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

[peterpan2301]

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.

[VampireOutlaw]

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.

[LilyPan]

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.

[VampireOutlaw]

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.

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.

[LilyPan]

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.

[VampireOutlaw]

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.

[Lynne50]

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.

[heethar73]

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!