Talk:Peter Pan (2003 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Untitled

"'Finding Neverland' received all the critical and audience acclaim that the previous year's 'Peter Pan' should have received". Should is a POV word, and should thus be removed. This is an encyclopedia, not a film reviewing site. --216.221.64.245 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've removed the sentence altogether; it's flotsam, really.--Gwilym 08:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section needs work?

I find the whole "Peter and Wendy" heading in th middle of the plot section kind of confusing... if nobody screams, I'd like to change it. It might be less confusing to have a section explaining the differences between "Peter and Wendy" and this film after the plot section, or a section that points out differences between this film and the play, books, and other adaptations. I also think that the plot needs to be expanded quite a bit.

I don't think it should say in the plot section that Peter Pan never returns to London, as he does so in the deleted scene mentioned in the "reaction" section below. Perhaps some of this info should be moved up into the plot section? --RainbowWerewolf (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot needs expanding as well. Angie Y. (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeremy as Peter.jpg

Image:Jeremy as Peter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Peter Pan 2003 film.jpg

Image:Peter Pan 2003 film.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

first?

first with a boy as peter? no, there is russian tv-film (1987) with sergey vlasov as peter http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80_%D0%9F%D1%8D%D0%BD_(%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BC,_1987)&oldid=15651635 --85.140.198.129 (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for edit the article --85.140.196.130 (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate ending removal

The fact that certain viewers dislike the alternate ending included on the DVD doesn't mean that information about it shouldn't be included in the article. Furthermore, unsourced personal opinions about the ending are not appropriate material for an encyclopedia article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's only an alternate ending and not official and therefore not part of the story of the movie. The article doesn't go into the other omitted scenes either. Why is this one so special? It obviously got canned before the final cutting, no special effects and music and co. --89.246.170.62 (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It exists and its published; that's reason enough to include information about it. And it's "special" because it happens to be based directly on an "alternate ending" written by the original author. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peter Pan (2003 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110620072556/http://www.alfayed.com:80/dodi-and-diana/dodi.aspx to http://www.alfayed.com/dodi-and-diana/dodi.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031224/REVIEWS/312240306/1023
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512032708/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First faithful adaptation

Further detail & citation needed for the statement "It was the first authorised and faithful film or television adaptation of J.M. Barrie's play Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up in half a century, after Disney's version in 1953." Authorisation is detailed under Production, but what justifies a) not considering Peter Pan (1954 musical) equally faithful, and b) implying that Disney's rather colloquial adaptation is more faithful than the musical? As it stands, it suggests a lack of NPOV. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fairly meaningless (and subjective) statement. For one thing, it implies that Disney's adaptation was faithful (which it wasn't). And it brushes under the rug the 1987 Belorussian adaptation, which wasn't authorized but was arguably more faithful than anything since the 1924 silent film. This film is noteworthy for setting out to tell the story "straight", without the song-and-dance stuff, for the global market, but we should say that without blessing it as "faithful". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the Belarus/Russian version. I agree the Disney animated feature is not very faithful; I haven't seen it for a while, but even as a kid I was annoyed by the deviations and slang. Who has "authority" anyway after more than a century? Apparently, that's not a simple question, and depends where you live; see Peter and Wendy#Copyright status. As a humorous sidenote, when I was about 10, I set out to turn the novel "Peter and Wendy" into a play (!), only discovering after about the first ten pages that I had it backwards and Barrie had been well ahead of me! D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flop

Isn't the real reason the film flopped the dreadful acting by Jason Issacs, not competition from other films? (109.146.218.230 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]