Whats Up With The Peter Pan Movie????

[Brer-Rabbit]

I just saw this pop up about the New Peter Pan Movie and it was from UNIVERSAL pictures. How is that happening? I am just curious -- Maybe its been mentioned before but I may have missed it -- sorry

How will this impact Disney? Will Universal have a Peter Pan Ride? Be able to use Tinkerbell in their parks??

 

[exDS vet]

To the best of my knowledge, Disney and Universal have been in a fued for many decades. This goes back to Walt's time. These companies truly hate eachother. When I heard that Universal was producing a "live-action" Peter Pan movie, I laughed because I'm sure Disney is furious about it. Then I think, what would they think if Dreamworks did a Pan film?

As far as the rights to Peter Pan go, I doubt that Disney owns exclusive rights to the story. It was not a Disney creation. There have been several versions of the Peter Pan story on stage and screen. Mary Martin played Pan in the Broadway Musical version. In the early 90's Steven Speilberg produced "Hook" with Robin Williams as Peter, Dustin Hoffman as Captain Hook and Julia Roberts as Tinkerbell. Disney had nothing to do with either of those versions.

I'm sure that Disney has some kind of rights to any animated versions of the story, but I might be wrong. And I wouldn't expect to see any rides at Universal any time soon. I honestly doesn't look like the film will be much of a hit.

Another interesting Disney/Universal story. Michael Jackson used to practically live at Disneyland. He had a strong relationship with Disney both professionally and as a fan. When E.T. was first released in the 80's, Speilberg approached Jackson to work on a kids record album based on the movie. Disney go very upset with Jackson over it, and threatened to cut off all ties with the singer. He got very upset when he had to choose between the two. I heard he actually had to go to the hospital over the whole thing.
Of course now he has his Neverland Ranch and some parts of it actually look like parts of Disneyland. Go figure.

I used to produce televisions programs in the 1990's. We did a two hour holiday special from Universal Studios in Hollywood. We had tried to do the show from Disneyland, but they turned us down, and would only let us do a short story from the park. While we were negotiating with Universal to do the program, they told us that we could only do the show from thier park if we did not use the Disneyland story. We chose to bump Disneyland.

I'd be interested to know if the fued continues. Imagine if one day we had a company called Universal/Disney

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Brer-Rabbit
How will this impact Disney? Will Universal have a Peter Pan Ride? Be able to use Tinkerbell in their parks??

Disney only has full claim to ITS version of Peter Pan -- the animated characters. Universal cannot use Disney's Tinkerbell image or character in their parks, but there's nothing stopping them from devising one of their own. Disney doesn't own the copyright to Peter Pan in general ... just to their own version.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

I don't think anyone but the original authors family has rights to the story & characters of Peter Pan. I'm personally looking forward to this live action version. It looks great. Kind of dark and fantasy-like.

 

[ptrbryant]

J.M. Barrie wrote "Peter Pan" originally as a play in the early 1900's (I believe). There's a movie about Barrie's life coming out and Barrie's being played by...Johnny Depp!
Karla B.

 

[Dznefreek]

I believe the rights to the story were given to a childrens hospital in England by Barrie himself as a way to continue funding for the hospital.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

As I understand it . . .

1) The rights to Peter Pan belong to the Great Ormond Street Hospital
2) ANYONE using Peter has to pay rights to the hospital.
3) At one time Disney was involved in the movie.
4) GOSH still wanted their due, as it is a big source of income.
5) Children hospitals need all the funding they can get.
6) But Disney thought they already paid enough to GOSH.
7) After-all, Disney pays fees on cartoons, park rides and toys.
8) Disney backed out when GOSH wouldn't back down.

NOTE: Full name is "Great Ormond Street Hospital for
Children and the Institute of Child Health"

 

[TheTexasKid]

Maybe Disney got lucky. The only impact so far seems to be a negative one. The movie was budgeted at $100,000,000. As of 12/28/03 it had only earned $14,627,615 in boxoffice receipts. It is unlikely to earn back the costs it took to make it.

 

[KNWVIKING]

.... a radio station I listen to was giving a description- mostly from two DJ's that took their kids- and they were rather purturbed by Peter Pan kissing an 11 yr old girl. They made it sound like it was more then just an innocent kiss.

 

[Planogirl]

As of Wednesday, it has earned $35,502,020 per boxofficemojo. They're saying that it's a hard call where it will end up exactly because of possible overseas sales and later rentals and sales. Most people who see seem to really like it but no one has mentioned anything about a kiss that I know of.

 

[PatriciaH]

Wendy is 13 in the book/movie. The movie was good- DH and I saw it last week. It is very true to the original story. If you read the book you will know what the kiss is all about.

 

[KNWVIKING]

...I have never read the book and I doubt the DJ's have either. It probably made perfect sense to someone like yourself who has read the book but maybe to the uninformed it appears inapropriate. What really caught my attention about the DJ's reviews was that the station is a hard rock station with a fairly crude morning crew. To hear them mention the kiss the way they did just seemed out of charactor for them.

 

[JeffH]

All I know is that WDW better get a Tinkerbell out on the streets doing meet or greets before Universal does, otherwise Universal will be
able to claim the rights to have her as a face character doing meet or greets. If they don't, then Universal could then claim "the only place in
Orlando where you can meet Tinkerbell face to face along with Peter Pan, Wendy (and the kids) Captain Hook, Smee and the lost boys".
What a promotional coup that would be. Although only Tinkerbell would be unique, an ad like this would make many think that Peter Pan and Co. were no longer at WDW.
Based on the movies:
Disney would continue to have the right to meet and greet a Peter Pan as a face character in his Disney green suit.
Universal, now, could also have Peter Pan in their parks as long as he is wearing the 'rag' outfit from the new movie.
Since Tinkerbell is not really distinguished by her outfit, but by her wings, I would think that the 1st park to put a Tinkerbell face character out on the street would be able to claim exclusive rights to Tinkerbell as a face character (although Disney could still put out a costumed/cartoon Tink <like Capt. Hook>).
Disney should also consider putting a 'face' Hook and Smee out on the street before Universal does, so that they would still have the right to. Because, Universal, as a result of their live action Pan movie should have more legal rights to live face characters, while Disney's cartoon Pan only gives them more legal rights to cartoon/costume characters.

 

[donald@home]

This is one of the best movies I have seen this year, and the only movie I want to see again (and again). I have never read the original play or book, but there was NOTHING wrong with the kiss between Peter and Wendy. It was very sweet and innocent (as first kisses usually are). The whole point of the movie is the fact that Wendy is on the verge of growing up and Peter never will. It is that kiss that makes Wendy and Peter realize that growing up is not so bad, which makes the decision Peter makes at the end of the film so powerful and a little sad. This was a wonderful film, and it is too bad that more people aren't turning out for it. MiceAge had a great article on it the other day:

http://www.miceage.com/allutz/al010304a.htm

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
.... a radio station I listen to was giving a description- mostly from two DJ's that took their kids- and they were rather purturbed by Peter Pan kissing an 11 yr old girl. They made it sound like it was more then just an innocent kiss.

I've seen it. I loved it. It is very true to the original story. In the story, Wendy is 12. The kiss between her and Peter is quite innocent. If the DJ's had a problem with it, it was likely their own psychology making them think "adult" things about it, and their failing to see it as innocent.

There is such a thing as a sweet, innocent kiss between two 12 year olds with a crush on each other. This is what the kiss in the movie is.

If you go to this film expecting the Disney-fied nicey-nice version of the story though, you will be confused, and possibly not like it.

Peter is supposed to be a bit of a brat He is in the story, and he is in this movie. But I saw nothing in this film that would hinder my bringing my 11 year old neice to see it.

 

[mitros]

They have already pulled the movie from theatres in our area.

 

[JUDSON]

FYI... Here is a link to the original story online. It's interesting to see how Walt took the key aspects of this story and gave it the Disney touch. Also, the original story seems to lament the passage of childhood more than the Disney story.

http://www.readbookonline.net/title/6/