HOME | DD
wolfMancub — Peter Pan NOT funny
Published: 2012-01-10 20:16:55 +0000 UTC; Views: 2675; Favourites: 33; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
I hate how Disney's bastardised cuddle bear let's-make-those-5-years-old-kids-laugh version has become the face of Peter Pan when it has UTTERLY missed the entire point of the real story and character.Although the book does not lack humour. I found the novel very childlikely humourous (but MUCH more intelligently/uniquely so than the Disney cartoon, might I add!) all the way up to the moment when Peter, Wendy, John and Michael fly out of the Darling house window.
BUT from that moment on it suddenly turns much darker in atmosphere and tone, slowly digging into its basic theme of motherless children (and adults) in violent life and how it affects them, not to mention the way Neverland erases memories and could utterly seperate loved ones from each other forever.
The real character of Peter Pan is a mental, brutal and dangerous 7-years old human child who yearns for a mother-figure although doesn't really want to admit it.
As in the real story is made of deep and dark psychology and its lesson is supposed to be how it is NOT so great to be a child forever and how FAMILY is crucial to a human being's happiness and a mother/child relationship a fundimental right. Hence, Peter Pan was bloody hurt and traumatized by his mother forgetting all about him after he had believed in her eternal love with all his little heart and tried to return home to her in means to grow up and make her proud...
Captain Hook is not a bloody screaming clown but a cruel and sinister pirate with dignity!
Here, let me put it in audiovisual way:
WRONG: [link]
ALMOST CORRECT: [link]
(Almost in the sense that unlike in that movie version, in the novel Peter's about 6-8-years old, he does not have that exact discussion with Wendy, Hook bites Peter, Peter literally drives his sword through pirates, whips Slightly, and forgets about the pirates after killing them. And likely would've had bruises in his face if Hook had kicked him in the face like that...Damn PG rated movies!)
WRONG: (from the Disney cartoon)
Peter Pan: "Mother? What’s a mother?"
Wendy: "Why, Peter, a mother’s someone…who loves and cares for you and tells you stories--"
CORRECT: [link]
(Peter is utterly aware of what a mother is!!!! Mrs. Darling isn't his in canon, she's just filling in for her in this video, in the actual character's absence in the first movie adaptation that actually had all the reasons to include her...)
SUMMARY: Peter Pan is NOT supposed to be a FUNNY story.
PETER PAN ORIGIN FORUMS: [link]
A discussion forum for all Peter Pan fans about everything Peter Pan. You can also share and enjoy fanfiction and fan art. (Also fans of Disney's Peter Pan are welcome. I do not bite. I just personally don't appreciate that version.)
Related content
Comments: 66
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Actually, Peter Pan is an infant who escaped from his cradle and spends his days playing with the fairies in Kensington Garden, according to his first official appearance in literature, chapters 13-18 in the novel The Little White Bird.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, he isn't. I mean, I know he started off with that but that's only how he began his life. Barrie himself further developed him, making him a full-blown character with a complex story through the books "Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens" and "Peter Pan and Wendy".
And we're talking about what he became as he grew older, about the story and character that Disney animated film is based on - the character in the book "Peter Pan and Wendy".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He's still little enough in the books to want a mother, that's why he keeps bringing girls to Neverland.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And I've never claimed otherwise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Peter Pan is one of the most disturbing stories I've read. I don't hate the Disney version but I don't watch it anymore after reading the true story.
I'm working on a new take on the story where Wendy realizes that Peter is not the Peter from her stories and she has to escape from him with her brothers and The Lost Boys.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Interesting. Would you give me a link to it when it's published?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It could be months before I finish it, (gathering information and re-reading the book a few more times) but I will send you a link when it's done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree. ounce upon a time series did it right. made Pan dark and stuff. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree the original story from what I've heard is darker, but I still love the Disney version-and plus well it's not outright stated it still has some darker inners.
-
1. Disney Peter is said to be 12 year's old, and he seems to to treat death and killing like a fun game-taking pride with him cutting Hook's hand off(off scene) and feeding it to Tick Tock and his game with Hook when he was meant to be saving Tiger lily.(I forgot the scene, but Hook was dangling over a cliff with Tick Tock under him-and Peter you know like I said toke it like a game not to mention when Hook was thought to be dead Peter was like "oh well.")
2.If anything I think that's more disturbing, his mother must have him loved him and he doesn't even remember who she is-yet alone what a mother was.
3.Also with Hook-yeah they made him more silly, but he is still clearly a cunning villain(how he gotten Tinker Bell to work with him-and twisting his words insead of not "laying a finger or hook on Peter" he tried to blow him up.) Also Hook is perfectly okay with killing kids-I mean makes more sense with Peter and the lost boys but he was willing to kill Wendy John and Michael who done nothing to him other then being friends with Peter-and mind you Michael is meant to be four year's old-a toddler.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I disagree with you, I've never seen the disney movie, but I love Peter, I got a tatu of Peter in my arm. But Peter is funny, awesome, brave and maybe sadistic, but you need understand, when disney begin, they did n't know if was a great idea put a little sadistic kid in the movie, and tried no change a lot of things. And, well Maybe you don't know but, I think, may be James Barrie was happy with this, because the hospital is now a best place.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
(And, I'm sorry, my english is a little)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love the Disney version of Peter Pan, since I ´ve seen it a lot as child. But not long time ago, I watched the movie "finding neverland" with johnny depp and so I become interested in the author and the original story and yeah, i like that, too. There also must be a book published (maybe around 2010/11 ?), which is related to peter pan but more darker. I do like to read it soon.
It´s a good story itself, also a little tragic but very fascinating <3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree with you, I hate the Disney version, the real story is very dark but wonderful at the same time, I've always thought of Peter Pan as a twisted fairytale
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i think it's very good that you love the original story to peter pan, although, i dont think you should bash disney for their version of the story. i don't think disney, at the time, had any intention of re-writing peter pan. they were probably just trying to make a kid-friendly movie. also, its not their fault that their movie became so popular as it is now, but its /their/ version of peter pan, and ive never heard disney once say that this was the true peter pan.
now, myself, ive only seen disney's peter pan probably once or twice in my life and don't remember much of the movie, and i never knew what the original peter pan was about, so i should probably add that book to my bucket list. it seems interesting, even though i'm not one for dark themes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I just think they could've made it much more novel-faithful and it would've been kid-friendly enough. After all the novel itself is a children's book as well as an adults' book. It's been read to little children (like under school-aged too) since...well, always I guess, and I don't know any kid who would've been harmed by the content. It wouldn't even need to be graphic or incredibly dark to be remarkably novel-faithful and pass off the crucial themes. Maybe it has something to do with the era it was made in. If it was made in the '90's Disney or even late 80's, I'm sure it would've followed the book and its themes much more closely. Which brings me back to that Disney has managed to be kid-friendly enough with darker movies. (The Lion King being one of the top ones and just about every kid loves it to bits.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thats true. Also, many disney princess movies has dark magic in it, that some strict parents wouldn't allow their kids to watch. I think it could be the era, as well as the fact that walt disney was still alive at that time, so I think he may of worked on the movie? And I know he liked to be childish, and also have happy endings, so maybe the novel plot wasn't good enough for him. Theres also the possibility that whoever made the storyline for disney's felt it could of been improved, or had a different outlook on it. But you are right, sometimes its wrong to not go along with the original plot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Here's something interesting:
Back when Disney bought the rights to "Peter Pan" back in 1939, their original direction for the film was much darker than what we ended up with. Originally, there were scenes involving Captain Hook being killed by the crocodile, the Darling family mourning over their lost children, and Pan and the children discovering the pirates' treasure which is loaded with booby traps. Captain Hook and his crew were also much more threatening and John Darling stayed behind because he was "too serious, practical and boring".
Sadly, this version never came to be because of WWII. "Peter Pan" (along with "Alice in Wonderland", "Lady and the Tramp", and "The Wind in the Willows") were shelved till the war was over. By that time, times changed and the film's direction was altered to fit the current audiences' favors.
While the final film's not as good as it could've been, there's still plenty of positives. The animation is incredible, the songs are catchy and memorable, and the voice cast was excellent (nobody can top Hans Conried's performance as Captain Hook). It's nowhere near as good as the book, but I still enjoy it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
don't forget about Catherine Bolreguard.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
While the animation may be great, I still think it's very forgettable as an independent film. I had to re-watch it some four times to see if it was any good, because I'd always forgotten all but one scene from it. Latest time I wrote down a review which is why I now remember it better.
And I don't remember a single song from it either, I don't really know why people praise the songs.
But this is just me, I respect if others feel differently.
Where is that information from, that you gave about the film's production?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Good, to be honest I prefer the Disney version.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I found most of this information on the 2007 DVD documentary "The Peter Pan That Almost Was" and the 1997 VHS documentary "You Can Fly: The Making of Peter Pan". You can look this up on Wikipedia.
In addition, here's a small collection of early model-sheets and storyboards dating all the way back to 1940. [link]
And here's a early demo recording to a deleted song. [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Even though I do appreciate the Disney version, I love the novel as well. I love the deep psychology in it whilest it is told in quite a childish manner. Children do not look at violence and emotions the same way as adults do and I think Barrie portrayed this wonderfully. This story has taught me many things on so many levels. Personally, I do not think that the lesson is that being a child forever is not that great. I think it is supposed to be the greatest thing there ever is, but with one great consequence. I believe Barrie has been quoted as such: "You can have everything in life, as long as you're willing to sacrifice everything else for it."
I'd like to read between the lines that Wendy is the only character who understands this in the end. That's why she's my favorite one.
I love the Disney version aswell. To me it just shows that other side of Peter Pan. It's perfect when I want to escape the real world and just have fun, whilest the live action version makes me think and sometimes even makes me sad.
Peter Pan, the story, has many, many different aspects and each version has its own accents. That's want I adore about it. I am definitely going to check out the forums. Thank you for your thoughts
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I was taught that peter pan was a boy who took all the children who died too young away to a place called never land. Or that he would abduct little children and play out fantasy games with them and replace them when they seemed to old by using them as food.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The novel mentions that back when Wendy's mother was a child, Peter Pan was a legend, said to travel for a while with children who had died, so that they wouldn't be afraid. But we never hear Peter mention any such thing nor see him do so, and it's unlikely to be true anyway because Peter is a mortal child himself. So, for all we've told such thing was only a legend/belief/myth.
In the canon (as in the original novels by J.M. Barrie), no one goes to Neverland after they die. That is only an alternate universe interpretation put into the movie "Finding Neverland".
So, it seems the first version you've been taught is a fanfiction combination of those two things.
As for the other thing...It sounds like it might be from some bizzare movie adaptation or just someone's dark fanfiction visions. Anyway, in the original novels there's nothing to base that on.
Well, Peter is indicated to kill some of the lost boys if the number of them starts to grow too large (or if they grew too old, I'm not sure which was it), but that's all.
No implications or indication of any abductions or cannibalism, none whatsoever. And I daresay there isn't intended to be. Yes, Peter Pan is a mental case and the story is dark, but it has its limits. It is after all, also a children's book. Even Hansel and Gretel had an old witch as a threat, (as in a classic child-eating fairy tale monster), and not a little child...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is most likely that i was just taught a fan fiction story. the first version was taught to me when I was smaller, i had a very bad sickness and they thought i was going to die so they taught me that a a magical boy would come and take me away to a place of adventure.Then later after i was taught the second version. But Peter pan never was a cannibal, it was the fact he was a child demon. A immortal force that would do this and he was not at all a child even though he looked so. Pretty much a fairy.
My family mostly changes our child hood stories to keep us away from things.
Sorry for bugging if If i am.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, you're not bugging.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I enjoyed the Disney movie as a child, and still do, but I do agree that blew the entire story off its rocker :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I so agree., Disney sugar coated the story.,I like the old fox cartoon showed Peter Pan how I would view him.,Peter Pan and The Pirates did well with keeping his character true.,he is selfish and all about himself and so on....even cruel at times...
but as I read the real story,. yeah disney so botch that one.,it's not a child's story and it's dark and deep.,Peter Pan is really tragic character and my fave cause there is alot to him...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
really? I always thought he was kind of a jerk in both
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He is way mire cockier in ppatp lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Quite personally I prefer the Captain Hook of the 2003 Peter Pan than the truly codfish of a Captain in Disney. Although I do like a good laugh I find it to be more of an insult when the villain of the movie is a clown and the Hero gets a little more accurate portrayal at least the Captain Hook of 2003 is a lot more realistic than Disney. Not only that but the 2003 gets deeper into the psychology of Peter Pan and even into the psychology of Hook. It even makes the Lost boys more believable than a bunch of nincompoops in animal suits. Only reason I would show the Disney to my children is through their tender years. After that it will be the Musical from 1954 then the 2003 and if there is stronger darker stuff by then, I will read the book to them! I understand what you are saying I love the idea of a more realistic version until then I will settle for the 2003 version that has at least a realistic Hook!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Even as a kid I hated the Disney version. I've never read the book so I have no idea, however my problem is with how Peter is a little douche nozzle who torments people just for the hell of it, and goes so far as to treat his own friends like crap. Good god how did THAT become successful. These days, you've got the damn Disney Fairies line, and those Tinkerbell movies. I've never seen them, but I really don't plan on it. I mean Tinkerbell was bad enough in the movie. Making her talk will only make her worse. And cause I KNOW this will piss her fans off... I DON'T BELIEVE IN FAIRIES!!!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I eitehr haven't seen the Tinkerbell movies and don't plan to, but just making a remark that if they're not canon continuation to the animated classic movies, the character may have been portrayed very differently as written by different people into a different universe.
But I really don't care much. It sucks if it's anything Peter Pan from Disney.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You know, I actually like Peter Pan being light-hearted.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well, it not exactly like Disney sugar-coating things is anything new. I mean, look at the classic faerytales compared to Disney adaptions of them. Nobody is being thrown into a cauldron of snakes, or dancing in burning metal shoes until you die, theres no attempting to kill the prince while him and his lover sleep, and no being impregnated while your in an enchanted hundred year sleep. It's just not how Disney does things. We won't even mention the historical mix-ups in some of the films. I love the classics despite their many inaccuracies.
I'm not dismissing your opinion, just putting in my two cents.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The stories you mentioned were tamed down for kids long before Disney did anything with them...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
While yes, Disney has been in the habit of fluffing up pretty much every fairytale they've ever done an adaptation of, Peter Pan stands pretty much alone (except for, perhaps, Alice in Wonderland) as films that seem to be terribly lacking. Walt Disney himself said that he didn't get to give as much attention to PP as he would have liked - whether or not that would've been enough to improve the guts of it is anyone's guess. I don't even mind that they gave some good humor to it, particularly where Hook/Croc is concerned (and it's some of the most hilarious imagery Disney has ever done). The big problem I have with the cartoon that separates it from the rest of Disney's collection of classics, is I don't come away from it with any satisfaction. While all their other films leave something behind, Peter Pan feels like little more than a roller-coaster. You get on, some cool stuff happens, you get off, and all there is to say about the experience is, "That was fun." The only goal that is actually given any real presentation in the film is, "Let's get away from here so we don't have to grow up", which is a goal that is never even achieved. But the implications of deciding to turn back from that pursuit that is never even remotely explored, beyond, "I want a mom."
Yes, while Disney has butchered many fairy tales, and will surely butcher many more, these fluffed up adaptations are anything but hollow. They have lots of emotion, and have messages to bestow upon us. Peter Pan seems to have been done with none of that ideology in mind.
- Chris
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i'm sorry but to be honest, i don't care. Disney's Peter Pan was a childhood classic for me and hass been for generations of kids. THATS the peter i remember and looked up to back then.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Totally agree with you!
People don't realize that Peter Pan was never written for children because most (if not all) the concepts in the story would only be fully understood by an adult.
Also, question, where in the story does it say that Peter whips Slightly? I'm guessing it was the part where he 'adjusted' his tree to the underground house, but if I remember correctly, Peter didn't know about that. I've been doing research on this book for 2 years and I'm still finding new information
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not directly stated but clearly implied, at Hook's ship after the children defeated the pirates and are going home.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
cool! I'll have to re-read that part. One if the things that stuck out to me in the book was that Peter kills any of the Lost Boys that start to grow up, that was freaky. But yeah, Peter Pan in reality is a very creepy book.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree on what you said about the novel : it's very dark , though ironical and humourous sometimes, but, boy, it can be really scary !!!! You depicted Pan and Hook quickly but that's right : Peter is like a childish demon and Hook a magnificient but cruel man . The story is twisted dark, scary and stuff.. Nothing like the Disney version ... in appareance.
Yes, the disney movie hasn't got this darky creepy atmosphere, but remember that the movie was made in the early 50's and wasn't supposed to be scary . In fact, the disney movie requires some subtletly : Disney manages to depict the fact that the Lost Boys are really ...lost . I mean, they play happily but it still sad, because they're like trapped in Neverland, because they don't know what is a mother, so they live disconnected from the realty . And the saddest part is they stay in Neverland, without knowing the joy of living in a family .
Regarding Pan, his selfishness (because is like this in the book : he searchs adventure more than really helping his "friends" ) is depicted when he almost foreget Tiger Lily in the Skull Rock , and I think his behavior while Wendy is singing about mothers translate good enough his hatred for grown up men .
About Hook, though he has a comic relief, he's still cruel : he's a cold-blooded killer (see the pirate he shot in the beginning of the movie) and has no scruples about killing innocent children (mostly the Darling children) . Plus he's intelligent and dangerous : in my opinion Peter wins only because he's the hero and because he can fly , otherwise he wouldn't last very long (Hook actually won the final swordfight !)
But as you said, it's a kids'movie before than everything . Children enjoyed the movie because it was funny and colorful, and the grown up people can enjoy too for the same reasons , plus for the little subleties . I mean , I'm 17 years-old an I still freakin' love that feature .
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not critisizing the cartoon for being mostly a big joke in itself so much as I'm critisizing it having become the face of Peter Pan as in Disney leaving people into the impression that it's the be all end all of Peter Pan when in fact it's the furthest thing from the trueful story.
Although I do also think Disney made it unnecessarely light-hearted, they strayed from their standard when they didn't need to. They didn't have to do that just becaus eit was the 50's and for kids. They'd already adapted dark stories like Pinochio and Bambi and did not completely fuck them up. Although I have not read those original stories, my point lies in the fact that those Disney cartoon versions still are hundred times more serious and dark than their Peter Pan. Also the next two animations they made withing the 50's (Lady and the Tramp and Sleeping Beauty) are also far more serious and yet enjoyable to children.
I do not enjoy Disney's Peter Pan. In example the "Hook is a codfish" scene I linked to up there, I bet I was happily chanting along back when I was a 5-year old little boy watching it but now in my late twenties I'm just pained by the scene's general unoriginal childishness, (I don't mean the name 'codfish' but the whole concept of that scene.) Well, pretty much all the scenes that made Hook a clown are painfully childish in utterly onriginal way. I wish they'd at least stuck to the style of humour Mr. Barrie uses in the novel.
Also in general I find the Disney's Peter Pan very forgettable. I watched it like a zillion times when I was 5-6 years old but still I didn't remember anything from it later in life. I watched it numerous times in my teenage years because every damn time I forgot all about it and thus didn't remember how low-quality it is.
I find it forgetable in both characterisation and scenes. Like Peter's given no reason to refuse growing up - he's not even human. He's just this scoundrel elf living it up. Hook is mostly portrayed as a clown and the crocodile is more like a drooling puppy dog. Mr. Smee is memoriable only as the guy who hangs a lot around the one who's mostly memroable as a clown, taking care of him and trying to calm him down. Wendy is a babbling teenage girl and John and Michael are just there and all I can recall is their appearence. Mr. Darling is Disney's typical fat dad though in this case far from the relaxed and sympatehtic type which makes one rather forget about him. The Lost Boys are memoriable mostly because of their colourful, cute anmal costumes - they weren't even given names. Mrs. Darling might as well not been there at all. I admit, some of these characters do have more to them than those things but the point is those characteristics are way too much weighted on for the characters to be very memoriable or even anything special.
The story, is full of adventure which is entertaining especially for 5-years old children viewing. But the storyline doesn't really affect any of the characters' lives. The parents don't even get the time to notice their kids are gone, Peter AND the Lost Boys all return to Neverland, if I recall correctly no one believed Wendy afterwards, and Hook didn't even die. The original story has an actual closure by Hook dying, Peter retutning to Neverland ALONE while the other children got a family, and the parents after possibly years of mourning their lost children, finally have them back. Being one of the things that make the real story memoriable. Disney's version lacks also unique little details such as the acorn and thimble as kisses.
As a 5-year old I didn't care for those kind of things, it was enough if the story had humour and adventure. But I don't enjoy the Disney cartoon as an adult, and I find it forgettable. But that's just my opinion. And partially probably because I'm a movie buff who thinks good characterisation and storyline is more important than ground-breaking animation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>