PETER PAN DVD

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by rwright, May 7, 2004.

  1. rwright

    rwright Guest

    Anyone else disapointed with the extras on this DVD? I know the movie was
    not a big hit but Iwould have liked to see a bit more. I mean, how hard is
    it to put the stinking Coming Attractions Previews on the DVD? Sure, we get
    THE CAT IN THE HAT preview (which NEITHER of my DVD's will let me skip over.
    I have to Fast Forward through it!), but I HATED that movie!

    I would havea liked more info on the making of the film, not just backstage
    tours. ANd a commentary from Wood, Sumpter and Hogan would have been
    invaluaable. I would especially like to know why Hogan did not include the
    ALTERNATE ENDING as the films REAL ending. From what I could see it was
    VERY well done. Just think how it might have looked with music and effects!
    Anyway, I was disappointed.
    rwright, May 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. rwright

    RnR Lesnar Guest

    Is the movie itself good? I'm making a blind buy with it due to the good
    reviews and I'm a Jason Isaccs fan. I ordered and it should be coming in
    soon.


    --
    RnR Lesnar
    It's True, It's True- Kurt Angle
    Bush/Cheney 2004




    "rwright" <> wrote in message
    news:kOAmc.2352$...
    > Anyone else disapointed with the extras on this DVD? I know the movie was
    > not a big hit but Iwould have liked to see a bit more. I mean, how hard

    is
    > it to put the stinking Coming Attractions Previews on the DVD? Sure, we

    get
    > THE CAT IN THE HAT preview (which NEITHER of my DVD's will let me skip

    over.
    > I have to Fast Forward through it!), but I HATED that movie!
    >
    > I would havea liked more info on the making of the film, not just

    backstage
    > tours. ANd a commentary from Wood, Sumpter and Hogan would have been
    > invaluaable. I would especially like to know why Hogan did not include

    the
    > ALTERNATE ENDING as the films REAL ending. From what I could see it was
    > VERY well done. Just think how it might have looked with music and

    effects!
    > Anyway, I was disappointed.
    >
    >
    RnR Lesnar, May 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. That's it RnR Lesnar I'm sick and tired of this crap!
    Now someone hit my music....
    > Is the movie itself good? I'm making a blind buy with it due to the
    > good reviews and I'm a Jason Isaccs fan. I ordered and it should be
    > coming in soon.


    Its pretty decent, some of the SFX looked very cartooney and
    a few times during the film especially towards the end the picture
    gets way a oversaturation of redish colors.

    --
    Demolition Man
    Brian The Demolition Man Little, May 7, 2004
    #3
  4. RnR Lesnar wrote:

    > Is the movie itself good? I'm making a blind buy with it due to the good
    > reviews and I'm a Jason Isaccs fan. I ordered and it should be coming in
    > soon.


    Most of the good reviews never read the book.

    (I'm sorry, but when we have Hook flying, and John Hughes paeans for the
    London scenes, "Wow, it's not Disney!" just doesn't much currency--
    We're one step away from the "Around the World in 80 Days" remake, here.)

    Derek Janssen
    Derek Janssen, May 7, 2004
    #4
  5. rwright

    RnR Lesnar Guest

    "Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
    news:409b0273$0$3031$...
    > RnR Lesnar wrote:
    >
    > > Is the movie itself good? I'm making a blind buy with it due to the good
    > > reviews and I'm a Jason Isaccs fan. I ordered and it should be coming in
    > > soon.

    >
    > Most of the good reviews never read the book.
    >
    > (I'm sorry, but when we have Hook flying, and John Hughes paeans for the
    > London scenes, "Wow, it's not Disney!" just doesn't much currency--
    > We're one step away from the "Around the World in 80 Days" remake, here.)
    >
    > Derek Janssen
    >
    >


    I gotta say that you lost me. I'm assuming you didn't like it.


    --
    RnR Lesnar
    It's True, It's True- Kurt Angle
    Bush/Cheney 2004
    RnR Lesnar, May 7, 2004
    #5
  6. rwright

    Mike Kohary Guest

    "Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
    news:409b0273$0$3031$...
    > RnR Lesnar wrote:
    >
    > > Is the movie itself good? I'm making a blind buy with it due to the good
    > > reviews and I'm a Jason Isaccs fan. I ordered and it should be coming in
    > > soon.

    >
    > Most of the good reviews never read the book.


    Why, does the quality of the movie depend on the book?

    RnR, yes, it's a very good adaptation that you should enjoy.

    Mike
    Mike Kohary, May 7, 2004
    #6
  7. rwright

    Mike Kohary Guest

    "Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
    news:409ba4cd$0$3034$...
    >
    > Translation: By about the hour-and-a-half mark, that sound you hear is
    > the screenwriters throwing the book out the window.


    I honestly don't understand some peoples' dedication to adherance to source
    material when it comes to film adaptations. Where is it written in stone
    that movie adaptations must follow the source material as closely as
    possible in order to be considered any good?

    Mike
    Mike Kohary, May 7, 2004
    #7
  8. rwright

    Mike Kohary Guest

    "Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
    news:409ba7a0$0$3034$...
    > Mike Kohary wrote:
    >
    > >>Translation: By about the hour-and-a-half mark, that sound you hear is
    > >>the screenwriters throwing the book out the window.

    > >
    > > I honestly don't understand some peoples' dedication to adherance to

    source
    > > material when it comes to film adaptations. Where is it written in

    stone
    > > that movie adaptations must follow the source material as closely as
    > > possible in order to be considered any good?

    >
    > And I repeat: HOOK CAN FRIGGIN' *FLY*????????? 0_0;


    Yeah, well, it makes for some fun. :)

    Mike
    Mike Kohary, May 7, 2004
    #8
  9. RnR Lesnar wrote:
    >
    >>>Is the movie itself good? I'm making a blind buy with it due to the good
    >>>reviews and I'm a Jason Isaccs fan. I ordered and it should be coming in
    >>>soon.

    >>
    >>Most of the good reviews never read the book.
    >>
    >>(I'm sorry, but when we have Hook flying, and John Hughes paeans for the
    >>London scenes, "Wow, it's not Disney!" just doesn't carry much currency--

    >
    > I gotta say that you lost me. I'm assuming you didn't like it.


    Translation: By about the hour-and-a-half mark, that sound you hear is
    the screenwriters throwing the book out the window.

    ....Assume the audience didn't like it either. :)

    Derek Janssen (I repeat: Hook can fly?...The HELL???)
    Derek Janssen, May 7, 2004
    #9
  10. Mike Kohary wrote:

    >>Translation: By about the hour-and-a-half mark, that sound you hear is
    >>the screenwriters throwing the book out the window.

    >
    >
    > I honestly don't understand some peoples' dedication to adherance to source
    > material when it comes to film adaptations. Where is it written in stone
    > that movie adaptations must follow the source material as closely as
    > possible in order to be considered any good?


    And I repeat: HOOK CAN FRIGGIN' *FLY*????????? 0_0;

    Derek Janssen (look, it's the f***in' Time Machine remake, get over it!!)
    Derek Janssen, May 7, 2004
    #10
  11. rwright

    jayembee Guest

    "Mike Kohary" <> wrote:

    >I honestly don't understand some peoples' dedication to adherance
    >to source material when it comes to film adaptations. Where is it
    >written in stone that movie adaptations must follow the source
    >material as closely as possible in order to be considered any good?


    Agreed. For example, BLADE RUNNER is a piss-poor adaptation of DO
    ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP, but I would not want to live in a
    world that did not have BLADE RUNNER in it.

    -- jayembee
    jayembee, May 7, 2004
    #11
  12. rwright

    Mark W Guest

    "Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
    news:409ba7a0$0$3034$...
    > Mike Kohary wrote:
    >
    > >>Translation: By about the hour-and-a-half mark, that sound you hear is
    > >>the screenwriters throwing the book out the window.

    > >
    > >
    > > I honestly don't understand some peoples' dedication to adherance to

    source
    > > material when it comes to film adaptations. Where is it written in

    stone
    > > that movie adaptations must follow the source material as closely as
    > > possible in order to be considered any good?

    >
    > And I repeat: HOOK CAN FRIGGIN' *FLY*????????? 0_0;
    >





    Where in the book does it say that he CAN'T fly?
    Mark W, May 7, 2004
    #12
  13. rwright

    Justin Guest

    Mark W wrote on [Fri, 7 May 2004 19:51:35 +0100]:
    >
    > "Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
    > news:409ba7a0$0$3034$...
    >> Mike Kohary wrote:
    >>
    >> >>Translation: By about the hour-and-a-half mark, that sound you hear is
    >> >>the screenwriters throwing the book out the window.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > I honestly don't understand some peoples' dedication to adherance to

    > source
    >> > material when it comes to film adaptations. Where is it written in

    > stone
    >> > that movie adaptations must follow the source material as closely as
    >> > possible in order to be considered any good?

    >>
    >> And I repeat: HOOK CAN FRIGGIN' *FLY*????????? 0_0;
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Where in the book does it say that he CAN'T fly?


    Where in the book does it say he's NOT a space cyborg?
    Justin, May 7, 2004
    #13
  14. rwright

    Goro Guest

    "RnR Lesnar" <> wrote in message news:<c7eouh$diu$>...
    > Is the movie itself good? I'm making a blind buy with it due to the good
    > reviews and I'm a Jason Isaccs fan. I ordered and it should be coming in
    > soon.


    i didn't really like it that much. interesting use of sexual subtext.
    i found the kid playing Peter to not be so good as an actor, quite
    annoying, actually. In fact, with the exception of Tinkerbell, i
    found all the kid-actors to be extremely poor. visuals were quite
    striking, but about halfway thru the movie, i started to get quite
    disinterested.

    i went back and started reading my copy of the book and got equally
    bored. i think maybe i'm just not interested in taht story anymore...
    ymmv..
    Goro, May 7, 2004
    #14
  15. rwright

    rwright Guest

    "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    news:c7g902$f3j$...
    > "Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
    > news:409ba4cd$0$3034$...
    > >
    > > Translation: By about the hour-and-a-half mark, that sound you hear is
    > > the screenwriters throwing the book out the window.

    >
    > I honestly don't understand some peoples' dedication to adherance to

    source
    > material when it comes to film adaptations. Where is it written in stone
    > that movie adaptations must follow the source material as closely as
    > possible in order to be considered any good?
    >
    > Mike
    >

    The problem is that the movie was touted as being faithful to J.M Barrie's
    original work (which was a play NOT a book). BUT it really is not. I went
    in thinking that Iwas going to see a relatively faithful adaptation because
    that was how the film was marketed.
    rwright, May 8, 2004
    #15
  16. rwright

    rwright Guest

    "Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
    news:409ba7a0$0$3034$...
    > Mike Kohary wrote:
    >
    > >>Translation: By about the hour-and-a-half mark, that sound you hear is
    > >>the screenwriters throwing the book out the window.

    > >
    > >
    > > I honestly don't understand some peoples' dedication to adherance to

    source
    > > material when it comes to film adaptations. Where is it written in

    stone
    > > that movie adaptations must follow the source material as closely as
    > > possible in order to be considered any good?

    >
    > And I repeat: HOOK CAN FRIGGIN' *FLY*????????? 0_0;
    >
    > Derek Janssen (look, it's the f***in' Time Machine remake, get over it!!)
    >
    >

    That was one of the things they changed for the movie that I actually
    liked. Because Peter can fly the battle between Peter and Hook always
    seemed a no-brainer. How could Hook possibly win? I never really felt
    Peter was in any peril when battling Hook. Giving Hook the ability to fly
    (just for the final battle, not through the whole story) makes the battle a
    bit more even. I liked the fact that Hook appears to have Peter beat..it
    really seems as if Peter is done for. And then..........well, I don't want
    to give too much away.
    rwright, May 8, 2004
    #16
  17. rwright wrote:

    >>>Translation: By about the hour-and-a-half mark, that sound you hear is
    >>>the screenwriters throwing the book out the window.

    >>
    >>I honestly don't understand some peoples' dedication to adherance to

    >
    > source
    >
    >>material when it comes to film adaptations. Where is it written in stone
    >>that movie adaptations must follow the source material as closely as
    >>possible in order to be considered any good?
    >>

    The problem is that the movie was touted as being faithful to J.M Barrie's
    > original work (which was a play NOT a book). BUT it really is not. I went
    > in thinking that Iwas going to see a relatively faithful adaptation because
    > that was how the film was marketed.


    And lost hope right in the opening, after we got the script-invented
    Lynn Redgrave character to say Un-PC Screenwriter Things to make Wendy
    look sympathetic, followed by Wacky Dog Hijinx in the scenes with Nana
    and the father in London...

    (...Look, producers, either it's "faithful" because you're worried about
    Mouse competition, or it's got Little Movie Glossary written all over
    every scene to justify the budget, but pick ONE alibi and stick to it.)

    Derek Janssen
    Derek Janssen, May 8, 2004
    #17
  18. rwright wrote:

    >>And I repeat: HOOK CAN FRIGGIN' *FLY*????????? 0_0;
    >>

    > That was one of the things they changed for the movie that I actually
    > liked. Because Peter can fly the battle between Peter and Hook always
    > seemed a no-brainer. How could Hook possibly win? I never really felt
    > Peter was in any peril when battling Hook. Giving Hook the ability to fly
    > (just for the final battle, not through the whole story) makes the battle a
    > bit more even. I liked the fact that Hook appears to have Peter beat..it
    > really seems as if Peter is done for. And then..........well, I don't want
    > to give too much away.


    Too bad the writers had to use Little Movie Glossary #226, "Last-Minute
    Villain Super Power-Up" to do it, though.

    Derek Janssen (not sure of the number, have to dig out my Eberts)
    Derek Janssen, May 8, 2004
    #18
  19. rwright

    Mike Kohary Guest

    "rwright" <> wrote in message
    news:zNVmc.2411$...
    >
    > "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    > news:c7g902$f3j$...
    > > "Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
    > > news:409ba4cd$0$3034$...
    > > >
    > > > Translation: By about the hour-and-a-half mark, that sound you hear

    is
    > > > the screenwriters throwing the book out the window.

    > >
    > > I honestly don't understand some peoples' dedication to adherance to

    > source
    > > material when it comes to film adaptations. Where is it written in

    stone
    > > that movie adaptations must follow the source material as closely as
    > > possible in order to be considered any good?
    > >
    > > Mike
    > >

    > The problem is that the movie was touted as being faithful to J.M Barrie's
    > original work (which was a play NOT a book). BUT it really is not. I went
    > in thinking that Iwas going to see a relatively faithful adaptation

    because
    > that was how the film was marketed.


    I don't know what you mean. I never saw any ads that said the movie was
    100% faithful to the book.

    Mike
    Mike Kohary, May 8, 2004
    #19
  20. rwright

    Mike Kohary Guest

    "Derek Janssen" <> wrote in message
    news:409c36a2$0$3033$...
    >
    > And lost hope right in the opening, after we got the script-invented
    > Lynn Redgrave character to say Un-PC Screenwriter Things to make Wendy
    > look sympathetic, followed by Wacky Dog Hijinx in the scenes with Nana
    > and the father in London...
    >
    > (...Look, producers, either it's "faithful" because you're worried about
    > Mouse competition, or it's got Little Movie Glossary written all over
    > every scene to justify the budget, but pick ONE alibi and stick to it.)


    I'm getting the idea that you're a writer, aren't you?

    Mike
    Mike Kohary, May 8, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JAM

    Peter Pan DVD question

    JAM, May 17, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    713
    Invid Fan
    May 31, 2004
  2. rwright
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,058
    Stan Brown
    May 28, 2004
  3. Martha Washington

    Re: how to skip attratcions on PETER PAN dvd?

    Martha Washington, May 23, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    492
    Martha Washington
    May 23, 2004
  4. Mad As Hell
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    478
    Mad As Hell
    May 24, 2004
  5. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    532
    DVD Verdict
    Jul 7, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page