PETER PAN MOVIE vs. the BOOK, WHICH IS BETTER??

I just wanted to get peoples opinion on what they thought was better, the book or the movies (Hook, Disney's version or the recent 2003 version).

What basic themes do you think the movies added/removed compared to the book?
How do you think this changed the story of the movie?
Were there any crucial scenes/characters in the movie that were not portrayed correctly in the book?

For me - I thought the 2003 version did not present Wendy as the book did. The movie presented a romance between Peter and Wendy that was not as emphasized in the book. Along with emphasizing the romance they took away their focus a bit on Wendy being a mother for the Lost Boys. The book on the other hand showed us clear evidence of Wendy being a caring mother.

I would appreciate any opinions.:)

First of all, I can not rank the original book and the 2003 film in which one is better. They're both equally good. I can't pick a favorite really because they're so different yet so similiar. But if I really really HAD to make my pick, I would pick the book. Simply because it goes much deeper with everything an dthe lack of two-way-romance makes it even more unique than it already is with everything else.

What basic themes do you think the movies added/removed compared to the book?

The Disney cartoon: Seems to have taken only, and ONLY the never-grow-up theme and disgraced or completely everything (else.) Especially themes that matter. And yet sadly, the Disney cartoon is what people think Peter Pan is... I can't believe the children's hospital, which held the copyrights back then, allowed Walt Disney PIctures to do this. Most importantly this film totally ignores especially Peter's mother issue, and the whole growing up thing is also ery shallowly put. It just is there without any point to it. The characters themselves have been disgraced - Hook is a total coward and a clown, when originally he's supposed to be this cruel, vile and truly scary villain even if with slightly comical touch. The crocodile is some stupid, drooling puppy dog type of thing, when it's supposed to be big, scary monster. And even though he is the puppy dog in this cartoon, Hook still fears it like crazy, which makes poor Hook even more pathetic character. Wendy's a babbling idiot and in Peter they ignore all his issues and most of his personality features all in all and have made him some kind of an elf instead of a human boy. The Darling parents don't even notice their children are gone, which is a MAJOR hole in the story. I could go on forever. In short; the cartoon ignored everything that matters and also little original details such as the thimble and acorn symbolizing kisses... This cartoon just couldn't get more disgracaful and far from the book.

Hook: Well... Isn't this a Disney film too? At least it could be since again, this film isn't even trying to care about the original story and characters. Hook is still a bit too much of a clown although fortunately not even nearly as much as the cartoon version. And must be given kudos for actually taking notice of the mothe rissue of Peter's but that is actually only refered to in couple of lines... but at least it is pointed out a little. The original script focuses on Peter's past a bit more... but I think their theories and analysing on Peter's psychological issues with the whole not wanting to grow up thing are not even trying to be logical or base on what's told in the book. In example, the film claims Peter didn't want to grow up because "everyone who grow up have to die some day", while it's literally said in Peter's words in the book that he thinks of dying as an awfully big adventure, and that it's the living in a grown up world he wanted to avoid in the first place.

I think Peter's also grown up into too radically out-of-character personality but at least it's excused with the fact he doesn't remember anything from the time before he decided to stay in this world instead of going back to Neverland. I also don't believe he would've truly grown up for anyone but Wendy, while this film suggests he loved Wendy's granddaughter enough to give up Neverland and face his issues. Makes no sense to me. This film is too alternate universe with illogic and thoughtless storyline,. Good entertainment but doesn't do justice to the book and the characters. The only thing really good in this film is the atmosphere of Neverland, which isn't too magical but a little creepy.

Peter Pan (2003): This adaptation finally respects the characters. Hook has his comical touch but it lurks in there, it's not the main point. This version of Hook does justice to the original character. As do all the other character versions and the actors were chosen well. Neverland is way too magical but then again that's ok. It's beautifully done and serves the romance theme they added. Though I think romance in a darker, creepy neverland would've been even better. It would've been great if this most loyal adaptation would've gone so loyal that it had made clear Neverland is a place inside sleeping children's heads and everything they dream to be there, is there for real should they ever get to Neverland awake. Like Wendyy's pet wolf.

I think the way they had Peter too feel romantically for Wendy was a good addition since they were pre-teenagers instead of the 5-year olds they originally are. And it would've been perfect addition had they not hidden the mother issue of Peter's and how much it affected his feelings and relationship with Wendy. And also how willingly Wendy gave him the motherly comfort. WOuld've loved to see in this film the scene where Peter was crying in his sleep and Wendy comforted him. I say, if we're not looking for a perfect copy of the book in a film form, this adaptation could've been the ultimate one if they had respected the motherless child theme which I honestly think the very basic and most important theme of Peter Pan, the story and the character...and possibly also had Neverland the more dark place rather than the magical wonderland. I also think it would've been important to show that Peter didn't forget about Wendy but came back again and again the copule of next years and again after 20 years or so. The Peter/Wendy relationship is all in all the heart of the story and supposed to be exceptionally strong especially from peter's side, so suggesting Wendy NEVER saw Peter Pan again is just so wrong. But all in all this is very respecctable adaptation. I especially applaud that this hints to Peter's mother issue in many scenes and dialogs, ALSO showing that it deeply affects him. Unlike certain other film adaptations.

How do you think this changed the story of the movie?

Disney cartoon: As said, the Darling parents don't even notice their kids are gone, which is ridiculous. They were gone for months originally and the parents were positive theyy'd never see their children again and were grieving. Hook doesn't die though he does in the book. The Lost Boys don't shoot Wendy down but rather toss her down with random objects and she doesn't even fall and appear to be "dead" but Peter saves her just in time. The Lost Boys don't stay with the Darlings but return to Neverland with Peter which violates the whole point of the ending. And as said, Peter's mother issue is completely ignored. he actually seems to be the one character who really doesn't care about mothers, while truly he should be the one who cares about the matter the most.Gosh, this cartoon is a nightmare.

Hook: Well, obviously this is completely different, alternate universe story, so... that's about it, I guess.

Peter Pan (2003): As said, this is the most loyal adaptation. But this added the romantic love from Peter's side while in the book he seemed to think of Wendy simply as a mother-figure - and this affects some scenes that do exsist in the book but are not exactly romantic unlike they are in the film. Oh and it doess add the kiss on the lips in the end, which doesn't happen in the book. I don't think Wendy's brothers were kidnapped, at least not at the same time with princess Tiger Lily. Also it was Peter Tiger Lily had a crush on, not John. There is no aunt Millicent in the book, but she's not completely made up - she replaces the character Lisa...at least basically. I have no idea why did they make such a change. In the book's end it's Wendy's mother and Wendy at the window and they're trying to lure Peter to stay andd grow up, which he of course won't do while in the film it's just Wendy and him - I'm positive this is because of the romance, they probably wanted them to have together-alone farewell moment. In the book's end it's told Peter came back to take Wendy to Neverland during spring cleaning, for couple of years after they first returned home but then he didn't come anymore after some 20 years had passed by and he obviously hadn't noticed how time had flown. The film's ending says Wendy never saw him again. I suppose that was more dramatic ending for the romance... Though the DVD release has the alternate ending which is a raw version of the book's actual ending. Nice tto have it at least in the bonus features. So I think the two-way-romance affected pretty much everything...

Were there any crucial scenes/characters in the movie that were not portrayed correctly in the book?
I think you meant that the other way around. But I actually think I already answered this question in the other answers. In the cartoon and Hook there certainly was, but the 2003 film managed to stay on the right track regardless of the romance.

okay I will be happy to give my opinions. I can't quote many of the things you both said but I will be reffering to some things that you both mentioned.

Disney version: obviously its a little less detailed than the book. Its disney for goodness sake! ha! we dont want our children to fear growing up. Some kids think about growing up and becoming an adult at a very young age. This version helps them realize that they still need to be a kid for as long as possible. And when they do grow up they can still be a kid in their own way.

Hook: I like it because its just another thought. What would Pan be like if he left neverland and grew up? How would Hook be? How would the lost boys be? Its a whole new thought to what Peter Pan's life could have been. It makes my mind think even more.

2003: Is by far my favorite Peter Pan movie. It is actually the closest movie ever made about Peter Pan to the actual book itself. Again I said closest. It shows how each character really acts and what they feel. Yes it does enhance the romance between peter and wendy but what film doesnt today? It shows that their love for one-another is rare and forbidden. It makes the audience want them to continue their relationship even though it just can not be. The action is amazing and really who doesnt want to just relax and watch a movie not having to picture it in your mind and think of how they would sound or look like. It is suppose to make things simple and easy for almost 2 hours. This movie takes me away from reality to Neverland every time I watch it. I love it.

Book: Yes I love the book more than the movies but once in awhile I need a break from mind. The book will always be the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilyPan

Disney version: obviously its a little less detailed than the book. Its disney for goodness sake! ha! we dont want our children to fear growing up. Some kids think about growing up and becoming an adult at a very young age. This version helps them realize that they still need to be a kid for as long as possible. And when they do grow up they can still be a kid in their own way.

---

True enough and I respect that but let me still say ”a little less detailed” is seriously dismissing the fact this cartoon had nothing significant in it from the book. Nothing. The old Disney was way over-protective towards children and in my opinion underestimate their (emotional) intelligence. of course since every child is an individual, a parent should be anyways watching movies with very young children so they can try to explain them there and then if something seems to upset the child. And anyhow – this film didn’t have to fire up any fear of growing up as the basic point of Peter’s fear of growing up was his mistrust towards adults and mothers and if this film clearly pointeed THAT out and then that Wendy’s parents would’ve been worth Peter’s trust - even young children could’e got the important message that growing up isn’t in fact bad, adults CAN be trusted and you should value your parents and family. This brings me back to how important I think it wouldn’ve been to be loyal to the book’s themes in this cartoon instead of making it shallow, pink little comedy for kids to laugh at. I know this film has the emotional mother song Wendy sings to the Lost Boys and so on but the Lost Boys aren’t even staing with the Darling family after all! And as said, this cartoon could’ve been so much more affective and educating if been more loyal to the book’s theme and still remain ”safe for kids”.

Think of ”The Lion King”. It’s for kids too but it doesn’t dress anything into pretty gowns; the main bad guy (Scar) IS purely bad and they don’t try to soften him by making him a clown like the do with Captain Hook. Scar is clever, dark and evil and they let it show – they even show very close up and detaily how he murders Simba’s daddy, the very moment of the murder as well! They show him put the blame on the child and what’s most important, they DON’T make it alright by magically resurrecting Mufasa in the end!! Yes, he does appear as a ghost to guide his son’s path which can be unrealistic but it still is very different from Disney’s typical stupid, magical literal resurrections. ”The Lion King” is frank and dark and yet shows a person can get through all that heartache and pain, all that darkness – without getting evrything back the way it was and trallallaa let’s dance into the sunset. ”The Lion King” teaches children the facts of life and death (mixed with just slightly fantasy in a good taste), the way it is, the way it should be. And have you ever heard of a child who got traumatized by this film? If so, blame the parents of that child, not this film. And anyways this film ha sit's comedy and light elements too, on top of the basic, dark theme but they don't steal anything away of the basic, dark but important message and theme, they just bring balance.

And think of ”The Black Cauldron”, which also is very, very dark story and film and in which the cute, fluffy creature sacrifices his life for his friends and the whole world. In a very depressed state of mind but matters not, he still does. And then in the end the main hero of the story wishes the creature to be resurrected and the witches magically do so. The creature’s sacrifice means NOTHING after that. Kids pick up a message that sacrifices are noble deeds and it doesn’t really matter if it kills you because magic can bring you back if your friends wish so and we all dance happily into the sunset. Better way to make it easier for young children to cope would’ve been to have some sort of memoriam for the little creature or a lovely memory flash back. A real life way to bring back the one who sacrifeiced himself. God, I hate this film’s ending.

My point is – Disney messes up children more by over-protecting them and making their stories way too much fantasy and pink and all happy endings, than it would by doing more film’s like ”The Lion King”, and if it had always done so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LilyPan

2003: Is by far my favorite Peter Pan movie. It is actually the closest movie ever made about Peter Pan to the actual book itself. Again I said closest. It shows how each character really acts and what they feel. Yes it does enhance the romance between peter and wendy but what film doesnt today? It shows that their love for one-another is rare and forbidden.

---

Forbidden? Explain please, that was interesting choice of word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VampireOutlaw

Forbidden? Explain please, that was interesting choice of word.

---

Forbidden because it's like every love story (yeah, it's also a love story). The hero and the damsel have a romance that either works or never will. Peter Pan is about a boy who doesnt grow up, not the boy who never grows up and ends up happy with a girl. So its forbidden since Wendy must follow the steps of her parents and become an adult. The time era definitly shows that.

This is hard to explain. im trying my best to explain but if you really think about it and the settings around the story, it makes sense as to why its forbidden.

Oh, right, I guess I do see it but I still don't think "forbidden" is the best word for it. As Wendy wasn't exactly required to do anything she didn't want to do anyways after all. Well, aunt Milicent maybe did but she wasn't what came between Peter and Wendy, no one specific really was but life and family in itself, which was what Wendy wanted to experience with all it has to give whereas Peter didn't trust in such thing anymore. So I'd say it was just simply rather impossible love than forbidden... But yes, I do see your point.

My first introduction to Peter Pan was, "ok this is going to show my age", the TV production starring Mary Martin. It was a stage adaption filmed for TV.
It was TV at its best back then. I never read the book, so I can't make any comparisons.

I am a huge Peter Pan fan. The play by JM Barrie, Hook, the TV version with Mary Martin, the TV version with Cathy Rigby, Finding Neverland, the 2003 movie version, Peter Pan the ballet. I love all of it. However, nothing compares to the original play by J.M. Barrie. He speaks of love in such a pure sense, and the reader is not privy to the fact that it is love until he has finished reading. Every sentence is beautiful.

I will say that if I had to pick a favorite TV or movie version, the Mary Martin version for TV (the hardest to find!) is the absolute best. I can still do the dance that Tiger Lily and her band of Indians perform. Ugawuga-wigwom!

i'm going to quote some words from the IDMB review, it tells everything i want to tell about the Peter Pan 2003 adaptation.

"......Up front I will say it: this is the best Peter Pan adaptation yet, and in what follows I will tell you why. Despite the film's quality, it failed at the box office, and for good reason. Insight into that shall be revealed as well. Such sage wisdom ye shall not find in other reviews. Read on.

The main thing that sets this adaptation apart from previous attempts is sexual tension. Yes, sexual tension. If you've read other reviews, no doubt it has been mentioned. Many people seem to take offense at said tension. Such people seem to forget what it was like to be in the age bracket of 12 - 14. The makers of this film don't dance around the fact that Wendy has just met the boy of her dreams, and he is ready to whisk her off to fantasy land. Much is made of the fact that they meet in the bedroom and play father and mother to the lost boys. The relationship of these two pre-teens is as complex as any two adults in any other movies. And the young actors handle the relationship with grace and authenticity.

The production itself is beautiful, albeit stylized. The filmmakers do not mask that neverland is a fantasy world, and it stays that from beginning to end. Every frame in this movie is beautiful. There are some moments that are literally breathtaking.

Ultimately what makes this film excellent is that it tells a story. And this story is centered on Wendy, and the boy of her dreams: Peter Pan. Except he cannot be the man of her dreams, and that is truly tragic. Captain Hook is the opposite: a man who cannot be young. A man who is "old, alone, and done-for" according to Pan. We end up exploring Wendy's psyche throughout the film, and it is almost perfectly achieved.

But why did this film fail at the box office? Competetion. Who can possibly defeat Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, two bigger and much more commercial adaptations of fantasy books? This film deserves to be a classic and is one of the best fantasy movies to date. All should see it, young and old. It is rich, beautiful, and exciting. "

This is for Vampireoutlaw.
This is Disney we are talking about. It's made for children. Do you really think any of the children watching it would care about how some of it doesn't relate to the film?
Yes, Captain Hook isn't as scary. Because, I'll say again, the film is for CHILDREN.
The film doesn't have to require everything that is in the book. It's a fun adaption from the book for people round the world to love and enjoy and release their inner child.
I'm 16 and I'm sure if you ask anyone from my generation, and younger or older, they will say Disney movies, including Peter Pan, was a big part of their childhood.
And it's easy too see why. It's A fun-filled film for familes with A happy ending. So what really is your problem?
The book of Peterpan is the book.
The film of Peterpan is the film.
No, they are not the same. But why should they be?
Sorry but it really annoys me that your moaning over nothing really.
Lighten up a bit?

I agree with a lot of what Vampireoutlaw said.

I think the 2003 film has a wonderful enchanting aura about it, a perfect mix of fantasy and early 20th century England. I thought the actors portrayed the characters very well. I also thought it was funny that the actor who plays Mr. Darling also plays Captain Hook. I loved this film the first time I saw it and I think I will always love it. There's something beautifully simple and magical about it. The soundtrack is absolutely perfect!

That said, I also like the book a lot. Kudos to the people who adapted the book for the 2003 film because there are a lot of things in the movie that I think are really good and really serve to make a timeless story which I would have had a difficult time extracting from J. M. Barrie's original text. I think the book is less romantic in the idealistic sense than the movie is, which fact has its pros and cons. Like Vampireoutlaw mentioned, in the book Wendy sees Peter Pan again after the first adventure in Neverland. If I remember correctly, she goes back to Neverland every spring to do Peter Pan's spring cleaning. The book also has a sense of humor that seems to lurk under the surface. It puts me in mind of A. A. Milne, but perhaps a little more mature. I love British humor, and I think the book is a perfect example of it, like with the fairies snatching babies when they fall out of their perambulators (which, by the way, is a fantastic British word :Chevy_anim:)

As for the Disney movie, there's something magical about that to. It's classic Disney, and I grew up watching it so I still like it. It's definitely more light-hearted and typical Disney fun. The one thing both movies seem to have portrayed the same is Peter Pan's love of adventure and his inclination to forget about things other than his present adventure on short-term notice. I think the book adds a little depth to this issue.

since you guys are really into peter pan, i was hoping you would give this a shot

http://www.online-literature.com/for...46#post1155046

i really think people should give the peter pan movies shoot and the books also. the first peter pan book ever made in history that was published in 1902 was the little white bird this novel was meant for adults not children, the novel was dark and creepy and for some random reason was developed to a children's book plus there are no lost boys or nerverland in this book i believe don't quote me on this, i believe there was only Peter, Wendy, and Wendy's parents in this book but I'm not sure. now the story we all know is he Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up, or Peter and Wendy, or for the newer tittle Peter pan. i did read the original book which my grandma gave me and the book is kind of dark full of hidden messages that i didn't understand at first. yes Peter cant handle the no mother issue, but the book Peter is mean much meaner than in any movie or modern book, he is greedy and mean which was taken out of the modern book and the movies. and hook well lets just put it this way if Peter is mean then you can imagine how hook is. but we have to remember that this were different times book were a lot darker than they are now because kids were not frighten by them back them, but i bet you if you read the original story to a five year old boy then he would have a totally different thought about Peter pan he would probably hate Peter pan, i remember that the first time i read this book i freaked out i couldn't sleep for about months, and that's what Disney tried to avoid on the Peter pan movie, for some reason back then kids were more scared of movies that books, back then kids were afraid of friking snow white and pinocchio, and parents would't let their kids watch it, so Disney had to make the movie more for kids, and come on most people here know peter pan because of the Disney movie. but lets discuss the movies. we all probably watched red riding hod movies and read the book and we ll know that every book is different, in some book red riding hood dies, and in some the wolf dies, or the granny. and the three musketeers there are a bunch of different books. and Sherlock homes. the thing is that like every author has their own stile every movie producer or director has their own creativity. and the modern book that we all know of Peter pan took ideas from other Peter pan books, the lost boys,Wendy's personality, and Peter's personalities all taken from different books. and the movie Hook was made by Steven Spielberg the best director in the fricking world, i liked hook its not a bad movie and it was pretty funny too, also i allays wanted to know what happened to peter pan after Wendy. Peter pan 2003 was pretty good i thought it was funny and it's great for kids of any age, but what i didn't like is the romance i mean Peter pan didn't want to grow up and romance is a part of growing up, i just think that part of the movie could have been better after all most kids prefer the Peter vs hook fight, and they turn away in the kiss part, why would you put a kiss in kids movie were most kids will not look at it, and they would't understand it either, i think this movie is more for younger teens between 11 and 13 not for kids 3 to 10. what i really liked about this movie is neverland you just look at it and say wow that is cool, its a place were you would like to live in ii think the director went all out on the part. i remember reading that the creator of Peter pan J.M Barrie said that he left a lot of part unexplained for people to expand on it. the Disney movie added the fun and creativity to Peter pan. Hook added after Wendy story. and peter pan 2003 added the romance and changed the way you look at neverland. Peter pan is a story that was made by many authors and movie makers. after is a book based on imagination. the only book and movie left is the story of Peter before Wendy, the lost boys, and Hook. after all "all kids grow up, except for one" long live the Peter pan movies and books new and old.

sorry for my bad grammar didn't check it before i published it

If you used paragraphs, that would make it more readable.