. He would listen to Wendy tell her brothers stories about him at night! This version turned Peter from being a cute, harmless, narcissistic stalker to a depressing, needs-to-be-incarcerated type of stalker! 🤣
Boy, I hate to see Sweet Pete's reaction after he got out to the asylum from last year's Recuse Ranger Movie only to be betrayed by Disney even more!!!!
Another thing that happens when switching character races is that when they do this they cannot have any flaws. So Peter could no longer have any flaws, because he is now representing people of coller.
Honestly, I want those movies to make the internet eat it’s words, Wish especially. Dreamworks and Illumination have been getting way too much praise lately.
"Elemental" is shaping up to be a clichefest, unfortunately. Forbidden love, lazy allegories, blah blah blah. Don't know what "Wish" will be like, but it's definitely yet another movie that would look infinitely better in 2D.
the 2003 Peter Pan live action was already an AMAZING adaption so to do another one 20 years later just makes me laugh. I grew up with the 2003 one and had a crush on that Peter and Wendy and Hook honestly, just damn. Di$ney dropping the ball again just for some nostalgia bucks. I hope they figure their shit out but soulful people in higher paying jobs are few and far between 😭
You know I’d love to see a subversion of this story where it starts out as normal, but then hook reveals Peter is the bad guy. How all the lost boys eventually wished to grow up and left leaving Peter all alone so he’s trying to get more kids to stay but this time isn’t letting them leave, even if he has to use force
I am SO SICK of these remakes making the leading lady boring and practically perfect by taking out ALL flaws that made the character relatable! Tinker Bell in the original was quirky, hot-headed, and competitive, while also being fun and expressive. Now she's a Mary Sue like every other live action lady, right there with Belle, Jasmine, and Mulan!
Yeah, I hate they actually stopped even treating female characters as people. They are not allowed to have flaws or show basically anything other than a pretty neutral face. Big news Disney, you can make entertaining flawed characters without making them complete morons or awful people. Thou, honestly any of these would be better with good character development, than what we are constantly getting.
What are your thoughts on the Disney sequel Return to Neverland, and the 2003 adaptation by Universal Studios which stars Jeremy Sumpter as Pan? I ask this because, aside from the original Disney version, those were the Peter Pan movies I grew up watching.
Honestly, Return To Neverland managed to be a good follow up to Peter Pan's legacy more than this remake! Yes, the one Disney direct to video sequel I actually liked did better than this movie!
Actually, Return to Neverland did received a theatrical release worldwide, unlike most Disney animated sequels which instead were released straight to video
The only positive thing I can say about this movie is that the costumes are pretty good. I like how earthy and whimsical the costumes for Peter, Tinkerbell, and the lost boys are. The gold embroidery for Hooks costume is a nice detail and the costumes for the Darling family was a nice depiction for the era it takes place in. But everything else really isn’t good like how they refused to use the correct lighting for the actress of Tinkerbell and everyone else or how the director forced Jude Law to be mean to the child actors off camera for the sake of “accuracy”. I honestly feel bad for the people who had to work on this, especially the child actors since they had no choice. Also I haven’t watched the movie but I just noticed they got rid of the dog, which is probably a good thing since it’d look terrible bc Disney refuses to not overwork their SFX teams.
People have pointed out another reason to not throw tantrums at the over the top Indian portrayals: you can view them as a child's imagination of native Americans
Ah yes the 1950s where kids were obsessed about Cowboys and Indians. The times where we didn't know how culturally insensitive and how overly sensitive it would become
It seems like theyve destroyed the characters of Peter and Wendy. Hes supposed to be likeable, cocky and good at just about everything. Wendy is supposed to be a great mother-figure. Instead, Wendy in this movie is a jerk to her brothers and an even bigger jerk to Peter. And they made Peter an evil bastard for what he does to Hook.
I miss Tinkerbell being jealous about Peter liking Wendy and I miss the scene where she tries to kill Wendy and she doesn’t even feel bad about it was so funny😂😂. The Tinkerbell in this movie is basically absent and has no personality whatsoever
I don’t know why they made a live-action when Universal already made the PERFECT live-action in 2003. They’re just gonna be compared and Disney obviously lost.
the only compelling character was hook. everyone else was flat, just there. hook gave it emotion so i felt for him. what pan did to him was exceptionally awful, actually unforgivable. i didnt care that he wanted to kill pan and the rest of the ''lost boys'' lol. at least that would be the end if it.
The live action: ALICE IN WONDERLAND, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, ALADDIN, THE LION KING all made over $1billion (THE JUNGLE BOOK just missed it, making $995million. Disney won't stop until they stop making money.
Everytime with these. Disney needs to make more entertainment like Moon Girl, The Owl House, or Encanto; and less of these pointless wastes of time & money.
They need to make more entertainment like Princess and The Frog and Cinderella III: A Twist In Time. Those movies were masterpieces in every way and were the last truly great Disney movies.
"I think I prefer the racism because we actually got a catchy song from that" I was doing something else so I didnt get the full context, so i wtfed so hard
@@madpsycho6 Hook, "could," have been great, it, was, just far too long, and, Dustin Hoffman, took his sweet time arriving Steven Spielberg got, yet, another, unearned pass.
I love the part where Wendy said to Peter "Your surgeon sucks!" while looking at his stitched up wound in disgust. Truly one of the most stitch-breaking, amazing, marvelous scenes of all time.
If you want to watch a good live action Peter Pan movie(beside Hook), watch the 2003 version. It fixes some of problems of the animated movie, but doesn't make the same mistake from this current movie. For example, while 2003 Peter is nicer than the animated Peter, he's still a little shit at times. It really must be seen at once.
Normally l would desagree with Raisor or ignore it as a whole, but l actually agree with him. (even tho the video is not out yet) Like l've watched the entire movie and not once have l felt invested on the story, the setting, the characters, ALL OF IT!! l just watch it because l was curious on how they would make Peter and Hook's origin, which is unnecessarily disturbing and out of place.. And l get it, most remake origins movies needed to be dark, but did they really needed to do this with Peter Pan? Which was adapted in most ways and far better than this?
Hook was awesome. The original Peter Pan was amazing. The 2003 Peter pan was colorful and effects, from what I remember, might be better than this live action, which is pathetic since there are 20 years between them. I think I'll still with those films. This one doesn't seem worth it... shocking. I haven't seen most of the remakes because they're just not great.
2003 is undoubtedly the best and most authentic live action homage to Peter Pan along with Hook. 2003 is so perfect of an adaptation and ageless that it renders this Disney version absolutely obsolete imo The 2003 did such a good job at not only staying true to the original story but also to the plays and the Disney movie, stylistically it felt like something out of a story book and the design of the island was directly inspired by the cartoon. The most hilarious thing about all of this is the fact that Universal and TriStar represented Disney's cartoon better than Disney even could lol
Peter Pan! Starring Susan Pervensie! Featuring a young Rishi Sunak before he become British PM! And starring the Lost Harfoots! And... re-used pirates from Hook!~ Plus... see the future actress for the Pocahontas live action movie!
The major problem I have with this movie is that they took Tinkerbelle (a very famous Disney charatcer they had) and changed her race just for the sake of being woke and having another victim of bad attempts at inclusivity. Oh I’m sorry! You think that only happened to Tinkerbelle?! Just ask the Fairy from Pinocchio, Ariel OR FRICKING VELMA FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!
You know what’s funny? Despite the original Peter being a bigger asshole overall, he still made the smarter/more heroic decision to distract the pirates when he and the Darling children first got to Neverland. He gets the indication from the first canon ball that the pirates are targeting them, then immediately instructs Tink to take Wendy and the others to safety, showing that for as reckless as he is he’s still not going to needlessly endanger his friends. In the new film? Despite the Darlings not having any combat experience and already knowing that the pirates are firing at them, Peter still plans to take the fight to the pirates and risks their safety by having them stay in firing range with him.
book peter would endanger his friends because everything is a game to him and he has no concept of death. hed even switch sides and start killing them for fun. in the movie, while he was directing the darlings, i thought wtf? that kid is dreaming. after she slapped him he said he thought she wanted an adventure as if it was all part of the plan. she washed up on the beach with his hat, as of he left it as a token that he saved her because she did just get there and he didnt want her to drown just yet lol. funny wendy being mad at peter when the darlings knew there were pirates in never land and came there anyway.
They have gone so so far from the original novel that one starts wondering, why they didn't make a story about Mary Sue in Wokeland instead? Why they insist in destroying products that have become beloved classics on their own?
I would bet that if you asked a child what he thought of the movie he would say that it was pretty good. But six months later if you asked him if he wanted to watch it again he would simply say "Nah." I have never seen the animated version but I was laughing out loud at the clips where the alligator keeps swallowing Hook. If you had asked the child six months later these images would automatically pop into his head and his response would have been a resounding "YES!"
But the original Peter is also has some good moments like when he saved Tiger Lily and tried to save the three from Captain Hook by trying to draw his fire towards him while Tinker Bell took the three to safety And saved everyone when they were captured by Captain Hook
I'm glad everyone hates the new peter pan movie. Idk how Disney thought it was a good idea to remake it, like don't they read or listen to people online? Everyone knew it should be a shit movie, apparently, Disney didn't
I thought "Peter Pan"(2003) was a far superior live action telling of the same story. Jason Isaacs is my favorite Captain Hook, after Hans Conreid in the 1953 animated Disney film.
Funny enough, my big lament with this film is that they didn't swap roles for Jude Law and Alan Tudyk. Tudyk's a great character actor who likely could've brought more humor to this version of Hook simply through his deliveries. He's used to being over the top, while Law is more used to subtlety, romcom charm, and his "sense of wonder" expression. Let Tudyk put in the legwork and Hook will be an adult brat. Let Law be Mr. Darling, and the finale will have a version of the original's magic where the father remembers a bit of his childhood we can only guess at. Would the film have been good? Probably not. It would've been better casting though. Sad they blew it over wanting more screen time for a big name
I do have a problem with representation though. When it's forced and used to fill in DEI quotas and to boost ESG scores. Like this movie does. Let's fix old timey racism with modern racism. What could possibly go wrong?
This movie reeks of someone was working on the first draft of a dark broody Peter Pan that wanted to explore the dark side of the Peter Pan story, and then in a couple more drafts iron out what they wanted to say but Disney came along, yanked the half finished first draft, threw a bunch of money at it and didn’t care what happened one way or another just so they keep the IP of Peter Pan a bit longer. Which, in a way is the same problem the movie Hook fell into which is you can see the idea of delving into the darker aspects about Peter Pan like the dangers of never growing up, the lack of mothers and fathers, the fear of change, etc....then threw that all out the window so we can have a childish ending with Robin Williams in Green tights acting like a spazzy 8 year old. And I say that as someone who loves Hook.
Tinkerbell is black? But in the 2015 Hugh Jackman movie Pan, Tigerlily was played by a Rooney Mara, a white actress. Tigerlily is supposed to be Native American....Funny how nobody white complained...Hmm 🤔 Oh & we already had a multiracial gang of Lost Boys waaay back in ‘92 in Hook.
There already was a live-action version from 2003, and a live-action pseudo-sequel with Robin Williams playing an adult Peter Pan! Both of those films (and the original animated version) are leagues above this 2023 "Woke" Disney DUMPSTER FIRE of a "remake". Wendy is now an absolute c**t, the Lost Boys now has girls in it (completely contradicting the original novel and source material), Peter Pan is now a Beta Male and a villain, Tiger Lilly keeps switching between languages (while still expecting everyone else to understand her), and Tinker Bell is just an annoying distraction that adds nothing to the actual plot! This 2023 "remake" is "problematic"; NOT the films, shows, plays, and books that came before!
Honestly if they wanted to make a dark Peter Pan film they should have just adapted the song portrait of pirate f. That would have been interesting at least, though it is definitely more Peter Pan fan fiction than anything.
i always thought disney had already made a live action peter pan a few years ago! because it was always on TV, even Tinker Bell had the IDENTICAL appearance of her version of the disney movie! but the story was a little different, the end of the movie had all the lost boys being adopted by Wendy's family! Like, everything in that old movie looked like a live action classic movie, I myself thought it was really from Disney! I would say that movie is a more interesting live action adaptation than this one!
This movie should be taken to Neverland and fed to the crocodile where it will never be found.
Or better yet; HELL.
I got much better idea guys
It's Petra Patel and Strong Wah- man Wendy all.these writers at Disney are Bud Light Drinkers😂😂😂
Do you guys remember the place in gumball where anything that is super boring go
I actually think this film should be cast into the Bog of Eternal Stench from Labyrinth, along with the likes of Pinocchio, She-Hulk and Rings of Power.
I've seen somewhere that Tinker isn't glowig bc Disney decided that 'people will wonder where the light is coming from' bc they are obsessed with answering the questions no one asked. Like, she a fairy/pixie. They glow bc magic.
Yet they have a POV shot of her entering the children’s bedroom CLEARLY casting light on their faces, yet in every shot of her she’s dim as can be. Just lazy lazy lazy
Its especially weird given Disney are traditionally the kings of "just take this weird special effect affectation as symbolic and enjoy how cool it looks".
It's obvious the director said that as an excuse for forgetting 🤣
@@zalybrainlessgenius503 The director has no brains
That was one of things I really liked about Super Mario Bros. They didn't try to explain the unexplainable. They didn't try to explain why bricks float, why power ups work, etc. They just trusted that we'd go with it, like we have been doing for almost 40 years now.
Why would they want Wendy around if they already have girls? She’s supposed to be special and desired in the group because she is feminine and nurturing like a mother.
it certainly goes against the original novel.
Cause DEI
"It's not racist or misogynistic at least."
Oh yeah, except they don't care enough to light the one black actress they made such a big deal about properly and don't even make her glow, so she's literally always lit TERRIBLY.
Or having Tiger Lily's interactions with Wendy and her brothers make absolutely no sense because of when you choose to have her use her own language when literally everyone in the film but her tribe uses English. And why would she speak her language to people she doesn't know if she already knows everyone that uses her language and everyone else uses English? The elves didn't show up in LOTR speaking elvish to people they didn't expect to speak elvish, they spoke it when it made sense. So you just end up making Tiger Lily look stupid.
Also heck ya for that equality! In the original source, girls were never Lost Boys because "girls are too smart to fall out of their carriages." Now everyone's equally stupid!
Nevermind the whole reason to take Wendy in the first place is because they have no idea what a mother is and she could be their mother. The theme of little boys needing their mothers is completely null and void and you've completely defeated the point of taking Wendy to Neverland in the first place, and why she starts coming to terms with growing up. That's why her about-face in the live action comes out of nowhere. The reason she does isn't there anymore.
And you don't get to have your Eowyn "I am no man" moment when you've done SQUAT to earn it and you're piggybacking off everyone else's strengths. It makes us women look SO CRINGE.
Not to mention, having Peter not be able to understand Tink is a HUGE step backwards if they were trying not to come off as prejudiced against either men or women. Their friendship, despite him being such a jerk in the original, was beautiful and refreshing.
Making the film more "progressive" without understanding the intricacies of how to implement changes into the storytelling and cinematography to do those things justice really just shoots themselves in the foot.
Also, most people complaining about Tinkerbell's casting are complaining about her lackluster acting and giving "sloppy seconds" roles to diverse actors only for diversity points instead of taking the creativity to actually create new stories with diverse characters in mind. It's so clear even in JUST the fact that they don't even TRY to light Tinkerbell's actress correctly that they don't give a crap about the diverse actors themselves. And they didn't change anything about the film to adapt to their casting (that SHOULD have been adapted) to emphasize those actor's good qualities than if those roles were played by white actors.
All that to say, to me, them "trying not to be racist and misogynistic" ends up being racist and misogynistic because they don't actually care and they're not smart, creative, or respectful enough to handle any of those topics properly.
At least kids came out of the 1953 Peter Pan thinking Natives were cool and Tiger Lily was kind of a boss. (Fun Fact: When I was a little girl I wanted to name my hypothetical cat Tiger Lily...)
Plus, if they wanted a fairy of a different color than Tinkerbell, use one of the ones already in the canon of the universe. Introduce Iridessa.
i agree I LOVED 1953 Tiger Lily !
I will always defend the 1953 film against charges of racism because there's a big difference between being crude and being outright antisocial. To be a racist, you have to earnestly believe your race is superior and that every other deserves to be treated with condescension at best. And, well...I don't see that in ANY of Disney's films - not even SONG OF THE SOUTH. If anything, in PETER PAN I see the opposite: white characters WANTING TO BE Indian. The worst that could be said about that is, there's a possible element of self-loathing there, as well as a sense of cultural ennui. Peter is a narcissistic sociopath, but I'd never think of him as some sort of xenophobic colonizer.
Does PETER PAN have tasteless humor in it? Sure it does - but, thematically, it's supposed to. And if we were to make a list of all the films - including children's films - that featured offensive humor, we'd have to spend at least an entire day sitting in front of the IMDB website. But no matter how offensive humor can get, it is never political as long as it remains funny. It turns political only when you get serious about it.
I’m kinda at a conflict now, this new movie just makes the original look like a masterpiece because the bar is so low! I can now ignore the probable rac ism with the Natives and Tiger Lilys depiction, because they *have character* and the new Tiger Lily is…nothing, she’s just a plot progresser.
Sigh I really don’t know how to feel. It should be wrong, but this movie such a bastardized of its predecessor.
I’ve seen someone saying that they didn’t make Tinkerbell glow because it might make her skin appear lighter, which could set off the people that care about color. I wouldn’t even be surprised, if that’s the case.
they say that the remake is “more safe”
but it actually feels a lot more dangerous than they call the original
@Thanos asparagu sonkey monkond gamer 577 How the hell can they call this movie safe when it's super boring and meaningless?
@SuperMaximGlitchy1's Channel
The only "remake" that can be comparable to the 1953 cartoon, is the 2003 remake. . . *THAT THEY MADE 20 YEARS AGO!*
@@Disneyfan82 Its kind of all over the place in tone from what other reviews tell me. One minute they'll show Wendy being an absolute up her rear end snob to her brothers over a mirror she broke, then Peter Pan is introduced being a droning robot with just a pinch of cheerfulness.
Later on we see Wendy, Pan and her brothers become blasted away from a cannonball fired close to them blasting rocks near their faces and scattering them which surprisingly havent scratched them a little from closeness followed up by that ridiculous lost kids cringe humour.
Peter Pan may have looked creepy in the original but here he’s an actual creep
Disney's seriously digging their own Grave.
Good on them. They need to die.
Modern Disney is its worst enemy
I’m enjoying it, honestly. They deserve it.
@@chasehedges6775 at Least Modern Disney is 100x better than the Current MonsterVerse, that's for Sure.
@@hellopumpkin86 They absolutely do
To say the truth... This isn't even the cannon backstory of Capitan Hook. His cannon backstory is that he was born in England, attended Eton college, joined piracy, worked for black beard, became a capitan and stumbled upon Neverland and Peter Pan
Bingo
They hate the source material, but still want to make a movie with it. They'll destroy canon, and hope to make money while doing so. A depraved lot.
@@zamar2158 The good news is that Fox's Peter Pan & the Pirates is great.
Truly, sounds, absolutely, interesting.
@@bartholomew1096 Absolutely, missing, most, versions.
I think the best Peter Pan live action is the 2003 version with Jeremy Sumpter and Jason Isaacs. Peter is on point, Wendy is sassy but not disagreeable, and Capt Hook is more threatening. And most importantly it's fun and visually breathtaking!
Add on clocks by Coldplay in the trailers and you're introduced to a great band
Holy hell I love that movie a lot like it’s so cool and I still love it, even if the CGI and things now is debatable
I love that they got rid of Wendy's gentle, nurturing personality that taught the lost boys about how important and natural it was to grow up. Which led the change in them. I adore how they got rid of the fact that the reason there were no girls who were lost was because girls were too smart to get lost. I love that they made everyone much less likable versions of themselves, even when the try to make hook more a more tragic character, all they manage to do is destroy Peter's character without improving Hook at all.
Why does Disney think "modern audiences" want terribly written stories with forced diversity and bad messages that don't really stand the test of time like the original ones did?
I'm sorry, but nothing in this movie was inspired. I was bored throughout the entire thing. Law's performance was great, but it's not enough to save this movie. Tinkerbell had no real personality- even Peter apparently can't understand her anymore despite them having been friends for many, many years. Wendy, of course, can take on full grown men in actual sword fights because she pretend dueled with her little brothers with wooden swords. Tiger Lily insists on speaking her native language, even to people who don't understand it-when she knows English and knows that they can't speak her language.
This movie is very bland. Neverland is missing pretty much all of its charm, and there's very little color in this movie. Also, I wasn't convinced Tinkerbell actually cared about anything happening even in scenes where it's assumed she'd be upset. They made Peter much less charming, not only due to the acting, but just the actions and dialogue given to the character. Wendy had no real reason to slap him like that, but it's framed like she's in the right because i don't know, go girlboss Wendy with her happy thoughts of growing old and dying alone.
By the way while on the topic of peter pan what do you think of the 2002 sequel return to neverland? Is jane better than 2023 live action wendy?
@@aliefalyansyah5996 I haven't watched that movie in years, and I was only about 3 when it came out. I'd have to go watch it, but somehow I doubt she'd be any worse.
@@SebasTian58323 she actually quite similar to 2023 wendy but her backstory justified why.
@@aliefalyansyah5996 I see. But, what about the rest of the cast? Are they at least more fun than the borefest of Peter pan and Wendy?
@@SebasTian58323 they are mostly the same as in the original, but no tiger lily and crocodile with the only new character is just jane and an octopus. By the way this movie take place during ww2 and jane father is a pilot in the royal british air force. That's the reason why her character is justified.
Could you imagine how disappointed Walt Disney would be in the current state of Disney? I just watched a documentary about his history and that dude was so gifted at collaboration, creating amazing creation's, finding the right people for the right things. They were TRULY DIVERSE, genuinely talented like we rarely see. Dedicated and Passionate towards creating imagination bending works of art and they Really did understand all the aspects and processes that mattered. For what it took to create those works of art. *(I just saw that Ukraine just started creating 2d animation for their military videos and it really reminded me of what I saw Walt do during WW2)
I love seeing cartoon styled animated video's being used again. Just how Walt Disney did (out of his own pocket) he believed it was the least he could do for his country and his countrymen who were giving so much to the war to protect our nation and the greater good in the world. (If you think about it. Walt Disney did a lot for pushing advancements in science/creativity. He made understandable information that taught so many people of all ages, and from all sorts of different walks of life, to inform on very important matters and subjects of the time. Things that might seem out of place or difficult now, were completely relative to the current situations everyone was dealing with at that point in time. (The passion Walt gained for science and technology is what sparked his passion for Epcot and learning how to build all these cutting edge devices, city planning concepts, animatronics puppets of Abe Lincoln or the talking/signing birds in the tiki lounge. Plus all the other puppets on all the other interactions around his theme park. I just watched a documentary covering the career of Walt Disney and he really was a amazingly uniquely talented person. Where he himself had a insane drive towards innovation and new ideas BUT what I think his best trait was: That Walt was SO GOOD at interacting with everyone around him and he just had this amazing ability to find the PERFECT person for different jobs, things, roles. To really bring out the best in OTHER people around him. I truly believe that's one of the most important traits in a great leader. If anyone is in a group of people who are set on creating anything. (It's rare when someone comes across with the unique style and approach like Walt Disney had and really all it takes is to watch the coverage documentary that covers all of this uniquely awesome stuff that positively impacted SO MANY PEOPLE in so many ways and places. It didn't matter who you were, the chance that something from the Walt Disney era impacting you in a positive way is nearly 100% a possibility. There really was some of the best attributes of humanity, teamwork, and motivated passionate creativity that occured thru this group of Walt Disney era team members and we all could learn something from them. In some way or another.)
It's now run by the same people who run hollywood. They'll grind Disney into the ground after extracting every penny from it. They'll take a garden and make it a desert.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. It hurts me to see how he is belittled nowadays, and children don’t even know him. I got the honor to visit his hometown, his dreaming tree, barn, and even go inside his apartment at Disneyland.
That isn't the worst live action remake, yet that's like being "not the most unhealthy option on the McDonalds menu"
It’s more like saying the shit I took today was better than the shit I took yesterday.
I actually believe the healthiest entry in the Disney 2023 menu will be Wish.
@@diegodubber2140Do you still think that even after it released?
@@meta527II Actually, I now think the healthiest option in Disney's 2023 menu is Once Upon a Studio. As for Wish, I honestly kinda liked it.
@@diegodubber2140 so did I. Though I feel stupid for thinking that.
The fact that Hook use to be a lost boy, and never went straight to the hideout is kind of odd, don't ya think!
I just rewatched the 2003 version. It was beautiful, funny, magical, good characters, everything this movie is not. When Peter got wounded by Hook at the Black Castle, for the rest of the movie you can see that scar. The fairies were beautiful and GLOWED, music was fantastic, there was character growth. One shot from that movie had more color than this entire movie combined
I absolutely love that film. It's the only one that really tackles the book's subtext. The child actors were energetic and amazing and Isaacs is a fantastic Hook. Probably the most menacing one I've seen, while still having his funny moments.
What did they do to Tick Tock!? Not only did they diminish his role in the film, which included one of the best scenes in the original, but they turned him from a lovable comedic crocodile into a generic monster. Tick Tock is my favorite Disney character, and the reason I love crocodiles to this day. Seeing what the remake has done to him...In the immortal words of Don Corleone, "Look how they massacred my boy."
look how they massacred my boy
My friend thats all the remakes in a nutshell. lol
Disney: Want us to ruin Peter Pan
(Peter Pan in Chip n Dale Movie)
Disney: Want us do it again
(Peter Pan and Wendy movie)
They went full Goofy and did it again.
They should be eaten by the crocodile!
The thing that made what Chip n Dale did so bad wasn't anything to do with Peter Pan as a character, but how it mocked what happened to his original voice actor Bobby Driscoll.
@@Keznen it also cant stick to it's own universe rules because we later see a lost boy still youth age in his bear skin costume.
What happened and how did they mock him? I genuinely don’t know.
It's not the *absolute* worst of the live-action remakes; I did like the extra backstory we got for Captain Hook. But my God it's one of the most boring remakes. Disney really needs to grow up and out of this Live-action phase.
That or focus on movies that need remakes
Agreed, but like this movie is so unnecessarly dark that l was troubling believing that THIS was a Peter Pan movie.
The backstory for Captain Hook was so unnecessary and half baked. If makes Peter Pan look like a complete piece of shit and makes Hook look far less villainous. He’s just a bad guy!! There’s nothing wrong with that
But Robin Williams wasnt Indian
The backstory was unnecessary and added nothing substantial to Hook or Peter.
I don't even like the twist of the story that Peter and Hook were once friends and Hook was the first Lost Boy. Peter Pan is arguably several hundred years old and canonically the only person in Neverland that never grows up. Barrie, I think, said that Peter is so stubborn that he simply refuses to grow up. It would chronologically make no sense to make Hook the first Lost Boy because he would grow up like a normal person and should long be dead during the events of the movie. Hook is maybe in his late 40s in this movie, yet he's supposed to be the first Lost Boy?
This could only be true if Peter Pan was alone for a very long time until he eventually decided to look for boys with no home or boys that ran away/fell out of their cribs.
The whole story implies that Peter Pan has not been Peter Pan, the hero of Neverland, for a long time, which makes no sense since in this movie version there are even stories about him in the real world. He has to be pretty damn old, so how can Hook be the first Lost Boy then? He was his best friend and they both arrived at Neverland at the same time which means they were both alive at the same time in real life. When Hook tried to go back to his mother but failed and was instead raised by pirates, he would be long dead before the events of this movie take place.
It also makes no sense that Hook does not know where Peter's hideout is when they were best friends and he used to live there.
Anyway, this movie is garbage and not worth anyone's time.
Just read the book "The Lost Boy" 😅
@@yanaratkevich3214 but that isnt the original story or backstory of hook.. lol
Also, they fucked up the connection between George Darling and James Hook (Yes, that's canonically his real first name.). As on stage tradition is that Hook and George share the same actor, and in every adaptation up til this point, it was always followed to a tee. And while it might not be intentional, it actually works from a symbolic point of view. As Wendy and her siblings are scared of their father due to him wanting his daughter to grow up, even though she clearly isn't ready for it. And so, when they first see and hear Hook, they'll immediately see their father in him. But this film completely fucked it up by having them be played by different actors, showing that they have no respect for J.M. Barrie's stageplay or novel. Have either Jude Law or Alan Tudyk play both Hook and George. I don't care which one, but they should've made them portrayed by the same actor out of respect for J.M. Barrie's stageplay/novel.
It's, entirely, possible, Jude Law refused to play, both, roles, and, Alan Tudyk's, not, nearly, a, big-enough, headliner, to get, top-billing, simple as that.
@@matthewdaley746 Jude Law couldn't play both. The director basically forced him to stay in character at all times, and to be curt and unpleasant around the kids on set to make them scared of him for real so it'd look more "authentic" on screen. I seem to recall a news article where Law felt so bad about it that he eventually broke character against instructions near the end of the shooting and apologized, bought ice cream for all the kids in the cast, and spent a significant amount of time just socializing with them between shots thereafter to make up for it and prove that he wasn't really a bad guy.
The writers behind this don’t care about respect for the original creators or earlier writers. In the latest Star Wars saga, look at what they did to Luke Skywalker and his lightsaber that was passed down to him by his father through Obi Wan, his caretaker from afar and first Jedi master. Luke tosses the lightsaber like it’s an empty beer can when it was returned to him after decades of it being thought forever lost. Even the actor felt that was out of character.
These same type of writers don’t care about respect and I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve never watched or read the original source material.
@@brootal4234 same tbh it’s just so incredibly disrespectful and they clearly don’t have a love for it either.
@Ninclow I suspected as much, that truly should have led to a recast as a hallmark of the original story, now, had to be completely replaced, how, terrible, really, terrible, period.
Can't we just watch the 2003 live action Peter Pan? It's a good movie!
Can we just have the crocodile eat everyone? Like, everyone? Hook, Peter, Wendy, John, Michael, Tinkerbell, Tiger Lily, the mermaids, literally everyone.
afterwards neverland gets nuked.
@@SkyPilot-qx2sb Yeah, and the crocodile is the only one who survives. In fact, he becomes a mutant. No, a Kaiju!
@@nagyakos8467 The good news is that Fox's Peter Pan & the Pirates is great.
Desires get unfulfilled, unfortunately.
@@SkyPilot-qx2sb Codes instantly sent, terrific.
You know the funniest bit for me today (i find difference bits funny each day) is that they go on about Wendy saves Peter cos she's a girl boss etc. However in Peter Pan 2003 Peter is torn down by Hook (quite viciously as he plays on Peter struggling with feelings) and Wendy saves him with a kiss and by believe in Peter - this version she's a nasty piece of work and there's no chemistry 😂😂
I didn’t mind the Pete’s Dragon remake to be honest.
Yeah that movie was ok.
It was one of the few good ones along with The Jungle Book remake and the 2015 Cinderella one (NOT the later 2021 one, that was one of the worst).
That remake & the jungle book remakes were fine
It’s Cinderella (2015), The Lion King 2019, Mulan, Pinocchio, and now this I can’t stand and I bet you the Lilo & Stitch remakes gonna suck too
Funny you mention that film since this was directed by the same guy, David Lowery.
@@tylerfish2701 wat.
I personally think that actor didn’t want to portray Peter Pan in the first place, how else could he have sounded so F ing Monotoned and lifeless.
I think he thought he nailed it. No one told him any different. It made it to screen.
In fairness, the original Peter stalked Wendy, too. He would listen to Wendy tell her brothers stories about him at night! This version turned Peter from being a cute, harmless, narcissistic stalker to a depressing, needs-to-be-incarcerated type of stalker! 🤣
Boy, I hate to see Sweet Pete's reaction after he got out to the asylum from last year's Recuse Ranger Movie only to be betrayed by Disney even more!!!!
Even the Rescue Rangers film last year was more accurate to Pan’s character than this remake
Who remembers the Peter Pan live action remake? You know, the one where Peter Pan was a blond who turned super sayain pink when Wendy kissed him?
Disney kept the movie so dark in an attempt to hide their bad affects
Another thing that happens when switching character races is that when they do this they cannot have any flaws. So Peter could no longer have any flaws, because he is now representing people of coller.
Let"s Hope that this Year, at least "Elemental" and "Wish" be Actually Good and they Save Disney!
Honestly, I want those movies to make the internet eat it’s words, Wish especially. Dreamworks and Illumination have been getting way too much praise lately.
Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhaahha. Yeah no that’s not gonna happen.
"Elemental" is shaping up to be a clichefest, unfortunately. Forbidden love, lazy allegories, blah blah blah.
Don't know what "Wish" will be like, but it's definitely yet another movie that would look infinitely better in 2D.
@@firecrakerj3312 -🤓
Never heard of those movies LMAO
the 2003 Peter Pan live action was already an AMAZING adaption so to do another one 20 years later just makes me laugh. I grew up with the 2003 one and had a crush on that Peter and Wendy and Hook honestly, just damn. Di$ney dropping the ball again just for some nostalgia bucks. I hope they figure their shit out but soulful people in higher paying jobs are few and far between 😭
One of the best scenes is when wendy turned on her brother's and blamed them for something that was her fualt, and it was never touched upon.
To quote the original 1953 movie, "All this has happened before, and it will all happen again."
Man why is no one mentioning
Peter Pan 2003 which wasnt made by Disney
You know I’d love to see a subversion of this story where it starts out as normal, but then hook reveals Peter is the bad guy. How all the lost boys eventually wished to grow up and left leaving Peter all alone so he’s trying to get more kids to stay but this time isn’t letting them leave, even if he has to use force
I am SO SICK of these remakes making the leading lady boring and practically perfect by taking out ALL flaws that made the character relatable! Tinker Bell in the original was quirky, hot-headed, and competitive, while also being fun and expressive. Now she's a Mary Sue like every other live action lady, right there with Belle, Jasmine, and Mulan!
Yeah, I hate they actually stopped even treating female characters as people. They are not allowed to have flaws or show basically anything other than a pretty neutral face. Big news Disney, you can make entertaining flawed characters without making them complete morons or awful people. Thou, honestly any of these would be better with good character development, than what we are constantly getting.
What are your thoughts on the Disney sequel Return to Neverland, and the 2003 adaptation by Universal Studios which stars Jeremy Sumpter as Pan? I ask this because, aside from the original Disney version, those were the Peter Pan movies I grew up watching.
Also the 1991 version with the late Robin Williams, Hook.
@@diegodubber2140 He already brought up Hook.
@@DanielChannel57 Yeah, I know that. It's just that I love that movie.
Honestly, Return To Neverland managed to be a good follow up to Peter Pan's legacy more than this remake! Yes, the one Disney direct to video sequel I actually liked did better than this movie!
Actually, Return to Neverland did received a theatrical release worldwide, unlike most Disney animated sequels which instead were released straight to video
I know that. But my point is that at least it managed to be better unlike how the live action movie did.
The only positive thing I can say about this movie is that the costumes are pretty good. I like how earthy and whimsical the costumes for Peter, Tinkerbell, and the lost boys are. The gold embroidery for Hooks costume is a nice detail and the costumes for the Darling family was a nice depiction for the era it takes place in. But everything else really isn’t good like how they refused to use the correct lighting for the actress of Tinkerbell and everyone else or how the director forced Jude Law to be mean to the child actors off camera for the sake of “accuracy”. I honestly feel bad for the people who had to work on this, especially the child actors since they had no choice. Also I haven’t watched the movie but I just noticed they got rid of the dog, which is probably a good thing since it’d look terrible bc Disney refuses to not overwork their SFX teams.
Wait what, the director forced Jude Law to do what??
1:46
A word to the wise, it's somewhat harsh to hold a movie turning 70 this year to the standards of today. No ill will was intended back then.
People have pointed out another reason to not throw tantrums at the over the top Indian portrayals: you can view them as a child's imagination of native Americans
Ah yes the 1950s where kids were obsessed about Cowboys and Indians. The times where we didn't know how culturally insensitive and how overly sensitive it would become
Anytime they put remakes on Disney+, it’s a huge red flag. Like they know it’s shit so they just unload it on their platform and barely advertising it
It seems like theyve destroyed the characters of Peter and Wendy. Hes supposed to be likeable, cocky and good at just about everything. Wendy is supposed to be a great mother-figure. Instead, Wendy in this movie is a jerk to her brothers and an even bigger jerk to Peter. And they made Peter an evil bastard for what he does to Hook.
I miss Tinkerbell being jealous about Peter liking Wendy and I miss the scene where she tries to kill Wendy and she doesn’t even feel bad about it was so funny😂😂. The Tinkerbell in this movie is basically absent and has no personality whatsoever
I don’t know why they made a live-action when Universal already made the PERFECT live-action in 2003. They’re just gonna be compared and Disney obviously lost.
the only compelling character was hook. everyone else was flat, just there. hook gave it emotion so i felt for him. what pan did to him was exceptionally awful, actually unforgivable. i didnt care that he wanted to kill pan and the rest of the ''lost boys'' lol. at least that would be the end if it.
When will disney stop making live action remakes
When the they run out of movies to remake
When people stop watching them, even to hate watch.
When they stop making them money.
@@jeremyusreevu237👍👍👍👍
The live action: ALICE IN WONDERLAND, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, ALADDIN, THE LION KING all made over $1billion (THE JUNGLE BOOK just missed it, making $995million.
Disney won't stop until they stop making money.
I would actually like to recommend the 2003 Peter Pan movie it’s actually really good
I am more looking forward to the horror parody, PETER PANS NEVERLAND NIGHTMARE
Everytime with these.
Disney needs to make more entertainment like Moon Girl, The Owl House, or Encanto; and less of these pointless wastes of time & money.
They need to make more entertainment like Princess and The Frog and Cinderella III: A Twist In Time. Those movies were masterpieces in every way and were the last truly great Disney movies.
8:05 and 12:32 Tom's faces are hilarious 🤣😂😅.
This movie fundamentally changes everything magical and heartfelt about the Peter Pan story. It’s a TERRIBLE adaptation. A soulless corporate product
Second star to the right, straight on til…..a very pale looking morning…seriously, where’s the color?!
They’re in the Shadowfell. Lol
"I think I prefer the racism because we actually got a catchy song from that"
I was doing something else so I didnt get the full context, so i wtfed so hard
2003 Peter Pan and Hook from 1991 are just BETTER!!!!
Ah well, at least we have Universal's 2003 version.
The only good live action. Hook was also great.
Jason Isaacs, was, great, he, was, also, the only good thing about, The, Patriot, and, I, usually, like, Roland Emmerich, that simple.
@@madpsycho6 Hook, "could," have been great, it, was, just far too long, and, Dustin Hoffman, took his sweet time arriving Steven Spielberg got, yet, another, unearned pass.
I wish that movie had stuck with the original ending though.
@@vetarlittorf1807 Original endings, are, truly, a tricky thing, it's. simply, a rarity when the page gets to the screen in total complete form.
I love the part where Wendy said to Peter "Your surgeon sucks!" while looking at his stitched up wound in disgust. Truly one of the most stitch-breaking, amazing, marvelous scenes of all time.
If you want to watch a good live action Peter Pan movie(beside Hook), watch the 2003 version. It fixes some of problems of the animated movie, but doesn't make the same mistake from this current movie.
For example, while 2003 Peter is nicer than the animated Peter, he's still a little shit at times. It really must be seen at once.
Normally l would desagree with Raisor or ignore it as a whole, but l actually agree with him. (even tho the video is not out yet)
Like l've watched the entire movie and not once have l felt invested on the story, the setting, the characters, ALL OF IT!! l just watch it because l was curious on how they would make Peter and Hook's origin, which is unnecessarily disturbing and out of place.. And l get it, most remake origins movies needed to be dark, but did they really needed to do this with Peter Pan? Which was adapted in most ways and far better than this?
Hook was awesome. The original Peter Pan was amazing. The 2003 Peter pan was colorful and effects, from what I remember, might be better than this live action, which is pathetic since there are 20 years between them. I think I'll still with those films. This one doesn't seem worth it... shocking. I haven't seen most of the remakes because they're just not great.
2003 is undoubtedly the best and most authentic live action homage to Peter Pan along with Hook. 2003 is so perfect of an adaptation and ageless that it renders this Disney version absolutely obsolete imo
The 2003 did such a good job at not only staying true to the original story but also to the plays and the Disney movie, stylistically it felt like something out of a story book and the design of the island was directly inspired by the cartoon. The most hilarious thing about all of this is the fact that Universal and TriStar represented Disney's cartoon better than Disney even could lol
I guess you could say it got PANNED by critics.
RaisorBlade(Singing):"Wake me up when Peter Pan dies".
Peter Pan:(*Smashes through floor*)
Me: LMAO😂
Oh, boy. Disney must be really obsessed with remakes.
Even tho the majority of people hate the Disney remakes, we can't deny that they make Disney a *lot of money*
Peter Pan!
Starring Susan Pervensie!
Featuring a young Rishi Sunak before he become British PM!
And starring the Lost Harfoots!
And... re-used pirates from Hook!~
Plus... see the future actress for the Pocahontas live action movie!
LoL 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The beyonder was speaking gospel at the beginning
Im surprised you didn’t recommend or talk about the live action Peter Pan from like 2003. Great live action version!
The director for this comes from my homestate, I liked his Pete’s Dragon remake, still think this looks like a dour telling of Peter Pan…
Hook with Robin Williams is still my favorite live action pan film.
I hope the upcoming Little Mermaid movie is better thsn this. Although considering Disney's track record for remakes, that's not saying much
The major problem I have with this movie is that they took Tinkerbelle (a very famous Disney charatcer they had) and changed her race just for the sake of being woke and having another victim of bad attempts at inclusivity.
Oh I’m sorry! You think that only happened to Tinkerbelle?! Just ask the Fairy from Pinocchio, Ariel OR FRICKING VELMA FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!
Idk if anyone else noticed that POWER POINT TRANSITION after Wendy slapped Peter, that had me cackling💀🤣
You know what’s funny? Despite the original Peter being a bigger asshole overall, he still made the smarter/more heroic decision to distract the pirates when he and the Darling children first got to Neverland. He gets the indication from the first canon ball that the pirates are targeting them, then immediately instructs Tink to take Wendy and the others to safety, showing that for as reckless as he is he’s still not going to needlessly endanger his friends.
In the new film? Despite the Darlings not having any combat experience and already knowing that the pirates are firing at them, Peter still plans to take the fight to the pirates and risks their safety by having them stay in firing range with him.
book peter would endanger his friends because everything is a game to him and he has no concept of death. hed even switch sides and start killing them for fun.
in the movie, while he was directing the darlings, i thought wtf? that kid is dreaming. after she slapped him he said he thought she wanted an adventure as if it was all part of the plan. she washed up on the beach with his hat, as of he left it as a token that he saved her because she did just get there and he didnt want her to drown just yet lol. funny wendy being mad at peter when the darlings knew there were pirates in never land and came there anyway.
They have gone so so far from the original novel that one starts wondering, why they didn't make a story about Mary Sue in Wokeland instead? Why they insist in destroying products that have become beloved classics on their own?
The remake is such a disservice to the animated film, but also the original J.M. Barrie story
At least its not as worse as Pinocchio 2022.
See the previous anecdote, also, ecstatic that a different version prevented, Turning Red, from taking home the Oscar, no question.
AI was a better Pinnochio remake than the 2022 version. It was cyberpunk Pinnochio merged with Blade Runner.
@@slipstreamxr3763 Yeah, though, that film, was, so, dark, you, practically, needed a miner's helmet to, actually, see anything, a titanic wreck.
The 2003 Peter Pan movie was a better remake and was a much more faithful adaptation of the original play than whatever this contrived drivel was.
0:06 what is disney obsession with live action remakes the originals aged like the finest wine
I would bet that if you asked a child what he thought of the movie he would say that it was pretty good. But six months later if you asked him if he wanted to watch it again he would simply say "Nah." I have never seen the animated version but I was laughing out loud at the clips where the alligator keeps swallowing Hook. If you had asked the child six months later these images would automatically pop into his head and his response would have been a resounding "YES!"
But the original Peter is also has some good moments like when he saved Tiger Lily and tried to save the three from Captain Hook by trying to draw his fire towards him while Tinker Bell took the three to safety
And saved everyone when they were captured by Captain Hook
I'm glad everyone hates the new peter pan movie. Idk how Disney thought it was a good idea to remake it, like don't they read or listen to people online? Everyone knew it should be a shit movie, apparently, Disney didn't
Can you blame Hook being petty? Getting your hand cut off by a 12 year old especially THAT 12 year old, it feels natural.
Shouldn’t Hook have already known where they were? Since he used to be one of the lost boys? They even showed his old room. All of it sucks lol
I thought "Peter Pan"(2003) was a far superior live action telling of the same story. Jason Isaacs is my favorite Captain Hook, after Hans Conreid in the 1953 animated Disney film.
Funny enough, my big lament with this film is that they didn't swap roles for Jude Law and Alan Tudyk. Tudyk's a great character actor who likely could've brought more humor to this version of Hook simply through his deliveries. He's used to being over the top, while Law is more used to subtlety, romcom charm, and his "sense of wonder" expression. Let Tudyk put in the legwork and Hook will be an adult brat. Let Law be Mr. Darling, and the finale will have a version of the original's magic where the father remembers a bit of his childhood we can only guess at.
Would the film have been good? Probably not. It would've been better casting though. Sad they blew it over wanting more screen time for a big name
I do have a problem with representation though. When it's forced and used to fill in DEI quotas and to boost ESG scores. Like this movie does. Let's fix old timey racism with modern racism. What could possibly go wrong?
It’s best to stay to watch the original animated version of Disney’s Peter Pan
I’ll wait for the Brazzers parody.
This movie reeks of someone was working on the first draft of a dark broody Peter Pan that wanted to explore the dark side of the Peter Pan story, and then in a couple more drafts iron out what they wanted to say but Disney came along, yanked the half finished first draft, threw a bunch of money at it and didn’t care what happened one way or another just so they keep the IP of Peter Pan a bit longer.
Which, in a way is the same problem the movie Hook fell into which is you can see the idea of delving into the darker aspects about Peter Pan like the dangers of never growing up, the lack of mothers and fathers, the fear of change, etc....then threw that all out the window so we can have a childish ending with Robin Williams in Green tights acting like a spazzy 8 year old. And I say that as someone who loves Hook.
Tinkerbell is black?
But in the 2015 Hugh Jackman movie Pan, Tigerlily was played by a Rooney Mara, a white actress. Tigerlily is supposed to be Native American....Funny how nobody white complained...Hmm 🤔
Oh & we already had a multiracial gang of Lost Boys waaay back in ‘92 in Hook.
Hey, Blade! There was another peter pan movie with 6:01 this plot and it was the "Pan" (2015-16) movie....
that had H. Jackman as blackbeard...
The director probably hated Peter Pan and killing him gruesomely is testament to that…
There already was a live-action version from 2003, and a live-action pseudo-sequel with Robin Williams playing an adult Peter Pan! Both of those films (and the original animated version) are leagues above this 2023 "Woke" Disney DUMPSTER FIRE of a "remake". Wendy is now an absolute c**t, the Lost Boys now has girls in it (completely contradicting the original novel and source material), Peter Pan is now a Beta Male and a villain, Tiger Lilly keeps switching between languages (while still expecting everyone else to understand her), and Tinker Bell is just an annoying distraction that adds nothing to the actual plot! This 2023 "remake" is "problematic"; NOT the films, shows, plays, and books that came before!
The 2003 live action Peter Pan seems to have done more of a better adaptation, and don't plan to see this one by Disney.
Reminder 1983, 1991 & 2003 are best Peter Pan adaptation
Honestly if they wanted to make a dark Peter Pan film they should have just adapted the song portrait of pirate f. That would have been interesting at least, though it is definitely more Peter Pan fan fiction than anything.
So far, aside from Hook (which was beyond different), the only good Peter Pan Live action was the 2002 version with Jeremy Sumpter
i always thought disney had already made a live action peter pan a few years ago! because it was always on TV, even Tinker Bell had the IDENTICAL appearance of her version of the disney movie! but the story was a little different, the end of the movie had all the lost boys being adopted by Wendy's family! Like, everything in that old movie looked like a live action classic movie, I myself thought it was really from Disney! I would say that movie is a more interesting live action adaptation than this one!
I am once again advocating for 2003 live action superiority
classic peter pan: haha neverland is cool u should go.
remake peter pan: i know where you live.