I have never liked Peter Pan in this movie, and I couldn't quite put my finger on it until I read the Trivia and it said "Though the film was extremely successful, Walt Disney himself was dissatisfied with the finished product. He felt that the character of Peter Pan was cold and unlikable."
does anybody else feel this way?
I mean, I liked Jeremy Sumpter's Peter, as well as Robin Williams, but not this one.
[deleted]
Interesting, because "cocky, distant, and irresponsible" are the exact qualities of the book Peter Pan. He is a cruel child, not at all likeable really. He was going to kill Tootles with an arrow before Wendy woke up. He cut off Hook's hand and basically antagonized him by feeding it to the crocodile in front of him. It's also implied that he has killed lots of pirates (duh) and actually may have killed other Lost Boys also. This is from the book.
share[deleted]
No need to get snippy. I was only trying to prevent a comment like "But the pirates were so mean! They had every right to kill them!"
shareOh, it is so good to hear someone besides myself say that. Everyone seems to have the notion that Peter is some sweet, innocent, idyllic child. What rot. I had the JM Barrie book read to me when I was five - I have never had any use for Peter. He is actually a very dark, dangerous, and rather scary character in addition to being cocky, distant, narsacistic, etc. So if that is how Walt Disney himself saw the character turn out in his version, then he hit the nail on the head. The lost boys were more like "Lord of the Flies" actually. I never have understood why its alright to maim (yes, that's the correct term) Captain Hook and then basically torment and stalk him, murdering pirates along the way, but heaven forbid Hook should retaliate. Peter kills them off for sport, merely because they are pirates - I have a fundamental problem with this behavior. He also "thins out" his lost boys from time to time,- aka, he kills some of them off. This is the "hero"? Hey, JM Barrie, what were you thinking? Hmmm. Maybe I should've written my thesis on this when I was in college. And BTW, when I saw the Disney film when I was six, I wanted to shoot Peter and that overgrown ticking pair of boots on the hoof.
Norman891
Yeah, Peter Pan's not an easy character to connect to here.
Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.
Peter in the book I think is supposed to represent the dark side of little boys. Unfortunately, while childhood is innocent in the sense of ignorance and simplicity it is not necessarily innocent in the sense of niceness. Think of boys pulling the legs off insects or smashing beetles with rocks, or the way they can treat each other. Peter Pan represents morality as understood by little kids, where the leader is tough and harsh and the bad guys deserve to die. The book's also very psychological.
The thing about the Disney version is that in the book, while it may not justify cutting off his hand etc, Hook was genuinely evil and heartless. The first time we see him he sticks his hook in one of his pirates's stomachs because they got in his way. Whereas Hook in the Disney one was played for laughs.
The Whole Peter/Hook/Crocodile dynamic really doesn't leave room for any of them to be "good" but each one feels themselves justified to do what they do for one psychological dynamic, even though when the moral black/white scale would send all three to damnation.
Peter is an embodiment of the ignorance of youth. He commits very heinous acts, as quite literally he's a kidnapper, leader of gang he controls from unloved boys, and a tormentor of the pirates. He doesn't seem to see any of this as bad because he's young and ignorant.
Hook also has the ignorance but with form and revenge. As you said he stabs another pirate early on. He commits plenty of heinous acts but he is fueled on by wanting to express his dominance in form and get revenge. So he's not good, but he's not exactly UNjusitifed to himself.
The crocodile is another force to combat both of them. He's essentially a stalker chasing after to eat a man who never did anything wrong to him. He has the ignorance of nature. His behavior isn't a good thing either but he's justified because he's hungry.
Seeing kids brought into this struggle helps them see through whatever perspective they want. Chances are many identify one of those three as the more darker party even though none of the three are actually the true evil of the story.
While a lot of times in fiction we have the good/bad dynamic but in Peter Pan it's more a innocent/corrupt. Wendy and his siblings are innocent but they see the different sides of corruption within Neverland essentially helping them grow to learn something.
Gamefaqs has a far worse population than IMDB
I agree I think Peter was rude and cold
"I BELIEVE I CAN FLY".......*BANG* - Crash; Ice Age 2
The Disney version is the best Peter Pan. I didn't like the 2003 version I thought Jeremy Sumpter's Peter was arrogant.
shareThat's the point of the story!!!! Barrie originally wasn't going to include the character of Captain Hook because he saw Peter as the true villain of the story and didn't think it needed another. He reconsidered obviously. Peter is extremely arrogant, murderous, and downright cruel to Captain Hook. However, he is also beautiful (in appearance), and chivalrous (the first thing he does when he sees Wendy is bow to her, he refuses to kill a pirate while the pirate is sleeping, and he displays gallant behavior during parts of the final battle with Hook). He's also dangerously charming. At one point while talking to Wendy, Barrie says he speaks in a voice "that no woman has yet been able to resist". His cockiness is also said to be one of his most fascinating qualities. After all, there must be something appealing about him; almost every female character is in love with him. He represents the seductiveness of eternal youth. However, to remain a child forever dooms one to remain alone and heartless forever too. Peter may have all the freedom and adventure in the world, but he can't really feel or understand love, and that's his tragedy and ultimately, the tragedy of the story. I always took Barrie's message to be that childhood is a precious thing and should be valued and remembered, but eventually in order to truly live, one has to let it go.
Now Father, you're living in the past. This is the 14th century!
I think the reason Walt felt cold and distant towards Peter was that we never see that he has any real vulnerabilities. The thing is, there was one part ACTUALLY IN THE MOVIE that would have accomplished that if it were expanded upon, and that was Tink's near death. Peter picks up Tinkerbell and says "You know you mean more to me than anything in the whole world!" and then they cut to Wendy and the lost boys at the pirate ship.
I liked the Jeremy Sumpter version because it at least touched on that with Peter crying and freaking out at Tink's death (although I could have done without the drawn out "I do believe in fairies! I do! I do!" part which was pretty obnoxious). It also brought all these psychological aspects into it of Peter not being able to love because he had chosen this eternal immaturity and how he was afraid to grow old and die.
I have a feeling these more mature themes were probably explored in pre-production of Disney's Peter Pan but they were scrapped because they felt it would be too over-the-head of their younger viewers.
However, clearly the 2003 Peter Pan could not have arrived at those points without the basic framework of the Disney film to expand upon.
the "i do believe in fairies" part was based on the broadway show when tink almost dies and everyone is supposed to clap if they believe in fairies.
There were plans for the Disney version to show a scene later done in Hook, where Peter relates the story of revisiting his parents' house to find the window closed, and a new baby in his place.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
He is supposed to be arrogant. That's who Peter Pan is - he's worshipped by the mermaids and the lost boys and Tiger Lily in the book. Of course he has an ego.
In the book, one of the lines is something like "Sweet, oh am I sweet!"
[deleted]
I got an interesting wake up call this evening. We just got the DVD (I only heard Disney was about to lock it up on the last day it was for sale!) and watched it. At first I was thinking, "I don't remember being nuts about this one as a kid." Then as it played, I began to dislike it and went to cruise the net about halfway through (although still having it in the background). Now I know why... Peter Pan was getting on my nerves! Near the end I was thinking, "He's a real little s***, isn't he?"
It would make an interesting thesis, maybe I'll suggest it to my daughter. I had always considered Wendy the main character despite the title. I have not read the book and the only other version I have watched is Hook with Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman.
Consider that Wendy is the main character: she romantically entertains her brothers with stories of Pan. When she resists growing up, Pan magically appears and whisks her away to a place where she doesn't have to. But confronted with her real life hero and his cockiness, arrogance, conceit, etc., Wendy decides to go home and grow up. Not that she hates Pan, but she realizes he is incomplete.
Further consider that in Disney's film, Hans Conreid voiced both Father and Hook - is that anywhere implied in the book, a comparison between those characters I mean? I have to wonder about Wendy subconsciously casting her father (who insists she grow up) in the role of villain of Neverland. Then realizing she can treasure her childhood even while she's growing up, she returns home and reunites with her father. Hmmmm....
Apparently I should check out the book...
I actually like this Peter Pan. He was arrogant to be sure, but not quite as stuck up and full of himself as he's often portrayed. To me that's rather an improvement in a way.
It's a tradition for Hook and Mr. Darling to be played by the same actor. I do think there are parallels.
I don't like Peter in this version, but do in the 2003 movie. The most beautiful part is when Tink "dies." And when Hook brings out the part of Peter that loves Wendy by suggesting she will forget him. When Peter is vulnerable, he's more human.
"We pretty much make our living on crazy."
[deleted]
[deleted]
In the book, peter is truly a lost child. I do believe that the Darlings adopt the lost boys but Peter forgets everyone, as he constantly forgets everything in the book. And in the book, he visits Wendy periodically but at times years go by and he has no clue who she is. Eventually her daughter flys off with him for an adevnture.
It's such a great book, J.M. Barrie has a funny writing style that kept me amused. And to be honest, Disney's Peter Pan was quite like the book.
Oh no! We broke Mom's favorite vase playing basketball in the house!
- Darth Vader
I LOVE LOVE LOVE Bobby Driscoll's Pater Pan. (You have all been referring to him as "Disney's Peter Pan.") He is everything the book sought him out to be, and quite frankly, a lot more mature and nicer. Arrogant, yes! Cocky, for sure! But he's nowhere near as cruel as the Peter from the book. And as for Jeremy Sumpter's Pan... all I can say, is before you judge his portrayal any further, please read the book; he did a MARVELOUS job! Almost his entire dialouge in the film is straight from the book, and he looks very much like Bobby Driscoll, who was the voice and body model for the Disney version of Peter Pan. I couldn't see anyone else portraying him in 2003 other than Jeremy Sumpter.
Bobby is the best, though. RIP.
I Rachel Mcadams & Taylor Swift! RIP Heath Save Guiding Light!
In all honesty I love this film and could quote it for hours. But I do agree with certain aspects where people say he's cold and unlikeable. I suppose it could be argued he is a boy and doesn't share the same views as a girl would. Especially during the Mermaid scene, with his laughter as Wendy is being splashed at. But I've never given it much thought until now and I don't think its goin to change my views much on the film in entirity.
Argh! Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
Interesting because in a way at that time, Disney also adapted 'Alice in Wonderland.' Alice as a character has some not-too-likable qualities with her prim and proper way of how things should be right and whatnot. Almost every other thing in Wonderland irks and irritates her after awhile.
In regards to Peter, as someone explained, he's just a boy. He doesn't have a major story arc basically. He doesn't learn anything and by the end, he still stays the same. Though it is through Peter that Wendy has her story arc, wherein she realizes that she should grow up.
With 'Pinocchio,' Collodi's story had the wooden puppet more cruel and mean-spirited, even squashing the cricket. Disney managed to turn him into a sympathetic, naive character that was more relatable.
"I...Drink...YOUR...MILKSHAKE!!" -Daniel Plainview, "There Will Be Blood"
Honestly, I was surprised when I read that...
To me he wasn't "cold and unlikable". He was just a boy. Young boys sometimes aren't the most...intuitive. What to them might be "playing/joking around" could be viewed differently to others. I just figured he didn't know any better. But I never viewed it as something he did purposely.
Someone used the example of when the mermaids were splashing Wendy and Peter laughs and tells her: "They were only having a little fun, weren't you girls?" Here is a prime example of him just not understanding why Wendy was so offended. And he does have that one point where he expresses how devastated he would be if Tinkerbell died...so he has sensitive characteristics that become known... so I can't say I agree with Disney.
I don't know if it makes sense to others, but it makes sense in my head.
Also- I've never read the book. But looking at some of the comments on this thread, I kind of want to now!
[deleted]
I'm really not a big fan of this adaptation that much, it was okay but boring in parts. The Bobby Driscoll/Disney Peter Pan was okay, but I love Jeremy Sumpter and Robin Williams.
shareI think the thing is that Peter is very complicated. I think when you look at the character on a whole you see things are not black and white with him. Yeah he's downright cruel and mean to the pirates especially Hook. He is very cocky and arrogant and not so nice but just like with Hook things are more complicated. If you know the first story Peter gets abandoned by his parents when he tries to return home. He then spends years burying dead children (boys and girls) all of who were lost and then died. And of course slowly his mental health starts to diminish more and more.
Now take all that and think of being in Neverland and seeing grown men armed to the teeth. Not to mention seeing how they treat each other and others around them. Put two and two together its not that far out of an idea he might start attacking them and getting enjoyment out of it. That's the whole point nothing is Black and White, the characters are complex. Peter is pretty cold and unlikable, but he became that way, he wasn't born that way.
That's way I like the 2003 movie. It shows that there's more to Peter Pan then meets the eye. Even Wendy says herself that she thinks its his greatest pretend. That's the whole point, Peter is a complex character, neither full on good or evil.
I found Peter Pan to be totally unlikable. He, and the boy scouts he hangs around. And Tinkerbell. In fact, the only characters I found tolerable were the pirates and nursery children.
(formerly Deep_Southern)
[deleted]