Or when Hook said he identifies as a black little girl and Peter immediately hacked her hand off out of spite because now he would not be the wierdest die-worse character anymore.
@@chasehedges6775 yes, it’s weird on a deep instinctive level. Disney and woke ideology look at us as blank slates and think they can socially construct us the way they see fit
They fight masculinity but at the same time, they portray the ideal woman as masculine. They think that a woman needs to mimic a man in order to have value, which is dumb. It's an insult to femininity. They are completely incoherent.
The owners of these studios are part of a minority with messed up gender roles and they want to impose their abnormality on 😅normal people. But normal people don't accept that propaganda.
My favorite part was when, after Peter and Wendy defeats Hook, Peter picks up his detached hook and says “This hook is literal perfection”. To which Wendy snatches it away from him and says, “It will be….once it fits a woman!” Riveting.
I liked when Tiger Lily took her tomahawk and smashed open a Horcrux, destroying a piece of Voldemort's soul, that will be a precious cinematic moment I can carry with me forever.
Yeah Disney is like an heir who inherited a business worth billions annually and then pawned it off for a couple of hundred millions because they are too lazy to run the business OR are too impatient to wait to negotiate a proper price OR are too insecure/possessive/selfish to let someone competent take the reigns and run the business.
Dying old and alone on a couch with no friends, family or kids around is the 2023 idea of being a proper feminist. The future of the human race looks dim.
As someone else pointed out, I love how Wendy dreamed of flying a WWI-style airplane... when those airplanes didn't exist when she was a child. *sigh* Disney truly doesn't care about history anymore.
She did though because after the events of Endgame was over Antman popped back into the time machine with a spare suit so Wendy could be whisked forward to 1917 to meet Manfred von Richthofen who actually gave her a few flying lessons in his favourite triplane.However because his English wasn’t so good he ended up with an embarrassing smack on the cheek when he offerd to Fokker!
I'm doing my best to save information on the current state of the world so future generations know what's happening. But that may be a bit optimistic since there may be no future generations.
Disney: “It’ll be fine”. Disney: “Wait, it’s not fine? How can that be? Quick, fire the writers and hire different writers who will write the same stuff we tell them too. That’ll make it fine.”
Lara, the Critical Doggo, had the best take on Wendy and Patel Pan. She was incredibly concise and insightful. I hope she stays as a permanent host for The Open Bar.
She definitely comes out Top Dog in this discussion. No bones about it, she did not take her analysis lying down. Best of all, she focused on the parts of the film that were important. One might describe her as a good girl for this.
I found her comments to be ruff at times but commend her for never rolling over. She had a bone to pick, didnt hesitate to scratch at the buried truths and overall it was just a treat to watch.
Most children watch these Disney classics and see magical fantasy worlds. These writers clearly had twisted childhoods, where they saw something to be corrected.
I imagine they saw magical fantasy worlds when they were kids, too. Then they went to college and took BS courses to earn useless degrees, buying into the propaganda (like it's wrong for white people to wear sombreros and ponchos to celebrate Cinco de Mayo), and lost their ability to experience wonder with those fantasy worlds.
and most children watch maybe half of the remake before they get bored and wander off.... but you totally can't criticize it, because it's made for children....
Even in "Hook" from 30 years ago, Pan's "happy thought' was his children. He realized that there was no life fulfilment in his job and understood that his family is what brings him happiness. Fast forward to 2023 and the "happy thought" has nothing to do with family and others, but is completely focused on a narsiccist view of self.
It makes me appreciate Hook so much more and realize even more that Spielberg understood the lore. Peter’s happy thought was his children. He realized that it wasn’t even his love for Moira that made leave neverland, but the vision he had of himself being a father.
Hoffman as Captain Hook is a classic. “Don’t try to stop me Smee. I’m going to do it. Don’t you dare try to stop me. Smee. Try and stop me! SMEE! Never scare me like that again.”
Not gonna lie, the part where Wendy stood infront of the lost boys and said "is this really the best a man can get?" Then proceeded to shave her downstairs infront of the children was truly empowering
Remember how Peter was chasing his shadow as part of his introduction as a character? Metaphor of the endless child who refuses to grow up. I love that. 😊
@@prufan Of course. All of the major themes remained intact while also continuing the story for the next generation. Not sure how Tinkerbell was not done right. Julia Roberts did a fine job.
@@Kai-the-culture-spider Agreed. The core of the story stayed intact, and we didn't get the pathetic fanfiction level storyline about Hook being a lost boy.
HOOK is utter shit. It's Spielberg's worst movie by a wide margin. I could feel myself dying as I sat in the theater watching that atrocity on screen. Nothing says classic English fairy tale like multiracial skateboarding Lost Boys.
@@Kai-the-culture-spider not only were the themes intact, but also reversed with the whole problems with growing up covered from the adults end of things.
So, here's my biggest question: If Hook was found and taken in by the pirates, and eventually rose through the ranks to command them... well, they said in this video the pirates are basically Hook's "found family". Found families breed happy memories. Even if they were evil pirates, Hook bonded with them enough to, even as captain, stick around rather than leave to find his actual family. So how is it possible that such a character with such a backstory would not have a single positive memory? They don't even have to be morally good. Hook just has to acknowledge them as positive to him.
The 2003 adaptation has a bit of fun with that concept. In that movie's finale, Hook evens the playing field by getting some fairy dust as well. When he then notices he's floating right above the crocodile he desparately starts rattling down _his_ happy thoughts to not fall down. Which include gems like "kittens on spikes".
Peter: "Just think happy thoughts, positive memories! You'll be able to fly!" Hook: [starts flying] Peter: "Awesome, how'd you do it? What's your happy thought?" Hook: "Well, that one time, we caught a Lost Boy and fired him from our main canon. His head made such a funny noise hitting the rocks near the beach." Peter: "Yo, that's ... fucked up!" Hook: "Innit, hee hee" [flies even higher]
@@sebastiancruz-ts1qq this movie would have rocked if it was just Taken 4 where Liam goes to Neverland to get his daughter back. Then it's the sheik scene on the yacht but it's peter holding his daughter on the pirate ship instead.
I love the part where Peter Pan is teaching the children to fly, and Wendy says "He can fly!", then John says "He can fly!", and finally Michael, the youngest, says "Our society is based on systemic racism!" Brought a tear to my eye.
The really weird thing is the live-action CGI looks far less effective and more simplistic than the 1953 cartoon. The amount of detail the artists put in the cartoon movie is utterly breathtaking and is the reason so many people adore Disney cartoons.
Their special effects department is basically a sweatshop at this point. They no longer care about quality. They just want as many special effects as possible in their movie to justify the bloated budget.
Heck, the early 2000’s version’s CGI was better. That’s still my favorite live-action version. It takes liberties but is so much closer to the book’s spirit than this tripe.
The supposed anti-racists are the worst racists of the lot. They even have her speaking in her native language which nobody else can understand. Why would anyone do this? It's just a display at that point.
I am no longer surprised by anything that makes peoples of Christian/Pagan and/or European ancestry look bad in film/media anymore. Just as a thought experiment[, and proof of concept], watch TV/movies from the last ... oh maybe 50 years, and as you do so, try and estimate the % of villains who were played by actors pretending to be characters of a certain ethno-cultural, geographical-background shall-we-say, and you will see what i mean. I warn you though, once you start noticing it you may have difficulty ever ceasing to notice it. [P.S. Rant incoming: Sorry for being somewhat cryptic about exactly what i mean here, but i'm sure enough of you can figure out what i mean, if you care to do so, and i prefer to be as "polite" as possible when putting things up online (since anything that goes online apparently does so permanently and privacy is rapidly becoming either impossible or nearly-so). [Even though freedom of speech is the foundation that all decent social systems are built upon, and one of the first targets of tyranny and authoritarian-takeover... even scarier are those who seem to agree that freedom of speech isn't more important than "not offending anyone". NEWSFLASH that may be fine and well on a personal, small-scale level among friends, family, village etc... but it, like many other things do not scale up well or safely, to the level of larger numbers of people; when people can no longer know each other personally. This is also why socialism looks fine on paper and sounds great... might even work on a small scale, but it fails in the most horrific way imaginable every time it's tried on state or larger scale. But i digress. if people aren't allowed to communicate openly, they will not learn, nor will anyone else know just how messed up they/others are, and so it leaves us all vulnerable to the only alternative there is to talking... action.] /end-of-rant]
I mean this seriously and without hyperbole: This video is the best for both describing how badly the producers&writers gutted this story and how, in a global sense, these writers simply don't have the emotional life experience to write anything with character depth. Ever. Sincerely I say, this video should be distributed to every so-called film and screen-writing school across the country. It's a lesson on so many levels of what makes a story work - and what is trite and soulless. I'm going to save the URL and just use this from now on to send to people.
These writers never grew up so they CAN'T write a story about the conflict between needing to grow up and the desire to retain the innocence and security of childhood.
You don't have to have life experience. But these awful juvenile writers write as if they never read any BOOKS. They simply don't understand classic ways to make literature work, and have no experience of complex plots and characters that don't fit some contemporary ideology. Ideology makes for BAD art.
@@JOHN----DOE You're sorta right. Experience in a story isn't necessary, otherwise only astronauts, killers, detectives, fairies, etc would be able to write. Which hits on the larger side of your point... These people have No Imagination. Their Inner Life is void of Truth or humanity. They have Little to No Talent, which is why they've been hired. They don't have much in the way of Skill, either. Their abilities are below entry level. You see, Imagination, Talent, and Skills aren't what's being sold. It's socio-political ideology. And as college graduates, these companies once thought they were getting a "fresh, new, young, modern" perspective. Until they realized that these college grads had Nothing to say, Nothing to write about, and Nothing to offer. But, by the time they figured this out -- which they should have known by looking at their portfolios -- the shift had taken place, and none of these attributes were needed because What became the goal of the corporate middlemen was Changing the culture by changing its stories. So, the franchises were bought and targeted. And when the fans rebelled, they excused it as bigotry against [Enter Group Here]. Just watch Disney's videos on the writing roundtable for Star Wars. The only thing they discuss is how to insert their ideologies. Not once do they discuss the original stories, legacy, or improving anything. It's been about one thing and one thing only. Search for that video. It's very interesting
Love that everyone is going over the literary tropes, messages, and lessons from the original play, novel, and the previous films. These were wonderful messages to me as a girl, too--that girls are smart enough not to get lost, that girls are more stable and logical when boys are impulsive and silly, that mothers are important and we all need some kind of mother figure in our lives. You guys are younger than me, so it's good to see you've picked up on the messages that exist within the story. Well done.
Mate, I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised at all, and it would have Romeo *self deleting* and Juliet realising she is actually perfect and can get on in life without a man. I’m 100% serious.
The original Peter pan literally explains there only being lost boys with the line "There are no "lost girls" because, as Peter explains, girls are far too clever to fall out of their prams" So for the remake they technically made girls a lot stupider than the original for "teh holey inclusion".
I always like how BaggageClaim manages to tie characters to symbolism (e.g. Tinkerbell as a fantasy vs Wendy as a real woman) and it makes me wonder why I didn't think of that myself
Curiously, one aspect they completely eliminated - and the 1953 Pan obscured - is that in the book it is TINKERBELL who is originally the 'mother' to the Lost Boys, even to the extent of playing aspects of motherhood such as tucking the boys in and making them take their (fake) medicine. This is why she is so insanely jealous of Peter allowing Wendy to show up and be the 'mother'. And, as mentioned, she actually is a better 'mother' in a real sense, even wanting to return the boys to the real world and adopt them because that's what would actually be better for them. In the book, Tinkerbell in no way cooperates so they have to sail Hook's ship back to England.
I think they should have been a bit more honest and titled the movie "Wendy and it doesn't matter what his name is because he's male, so he's useless and unimportant compared to how brave and wonderful Wendy is." That seems to be the way they feel over in Hollywood.
I'm so impressed with the panels' research and analysis of this great story. You all put in more work than the entire writing staff at Disney, clearly.
I got chills just now listening to the description of the original story, and the messages and meanings in it… tells you how good it is. Disney can suck it
In terms of audience approval, this flick is heading towards Velma levels (IOW, single digits). If _Peter Pandering and Mary Sue_ was any more of a dog it’d have fleas.
I loved the beautiful bitter sweet nature of the 2003 movie. Really well acted and poignant and completely underated. One of my favorite movies from the 00's.
Hook being a former Lost Boy isn't *totally* unworkable as a twist for the sake of making an adaption not predictable, but it would require that the problems of the plot be due purely due to the (magically enforced physical) rules of the world and Hook's own *rage* at them, not the way this abomination handled it. Something like the island itself repels him as he attempts to return and Hook tries to attack it, disregarding the safety of its inhabitants, and forcing Peter to drive him off in return.
I touched on this in my comment. I like your idea; I think it's workable. Bad news through. From the look of it you gave this a little thought, had some insight and possibly even studied the original animated movie. All strikes against you. If you do want to write for Disney, I know a few good surgeons who could remove 96% of your brain, teach you to mumble to yourself, and every time Kenedy and her Star Wars is mentioned you start cheering loudly for her. Think hard on this since it is not reversable. Proof? Look at the writers at Disney do you see any of them getting better?
@@RedSander_BR No, you are referring to some other adaptation. Hook was originally an Etonian from an influential aristocratic family (possibly royalty).
The book is certainly more nuanced. The author describes Hook as 'not unheroic'. And Pan is basically a psychopath who is largely indifferent to consequences and trouble - he cuts off Hook's hand just because he was dared to. Even so, Pan isn't really EVIL... just CHILDISH. Nor is Hook GOOD, because he's happy to shoot cannons and swing swords at children, even if stopping Pan might be a good thing in the final analysis.
My favorite part was when, after Peter and Wendy defeats Hook, Peter picks up his detached hook and says “Without it's master's command the restless pirates will become an even greater threat to this world. Control must be maintained...there must ALWAYS be a Hook”.
I do owe one thing to this remake - it's made me realize (by listening to the discussions around it) just how layered and nuanced and profound JM Barry's original story is.
It really is! There's so much in there about the nature of growing up and what it means to be an eternal child, among so many other profound themes. If you would like to see an actually good interpretation of the source material, definitely take a look at the 2003 live action film. You can tell that the makers really understood the book's subtext and tried to bring it out in the film. It's an adult version of the Peter Pan story without being drab or colourless, the actors are all having so much fun and the visual design of Neverland is pleasantly stylised. The film also has a very cool psychological trick up its sleeve where Hook and Mr Darling are played by the same actor (Jason Isaacs), as he traditionally was in the original stage version.
And the great thing is you probably picked up on all these ideas and subconsciously consumed them. That's the difference between past writers and modern ones. If they wanted to inject politics into stuff they used to do it in a much more nuanced and subtle way. Theres so much older content i love that didnt resonate with my belief system but it was presented in a good way that it wasnt problematic as a viewer to enjoy.
The counter I've heard for Wendy's "happy thoughts" of dying alone is that not everyone wants/needs a family to be happy. First off, again, nixing the motherly aspect of Wendy is nixing a core part of her character. Secondly, I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen a clip that flashes through her happy thoughts. Unless that clip portrayed it wrong, she was alone on her couch. When you've accomplished something, family or no, parent or no, the people you've effected will remember you fondly and celebrate what you've done. *Why didn't they show **_that?!_* I'm not talking about showing funeral, but even just a plaque on a building acknowledging the good she's done or and some adult reading it to their kid or _something._
Its true that not everyone wants or needs a family to be happy, but that "not everyone" represents a miniscule fraction of the entire human race. The vast, vast, vast majority of us _do_ want or need it. That argument sounds very much like a first-world self-insert (and particularly feminist) cope tactic doesnt it? Lol.
I love this trend in movies where if a Mary Sue wants to win bad enough and have enough determination that's conveniently all it takes for them to pull through, odds be damned. Like nah mate you can't run me through with a sword even though you're better at it and I'm already wounded, I just wanna win more than you
Moral lessons require introspection and challenging your own assumptions, and consumers are not into that anymore, especially not the target audience for this slop. So if you’re a young woman, the only lesson you’re allowed to be taught is, “you’re perfect; you just need to believe in yourself and never take advice or instruction.”
It's a disservice to young girls really. All people really do need to internalise the need for hard work and preparation. The message of being able to overcome people who have worked harder, are prepared, and are possibly just better... Just because you want it and are passionate, is a crap lesson. It's just setting people up for failure... And it will all be the patriarchy's fault presumably.
The whole "The pirates are Lost boys who Peter got rid of" is a really old tumblr headcanon that has never actually sat right with me. No one in Neverland grows up, sure, Peter could have thrown his 'toys' out of the pram, but they would still be young children, they wouldn't just immediately grow through puberty and become pirates.
@@MegaSpideymanI thought that they were just Neverland entities like the mermaids and natives. They don’t get any older than they already are and they play the role of the antagonist for the lost boys to fight against.
Someone brings up the problem of creating backstory for everyone as a problem. But I think the real issue with Hook is not that they gave him a backstory. It's that the backstory they gave him fit this pattern from so many modern movies where the villain HAS to have an intimate personal connection to the main character. Peter and Hook can't just hate one another because they represent these polar opposite ends of male childhood and adulthood. They have to have the long, drawn out, personal connection that explains their every interaction in intimate detail. Very few of these big budget movie writers seem to believe in the less-is-more concept anymore. Tell only what you need to make the conflict believable, and then STOP.
Said this below under another video.. making everyone related is a cheap trick to add some 'depth' to characters' relationships. We know that Hook is a pirate, which is quite enough, just like the sheriff being a sheriff in Robin Hood.
@@KopperNeoman I don't mean to say that every sheriff at that time was a villain, but we don't really need to know about this one's childhood traumas, or his entire backstory, to understand that he is not a good man. A few words about his 'deeds' are just enough for the story.
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. There's no nuance in the film either. Nothing happens to change the characters except Peter figuring out that feeding your former friend's have to a crocodile is a pretty awful thing to do. It's great that in their efforts to battle racism and misogyny they've actually made more by focusing on things that nobody ever did before.
Peter pan from Hook: my happy thought is being a father Wendy from this film: my happy thought I'd being a feminist What a fitting update for modern audiences™
When Wendy uses *"SKY DRAGON'S ROAR!!!* against Captain Hook who uses Tremor-Tremor Fruit and Haki to clash against it, it made me smile with pure unadulterated glee.
Producing modern versions of vintage stories is so stunning and brave. It says, hey we have no talent and creativity, but we can pervert a beloved classic
This video helped bring together what I have been thinking about for the past few months. For a change I can boil it down to two main point. Please, do not hesitate on exchanging your own thoughts. Here goes nothing. POINT ONE: It seems writers of these movies have not bothered to study the tale their story is based on. They took the name, read a review and/ or comments then wrote. They were never made to dissect stories in English class in high school. They never learned to break down what the author tried to write. It's like they don't understand the elements of crafting words. IE; motivation, story arc and characters development. Yes, I meant characters as in more than one. You can't have one character growing in a story. In addition, Rather than retelling the story you make your own. The ideas in Peter Pan redone as a whole new story. Captain Hook in my opinion would have been wonderful addition if done right. Hook use to be Peter's best friend. When he returns, he is an adult matured and leader of the pirates, who were evil toward the lost boys. Hook extends the hand of friendship and wishes to seal the gulf between the two. Peter, still a young lad feels betrayed and fights Captain Hook, cuts off his hand, which flies into the mouth of the hungry crocodile. Just one example of the multiple things that could improve the movie, in my opinion. POINT TWO: Please please please Hollywood stop with the woke or whatever any of what you want to call it. Yes, almost every story tries to teach or expand on the writer's personal belief. But stop pushing it down our throat. You want to show Wendy as a female is as good as any male don't make her a Mary Sue. Show her sword fighting with her brothers, but not winning. Maybe even getting hurt. But when she comes to Never Never Land she learns from the female leader of the lost girls. Yes, the lost girls. Why boys and girls. They are children and I remember my childhood 58 years ago. (Yes, I am 64) Us boys knew girls had cooties. I even called two gargoyles. (They became in a way my adopted sisters, never a romantic relationship. The only thing worse than a girl with cooties is a female gargoyle with cooties) In the climax the two lost groups combine forces and defeat the pirates. Wendy's training pays off and her and Peter fight back-to-back protecting each other, and Peter discovers Wendy does not have cooties. You have shown a woman can be just as good as a man, even the hero can make evil mistakes and both genders together can overcome anything. I hope I got my point across and not to many people want to chase me down and take my computer away. Most likely the extreme feminist on the left and the extreme conservatives on the right hate me. You can't please them unless you 100% repeat what they believe. Thank you for reading to the end. I know I have a tendency for long posts, so I appreciate anyone who reads to the end. Now your turn to comment, maybe even write something better than what I just wrote. It won't be that hard to be better.
@@TiagrajI Thank you for the compliment. I have to agree with you Disney won't listen nor would they use anything close to what I said. I'm not the only one, others have story ideas some better than mine. It's sad when all of the fan fiction is better than what the professionals (URRRP Gack, cough cough blurp shazbot argh) Sorry technical difficulty but I had a bucket nearby. I should know better than to have what Critical Drinker is drinking. Last time I did I grabbed Doomcock's helmet. Now I'm not allowed back to the center of the Earth. As I was saying sad day when fan fiction is better. All fan fiction for this story. Once more thank you and I hope we hear from others and their ideas.
Damnation, but TheLittlePlatoon is just so well thought and spake; always a pleasure listening to his thoughts and analyses. I'm so glad chaps like you guys are inspiring more of each other to have a voice. If memory serves: Mauler inspired you (Drinker) who inspired Platoon, and I just love all 3 of your opinions, personalities, and senses of humor -the type of mentally-functional good 'ol boys I'd most likely spend my time with given my druthers.
Actually the critics' RT score is interesting. The first couple pages of critic reviews (the first 39, when I looked at it) was 80% positive. That means the next 4 pages (80 reviews) had to have an average in the mid 50's in order to drag the overall score down to ~65%. That means that, other than the first ones out trying to score brownie points, even the critics found it very hit-and-miss, with basically a coin flip on whether they'd give it an OK.
It is interesting looking back at the gyrations of feminism over time. In my youth 'macho' behavior was mocked and feminists insisted that less aggressive female behavior was superior. Nowadays, macho behavior is feminine behavior.
Reminds me of Nu Aladdin where they made Jasmine less cool by sloppily trying to make her empowered. In the old Peter Pan all the male characters are either pirates or scruffy boys running around without rules. Even Peter's a bit of a dick. He's very arrogant, doesn't take anything seriously and can be a bit careless with others feelings. Wendy's literally the only sane person in Neverland. It takes a mother figure to come in and slap everyone into shape. She didn't need to be ham-fistedly made into a feminist.
I've bought into the theory that the Girlboss is a body-snatching demon that travels from universe to universe, and whichever universe she travels to and possesses someone, she ruins it and moves onto the next.
Wendy Pan? The most stunning film of 2023. I loved the part where Wendy said to the lost they/thems. "You're on thin ice my pedigree chumps and I shall be under it when it brakes"
This discussion of adding back story reminds me of a discussion I heard about magic in stories. If you start to add rules or specific spells etc ala Harry Potter for instance, then you have to stick to those rules and all of the implications that come from them. If you're a bit more vague about it and use it sparingly ala LOTR, then it's easier to believe whatever you decide to do with it in the plot and move on.
It's interesting that you say that because I think Tolkien himself had a very different view. One of my favourite quotes of his refers to greatest god Iluvatar as "that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named". And I think as a deeply devout person he means that quite earnestly and you can see it if you read the text with that in mind. To Tolkien, there was LOTS of interference by Iluvatar CONSTANTLY throughout. Things that just 'go right', 'coincidences' that happen. This is, I think, how he conceives of magick in his story and you can see that through the elves, who don't even refer to what they are doing as magick even though everyone else does. Ropes that just untie themselves when they need to and boats that know to stay afloat and to keep to the best parts of the river. Dirt that is just good for growing and food that is just good to eat. The TRUE magick is a kind of underlying structure that makes things fit together and it's both completely invisible if you don't know to look for it and completely obvious if you do. Flashy fireballs and glowy swords are just amateurish effects that TRUE magick has no need of. I think a good analogy would be the difference between a master chef and an amateur cook. The amateur probably has a recipe that he has to follow letter by letter, like a Harry Potter spell. You MUST turn the oven to 350 and you MUST mix the flour and sugar first before you add the eggs, but if you do everything exactly as the recipe says you magickally turn inedible ingredients into a yummy cake. Yay! But a master chef has moved entirely BEYOND the recipe. He'll throw things together often without the use of measuring tools at all, because he knows what it's supposed to look like and how it's supposed to feel. He might add completely different ingredients depending on what's in the fridge or what the temperature is outside. To you or I this would seem like chaos. But the results are almost anything he wants. We could say that the master chef doesn't really know 'magick' because he has no formula... but really it is the person reciting words on the page who doesn't know magick and can only do what he is told. I am reminded also of Aristotle. Probably not a surprise since he was a major authority for early Christianity. But he, too, had a view of the universe which saw it as a divinely created machine with all the parts intended to work together to inevitably produce a result which made everyone and everything better. A nice belief to have, if you can support it.
Fantasy author Brandon Sanderson has his rules of magic in fiction. Rule #1: The author's ability to use magic to solve problems in the plot is directly proportional to the reader's understanding of how the magic system works. Basically, if you want the heroes to be saved by some kind of magic, they need to understand how and why, and what limitations there are that prevent it being used to save them all the time.
@@TheNoonish Reminds me of a recent movie where they wanted a lot of magick, but they felt that they had to work hard to explain why magick couldn't just solve all problems. Too much magick can become a kind of anti-plot mechanism, and a good understanding of how magick works can counteract that. One of my absolute favourite books is 'Master of Five Magics' by Lyndon Hardy, which did go through five very detailed magick systems, each with its own advantages and limitations, and none of which could be used to solve all problems even though they were all very handy at times.
Fun fact: on a live stage, the role of Peter Pan is traditionally played by a woman/young lady. I got to see a live performance of Peter Pan WITH GYMNASTICS in 1974 or '75. It was awesome. Peter Pan was played by the lovely All-American Olympic gymnast Cathy Rigby and Tinkerbell was a blinky light. There was nary a dry eye in that basket all stadium when that light dimmed, and finally went out. But don't worry. I brought her back to life. It was me. Solely. Peter Pan said so. My clapping and "believing" in her restored her life and happiness. It was a big moment in my life. But not as big as when I got an assist with Curly Neal from the Harlem Globetrotters. He caught my inbound pass and scored from half court. I made that other player look stoopid too! I could've gone pro - Curly said so! I was psyched. But my mom said I should stay in school and Meadowlark agreed. So I went into 3rd grade instead of on the road ballin'. Should've tried to hide on their bus.
That first criticism against Wendy, I was like "Oh! Well, maybe that's not very endearing, but I guess you could work that into a thing where Wendy is then thrust into the parental role, looking after her brothers AND the lost children of Neverland, and so she has to grow out of being another child herself who starts petty squabbles with her brothers, etc. etc"... Then Baggage Claim continued Drinker's point and, Hmm. I guess not.
While not wanting to be a mother as a woman is not a bad thing at all (not every man wants to be a father either), robbing Wendy of her motherly nature was just a horrible idea. It added so much to her character and was also the reason Peter brought her along: to be their mother.
Holy crap I didn’t know this went streaming but this is probably the best panel I’ve ever seen. You finally got baggage claim on there. She is freaking amazing!
Yeah, I was a bit confused about it. But one could argue that it takes place at the end of the Victorian age and that the fairy theme further places the story there.
I thoroughly recommend the 2003 live action Peter Pan. Jason Isaacs plays Hook wonderfully (not to mention his happy thoughts that allow him to fly are brilliant).
It really just goes to show you how terrifying the amount of money Disney had was. They have released multiple flops in one year, and have barely taken a hit. Any other smaller company would be bankrupt by now
No amount of money will long save a company that chooses to alienate its audience, not even Disney. They can keep the facade going for now, but the rot is accelerating and we’re already seeing the outward signs of decay despite their best efforts to hide it.
These live action movies have SO much potential with the filmmaking technologies of today…it’s such a shame that they are all such crap in writing/editing/etc.
Maybe, but why bother when the originals were made in the best media for those classics: 2D animation. With handrawn animation, you can recreate the picture book essence of those stories perfectly, so trying to improve them with 3D CGI is not really worth it, even if they gave a fuck about doing it right.
The filmmaking technology is a BIG part of the problem. They can do anything, so they do everything. A great writer has to have control and the ability to limit and focus on what is truly important. There are no limits anymore, and everything suffers for it. It's why we have so many ridiculously bloated superhero fluff films - essentially one-note cartoons that are 2.5 hours long. It's utterly ridiculous.
It's not about money. It's about sending a message. They dont want us to have families. They want you to be alone isolated climbing the corporate ladder, paying taxes until you die. All in the name of sticking it to the patriarchy. Slay queen. Slay.
My theory is that they fired the original peter pan from Rescue rangers movie that got at the end of the film got arrested. They have to find a new cast of people just to reboot it for a " modern audiance " just to bastardized the source material
Drunk Scottish Peter Pan where everybody is just a good old Scottish lad who's had a few drinks would be fucking hilarious. Especially if Tinkerbell and Wendy are both played by the hairiest manliest Scots they could drag out of the highlands and everyone plays it straight.
My favourite part was when a guy put on a dress and showed Wendy what being a woman was all about.
😂
Or when Hook said he identifies as a black little girl and Peter immediately hacked her hand off out of spite because now he would not be the wierdest die-worse character anymore.
While drinking Bud Light.
Bro, that part where Hook was putting on Lipstick and dancing to Goodbye Horses was truly a moment in a film.
My favourite part was as the movie ended.
Disney masculinized Wendy. Disney took away the female imperative and gave her the male archetype.
Trying to turn girls/women into male archetypes is…. Weird
@@chasehedges6775 yes, it’s weird on a deep instinctive level. Disney and woke ideology look at us as blank slates and think they can socially construct us the way they see fit
@The Giga-Bigot 3000 and society
They fight masculinity but at the same time, they portray the ideal woman as masculine.
They think that a woman needs to mimic a man in order to have value, which is dumb.
It's an insult to femininity.
They are completely incoherent.
The owners of these studios are part of a minority with messed up gender roles and they want to impose their abnormality on 😅normal people.
But normal people don't accept that propaganda.
My favourite part was when Wendy dropped her skirt, and Peter replied: 'I see your Schwartz is as big as mine.'
Truly one of the best moments of all time
The best moment was when Peter said “It’s Hook Time.”
Then Captain Janeway yelled “THIS IS SPARTA!” before kicking Harry Potter into the Death Star.
Then Wendy replied "this isn't even my final form."
I hate it when my swartz gets twisted.
My favorite part was when, after Peter and Wendy defeats Hook, Peter picks up his detached hook and says “This hook is literal perfection”. To which Wendy snatches it away from him and says, “It will be….once it fits a woman!” Riveting.
Sadly I can't tell if you're trolling or not 😅
Stunning if ture
I liked when Tiger Lily took her tomahawk and smashed open a Horcrux, destroying a piece of Voldemort's soul, that will be a precious cinematic moment I can carry with me forever.
Maybe one of her 'toys' when she grows up :P
@@kipolem53 you can thank Jennifer Lawrence for paving the way for such strong female characters!
A 15% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. And here I thought this movie was for modern audiences...
"It's not for YOUR modern audience"
And that's after they spent so much effort to make it hard to vote down movies but easy to vote up movies.
They’re grooming a modern audience.
Modern audiences = lesbians and blacks.
1% and 13% US population. 😂😂
Modern audiences hate s**t for modern audiences.
I loved the part when Disney spend millions and burn their legacy to the ground.
"Why spend millions, when we can lose...BILLIONS!" Dr. Evil running Disney.
'Continues to burn ...'
Always music to my ears. Here's hoping Guardians and Indy get no audience.
It's not burning. It's burnt
Yeah Disney is like an heir who inherited a business worth billions annually and then pawned it off for a couple of hundred millions because they are too lazy to run the business OR are too impatient to wait to negotiate a proper price OR are too insecure/possessive/selfish to let someone competent take the reigns and run the business.
Knowing Disney, it's surprising they didn't go the Peter Pansexual route.
I don't know about that. Looking at the trailer I'm truly confused by what gender Peter is. Maybe he's really a TOS Klingon
Sounds like porn tho...
Don't jinx it! haha
Most underrated comment!
For that you have to wait for when ((((somebody)))) will normalize pedo
Dying old and alone on a couch with no friends, family or kids around is the 2023 idea of being a proper feminist. The future of the human race looks dim.
It’s definitely a good example of where our society is headed
Genuinely no idea what they were thinking having that anywhere in the movie.
@@axiss5840 What?
@@MegaSpideyman It's a scene in the movie.
@@axiss5840 What do they say exactly?
As someone else pointed out, I love how Wendy dreamed of flying a WWI-style airplane... when those airplanes didn't exist when she was a child. *sigh* Disney truly doesn't care about history anymore.
She did though because after the events of Endgame was over Antman popped back into the time machine with a spare suit so Wendy could be whisked forward to 1917 to meet Manfred von Richthofen who actually gave her a few flying lessons in his favourite triplane.However because his English wasn’t so good he ended up with an embarrassing smack on the cheek when he offerd to Fokker!
Did you honestly expect the writers doing _research_ on the time period this is supposed to be set in?
There is no history, only an endless present in which the Party is always right...🤔
I'm doing my best to save information on the current state of the world so future generations know what's happening. But that may be a bit optimistic since there may be no future generations.
@@lullaby218 And that's a _good_ thing
Disney: “It’ll be fine”.
Disney: “Wait, it’s not fine? How can that be? Quick, fire the writers and hire different writers who will write the same stuff we tell them too. That’ll make it fine.”
The ghost of Walt Disney: *sighs in disappointment*
What writers, they’re on strike.
You forgot to accuse the audience of being istaphobes.
@@c1ph3rpunk With most of the current pap Disney has put out lately, they won't be missed.
Meanwhile at Dreamworks: …You wanna make an amazing sequel movie about a funny talking cat
Lara, the Critical Doggo, had the best take on Wendy and Patel Pan.
She was incredibly concise and insightful. I hope she stays as a permanent host for The Open Bar.
this is the only reason I watch these open bars :D
She definitely illustrated a winning strategy in how to deal with the "Peter Pan and Wendy" movie.
Ignore it, and enjoy your life.
She definitely comes out Top Dog in this discussion. No bones about it, she did not take her analysis lying down. Best of all, she focused on the parts of the film that were important. One might describe her as a good girl for this.
I was blown away at her points. Such insight, such wisdom! Currently shaken to my core
I found her comments to be ruff at times but commend her for never rolling over. She had a bone to pick, didnt hesitate to scratch at the buried truths and overall it was just a treat to watch.
Most children watch these Disney classics and see magical fantasy worlds. These writers clearly had twisted childhoods, where they saw something to be corrected.
The Disney classic will always be better
I imagine they saw magical fantasy worlds when they were kids, too. Then they went to college and took BS courses to earn useless degrees, buying into the propaganda (like it's wrong for white people to wear sombreros and ponchos to celebrate Cinco de Mayo), and lost their ability to experience wonder with those fantasy worlds.
Disney going for image instead of product. It's going well.
and most children watch maybe half of the remake before they get bored and wander off.... but you totally can't criticize it, because it's made for children....
Leftism strikes again
Even in "Hook" from 30 years ago, Pan's "happy thought' was his children. He realized that there was no life fulfilment in his job and understood that his family is what brings him happiness. Fast forward to 2023 and the "happy thought" has nothing to do with family and others, but is completely focused on a narsiccist view of self.
It makes me appreciate Hook so much more and realize even more that Spielberg understood the lore. Peter’s happy thought was his children. He realized that it wasn’t even his love for Moira that made leave neverland, but the vision he had of himself being a father.
Hook is a classic and Robin Williams was amazing as Peter along with Dustin Hoffman as Hook
Hoffman as Captain Hook is a classic.
“Don’t try to stop me Smee. I’m going to do it. Don’t you dare try to stop me. Smee. Try and stop me! SMEE!
Never scare me like that again.”
Well, there it is, see. Good husbands and fathers who are actually present are poison to modern writers.
This was my childhood Peter Pan movie and honestly it’s a great movie.
Fatherhood as an aspiration is the very antithesis of everything Disney believes in.
Not gonna lie, the part where Wendy stood infront of the lost boys and said "is this really the best a man can get?" Then proceeded to shave her downstairs infront of the children was truly empowering
It’s a biiiiiiig job with a set of balls that large and covered in thick masculine hair
😂
She looked so cool smoking that fat cigar in the first few minutes of screen time.
😂😅 fk me 😂
Comedy genius mate 🤝
Holy shit XD
Remember how Peter was chasing his shadow as part of his introduction as a character? Metaphor of the endless child who refuses to grow up. I love that. 😊
Peter Panned; as in it's awful.
😂 good one
We got it
“The Drinkers audience might be idiots…I better explain my pun just in case” 😂
@@jammyjamjars6995 😂 wait who said that
Ouch .... why didnt i think of that ... or the panel for that matter
I’m rooting for the alligator in this movie
The alligator should have killed everyone
Crocodile. 😉😉😉
@@pittland44 are Alligators not allowed to play Crocodiles in movies now? Freakin Hollyweird Idiots ruin everything.
@@Torgonius The fucker straight up assumed its species.
@@Torgonius That was the funniest thing I've read in a while. You win the internet for today my friend.
Hook is a great example of taking a beloved story and giving it their own spin without disrespecting the source material.
Even though it had Peter Pan grow up? going against the entire point of the character.
Also it did Tinkerbell wrong.
@@prufan Of course. All of the major themes remained intact while also continuing the story for the next generation. Not sure how Tinkerbell was not done right. Julia Roberts did a fine job.
@@Kai-the-culture-spider Agreed. The core of the story stayed intact, and we didn't get the pathetic fanfiction level storyline about Hook being a lost boy.
HOOK is utter shit. It's Spielberg's worst movie by a wide margin. I could feel myself dying as I sat in the theater watching that atrocity on screen. Nothing says classic English fairy tale like multiracial skateboarding Lost Boys.
@@Kai-the-culture-spider
not only were the themes intact, but also reversed with the whole problems with growing up covered from the adults end of things.
So, here's my biggest question:
If Hook was found and taken in by the pirates, and eventually rose through the ranks to command them... well, they said in this video the pirates are basically Hook's "found family". Found families breed happy memories. Even if they were evil pirates, Hook bonded with them enough to, even as captain, stick around rather than leave to find his actual family. So how is it possible that such a character with such a backstory would not have a single positive memory? They don't even have to be morally good. Hook just has to acknowledge them as positive to him.
The 2003 adaptation has a bit of fun with that concept.
In that movie's finale, Hook evens the playing field by getting some fairy dust as well. When he then notices he's floating right above the crocodile he desparately starts rattling down _his_ happy thoughts to not fall down.
Which include gems like "kittens on spikes".
@@EvilDoresh That film's a bit of a forgotten gem.
Peter: "Just think happy thoughts, positive memories! You'll be able to fly!"
Hook: [starts flying]
Peter: "Awesome, how'd you do it? What's your happy thought?"
Hook: "Well, that one time, we caught a Lost Boy and fired him from our main canon. His head made such a funny noise hitting the rocks near the beach."
Peter: "Yo, that's ... fucked up!"
Hook: "Innit, hee hee" [flies even higher]
Pillage, plunder, singing drunk at beach parties, sexual debauchery!
7:58
Are we really surprised that these modern writers took an opportunity to try and snipe at motherhood?
BirthingPersonHood
My favorite was when some dude chugged a Bud Light and magically transformed into Peter Pan.
There was a 🌈 coming out of his bum.
Tinkerbell more like
Neverembracerealityland.
@@alsmith9853 yeah
Seeing people clowning on Disney puts a smile on my face
It’s nothing short of satisfying
And it gets me hard
ALL this movie needed was Liam Neeson to smash in peter's head
@@sebastiancruz-ts1qq this movie would have rocked if it was just Taken 4 where Liam goes to Neverland to get his daughter back. Then it's the sheik scene on the yacht but it's peter holding his daughter on the pirate ship instead.
"You're goddamn right!"
I love the part where Peter Pan is teaching the children to fly, and Wendy says "He can fly!", then John says "He can fly!", and finally Michael, the youngest, says "Our society is based on systemic racism!" Brought a tear to my eye.
Truly the flights of all time. The way Peter flies is so misogynistic, though. Must be his internalized racism and homophobia.
The really weird thing is the live-action CGI looks far less effective and more simplistic than the 1953 cartoon. The amount of detail the artists put in the cartoon movie is utterly breathtaking and is the reason so many people adore Disney cartoons.
They managed to make Neverland look even more magical without a single computer.
Heck, the 2003 live action Peter Pan looks better!
Their special effects department is basically a sweatshop at this point. They no longer care about quality. They just want as many special effects as possible in their movie to justify the bloated budget.
Heck, the early 2000’s version’s CGI was better. That’s still my favorite live-action version. It takes liberties but is so much closer to the book’s spirit than this tripe.
My personal surprise is that they kept the Native American character despite the fact she's a literal stereotype of the Noble Savage gimmick
The supposed anti-racists are the worst racists of the lot. They even have her speaking in her native language which nobody else can understand. Why would anyone do this? It's just a display at that point.
I am no longer surprised by anything that makes peoples of Christian/Pagan and/or European ancestry look bad in film/media anymore. Just as a thought experiment[, and proof of concept], watch TV/movies from the last ... oh maybe 50 years, and as you do so, try and estimate the % of villains who were played by actors pretending to be characters of a certain ethno-cultural, geographical-background shall-we-say, and you will see what i mean. I warn you though, once you start noticing it you may have difficulty ever ceasing to notice it.
[P.S. Rant incoming:
Sorry for being somewhat cryptic about exactly what i mean here, but i'm sure enough of you can figure out what i mean, if you care to do so, and i prefer to be as "polite" as possible when putting things up online (since anything that goes online apparently does so permanently and privacy is rapidly becoming either impossible or nearly-so).
[Even though freedom of speech is the foundation that all decent social systems are built upon, and one of the first targets of tyranny and authoritarian-takeover... even scarier are those who seem to agree that freedom of speech isn't more important than "not offending anyone". NEWSFLASH that may be fine and well on a personal, small-scale level among friends, family, village etc... but it, like many other things do not scale up well or safely, to the level of larger numbers of people; when people can no longer know each other personally. This is also why socialism looks fine on paper and sounds great... might even work on a small scale, but it fails in the most horrific way imaginable every time it's tried on state or larger scale. But i digress.
if people aren't allowed to communicate openly, they will not learn, nor will anyone else know just how messed up they/others are, and so it leaves us all vulnerable to the only alternative there is to talking... action.]
/end-of-rant]
She didn’t talk in the original movie at all, but she did “nose kiss“ Peter Pan.
I’m surprised she wasn’t blue with a tail!
Also considering they put a warning disclaimer on Peter Pan because of that entire scene too lol
I mean this seriously and without hyperbole: This video is the best for both describing how badly the producers&writers gutted this story and how, in a global sense, these writers simply don't have the emotional life experience to write anything with character depth. Ever. Sincerely I say, this video should be distributed to every so-called film and screen-writing school across the country. It's a lesson on so many levels of what makes a story work - and what is trite and soulless. I'm going to save the URL and just use this from now on to send to people.
These writers never grew up so they CAN'T write a story about the conflict between needing to grow up and the desire to retain the innocence and security of childhood.
You don't have to have life experience. But these awful juvenile writers write as if they never read any BOOKS. They simply don't understand classic ways to make literature work, and have no experience of complex plots and characters that don't fit some contemporary ideology. Ideology makes for BAD art.
@@JOHN----DOE You're sorta right. Experience in a story isn't necessary, otherwise only astronauts, killers, detectives, fairies, etc would be able to write. Which hits on the larger side of your point...
These people have No Imagination. Their Inner Life is void of Truth or humanity.
They have Little to No Talent, which is why they've been hired.
They don't have much in the way of Skill, either. Their abilities are below entry level.
You see, Imagination, Talent, and Skills aren't what's being sold. It's socio-political ideology. And as college graduates, these companies once thought they were getting a "fresh, new, young, modern" perspective.
Until they realized that these college grads had Nothing to say, Nothing to write about, and Nothing to offer.
But, by the time they figured this out -- which they should have known by looking at their portfolios -- the shift had taken place, and none of these attributes were needed because What became the goal of the corporate middlemen was Changing the culture by changing its stories.
So, the franchises were bought and targeted. And when the fans rebelled, they excused it as bigotry against [Enter Group Here].
Just watch Disney's videos on the writing roundtable for Star Wars. The only thing they discuss is how to insert their ideologies. Not once do they discuss the original stories, legacy, or improving anything.
It's been about one thing and one thing only. Search for that video. It's very interesting
When Wendy slapped the Peter out of the Pan, I knew Di$ney lost the magic with this one.
She slapped him so hard he almost became a school shooter
Love that everyone is going over the literary tropes, messages, and lessons from the original play, novel, and the previous films. These were wonderful messages to me as a girl, too--that girls are smart enough not to get lost, that girls are more stable and logical when boys are impulsive and silly, that mothers are important and we all need some kind of mother figure in our lives. You guys are younger than me, so it's good to see you've picked up on the messages that exist within the story. Well done.
Good stories tell the truth about the characters. Bad stories tell the truth about the authors.
🤯
I got chills at when Peter said "These magic powers are perfection" and Wendy went "They will be when they are on a girl."
She actually does when she declares something like "This is not male magic."
Culturally appropriating fairy magic, what a botch.
You go girl!!
Is batwoman officially the worst series with the best memes?
Imagine adapting Peter Pan and leaving out the feelings between Peter and Wendy. Like, what's next, Romeo and Juliet, but without romance?
Mate, I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised at all, and it would have Romeo *self deleting* and Juliet realising she is actually perfect and can get on in life without a man. I’m 100% serious.
Romeo and Juliet, but romeo is her sterotypical 90's sitcom gay best friend who talks about boy trouble with her
Juliet: to be or not to be.. *Blows up building* not to be 😂
I loved when Wendy looked at her mother and stated "There is a tempest within me."
That an animated pony named Tempest Shadow is more compelling that anything coming out of Disney nowadays is hilarious to me.
I could listen to Platoon speaking about Peter Pan for hours.
It’s incredible how, when you care so little, you see the trailer, ignore everything around the movie, and are surprised when it already comes out
I know, right?
I thought they were still finishing the movie. Nope! All done; go watch.
I loved the part when Peter yelled at Hook saying “You were supposed to destroy the sith not join them”
(You were supposed to destroy the pirates, not join them!) Cool meme though.
The original Peter pan literally explains there only being lost boys with the line "There are no "lost girls" because, as Peter explains, girls are far too clever to fall out of their prams"
So for the remake they technically made girls a lot stupider than the original for "teh holey inclusion".
SJWs don't read books but somehow the ignorant are the others
TLP is amazingly insightful without monopolising the floor
My jaw dropped when Wendy flew up to Peter Pan and said, "I have nothing to prove to you" then blasted him with her hand beams.
I always like how BaggageClaim manages to tie characters to symbolism (e.g. Tinkerbell as a fantasy vs Wendy as a real woman) and it makes me wonder why I didn't think of that myself
Curiously, one aspect they completely eliminated - and the 1953 Pan obscured - is that in the book it is TINKERBELL who is originally the 'mother' to the Lost Boys, even to the extent of playing aspects of motherhood such as tucking the boys in and making them take their (fake) medicine. This is why she is so insanely jealous of Peter allowing Wendy to show up and be the 'mother'. And, as mentioned, she actually is a better 'mother' in a real sense, even wanting to return the boys to the real world and adopt them because that's what would actually be better for them. In the book, Tinkerbell in no way cooperates so they have to sail Hook's ship back to England.
When 1953 Disney updated things for modern audiences, they were actually catering to audiences, not trying to indoctrinate them.
That Tinkerbell is a fantasy is a idea that Jordan Peterson has also put forward.
Who could’ve expected this response?!
SHOCKED!
Cue the clip of Gary Oldman shouting "EVERYONE!" from the movie "The Professional".
I think they should have been a bit more honest and titled the movie "Wendy and it doesn't matter what his name is because he's male, so he's useless and unimportant compared to how brave and wonderful Wendy is."
That seems to be the way they feel over in Hollywood.
I'd have called it *"Wendy: The Savior of The Lost Non-Gender-Specific Kids of Neverland."*
I would have called it, "Excuse me, sir, this is a Wendy's", because I'm in it for the memes.
@@HerculesBallsInc "...because I'm FRESH, NOT FROZEN!"
I'm so impressed with the panels' research and analysis of this great story. You all put in more work than the entire writing staff at Disney, clearly.
I loved the part when a man asked that he needed to have to have access to the women's washroom. I was squirming with contentment in my seat.
I got chills just now listening to the description of the original story, and the messages and meanings in it… tells you how good it is. Disney can suck it
In terms of audience approval, this flick is heading towards Velma levels (IOW, single digits).
If _Peter Pandering and Mary Sue_ was any more of a dog it’d have fleas.
‘Hook’ was the only live action Peter Pan movie we ever needed and will never be topped, RIP Robin Williams.
I loved the beautiful bitter sweet nature of the 2003 movie. Really well acted and poignant and completely underated. One of my favorite movies from the 00's.
Spoiler alert: one of the DIVERSE individuals is Riri Williams. Wendy and DIVERSE Tinker Bell taught her the basics of flying
The scene where Arnold shouts "GET TO DA CHOPPA", really gave me goosebumps!
When I saw the chopper's name was 'Pixie Dust', I knew the writers truly understood the original story.
I stood up and applauded when Wendy called Captain Hook one ugly mother fuckr.
I knew this movie was for modern audiences when Wendy said to Peter to ‘grow up into a sexual Tyrannosaurus, just like me’
Hook being a former Lost Boy isn't *totally* unworkable as a twist for the sake of making an adaption not predictable, but it would require that the problems of the plot be due purely due to the (magically enforced physical) rules of the world and Hook's own *rage* at them, not the way this abomination handled it. Something like the island itself repels him as he attempts to return and Hook tries to attack it, disregarding the safety of its inhabitants, and forcing Peter to drive him off in return.
In the original story, hook was a lost boy that was trying to save the kids from peter pan, peter pan and the fairy were straight up evil.
I touched on this in my comment. I like your idea; I think it's workable. Bad news through. From the look of it you gave this a little thought, had some insight and possibly even studied the original animated movie. All strikes against you. If you do want to write for Disney, I know a few good surgeons who could remove 96% of your brain, teach you to mumble to yourself, and every time Kenedy and her Star Wars is mentioned you start cheering loudly for her. Think hard on this since it is not reversable. Proof? Look at the writers at Disney do you see any of them getting better?
Didn't like it at all. Hook is clearly the villain of the story and should stay as such.
@@RedSander_BR No, you are referring to some other adaptation. Hook was originally an Etonian from an influential aristocratic family (possibly royalty).
The book is certainly more nuanced. The author describes Hook as 'not unheroic'. And Pan is basically a psychopath who is largely indifferent to consequences and trouble - he cuts off Hook's hand just because he was dared to. Even so, Pan isn't really EVIL... just CHILDISH. Nor is Hook GOOD, because he's happy to shoot cannons and swing swords at children, even if stopping Pan might be a good thing in the final analysis.
My favorite part was when, after Peter and Wendy defeats Hook, Peter picks up his detached hook and says “Without it's master's command the restless pirates will become an even greater threat to this world. Control must be maintained...there must ALWAYS be a Hook”.
Regardless of your favorite version, no wardrobe will ever beat the OG Tinkerbell… (but Ludivine Sagnier was fire in the 2003 version)
OG Tinkerbell is still awesome
I do owe one thing to this remake - it's made me realize (by listening to the discussions around it) just how layered and nuanced and profound JM Barry's original story is.
It really is! There's so much in there about the nature of growing up and what it means to be an eternal child, among so many other profound themes. If you would like to see an actually good interpretation of the source material, definitely take a look at the 2003 live action film. You can tell that the makers really understood the book's subtext and tried to bring it out in the film. It's an adult version of the Peter Pan story without being drab or colourless, the actors are all having so much fun and the visual design of Neverland is pleasantly stylised. The film also has a very cool psychological trick up its sleeve where Hook and Mr Darling are played by the same actor (Jason Isaacs), as he traditionally was in the original stage version.
And the great thing is you probably picked up on all these ideas and subconsciously consumed them. That's the difference between past writers and modern ones. If they wanted to inject politics into stuff they used to do it in a much more nuanced and subtle way. Theres so much older content i love that didnt resonate with my belief system but it was presented in a good way that it wasnt problematic as a viewer to enjoy.
The counter I've heard for Wendy's "happy thoughts" of dying alone is that not everyone wants/needs a family to be happy.
First off, again, nixing the motherly aspect of Wendy is nixing a core part of her character.
Secondly, I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen a clip that flashes through her happy thoughts. Unless that clip portrayed it wrong, she was alone on her couch. When you've accomplished something, family or no, parent or no, the people you've effected will remember you fondly and celebrate what you've done. *Why didn't they show **_that?!_* I'm not talking about showing funeral, but even just a plaque on a building acknowledging the good she's done or and some adult reading it to their kid or _something._
Its true that not everyone wants or needs a family to be happy, but that "not everyone" represents a miniscule fraction of the entire human race. The vast, vast, vast majority of us _do_ want or need it. That argument sounds very much like a first-world self-insert (and particularly feminist) cope tactic doesnt it? Lol.
I love this trend in movies where if a Mary Sue wants to win bad enough and have enough determination that's conveniently all it takes for them to pull through, odds be damned. Like nah mate you can't run me through with a sword even though you're better at it and I'm already wounded, I just wanna win more than you
She got wounded? Hangnail hair slightly messed up?
Moral lessons require introspection and challenging your own assumptions, and consumers are not into that anymore, especially not the target audience for this slop. So if you’re a young woman, the only lesson you’re allowed to be taught is, “you’re perfect; you just need to believe in yourself and never take advice or instruction.”
It's a disservice to young girls really. All people really do need to internalise the need for hard work and preparation.
The message of being able to overcome people who have worked harder, are prepared, and are possibly just better... Just because you want it and are passionate, is a crap lesson.
It's just setting people up for failure... And it will all be the patriarchy's fault presumably.
The whole "The pirates are Lost boys who Peter got rid of" is a really old tumblr headcanon that has never actually sat right with me. No one in Neverland grows up, sure, Peter could have thrown his 'toys' out of the pram, but they would still be young children, they wouldn't just immediately grow through puberty and become pirates.
Butt pirates maybe.
Indeed! It doesn't really make sense. Though, how are Hook and co adults in other versions?
It makes the most sense, to me, if they're as eternal as Neverland. Everything there is as it always has been, as a child imagines it must be.
@@MegaSpideymanI thought that they were just Neverland entities like the mermaids and natives. They don’t get any older than they already are and they play the role of the antagonist for the lost boys to fight against.
At this point it’s more entertaining to watch Disney burn their money and get humiliated than to watch their actual movies
What could be more depressing than looking to your future-dying alone - & unloved.
2:47 I don’t know why, but when Mauler says “oh no” in that sad kinda way when Drinkers signal was bad, I found it so funny
Someone brings up the problem of creating backstory for everyone as a problem. But I think the real issue with Hook is not that they gave him a backstory. It's that the backstory they gave him fit this pattern from so many modern movies where the villain HAS to have an intimate personal connection to the main character.
Peter and Hook can't just hate one another because they represent these polar opposite ends of male childhood and adulthood. They have to have the long, drawn out, personal connection that explains their every interaction in intimate detail.
Very few of these big budget movie writers seem to believe in the less-is-more concept anymore. Tell only what you need to make the conflict believable, and then STOP.
Said this below under another video.. making everyone related is a cheap trick to add some 'depth' to characters' relationships. We know that Hook is a pirate, which is quite enough, just like the sheriff being a sheriff in Robin Hood.
@williet.3058 The Sheriff bring corrupt*
If he was just a sheriff, Robin would be the villain protagonist.
@@KopperNeoman I don't mean to say that every sheriff at that time was a villain, but we don't really need to know about this one's childhood traumas, or his entire backstory, to understand that he is not a good man. A few words about his 'deeds' are just enough for the story.
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. There's no nuance in the film either. Nothing happens to change the characters except Peter figuring out that feeding your former friend's have to a crocodile is a pretty awful thing to do. It's great that in their efforts to battle racism and misogyny they've actually made more by focusing on things that nobody ever did before.
Peter pan from Hook: my happy thought is being a father
Wendy from this film: my happy thought I'd being a feminist
What a fitting update for modern audiences™
In the Director's Cut, Wendy pegs Peter Pan. He concedes his manhood to her after enjoying it.
When Wendy uses *"SKY DRAGON'S ROAR!!!* against Captain Hook who uses Tremor-Tremor Fruit and Haki to clash against it, it made me smile with pure unadulterated glee.
I soyjacked
Producing modern versions of vintage stories is so stunning and brave. It says, hey we have no talent and creativity, but we can pervert a beloved classic
Ah...Wendy and Peter. A film about 2 villains murdering a poor distraught man. I have an urge to watch Hook again.
This video helped bring together what I have been thinking about for the past few months. For a change I can boil it down to two main point. Please, do not hesitate on exchanging your own thoughts. Here goes nothing.
POINT ONE: It seems writers of these movies have not bothered to study the tale their story is based on. They took the name, read a review and/ or comments then wrote. They were never made to dissect stories in English class in high school. They never learned to break down what the author tried to write. It's like they don't understand the elements of crafting words. IE; motivation, story arc and characters development. Yes, I meant characters as in more than one. You can't have one character growing in a story. In addition, Rather than retelling the story you make your own. The ideas in Peter Pan redone as a whole new story. Captain Hook in my opinion would have been wonderful addition if done right. Hook use to be Peter's best friend. When he returns, he is an adult matured and leader of the pirates, who were evil toward the lost boys. Hook extends the hand of friendship and wishes to seal the gulf between the two. Peter, still a young lad feels betrayed and fights Captain Hook, cuts off his hand, which flies into the mouth of the hungry crocodile. Just one example of the multiple things that could improve the movie, in my opinion.
POINT TWO: Please please please Hollywood stop with the woke or whatever any of what you want to call it. Yes, almost every story tries to teach or expand on the writer's personal belief. But stop pushing it down our throat. You want to show Wendy as a female is as good as any male don't make her a Mary Sue. Show her sword fighting with her brothers, but not winning. Maybe even getting hurt. But when she comes to Never Never Land she learns from the female leader of the lost girls. Yes, the lost girls. Why boys and girls. They are children and I remember my childhood 58 years ago. (Yes, I am 64) Us boys knew girls had cooties. I even called two gargoyles. (They became in a way my adopted sisters, never a romantic relationship. The only thing worse than a girl with cooties is a female gargoyle with cooties) In the climax the two lost groups combine forces and defeat the pirates. Wendy's training pays off and her and Peter fight back-to-back protecting each other, and Peter discovers Wendy does not have cooties. You have shown a woman can be just as good as a man, even the hero can make evil mistakes and both genders together can overcome anything.
I hope I got my point across and not to many people want to chase me down and take my computer away. Most likely the extreme feminist on the left and the extreme conservatives on the right hate me. You can't please them unless you 100% repeat what they believe. Thank you for reading to the end. I know I have a tendency for long posts, so I appreciate anyone who reads to the end. Now your turn to comment, maybe even write something better than what I just wrote. It won't be that hard to be better.
Great story. Disney won't listen though
@@TiagrajI Thank you for the compliment. I have to agree with you Disney won't listen nor would they use anything close to what I said. I'm not the only one, others have story ideas some better than mine. It's sad when all of the fan fiction is better than what the professionals (URRRP Gack, cough cough blurp shazbot argh) Sorry technical difficulty but I had a bucket nearby. I should know better than to have what Critical Drinker is drinking. Last time I did I grabbed Doomcock's helmet. Now I'm not allowed back to the center of the Earth. As I was saying sad day when fan fiction is better. All fan fiction for this story. Once more thank you and I hope we hear from others and their ideas.
Damnation, but TheLittlePlatoon is just so well thought and spake; always a pleasure listening to his thoughts and analyses. I'm so glad chaps like you guys are inspiring more of each other to have a voice. If memory serves: Mauler inspired you (Drinker) who inspired Platoon, and I just love all 3 of your opinions, personalities, and senses of humor -the type of mentally-functional good 'ol boys I'd most likely spend my time with given my druthers.
you just know ursula in the little mermaid is going to have a tragic backstory, like she's the ex-wife of king triton or something
She’s also Spock’s grandma… because everything must somehow tie back to Spock.
Maybe she’ll be the rightful queen and Triton used his male privilege and stole it from her (not even joking I wouldn’t be surprised)
Actually the critics' RT score is interesting. The first couple pages of critic reviews (the first 39, when I looked at it) was 80% positive. That means the next 4 pages (80 reviews) had to have an average in the mid 50's in order to drag the overall score down to ~65%. That means that, other than the first ones out trying to score brownie points, even the critics found it very hit-and-miss, with basically a coin flip on whether they'd give it an OK.
I saw 77% critic and 48% audience when I first looked
It is interesting looking back at the gyrations of feminism over time. In my youth 'macho' behavior was mocked and feminists insisted that less aggressive female behavior was superior. Nowadays, macho behavior is feminine behavior.
Why do you think that is?
@@MegaSpideyman
Over the decades the feminist movement devolved from something reasonable to hateful nihilism.
Freud said it best : Penis envy
Disney just keeps destroying itself
Good.
To my great delight.
I hope it dies soon
Reminds me of Nu Aladdin where they made Jasmine less cool by sloppily trying to make her empowered. In the old Peter Pan all the male characters are either pirates or scruffy boys running around without rules. Even Peter's a bit of a dick. He's very arrogant, doesn't take anything seriously and can be a bit careless with others feelings. Wendy's literally the only sane person in Neverland. It takes a mother figure to come in and slap everyone into shape. She didn't need to be ham-fistedly made into a feminist.
Doggo is just enthralled about this
Critical doggo elegantly giving the best opinion on entire panel
I've bought into the theory that the Girlboss is a body-snatching demon that travels from universe to universe, and whichever universe she travels to and possesses someone, she ruins it and moves onto the next.
I loved the part where Wendy couldn't tell Matt Walsh what a woman was
"I guess it doesn't really matter."
I watched this live and it was pretty enjoyable, I liked each of your views on this.
Wendy Pan? The most stunning film of 2023. I loved the part where Wendy said to the lost they/thems. "You're on thin ice my pedigree chumps and I shall be under it when it brakes"
Almost as great as when she said “never trust a ma’am who owns a pig farm”
@@samblack5313 she really thought those pirates what nemesis means
In this case it’s personified by a horrible cxnt as well… 😂
This discussion of adding back story reminds me of a discussion I heard about magic in stories. If you start to add rules or specific spells etc ala Harry Potter for instance, then you have to stick to those rules and all of the implications that come from them. If you're a bit more vague about it and use it sparingly ala LOTR, then it's easier to believe whatever you decide to do with it in the plot and move on.
It's interesting that you say that because I think Tolkien himself had a very different view.
One of my favourite quotes of his refers to greatest god Iluvatar as "that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named". And I think as a deeply devout person he means that quite earnestly and you can see it if you read the text with that in mind. To Tolkien, there was LOTS of interference by Iluvatar CONSTANTLY throughout. Things that just 'go right', 'coincidences' that happen. This is, I think, how he conceives of magick in his story and you can see that through the elves, who don't even refer to what they are doing as magick even though everyone else does. Ropes that just untie themselves when they need to and boats that know to stay afloat and to keep to the best parts of the river. Dirt that is just good for growing and food that is just good to eat. The TRUE magick is a kind of underlying structure that makes things fit together and it's both completely invisible if you don't know to look for it and completely obvious if you do. Flashy fireballs and glowy swords are just amateurish effects that TRUE magick has no need of.
I think a good analogy would be the difference between a master chef and an amateur cook. The amateur probably has a recipe that he has to follow letter by letter, like a Harry Potter spell. You MUST turn the oven to 350 and you MUST mix the flour and sugar first before you add the eggs, but if you do everything exactly as the recipe says you magickally turn inedible ingredients into a yummy cake. Yay! But a master chef has moved entirely BEYOND the recipe. He'll throw things together often without the use of measuring tools at all, because he knows what it's supposed to look like and how it's supposed to feel. He might add completely different ingredients depending on what's in the fridge or what the temperature is outside. To you or I this would seem like chaos. But the results are almost anything he wants. We could say that the master chef doesn't really know 'magick' because he has no formula... but really it is the person reciting words on the page who doesn't know magick and can only do what he is told.
I am reminded also of Aristotle. Probably not a surprise since he was a major authority for early Christianity. But he, too, had a view of the universe which saw it as a divinely created machine with all the parts intended to work together to inevitably produce a result which made everyone and everything better. A nice belief to have, if you can support it.
Fantasy author Brandon Sanderson has his rules of magic in fiction. Rule #1: The author's ability to use magic to solve problems in the plot is directly proportional to the reader's understanding of how the magic system works.
Basically, if you want the heroes to be saved by some kind of magic, they need to understand how and why, and what limitations there are that prevent it being used to save them all the time.
@@TheNoonish Reminds me of a recent movie where they wanted a lot of magick, but they felt that they had to work hard to explain why magick couldn't just solve all problems. Too much magick can become a kind of anti-plot mechanism, and a good understanding of how magick works can counteract that.
One of my absolute favourite books is 'Master of Five Magics' by Lyndon Hardy, which did go through five very detailed magick systems, each with its own advantages and limitations, and none of which could be used to solve all problems even though they were all very handy at times.
Fun fact: on a live stage, the role of Peter Pan is traditionally played by a woman/young lady.
I got to see a live performance of Peter Pan WITH GYMNASTICS in 1974 or '75. It was awesome.
Peter Pan was played by the lovely All-American Olympic gymnast Cathy Rigby and Tinkerbell was a blinky light. There was nary a dry eye in that basket all stadium when that light dimmed, and finally went out. But don't worry. I brought her back to life. It was me. Solely. Peter Pan said so.
My clapping and "believing" in her restored her life and happiness. It was a big moment in my life.
But not as big as when I got an assist with Curly Neal from the Harlem Globetrotters. He caught my inbound pass and scored from half court. I made that other player look stoopid too! I could've gone pro - Curly said so! I was psyched. But my mom said I should stay in school and Meadowlark agreed. So I went into 3rd grade instead of on the road ballin'.
Should've tried to hide on their bus.
Wendy taps him on the shoulder and says "I'm bored now and I want to go home!" funniest part of the video. 🤣🤣
That first criticism against Wendy, I was like "Oh! Well, maybe that's not very endearing, but I guess you could work that into a thing where Wendy is then thrust into the parental role, looking after her brothers AND the lost children of Neverland, and so she has to grow out of being another child herself who starts petty squabbles with her brothers, etc. etc"... Then Baggage Claim continued Drinker's point and, Hmm. I guess not.
Watched the 2003 release yesterday and really enjoyed it.
While not wanting to be a mother as a woman is not a bad thing at all (not every man wants to be a father either), robbing Wendy of her motherly nature was just a horrible idea. It added so much to her character and was also the reason Peter brought her along: to be their mother.
Holy crap I didn’t know this went streaming but this is probably the best panel I’ve ever seen. You finally got baggage claim on there. She is freaking amazing!
Just wait until the little hammerhead shark comes out....
The story takes place during Edwardian time, not Victorian. I've googled and saw that the story is supposed to be taken place in 1904-1910
Does it really matter?
This movie sucks!
Yeah, I was a bit confused about it. But one could argue that it takes place at the end of the Victorian age and that the fairy theme further places the story there.
I thoroughly recommend the 2003 live action Peter Pan. Jason Isaacs plays Hook wonderfully (not to mention his happy thoughts that allow him to fly are brilliant).
Keep up the doggo cam, it's brilliant I love it
It really just goes to show you how terrifying the amount of money Disney had was. They have released multiple flops in one year, and have barely taken a hit. Any other smaller company would be bankrupt by now
No amount of money will long save a company that chooses to alienate its audience, not even Disney. They can keep the facade going for now, but the rot is accelerating and we’re already seeing the outward signs of decay despite their best efforts to hide it.
These live action movies have SO much potential with the filmmaking technologies of today…it’s such a shame that they are all such crap in writing/editing/etc.
Yeah, they could be awesome but they always KEEP FAILING!
Maybe, but why bother when the originals were made in the best media for those classics: 2D animation. With handrawn animation, you can recreate the picture book essence of those stories perfectly, so trying to improve them with 3D CGI is not really worth it, even if they gave a fuck about doing it right.
The filmmaking technology is a BIG part of the problem. They can do anything, so they do everything. A great writer has to have control and the ability to limit and focus on what is truly important. There are no limits anymore, and everything suffers for it. It's why we have so many ridiculously bloated superhero fluff films - essentially one-note cartoons that are 2.5 hours long. It's utterly ridiculous.
16:11
Peter grabs Hook and tells him to "think happy thoughts" to be able to fly.
Hook looks at him and says, "All I have are negative thoughts."
It's not about money. It's about sending a message. They dont want us to have families. They want you to be alone isolated climbing the corporate ladder, paying taxes until you die. All in the name of sticking it to the patriarchy. Slay queen. Slay.
At what point will movies be just the male lead being pegged for 90 minutes are feminist falling it female empowerment
We need more movies with males and females working together and struggling equally, not this modern nonsense
My theory is that they fired the original peter pan from Rescue rangers movie that got at the end of the film got arrested. They have to find a new cast of people just to reboot it for a " modern audiance " just to bastardized the source material
I would rather watch that Rescue Rangers movie over this.
@@chasehedges6775 don't, it's awful
The critical doggo’s reaction to the audience score for PP&W was perfect.
Thanks for bring my attention to baggage claim, great channel. I like her long form videos.
No joke but Drinker would actually make a kick ass Captain Hook even if the script is shit.
Drunk Scottish Peter Pan where everybody is just a good old Scottish lad who's had a few drinks would be fucking hilarious. Especially if Tinkerbell and Wendy are both played by the hairiest manliest Scots they could drag out of the highlands and everyone plays it straight.