Did anyone else feel like Peter was a complete idiot making the same exact mistake with the same exact result. Not to mention that he repeatly betrayed the Indians. All in all amazing little miniseries Anna Friel just blew me away, she may have been over the top at some points but equally amazing.
shareIt's just another stupid coming of age-movie/series. Someone has to be stupid, naive or completely disconnected from reality in these types of sh*t.
shareYes, I agree with you. Not only is Peter a complete idiot/fool, he is the one responsible for blasting all his friends & Jimmy to Neverland because he continually disobeys anyones and everyones instructions/orders. In his own way, Peter is a larger menace, a more dangerous person than Hook, because of his stubborn bull-headedness and refusal to follow orders. Yes, yes, Jimmy killed his father - but we have NO knowledge of who challenged who nor how fair a fight it was nor who made it a fight to the death. You "assume" it was Jimmy; it may have been. Then again, as we know nothing of Peter's father - he could be the one at fault & Jimmy was unjustly ostracised from society. We just don't know because we weren't given that information - something I fault the script writers for.
I also found it very telling that when he comes back to Neverland with gifts for all his friends (one wonders where he got the money for that - it surely was not his) he is dressed as a perfect carbon copy of Jimmy. Jimmy was the only reason Peter was alive in the first place; left in one of London's work-houses or orphanages, it's doubtful he would have survived past 8 or 10. Peter was a walking disaster looking for a place to happen, and anyone who trusted him ended up dead or hurt (physically and/or emotionally).
The only ones dumber than Peter were the faeries, who said he had "an innocent heart". Pardon me? A thieving, hard-headed, jealous little urchin... innocent? (and he was SOOOO jealous of Hook & Bonnie it was disgusting) Peter (& the other boys) are about as innocent as Hook or Bonnie or any of the pirates. I really wanted to smack him upside his head & knock some sense into that empty gourd.
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull
I just got done watching this movie and from what you have stated in your response... well it sounds like you yourself watched all 3 hours of it too. If it was so bad, why did you watch the whole thing? I myself found the movie interesting and refreshing. To me, it seemed like a new take on the Peter Pan story.
As for Peter being stupid, I am sure that there is no one here who could honestly say that they hadn't made a mistake. As you pointed out, Peter and his friends are in essence criminals and no better than the pirates. What we have to remember is why that is? Peter and the Lost Boys were pretty much raised on the streets by a criminal. As you said, they are children who have not yet matured and are capable of making mistakes and sometimes trusting in people that should never have been trusted to begin with. I am also sure that when the Faeries stated that Peter was 'an innocent heart', that they were looking at Peter for who he could become, if given the opportunity. They were not looking at only what he was taught, but is potential as well.
The only thing that I found this movie lacking, was a large enough budget to do it justice. It could have done better with better Special Effects and as someone else pointed out, on a bigger screen!
I never said I didn't like the movie. i thought it was an interesting perspective on a possible background for the animosity between Peter & Hook. And for what it's worth, I have never liked Peter , regaradless of Barrie, Disney, or this one. I find his character lacking in just that. So sweet, such a fun -loving innocent little boy -- NOT! Personal responsibility - Peter makes the choice to do wrong - he knows it is wrong to steal & kill but does it anyway. There again, I have been on Hook's side since I was 5... not about to swap sides now. Peter is about as innocent as any common thief, he has no innocent heart. As for the Faeries looking at him for who he "could" become -- the same could be said for Jimmy. Had he not been ostracized and treated shabbily by his peers, who knows what he may have become. But what might have been and what is are 2 different things. IMO Peter is just as blood-thirsty and evil as Hook, with less reason to be that way. But, that's JMO.
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull
[deleted]
<<The problem comes from having Peter as a protagonist and hero, instead of Wendy, in that we have to empathize and support him and accept some of the more negative qualities of his character, compared to the play where your meant to be taken aback by some of his decisions>>
Well, we don't "have to" empathize and/or support him, especially those of us who recognize his sociopathic side and don't give him a pass just because, as you say, "he is the embodiment of childhood." I've been holding his feet to the fire, so to speak, since I was 5... somehow I doubt that will change. I recognized his dark side then and I still see it. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull
[deleted]
OH..... I see now. Pardon the misunderstanding. Must've read your post wrong I see we agree a lot more than disagree. Sorry about that, buddy.
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull
'The only ones dumber than Peter were the faeries, who said he had "an innocent heart".'
I think it was more like Peter had a child-like heart and a child-like understanding of things, more than him having an innocent heart. The original Peter wasn't supposed to be a lovely child anyway, he was supposed to be a cocky sort of person who liked to give orders rather than take them.
Believe me, nothing is trivial. - Eric Draven, The Crow.
Totally agree with you! Peter? An "innocent" heart" This boy is a pick-pocket, a thief, and an accomplice to thievery. not to mention his disobendience is the main reason Jimmy & the boys ended up in Never land in the first place. Peter is NO innocent boy. Childish - yes. Innocent - defineitely not.
Also found it telling that when he rerturned from "the real world" He was dressed as a carbon copy of Jimmy.
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull
Spot on, Skittles. In Barrie's original work, Peter is neither innocent nor a nice little boy. Too many people have been raised on Disney & that bloody Mary Martin slop. Peter in this film was very child-like & childish: impatient, wanting to do things his way, wanting to impress Jimmy, being jealous of Bonnie... all very much like the child he was - but he was far from "innocent".
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass." -- Jethro Tull
Indeed, while I do love most corresponding Peter Pan work like Disney and other films (I haven't viewed the Mary Martin film, though I have heard of it), it would still do for people to read the original book and use that as a starting point. The media will sugar-coat it, so it's not really a good place to start your knowledge if you want to understand the character properly.
Believe me, nothing is trivial. - Eric Draven, The Crow.
I think one of the main problems with this series is that the pacing was rushed and didn't give us enough time to know the characters. We hardly know their motivations. One minute James Hook wanted to protect the boys from the pirates, the next he's falling into bed with Bonny, which seems to be all the motivation he needs to switch sides. Even when Bonny stabs Peter, ostensibly killing him, hey, she's still good in bed, so it makes no difference to him. I also didn't like how, in the end, Peter just decides to ensure the boys can't return to their home. He assumes that because he wants to stay in Neverland, his friends want to as well. That's a pretty major life decision to make for someone else.
The series does have some good qualities. I like its origin story for Peter Pan, particularly the idea that Hook was his friend and father figure at some point. I've rarely seen female pirates in fiction, so I liked that too. But the characters weren't engaging enough, and Peter himself wasn't all that smart or sympathetic. For me that's what held the series back from being great.
my blog --> http://zeitgeistreviews.com/