PAN: Bomb of the Year?

I think kids still enjoy it. Stage productions of "Peter Pan" run all the time - it's one of those "evergreen" stories that remains consistently popular...

 

...and guaranteed those stage productions stay truer to the original story. But to mold a "prequel" into a bad film is entirely different.

 

Maybe they can make The Fantastic Four vs. Peter Pan and finally get both properties right for once.

 

Just read an awful review of this by a critic I really trust. I was really disappointed to see it was directed by Joe Wright, a director I've really liked who did Pride & Prejudice, Atonement, Hanna etc.
Weird.

 

I liked "P&P" but I thought "Atonement" was weak. My only fond memory comes from the commentary: when the title comes up at the end, Wright pronounces it "at-won-ment".

That amused me. The movie bored me!

 

Doh, here's the latest news from Deadline: Hollywood...

Warner Bros.’ expensive Pan is looking at $6M-$7M today at 3,515 venues, that includes the $650K the Joe Wright film made last night. In sum, an opening weekend that is currently at $18M-$22M putting it in third...

In regards to why Pan isn’t taking off, one rival studio executive didn’t attribute it to the film’s lofty $150M budget: “Audiences aren’t really in tune to budgets unless it’s a big VFX extravaganza. It’s just that moviegoers aren’t screaming out for another Peter Pan movie.” Peter Pan movies have a tortured history. Through Steven Spielberg’s 1991 twist on the J.M. Barrie tale grossed $120M, it was off a $70M extravagant budget in its day. Then there was the 2003 Universal-Revolution Studios $100M version, Peter Pan, which nobody cared about and was also overbudget, with a $48.5M domestic B.O. So the tea leaves were there and are still there: Stop making Peter Pan movies. Critics responded to Pan like they lost their hands to a crocodile: with a 23% Rotten Tomatoes score. Warners saw this hurricane brewing stateside for Pan and pushed the film aggressively abroad to make up lost ground with event-filled stunts in various foreign cities and a globe-trotting Hugh Jackman.

http://deadline.com/2015/10/martian-pan-the-walk-weekend-box-office-1201572119/

 

WHERE ARE YOUR YOUNGSTERS NOW?

 

Did you mean that to be in Edward G. Robinson's voice? Because that's how I heard it (adding in a "myeah" and "see" or two).

 

Yes, that works. Perfect.

 

Agreed, very weak. A very overrated film (made from a significantly overrated book), which basically looks like an expensive soap opera with overly self-conscious direction. I'm sorry to hear this movie is basically a bummer, but I'm not shocked.

 

Sandy Kenyon reviewed this last night, he was less than impressed.

http://abc7ny.com/entertainment/san...ess-than-stellar-return-to-neverland/1024858/

Great stuff:

"If there was any justice in the picture business, the executive who gave the green light to "Pan" should be fired. But this being Hollywood, that person will more than likely be promoted."
" Pure Misery, painful, epic flop...Never should have been made...." the horrors go on and on.... " I get paid well to waste my time so you don't have to waste your money".

 

I hate Peter Pan! When he was floating outside the window it reminded me of Salem's lot. Flying adolescents trying to get into your room...no thanks. His motives were very suspect to me as a child. How about some fairy dust kiddies from the flying ladyboy/vampire?

 

My dad liked it. I've never seen it. To date, the only version of Peter Pan that I have seen is the Disney animated one.

 

Nope. I like it too. We've had the VHS for a long time and watch it occasionally.
Some parts are kinda meh, but overall I like the film.

 

I think it's one of those examples of getting a cast that's so talented, that it can somewhat overcome the shortcomings of a script.

 

Did you really feel it stank? My wife and I saw it and loved it, and had no idea why it flopped. The Onion's AV club had an excellent reappraisal of the film:

The best Peter Pan film is the one you’ve forgotten about

Look even a little past the surface, and Peter Pan is revealed as the tragic figure he is at heart. Yet only one version of the story has really acknowledged this. Not coincidentally, it’s by far the best one: P.J. Hogan’s 2003 film Peter Pan.

The Peter Pan of this film (Jeremy Sumpter) is a wounded creature. Like many troubled children, he reacts with hostility and violence when attacked, though the dangers that set him off here aren’t the physical kind posed by Captain Hook, but emotional ones that are threatening in their adultness. The film sees through his familiar traits, revealing his trademark cockiness and mischievousness as masks over underlying pain. When claims he wants only to be a boy and have fun, Wendy calls b.s.: “I think it is your biggest pretend.”

Remember that Pan’s ability to fly is contingent on not just fairy dust, but optimism; if he lets unhappy thoughts into his head, he will quite literally fall. This doesn’t result in a joyful character, but one in denial. When he plays a kind of word association game, pairing “jealousy” with Tinker Bell and “anger” with Hook, he claims ignorance at the word “love,” hissing that “the sound of it offends me.” While it’s never underlined in close-up, there’s a scar running across Sumpter’s heart.​

...and:

Despite the film’s bright color palette and bloodless violence, Hogan’s Peter Pan exposes the story’s true darkness by deconstructing its most resonant theme. Perhaps this is why it failed to find much of an audience, though it’s easy to imagine a cult rising around it, given the wave of coming Neverland projects. (Count this lifelong Lost Boy its first member.) But the darkness has always been a part of the Pan story, even if Barrie hid it. Consider this: Despite the love he and Wendy share, Pan always stays in Neverland. The Lost Boys go to London with the Darlings, but family is “one joy from which [Pan] must be forever barred,” according to the film’s narration. A boy who boasts that “to die would be an awfully big adventure” is in some serious need of therapy.
​

Like the similarly slammed Return to Oz, it had the courage to explore the dark heart of a beloved children's classic and paid the price for it.

 

Another sad report...

$150 Million Peter ‘Pan’ Reboot Goes Splat at Box Office
Profitability appears adjacent to Neverland for Warner Bros.’ 3D fantasy adventure “Pan,” a prequel drawn from J.J. Barrie’s 1904 classic that bears a hefty $150 million production price tag. After grossing $5.2 million from 3,515 theaters Friday, the PG-rated origin tale directed byJoe Wright and starring Hugh Jackman, Garrett Hedlundand Amanda Seyfried is looking at an opening under $20 million for the studio, RatPac-Dune Entertainment and Berlanti Productions.

http://www.thewrap.com/joseph-gordon-levitts-the-walk-pricey-pan-go-splat-at-box-office/

 

People are so dumb in Hollywood anymore .. Nobody wanted another Peter Pan.
The studios don't pay attention what the public wants anymore that has substance.
Lone Ranger ,Jupiter Rising, All failures .. Because The exc's are too high.
On there own egos' to see straight.

 

And yet there are other crap movies which break records. Go figure.

 

But for how long... thats the big what if..?
When will people stop seeking out my numbing entertainment...
And try to do something else with there time.?

 

Never.

 

Ah, now that would be an interesting picture: VAMPIRE PAN. That's a whole new direction for the story... although there was the Lost Boys of the 1980s...

 

Who is this film meant for, exactly?

The book and characters have been adapted so many times that you've either

A). Seen a better version of this story already and don't want to see a new and/or different adaptation.

Or

B). You will see a better version (Disney's animated adaptation) if you ever do have interest in it.

Or

C). You have no interest in seeing any adaptation of it.

 

Have you ever posted anything positive about movies?

 

What we don't need: more frickin' vampire movies! Or zombie movies!