Disney's new Peter Pan remake is pretty dumb...
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 04. 2023
- The first 1,000 people to use the link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare
skl.sh/alexmeyers05231
★☆★ Help Me Get to 4,000,000 Subscribers! bit.ly/1Iqsdaq
Check out my Podcast
/ @dointhedevilstango8197
★☆★Buy some Merch: alexmeyers.teemill.com
★☆★PLEASE SHARE THIS VIDEO!!
★☆★PREVIOUS VIDEOS:
Prom Pact
• Disney is literally ju...
Pinocchio Remake
• that new Disney Pinocc...
The Parent Trap
• The Parent Trap was ki...
Thank you so much for 3,000,000 subscribers. If you like what you see, please share these videos! - Zábava
The first 1,000 people to use the link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare
skl.sh/alexmeyers05231
Ok.
I will use skill share
@Robin_ will you use skill share
Can you do an episode about Johnson family from agents of shield season 2
@kpop world he will not do that
One thing Disney’s good at is NEVER listening to audiences😭⚰️
Its very rare for big companies to ever listen to their fans, ofcourse that doesn't make them inexcusable, but its just the sad reaity that we must live with
Money makes the world go around.
Yc
That's pretty much every big company nowadays
Actually it looks like they watched a few theory videos about Peter Pan while they were writing this movie because things like Peter Pan and Hook being friends, Hook being a lost boy in the past, Peter not really understanding what Tinker Bell says and Peter Pan having a sad past is all stuff I heard or read about online in movie theories
The main point of why Wendy never wanted to grow up was because of her father. He's always angry, very serious, and strict. She thought that if she grew up, she would be like her father.
Also, I hate the fact that they destroyed Wendy's entire character. She's always been extremely feminine and elegant-like. She never compared herself to the boys, she loved and protected her brothers, and she loved and took care of the Lost Boys and Peter despite their stupid antics. The fact that they changed her and the Lost Boys just to "destroy gender stereotypes" is extremely stupid.
Agree.
Ironically in the live-action remake, Wendy became the exact same traits of her father which she hated about growing up: angry, very serious, strict; all for the sake of making her a "girlboss" 😠😤 It just shows how the writers of the movie seriously missed the point of Wendy's character for the sake of being "woke" 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
Also, the fact that they have two different actors to play Hook and Mr. Darling.
She was supposed to be the mother figure of the lost boys. Which is why everyone was so eager to listen to her even though she was just slightly older than them. Peter became like a somewhat childish father figure who's never serious about anything. He cares about the lost boys but equally lost as they are
I do like tomboyish characters but there's nothing wrong with 100% feminine characters but it seems that nowadays it's avoided like the plague, as if behing feminine isn't "strong"
@LexDavidson13 they used the same voice actor for the two of them?
Adding girls to the lost boys is hysterical. I swear the conversation was probably like “why aren’t there any girls“ and then, rather than actually going through and trying to find out why in the story this would be the case they just immediately said “probably sexism, let’s add girls!”
Exactly what I was thinking! Every story has a story behind it after all!
Which again proves that no one involved has even watched the movies. I've heard so many shitty takes from people involves with this movie and they could all be answered by anyone whose even remotely a fan. For example, the director was asked why tinkerbell doesn't glow and his answer was "We all imagine Tinker Bell glowing, but then you're like, 'Where's the light actually coming from? Do her wings light up?". Literally anyone who watched the tinkerbell movies would know that fairies glow because they're covered in glowing pixie dust. And anyone's who knows Peter Pan knows why they need wendy and why the lost boys are not girls 💀
@Jᴀsᴍɪɴ Aɴɢᴇʟᴠᴏɪᴄᴇs
*"For example, the director was asked why tinkerbell doesn't glow and his answer was "We all imagine Tinker Bell glowing, but then you're like, 'Where's the light actually coming from? Do her wings light up?""*
----------------------------------------------------
Please tell me someone proceeded to ask the director to explain the whole concept of Neverland if he wants to bring in realism to the magic glowing pixie.
@WakkaSeta It's not really about how she glows in reality, it's about where they place the light source to give her that glowing effect. In the original, they just had to give her a vague glowing aura, and that was fine, she was an animated character. In live action, it's trickier, because they have to decide whether the glow comes from her skin, her wings, etc.
It's still a cop-out to say "I dunno where it's coming from, so we didn't bother." I personally would've liked to see the visual effects studio try a few variations before they gave up, but...as Alex alluded to in this video, Disney goes out of their way to give them as few billable hours as they can, and the studios are massively underpaid due to not being unionized on top of it.
Dear Disney,
Stop remaking the classics. No one asked you to, no one wanted you to.
I agree. The only ones I enjoyed were Alice in wonderland and Aladdin (Aladdin wasn't great, on second thought)
Agreed too. I only enjoyed Alice and wonderland, dumbo and Beauty and the beast.
@I am Me I haven't seen Dumbo, but I forgot about the Beauty and the Beast remake. I didn't like it that much, but it was much better than many of the other ones
The beauty and the beast live action was also pretty bad.
Actually, it was Walt Disney's dying wish to make his creations "come to liFe," meaning they are looking at least in live-action.
What's funny is, in the book, the Darlings have to do a whole lot of math to figure out whether they can afford to keep each of their kids as they're born. So leaving all the lost boys in their care would almost certainly bankrupt them.
Disney's approach to "girl power" has always given me so much second hand embarrassment as a woman. Wendy had her strengths in the original story, and instead of building off them, they completely erased them and gave her some of Peter's roles instead, which makes the movie boring because there's no balance when all the characters have the same abilities. I wish it wasn't taboo these days for a film to suggest that being kind and motherly is a good strength for a woman to have. I'm a huge fan of badass female characters like Ellen Ripley from the Alien franchise, but even the "badass" female characters we get these days are poorly written and far less believable. It's insulting that they are putting so much spotlight on female inclusivity and empowerment, yet they still end up one-dimensional and boring.
And why doesn't Tinkerbell hate Wendy?!? Her entire role in the story is to create conflict with her jealousy and then turn a new leaf to save her. It's called character development! They're afraid of putting a woman with flaws on screen, even if those flaws are replaced with positive growth, and that's why these characters are so flat. No flaws = no growth, and no growth is boring.
Exactly. Well said!
Yes! This bothers me too, nowadays for a female character to be strong, she will basically have to be a man. I want movies showing that you can be strong, even if you are feminine- in every movie now a female character has to trade in her dress for pants to show that NOW she's stronger than she was!
Yes to the 2nd hand embarrassment! I am finding myself getting more and more grumpy about "girl power", and things I used to like I am starting to not like because the new stuff is so disgusting!
YES THANK YOU.
As a woman i feel all of this, they are trying to push zero consequences on us
I think so many people miss the point of what this movie is about. Wendy thinks she doesn't want to grow up in the beginning, but her mother was right about how she was changing and growing. This reveals itself throughout the movie because she naturally takes on a nurturing, mothering role for the lost boys. Neverland is not all fantastical for her because she sees the more practical side of things too. That's the reason that she decides to go home and grow up in the end. She found her own personal place in the world. She wanted to grow up and become a mother. Wendy was romantic and feminine and sweet and nurturing. That doesn't mean that all women/girls have to be that way, but there literally isn't anything wrong with being that way either. They butchered this remake. IMO, its one of their worst.
This is spot on
I've always seen Peter Pan as Wendy's story
My biggest problems with this remake are:
- why is it so fricking dark and washed out?
- why isnt Tinkerbell shiny? Poor girl just blends into the background
- the girls among the Lost boys completeky erasing the whole point of Peter bringing Wendy
- Hook
💯
Im just quoting a comment I read, but seemingly they didn't make tinker bell shine cause it would "lighten up the skin tone of the actress" 🤦🏻♀️
Wonder what the stories matter group will do once Disney goes out of business?
Unsaturated is the perfect one word summary for all these Disney remakes.
Also, the way Disney tries to portray fEmInIsM and “girl boss personalities” makes me ill. The girl yelling “SO?” like she’s about to throw hands from how triggered and offended she was by Wendy noticing the Lost Boys weren’t all boys made me want to scream into a pillow. If Disney HAD to have girls in the lost boys for who knows what reason, why couldn’t they just be included and call them “the lost kids” and leave it at that? Or Wendy could ask the question and the girls could have a cheeky response like “we got outvoted on the name” or something light hearted for this KIDS movie. The cringy overreaction was unnecessary, uncomfortable, and not funny - and why would they want to make the only girls in the lost boys clan seem unpleasant to be around? Great representation there Disney! How can the company that created such strong, empowering, and respectable female characters like Mulan and Nani be so bad at portraying them today? Those “lost girls” just seem like entitled brats.
You're mad just because a fictional character said "so?" 😭😭😭 What???
Well remeber how the bastardized mulan in the remakes. They even thanked a fuckin concentration camp for letting them film nearby in the credits.
They didn't even need to add girls because if I remembered correctly, the lost girls were friends with tiger lily and lived separately from the boys...
I totally agree. If you’re gonna do something like that, try not to make it so on the nose
The lost girls being in the lost boys actually does make a big deal because in the original book and movie Wendy was supposed to be some sort of mother for the children.
It was also a play too.
Well, we know why Disney changed Wendy's character in this new 2023 version, because being motherly, maternal, or crushing on a boy doesn't jive with the modern feminist narrative message they're pushing out onto today's young skulls full of mush. Unfortunately, we're going to see the same crap rewriting again in The Little Mermaid.
Sorry, but I never liked how Wendy was put in motherly role when was kid. She just wasn’t relatable and too mature for age. But I bet y’all just call me fucking feminist or whatever. (which I’m not)
@s mcphee that’s okay I understand your point of view👍. I don’t mean to be but this movie was released in 1953 and the book way before that, so women kind of were seen like that. To me I like it because it shows how women are very, very important in our life.
@s mcphee well i guess you didnt get the original point of peter pan. The whole point is wendy is on the verge of adulthood, shes growing up and doesnt want to. Then after going to neverland and learning how you cant stay a child forever after seeing its downsides has a character arc and learns that its ok to grow up. Yes she is a little young for todays standards but back when this was written you were expected to mature earlier.
My biggest problems with this remake are:
- Hook, Peter, and Smee are all boring characters, and were not casted well.
- if Hook was a lost boy, wouldn’t he know where the lost boy hideout was?
- They cut out too much of the world building from the original
- The tic tock croc was underutilized. The original film did a good job showing why Hook was scared of the crocodile because it showed up multiple times. It felt like the crocodile was always a looming threat and had a reason to be there. Here it just feels like they put it in the movie because it was in the original. Same with Tinker Bell.
- Neverland looks like a really boring place compared to the other more colorful versions.
Am I the only one who noticed that the "you can fly" scene was basically telling kids to jump? Like Peter literally tells Wendy to think happy thoughts and take a step off the edge. Instead of the OG Peter having them practice over their beds.
at least OG peter walked them through...
The amount of remakes Disney is making is outrageous, they’re like the second version of Bollywood, but this time they’re remaking their own animated films to live adaptation. 😂
At least Bollywood have those 'they are so bad to the point it's good' type of movies 😂
@Ilmiana Firmantika Well I guess that’s one way to putt it. 😂
@Ilmiana Firmantika Don’t forget those 700+ episode serials as well. I always get a hoot over how insane they can go on some of those.
@Ilmiana Firmantika But at least "RRR" as recent movie, where this viral "Naatu Naatu" Dance came from, was kinda good tho, even if the action scenes where absolutely over the top 😅, like it's usually happening in these Bollywood movies. But kinda true Disney and Bollywood had their height in the 90s/early 2000s, and even tho sometimes their is still good stuff coming from them it still flattened a bit, specifically with these terrible, lifeless, live action remakes that Disney puts out.
Now hold on, let's not insult Bollywood like that. I can actually sit down and watch some of the stuff they make without turning it off after 10 minutes.
The most atrocious thing about this movie is how they robbed us of Hook's luscious flowing locks.
Yeah wtf was up with that hair they gave him? Whoever designed that for his character needs to be fired
Fr
that was one of my only complaints about the movie lol like did they not have a single curling iron on set?? 🙄
Hook never had that. He always wore a wig.
fr
I, for one, think it's great the way Disney insists on teaching small children that scary adults who want to hurt them are just misunderstood, and should be shown trust and empathy. We wouldn't want kids to run away when some stranger tries to lure them into a van or anything. No, no. That might hurt the predator's feelings...
Okay but this comment is lowkey underrated
I loved the part when Peter yelled at Hook saying “You were supposed to destroy the sith not join them”
I will never understand why Hook still attacked him. Peter had the high ground!
@solokom “it’s over Hook I have the high ground”
@Injured Outdoorsman best line in the movie! ❤️
“You were my brother Hook, I loved you”
And the part where Hook screamed “I HATE YOU!”
Nothing will beat the 2003 remake of Peter Pan
YES! Not enough people talk about this version!!
Forgot about that movie. Yea, it was a fun one for sure!
yeah! i love that one!
That kid was a spitting image of my nephew
Jason Isaacs as Hook? More, please! He's easily one of my favorite villain actors, he's always perfect in them
If I remember correctly, the reason why Lost Boys can't be Lost Kids is because Peter Pan wanted a maternal figure, hence the sole reason why he kidnapped Wendy. If there are other girls on an island, the entire plot of the story is kind of pointless, I guess 🤷♀
theres literally mermaids in the original lol
@SAVAGE SCUM WOLFyeah, but they're not called "the lost mermaids" are they?
@Goddess Lunaris op said "other girls" not "lost girls" so idk what your point is
@SAVAGE SCUM WOLF But what its your point though? Are you just nitpicking or do you really dont get what they were trying to say? Cause it seems obvious that what the original coment failed to properly express is that there shouldnt be other girls on the Lost Boys, which the mermaids have nothing to do with (bit of a tangent, but would the mermaids even be considered girls? Like, they look female enough, but would they even have genitals? Wait, does fishes even have genders? Sorry, im going way too offtopic). Its a prety straightforward coment, even if theres a poor choice of words by the end, not sure how could you not grasp what were they trying to say.
Nothing can compare to Peter Pan 2003. The best live action of the original.
Let's be fair, here: Who can compare to Jason Isaacs villainy in his roles? He's always perfect in them
I feel like Disney keeps leaning a bit too far into the realism thing with these remakes. I agree with you that Disney could have made Neverland look a bit more magical. I don't know why Disney is so set on having everything look as realistic as possible. It really takes the heart and soul out of a lot of their stuff.
Actually I think it was because they didn’t give this movie a big budget as they did to Pinocchio for instance because they didn’t believe it would be successful and then decided to release it straight to Disney+
i mean the flight scene in that long green land with no trees. Why not add a herd of running unicorns. You could had mermaids and men jumping out of the water as they fly over the water when they first enter. kind of like Fantasia like image. You don't need to reshow them just give the kids a sense of wonder.
Agreed! Why no mermaids! At least add in some other creatures! Put a color filter over the movie at the VERY least so its not grey😭
It's especially weird since Neverland is supposed to be a land of childish dreams realized. It's supposed to be by definition fantastical and by no means realistic. Like a fey realm basically.
You know what would've been realistic? All the stereotypical joke from the original, which was normal back then, so Disney is leaning away from realism tlnot toward it
I love how the whole art industry is extremely underpaid yet of such a huge cultural and historic significance
I think the main point is that Wendy is literally a child, not a grown woman. And she should not have to be "motherly" or "nurturing" simply because she is a girl, while her brothers can be playful and reckless because "boys will be boys". I love the classic film but appreciate this film for showcasing that young girls do not have to be type-casted as "motherly" right from their childhood simply because of their gender. I absolutely loved the montage that showed her future life because women, especially in that era were told that all they should think about is being a wife or a mother. There is so much more to women than that and Wendy had big dreams for herself. We have enough media telling women what they should want (marriage, children) so this is refreshing for young girls to see. I am not shaming women who do want those things and encourage women to embrace their femininity, but let's let children be children!
@Fatima Badar yeah dying alone how awesome lmao
@Fatima Badar bro media today does not be encouraging women to have a family or kids lmao what media you talking about
Peter as a psychopath is one of the reasons I loved the Once Upon A Time take on Peter
The casting for that was amazing the kid did such an amazing job
I'm just a little upset that this Tinker bell we got was really bad at expressions, they wouldn't even let her act physically, it was just like a single face expression every 20 seconds
She was gorgeous but a terrible actress. All she did was look like she was posing for instagram pictures.
Because, she has no range as a actress.
For those of you that are wondering, the reason for the live action remakes is... a lot of these movies are about to enter public domain- or *were* about to enter public domain, before Disney renewed the IP.
I kinda like the backstory between Peter and Hook in this movie, but I also loved a fanfic I read a few years ago that implied Peter was Hook's son, but was stolen as a baby by the faefolk who are portrayed as very accurate to their original lore.
Neverland runs on the youth of children, eating away their years until they become old (the pirates are those former children). However fairies are finding it harder to cross over into the modernizing world, so they need a child who is human to do it. They treat Peter like a king, get his loyalty, and he goes off to collect children under the guise that he's saving them from adulthood. He's being used and isn't aware of how Neverland runs.
Hook eventually finds his son, but realizes Peter is entirely lost to the faefolk influence, and unaware hes being used as a child tra---icker. He tries to reach out but gets his hand cut off in the process, befriends the pirates who just want to go home, but the only way is to capture Peter and force him to stay a year in the human world, essentially making him grow up. I think in another fic related to this, they manage it, and Peter comes to terms how he was used, how he hurt the former lost boys turned pirates, and starts getting to know his father, who has also changed from his experiences in Neverland. Its a bittersweet fic and i liked how many refs to the source material it had.
Can you give the fanfic's name ?
Do you remember the name?
Following this thread in case we get the name
@Leland StottlemeyerLol, same here. Also, I like your username! "Monk" is such a great show. ^^
drop the name!!
the importance of “the lost boys” having no girls, is that when Wendy arrives she becomes the boys “mother figure” she even sings about the importance of mothers and how they love and care for us. Wendy is the main reason why tne boys then realize that the do want to leave neverland, have a mother and grow up.
Well tbh, the whole concept of "the lost boys" was a bit weird in general since any child can not have a motherly figure in their life, not just boys. Lost children would make more sense and it would make even more sense for there to be more boys than girls. Think about it, if there were more boys than girls the girls may just go along with the title of "Lost boys" because they themselves are tomboyish (considering how there are more boys and so they would be influenced by them) Wendy would still be necessary to be a mother to the lost kids because it would still be a foreign idea to everyone in general since a child without a mother despite their gender, would naturally still be curious about what a "mother" even is.
The lost boys thing is mostly from the Industrial Revolution era where orphan girls were far more likely to be adopted than boys, so it was a sort of social commentary at the time, I’m pretty sure that was the point anyway.
@Bridgette Lair that's honestly pretty interesting
I think it was much better this way because even when I was little I never understood why there were no girls in Peter Pan’s gang, I doubt Peter couldn’t find a girl that would like to go to NeverLand before Wendy so I can’t think about any reason for that except misogyny (either Peter only wanted boys in his gang or Tinker Bell wouldn’t let him take them)
How can Wendy just finish every character's lines? Like is she some kind of mind reader?
I think what could have been very interesting is if they really wanted Hook to be more sympathatic that they could adapted parts of the book Lost Boy by Christina Henry. There Peter is portrayed as kidnapping children who get lost in the park and has no sense of resposibility to take care of them. Tha means a lot of them die because three year olds for example don`t do well against crocodails. Hook was the first kid Peter ever took in and tried his best to look after the other children which made him age in the prosses (because he acted like an adult). Peter and him had a falling out and know he tries to safe the new lost boys from a horrible fate while Peter tells them Hook is the bad guy. That would have been espacially intresting because it shows that Peters childishness isn´t just endearing but also harmful and Disney hat a more grey villain. The book summary was very short but I recommend the book to every one how likes a twist to the original tale.
I am sorry for spelling mistakes english isn´t my first language, but I hope I get the point across.
Oh, thank you for mentioning this. I totally agree with it being an incredibly interesting direction where to take the story. Especially if they has freaking Jude Law to play Hook! What a wasted opportunity.
This reminded of Twisted where Hook was one of the villains who appeared in the title song, and his explanation for “turning evil” is “I only wished to teach the boy responsibility!”
@Ezel Franciscowhere's this from?
@Lauren Mungaray Twisted. It's a musical from Starkid that's available on their CZcams channel. It's the full hq musical
I feel compelled to point out from 2008 to 2015 there were 7 films with Tinkerbell as the main character so people have grown to love her from that as well as Peter Pan. I used to work with a girl who had a tinkerbell bumper sticker on her ute.
God I loved the Tinkerbell movies, Silvermist was my fave.
You know. Just because the continuity of a character and story arent important to you doesn't mean they aren't important to others. Its not like we are talking about the original story here, we are specifically talking about Disney's version and their well established characters, so them making big changes on their "remakes" is a very different subject to them reimagening a classic story
THANK YOU. It bothered me SO FUCKING MUCH that he said no one cared about her in the last years. What? YOU didn't care. We fans did!
@Get Lost she litterally had her own movie series! (And it was good) she isn't some half remembered side character
Lol chill you don’t have to watch this version, they didn’t delete every other story involving tinker bell just ignore this if u don’t like it
@Damaris C "you don't have to watch this version" wasn't the whole reason of releasing a remake was for people to watch it 😂
Alex I'm honestly surprised you didn't bring up the 2003 Peter Pan remake (masterpiece), like that one was incredible and, imo, on par with Hook in almost every way (I truly cannot choose between Dustin Hoffman's and Jason Isaac's interpretations of Captain Hook because they're both so brilliant), and Neverland is gorgeous and vibrant in both.
"we were only trying to drown her"
the fact that she said it so nonchalantly and with confidence is crazy 😂
That's part of the ✨️humor✨️
That's what mermaids DO!!
Mermaids are carnivores, after all.
ikr, all those mermaids just throwing their fish at peter but he doesnt care nor defend the near drowning of wendy. savage but not as bad as the og he's based off of.
And here I thought that watery tarts only throw swords at you.
You learn something new every day.
I've loved the original book my whole life and for me the movies that have come closest to capturing the magic and childlike whimsy and wonder in it are the 2003 Peter Pan and Hook. So out of curiosity I watched the trailer for the new one and was so saddened by the dark and drab realistic look that within 10 minutes I turned on the 2003 movie to show my kids what Neverland is supposed to look like.
Also, everyone has a Neverland. They are all different sizes and styles and have the perfect adventure for the one who dreamed it up. The Neverland we know best is Peter's, so keep in mind that its what might have interested a little boy in victorian England. Its imperfect and thats ok
"It doesn't really matter" Well yes it does. Whenever something is changed it matters for 3 reasons. Why it was changed. How it was changed. And the impact the change has on the rest of the story. There being lost girls means Wendy is redundant. She was the only female influence and through the motherly tasks she was burdened with made the lost boys desire to go home. She matured and along with her the lost boys matured.
Nothing will ever beat the 2003 film I used to watch that on repeat as a kid and still enjoy it now as an adult. Very well made movie and magical
The backstory between Hook and Peter is very, very similar to the book “lost boys“ by Christina Henry. She wrote a backstory for captain Hook and why he and Peter became enemies. I have the feeling that the producers might have been inspired by this ;)
Anyways: The book is beautifully written and I definitely recommend reading it!
Your point at 8:44 is exactly what’s wrong with so many movies now. It’s all so dark, dingy and washed out. We already feel those moods everyday, we don’t need them in movies too. I want color back.
The thing that bothers me about the constant race-swapping is not that poc are being featured in films, but that it's lazy, kinda racist, and completely disregards the concept of character design. Instead of give poc REAL representation, they slap a different race on an existing character and call it a day. It's lazy, it's STUPID, it's cheap, and it's thinly-blanketed racism. I'm so done with all of this.
EXACTLY
Completely agree. I really wish more people shared this opinion
As long as they keep making remakes I don't care if they raceswap, at least it's slightly different. Also just to add, the race swap is never a main character, just a side character, you know so they can sell more stuff.
I agree. People expect us to be happy abt it but it is racist XD how can I be glad a black actor was randomly use for race swap in a badly made low budget movie as a publicity stunt? Specially when Disney can clearly do a lot better
@TempestKnight16 Okay. Never a main character?? Did you forget about the Little Mermaid??
Disney's Tinker Bell had 6 films focused on fleshing out her character/world, so I suspect some people were disappointed not to see that version go live action.
I honestly don't mind the race swap in this one as they wisely didn't try to cut and paste the animation, but I miss Tink's sass.
The thimble as a "kiss" is from the book and stageplay, as was bringing the Lost Boys home with them.
I like the casting for Tiger Lily and that they attempt a more serious fantasy handling... But I think they still bungled it and underutilize them.
The Hook/Peter backstory made Peter seem like a horrible person rather than an imp, and made Hook pathetic. I really hated it. It doesn't take much imagination to see Hook and Peter as natural enemies. The Indian tribe and Lost Boys made a game out of capturing each other but weren't enemies. Hook was the kind of guy willing to drown a young girl just to lure Peter out.
My head canon for the Never land tribe is they're just an older version of The Lost Boys, people who ran away from adult responsibilities/pressures and found an idealic retreat. Peter likewise just wants to not deal with all the harsh realities of adulthood... Then here come pirates bringing the harsh reality.
Well, I do mind the race switch, just like with the little mermaid because they are not staying true to the original story. That's what it's all about. Why not just create other characters with other ethnicities if it's so damn important, instead of changing the original onces? You are NEVER going to appeal to the majority and that's why this movie is already tanking with almost 40% 1 stars on IMDB.
The minority does NOT speak for the majority! The day these stupid woke companies finally learn that fact, is the day they will actually start making money again.
@True Aside from being a girl, the original story doesn't go into much physical description of Tinker Bell, and she is a fairy. In the play, she's pretty much played by a flashlight.
@True the "staying true to the original story" is so crap lmao
Neither little mermaid or tinkerbell had "she is white" as a description
@Zappers They were always white.
@Trueot in their original stories though that’s what they’re saying. Disney decided they were those things in the past. Which they instilled into your childhood. They didn’t even officially have a black princess until 2012-ish I believe. I honestly forgot what year TPATF came out. But have you ever sat down and looked at how many Cinderella remakes they have done over the years and were allowed to change in each adaptation? I think Disney is allowed to have the same creative privy. I just wish that they hired good writers though. A lot of the decisions in this Peter Pan remake just weren’t good. They sorta had a good vision but it wasn’t displayed or executed properly due to them trying to gain popularity points.
I’ve always seen Peter as the villain since he was a psychopath, so I’m glad you made the hilarious line of “Jeez we gotta stop this kid, how is he the good guy in this story?” You literally read my mind
Oh Alex you'd be surprised how often people still think of beloved childhood characters. My old roomie is still majorly obsessed with Tinkerbell and was none too happy when they made her talk in the standalone Tinkerbell movies
OUAT handled the whole “Lost Boys” thing much better. They changed the name to “Lost Ones”, and while all of the ones we see are boys, it’s expressed that girls could also be lured into their ranks. The only reason they are all boys is because those are the ones Pan chose to be his playmates.
They already had a black fairy from Pixie Hollow. Iridesca probably spelled that wrong, but she's a light fairy. And instead of seeing the bright side of everything She's a total worry wart, which is honestly cute. But I think a good idea what to be continuing hook or something similar to the continuity. Like you have a lost boy Or girl and just make it? The lost kids who takes over as leader but doesn't know what that means and is trying to recreate the scenarios a Peter Pan because They look up to him the most and they believe that Would make them a good leader by doing the exact same Things from the stories of Peter Pan. You can have smee as the main antagonist, and the siblings who are not the darling siblings realize they've been taken for a ride and are being used as pawns by a wanna be at peter pan cause honestly that's child logic and have the kids actually act like kids.
Man I would totally watch that, it sounds a lot better than what they just made
The main thing i hate about the "diversity" is not that "NOOOOOO THEYRE BLACK I CANT LIKE THEM NOW" Its just that we get this instead of actually original or cool diverse characters or at least this is clearly what disney wants to do instead of making new original diverse characters
This is what most people think there is virtually no movement geared toward racism to speak of. When politics bleed into entertainment the ladder ceases to exist
That's checkbox diversity for you, Disney just doesn't put into thought about this diversity stuff
Agreed! It’s like a cop out instead of giving us a Princess and the Frog live action or just making new movies with new stories! Like I’d love a Korean princess movie or something too
@Peyton Smiley yeah korea or japan themed story would be interesting instead we get mulan which is med at best
@Peyton Smiley I'm so very much waiting for a Korean princess too... Although I kind of wish if they did they'd go back to their 2d animation still (unfortunately this isn't going to happen).
"We were only trying to drown her"
She just said that so casually 😂😂😂
I'm surprised he never referenced the other Peter Pan life action, the adaptation of 2003. I remember when I was young I really liked it more than the animated one and I fell in love with the mermaids on that movie they were hauntingly beautiful I never forgot them and the Peter of that movie was one of my first crushes lol.
I think that 2003 Peter Pan is a really great movie. It sticks to the classic stories from the book more. It is bright colorful and a great story. It's quite underrated. You should see it. Besides this movie Hook is pretty good. With Hook, it's original. Peter is grown up and forgot who he was because of that. He had to discover who he was again. He also had to learn to be a good parent and that making money doesn't make you a good one.
Don't get me wrong I love Alex's videos. I don't think the problem is the fact the actress is black. I think that just like with Ariel to some degree, people are upset that their childhood is being 'changed'. The old animated Disney movies hold a special place in most people hearts whether they admit it or not . The outdated references and racism aside the old movies meant something even to the ones who are complaining about the problems with the old stuff. And frankly Disney casting people the way they are is just placate people.
It's amazing no one complains about Peter, or Tiger Lily in the 2015 version. Only Tink.
Interesting.
@MoxJosiei mean it doesnt help that they jist tinkerbells skin color when there is a black fairy in the peter pan universe already by the name of Iridessa
All the flaws in this version stood out even more because we have the 2003 live-action movie to compare it to, which is INCREDIBLY good while being faithful to the book. Honestly I think the pacing in this movie was its biggest flaw; it felt like they spent three hours total in Neverland. Additionally, I think this is the only version that didn't have Captain Hook and Mr. Darling as a double role. It's been played that way for ages as a commentary on Wendy's feelings about her father, who is the one pushing her to grow up. The character designs were very different in the animated movie, so maybe they felt they didn't need that? And as a last random note: Peter's actor never smiles? That's a weird decision for a character always looking for fun and adventure. Anyway, the 2003 movie and "Hook" are quintessential Peter Pan movies and this one will be quickly forgotten, I'm sure.
The 2003 Peter Pan film is severely underrated and probably the best straightforward film version of the original story
I love that movie so muchhh
Legit was combing through the comments to see if someone else mentioned Peter Pan 2003. My absolute favorite adaptation too!
I remember that and loved it when I was a kid
Thankyou!! I’m so surprised Alex didn’t reference it, it was easily my favourite movie as a kid! Jeremy Sumpter was my first ever crush😍
THANK YOU!! It’s in my top three favorite movies for so many reasons! I loved how Peter and Wendy got to develop feelings for one another (+ in a wholesome way, with the fairy ball and then their waltz 😍), how we saw Crochet felt lonely and old, how Peter was still shown unhinged (he wants to kill a Lost Boy for killing Wendy, yells when they want to go back home…), how Tink is in a maddening jealous rage, how Wendy’s dad and Crochet were (I just realized it a few months ago lol) THE SAME ACTOR (which also raises theories about them being the embodiments of reality chasing children)… and despite their young age, the actors had SO MUCH chemistry! I’ll end this comment of this quote "to die must be an awfully big adventure" ❤️✨
after watching this review, my conclusion is that peter pan (2003) is a much better "live action remake" (though not actually a remake for the 1953 disney film) and overall better adaptation of the book. it even has the original "girls are much too smart to fall from their cradles" line! and the "kiss" scene! it just does better as a peter pan movie than this new disney remake could ever do. but i'm already used to other studios outdoing disney at this point...
See the thing is, for a lot of people when they live with iconic cultural characters for so long, there IS a great deal of intrigue to “learn more about them”, as it were. I for one wasn’t interested in cut and dry recreations of the 1950s versions of Peter/Wendy/Hook with little to no changes/embellishments to spark my imagination and keep things interesting. Where the problem arises (and I had the exact same problem with Hocus Pocus 2) is that the fleshing out of characters’ histories is now being used to make people who have done EXTREMELY ATROCIOUS things to innocent children seem “less bad” or even “understandable” somehow.
There were seedlings of interesting ideas in this movie re: Peter and Hook’s relationship, but even if I excuse their gross violation of the “show, don’t tell” rule, it makes no sense for the story to act like Hook’s willingness to execute a bunch of kids is just “growing up wrong!!!” They NEEDED to have Wendy point out the GLARING hypocrisy of him turning around and being 100x worse to innocent unsuspecting visitors to Neverland than Peter ever was to him. Had they made that kind of effort here (and even in some of the other movies where they attempt similar motifs) it probably wouldn’t come off as cringey or eye roll worthy. You’d have a more interesting dimension and unique spin on these characters without losing any of their “bite”, and Disney would actually have the chance to teach a wider lesson about NOT using people’s mistreatment of you as an excuse to become a bigger monster than they ever were. A lesson sorely needed in this day and age, it seems.
I didn’t see it as a remake, but a variation- and I had a pretty good time.
There’s so many Peter Pan movies that have been made and they’re all different.
So I didn’t take this movie too seriously.
I liked the changes they made with some of the characters (specifically Wendy).
Though you make a good point, the island of Neverland didn’t feel that magical. There needed to be more color and the lost boys culture stuff was barely there, and those are the more fun points in the movie.
I see no need for a live action remake when the perfect live action film of Peter Pan was released in 2003. That is all~
Is no one going to mention how wendy slapped peter in this remake? Could you imagine the blacklash if the roles were reversed
None probably, because peter pan is supposed to be a brat
"equality"
Women beating Men is fighting Patriarchy. Don't you Guys have Twitter`?
Jane punched Peter in Peter Pan 2
@SalusFuturistics You take your info out of twitter? lmao kid...
The fact they had to put a warning to tell kids to stop jumping off of things trying to fly will never not make me laugh😭😭💀
yoo my little sister tried once after she spell glitter all over herself soooo😭😭😂
i’m pretty sure a toddler jumped off a 4 story building and died thinking he was superman
GOD...may he rest in peace 😥🤍
But sadly there are more and more stories some survived and others didn't so I guess am glad for "warnings"
These things are common, my brother tried jumping from the window thinking he was goku or something like that
When I was a small kid I jumped from the stairs because I thought I could fly like Peter Pan and broke my arm so yeah 😂😅
My problem with this remake is it looks lifeless unlike the 2003 remake more colorful, inviting and most important magical
What I like in this new one is that Wendy goes from love sick for Peter Pan to having moments where she’ll get annoyed and call him out.
I think the character development of Hook is interesting because I believe the origin concept was that Tinkerbell would continuously bring boys to Neverland but then each one gets bored with endless childhood and rebels against her (possibly forming the Hook’s pirate crew). Hook was supposed to be someone in that cycle created by Tinkerbell who became a pirate after getting bored of childhood and learning about Tinkerbell’s actions. This is similar to the fact that he left Neverland in the live action remake however it’s because he missed his mom now?? Surely he could reach the real world using fairy dust or smth. It’s also mentioned that he was Peter Pan’s friend which means he probably arrived in Neverland at roughly the same time as Peter Pan which contradicts the cycle of one boy at a time
Anyways despite the obvious flaws in the lost boys and loss of Tinkerbell’s character development, it is nice to see a tad bit of character development. Still going to riot about the lack of mermaids though
Personally I would always love 2003 Peter Pan! Would always be my favorite and I’ve noticed that the movie took some ideas from the 2003 version movie like the kids in the end and the sentence, “to die would be an awfully great adventure”. In this remake, they never really explained how Hook new why Peter would say that and in the 2003 movie, when the kids magically appeared in the Darlings kid’s room, it was more explained way better why they would rather stay. For the movie, Peter literally thinks he kills Hook and is depressed about losing his best friend and then Wendy completely disregards his sadness and is like “…well we all gotta go home…including the only other friends you have in never land…” Everything in 2003 Peter Pan was way better. The story line, the music score, the chemistry! EVERYTHING! Thanks for coming to my TED talk…
the only Peter Pan I will ever acknowledge is the 2003 version. That movie was a freaking masterpiece!
Universal made a better live action Peter Pan 20 years ago. 2003 Pan makes Neverland look absolutely magical, the pirates are a perfect blend of realistic and cartoonish, the mermaids are entrancing, they got actual Native Americans to play the Neverland Indians and had them speaking their own language for as much authenticity as they could get. The film was firing on all cylinders and it's hard to imagine it ever being topped, Disney certainly wasn't going to in it's current state.
Yeap, that version was the best for me.
Sí, sí y sí a todo! 2003 Peter Pan is one of my favorite movies ❤
I had a giant crush on Peter when I was 9. I loved that movie to death. But now I’m kinda crushing on hook. Because damn his performance was insane, absolutely stunning.
That was the BEST
@Mystii lol me too
Dude there's this one scene that gave me this transcendent moment where I imagined what I wished this movie was, but what this movie had no chance of being. The scene is the 'think happy thoughts', 'Peter, I haven't got any' scene. There are tons of cool concepts I thought about with maybe a slightly darker movie in some aspects and a cooler relationship between hook and Peter (like this movie tried and failed at). Just the thought of a movie with character development, fighting between Peter and Hook, Hook slowly getting more evil as it goes on, and then when Peter tries to save him at the end Hook straight up has no happy memories is just an awesome concept
9:20
One of the things I loved (and laughed at most in the original) is how Wendy took the peace pipe away from Michael, but was perfectly fine with passing it over to her other younger brother 😂
I agree, the lack of mermaids is literally the only reason I didn’t rate it 6/10 and instead gave it a 4. The mermaids are the best part!
The part of the remake where Wendy gives Peter a thimble is a pretty good summary of where this film lost the subtle charm of the original story.
In the original story, one of Peter Pan's strictest boundaries is that absolutely no-one is allowed to touch him. While he never states why, it's easy to figure out the reason: Peter is vehemently opposed to the idea of growing up, so he lives out a fantasy life with other lost children posing as some magical being that doesn't really exist. However, if someone were to make physical contact with him, it would show that he too is a tangible being; a real person. And real people don't belong on magical fantasy islands where you never get old.
Wendy, not being privy to these details, merely respects Peter's boundaries and despite wanting to show her affections with a kiss, she instead gifts him a thimble, as a token. This is paid off later in the story with Peter returning the thimble to her, perhaps not understanding the sentiment but still recognising its importance.
In this story, Wendy gives him a thimble because "ew, me no kiss yucky boy".
I still say the live action 2003 movie is better and is probably my favorite adaptation. I also really enjoyed the older musical(?) version, starring Mary Martin as Peter Pan. That one was fun too.
As a Native American, I love it when we get representation cause we don't have a lot of it compared to others.. But they could have just not had Natives in the movie. The reason they show up is because it's like they are fantasy creatures, Like the mermaids or the fairies, instead of an actual race of people. But that is just my opinion. Also 2003 Peter will always be my favorite Peter!
Yeah like they got rid of mermaids but kept us??? Like just don't have us in the movie at all please
honestly it was a film from the 40s casual r@c1sm was lunch back than.
Yeah the whole “the island is populated with fantasy creatures, like fairies, mermaids, and Native Americans” part always made me uncomfortable, even as a kid.
@derek diana johnson Still fucked up. Its one of a couple of good reasons why I prefer the sequel to Peter Pan.
I could be wrong, but I always thought it was populated with the natives and pirates (which were also real, not fantasy) because those were things little boys liked to play. The original movie has the lost boys (because girls are too clever to get lost) so it would make sense to have things that would interest boys. That's always been my take anyway.
The Once Upon a Time TV show did SUCH a good portrayal of Peter Pan, I think it was season 2 that had the Neverland arc but that was one of my most favourite arcs of the entire show! I would recommend it to anyone, its so good!
Fun fact the scene were Tinkerbell gets stuck on the keylock is actually a refrence to Marilyn Monroe getting stuck in a small round window in Gentlermen Prefer Blondes
When was that?
@MASTER-OF- EVIL Peter pan came out in febuary 1953, Gentlemen Prefer blondes came out in July 1953, probably meant the stage play
Personally, I really liked Maleficent as a sympathetic villain. The problem was when that went over well and now they decided “Let’s do this to ALL OF THEM”. And Maleficent gets hate because she was the first. I also appreciate that despite being live action, the magic looked magical. Sure there was times where the movie was dark and drab, but the moors where colourful and glowy. They changed to fit the tone and scene. I don’t understand why all the remakes need to be pitch black and desaturated. It’s just sad. Even the little mermaid deals with this from what I’ve been able to see. Marine life is some of the funkiest crazy stuff and they went clearly being underwater means pale and washed out. And in part of that world the lighting was just… bad. Like we’re going to cast this person despite the complaining people, but then we’re going to light her so badly she looks like wet concrete. Because underwater go brr. I’m sick and tired of all the stupid boring stuff. Why does live action need to be boring looking? It’s not like realism is exactly the main goal in stories about magic. Anyways I’ve kinda gone on a rant so yeah that’s all
The main issue I have with Tinkerbell’s redesign is her body doesn’t glow so she’s not very visible at all especially in the dark/nighttime scenes.
They were never going to surpass the 2003 live action movie, which truly is magical
Wendy was INSUFFERABLE in this version. OG Wendy was joyous, longed for Neverland and always dreamed of meeting Peter, and the 2023 Wendy was a brat and not at all her character.
Good way to sum up most the recent Disney live action reboots
And the OG Wendy was anything but weak. She also calls the rest out if she is being treated unfairly. Just why do all recent female characters have to be like a female version of Gaston (Beauty and the Beast)???
She makes she hulk relatable 😂
@Gshama 😂
As a black woman I’m tired of race swapping. I like to watch accurate depictions no matter if it is fiction or nonfiction. I also have a feeling that they are going to start doing this with important historical black figures
Yeah but I also don’t care since their are more things to be worrying then a movie that means nothing
@CountessofMonteCristowhere you see Tiana flop…she a popular princess and getting her own ride..
There’s a difference between real people and fake people 😂
@mk_lmfao and you see so many people are very UPSET about the ride💀.
As a Native American that one scene makes me and my whole family furious 😭😭 they think that removing the scenes completely that it’s going to remove what it did to us
Peter Pan (2003) was a perfectly good live action movie! Neverland was beautiful and interesting and even the audience was crushing on Peter
The 2003 remake of peter pan was one of the best adaption. They kept basically the entire plot of the original but also added more things to it to not make it too predictable
Peter Pan was an allegory for childhood death. If you read the text, Wendy’s mom could see him and was frightened by Pan. In 1953 Disney glossed over that with Nana pouring out the “ bedtime medicine“ as you put it. When those kids were actually being treated for an illness without mentioning the illness, part. So in the 1950s Disney removed the specter of death angle and in 2023, they somehow managed to make the story even more bland?
God that's terrifying
Why do I wish they kept that?? What is wrong with me?!
omg....
@Sul Sul because it makes for an interesting layer to the story
Wait explain about the childhood death more??
Honestly I just find it hilarious that they tried their usual pandering shit by making tinker bell black. But then shot themselves in the foot by keeping that character as a mute. The irony is incredible.
I will admit that Hook's transition to his iconic red outfit was a nice metaphor and a really cool transition
Really love your review on this. I’m really tired of the oh this sucks because it’s too woke this and woke that crap. This is a genuine review with legitimate criticism thank you
This
the one thing i wish with the mermaids is that they included ariels mom, since the live action little mermaid was so close to coming out as well it would of been a fun little easter egg. plus all the theories that the the pirate ship that killed ariels mom was hooks
I have to disagree with you 11:00 literally the whole point of Peter Pan going to get Wendy. Was so that the lost boys would have a mother figure! Haha so at the end of day there really is no reason for Peter Pan to go pick up Wendy . That scene single-handedly undermines the whole entire reason for Peter Pan even going to Wendy.
I think she is still well capable of being a mother figure to boys and girls, but either way the whole decision was stupid
One of the ironies of Peter Pan that I never see people talk about is how he didn't want to grow up but is responsible for the well-being of multiple other children.
Dude that's more adulting than a lot of us get to these days.
Never thought of it that way. I assumed it was the general leader position and they follow Peter because he's the cool big brother and knows what he's doing but yeah he's still totally responsible for them having beds, ,food, exercise, education, etc... If anything went wrong they'd all look to Peter to fix it.
Except you misinterpreted it. He's not "responsible for the well-being". He sees them as playthings, he doesn't take care of them at all, they do that themselves.
Not really, they have to fend for themselves while he goes off and has fun, and in the original he off'ed them himself the moment they started getting too old.
Oh for the love of... I'm referring specifically to the Disney version.
I love Peter Pan. It is a great and sad story. I usually enjoy different takes on it provided the moral is the same
The already existing real life peter pan with Jason Isaacs is simply the best movie ever. I have no idea why they had to create THIS ...
It was never about the kids ability to run the fastest, it was about the confidence that he exuded after being able to run the fastest, confidence catches ladies 5:46
The reason why I’m not happy with the casting for Tinkerbell is a bit more complex. Most people probably don’t remember, but there was a whole universe created that was all about Tinkerbell. And her friends were diverse, meaning that there was already an actual black fairy - Iridessa - that was Tinkerbell’s friend! There was no need to race swap Tinkie, Disney could have easily use Iridessa with her own unique character that has already been introducesd before.
I hope this will explain why the casting for Tinkie is problematic. Because this - race swapping - is NOT the diversity move Disney thought it was. If they actually cared about representation and black children, they would have used Iridessa (mayby only her, mayby she would have worked with Tinkie as a team), so that black children can actually have their OWN fairy, instead of getting a tasteless race swap that lacked the OG’s Tinkies sassiness.
If Walt Disney came back to life and saw this... he would die again
The best Tinkerbell was in 2003’s Peter Pan. Her expressions were perfect (they specifically hired the French actress because of her talent in facial expressions), her character was as close to JM Berries original Tinkerbell, and her relationship with Peter Pan was perfectly told. I wish we had more of that Tinkerbell than any of the ones Disney has produced in the past 30 years. I can’t stand the overly sweet versions.
My fav is Julia Roberts
2003 peter pan is the best version imo 💚
Nah, it was horrible because she was white and not black
@Xaixiu lol 😂
I have watched so much of these videos that I couldn't imagine the content creator being a real person instead of his animated version
Would love to see Alex comment on 2003 Peter Pan in comparison to this and the original
fun fact, most of this movie is filmed in newfoundland Canada. It was fun working behind the scenes and is wild seeing places so close to home in this movie
It would be really easy to make a peter pan horror movie. Wendy has grown up with a short tempered father and fears a future with a husband who's the same. Tinker Bell is running from Peter Pan because he's using up all her pixie dust and it's killing her. Neverland is beautiful until you get closer and then the mermaid fangs come out. Hook and the pirates are just randos who never wanted to be there in the first place and coped the only way they knew how; by using the "technology" of their time against Peter Pan who refuses to take them home.
And instead, we got a horror movie for Winnie The Pooh, lol.
The ONLY live remake that even deserves to be acknowledged is the 2003 one. It’s fantastic, best live action remake
So fun fact, the handing Peter a thimble and calling it a "kiss" is actually in the book! I'm impressed, I didn't think they'd actually consult the source material
That’s in the 2003 film as well.
My question is.. if they were going to drop the "romantic" relationship peter and wendy had on the previous movies, why would they include the "kiss" thing in the first play? It served no purpose at all. I don't care if it was in the books, i mean, they took away so many things from the original material, so why keep this?
@conisuarez1 I mean, the romantic aspect was still there in the original play/book if I remember correctly, but Wendy was initially caught off guard, and was trying to distract him. The Disney version is where they get rid of the romantic subtext
@ReiRei nah the 1953 version definitely had them flirt with each other too. The chemistry was there. They strip it away entirely in this new one and it’s bizarre
I was looking for this comment! I believe the thimble was also what kept her from being shot by the lost boys, but I could be wrong
No way. No way in hell Disney is actually being genuine about this, they HAVE to be trolling us at this point smh
2003 Perter Pan was my Peter Pan growing up (didn't watch the Disney one untill much later) and still nothing can top it
Never land looks magical/enticing, the story/themes were great and didn't rely on CG heavily
this, everything from that move is just.. magical
I was going to say "The no glow thing was probably seen as more goofy, not being someone's whole personality" and then when you demonstrated the rant about historical accuracy I realized "Oh THOSE guys"