That one movie is Pan, directed by Joe Wright and written by Jason Fuchs (whom I am a friend with on Facebook, if that counts for anything). Based on the legendary works by J. M. Barrie, Pan takes place before he became Peter Pan.
One thing I can say is something along the lines of a metaphor; it's a piece of unripe Swiss cheese thrown into a UFC match, with no experience in fighting, yet beats the opponent when it realizes at the last second that they're allergic to cheese.
It barely makes sense. The movie has numerous plot-holes in the writing, be it in the story itself or in connection to the source material. How could the origin of a character take place after the book was written?
Better yet, who the hell predicted that "Smells like Teenage Spirit" or "Blitzkrieg Bop" would be sung in Neverland 30 years before they were recorded?
Why is Nibs the only lost boy mentioned in the beginning?
Why wasn't Wendy, John or Michael Darling involved?
Why does Peter love Mothers now?
Also, he cries when he's PETER PAN. He only does that when he's really desperate, like when he tries to reattach his shadow...
Also, WHEN DID NEVERLAND BECOME EVERY FANTASY WORLD EVER MADE... PROPHECIES?! ROYALTY?! When was he a prince?!
Also, pixel/fairy dust=fantasy world McGuffin/obtanium (Avatar)/ Gold (everything else)
and fairy hive=Avatar's big tree/El Dorado/ Treasure Island/ (insert treasure here)
Why put that in?! It didn't make sense to me before the movie, and it didn't make sense afterward...
Yet who am I to give a review for a movie that, even though it flopped at the box office, made more money than I can dream to make on one story? Who am I to critique a man whose work made it to the blacklist, one of the most coveted lists for potential movie scripts to be considered by movie companies, when I wrote only 4 drafts of a novel telling the same story?
It doesn't seem right to critique a film that so many people believed in from the start, yet people like me would try to tear it down as "devotees" to the source material. So I'll write about the good things in the movie. The references that I could catch felt very natural, except for the forced one-liners made famous by the book. Other little nods here and there were very appreciated and impressed me very much.
The props team deserve a raise. Goodness, the backgrounds and set-pieces felt authentic to a vision of Neverland only a man like Joe Wright could make.
And the special effects?!? HOLY COW! They were so immersive! That is, except for the flying scenes... then again I have no idea how a team could pull them off anyway without a green screen.
Then there's the acting... If my Peter Pan had brown hair and green eyes, I would be jealous of Warner Bros for finding Levi Miller first.
Personally, I would have taken out Captain Hook (Garrett Hedlund)'s part and just made Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman) Captain Hook because HOLY COW that guy would have been a PERFECT fit for Hook. Tiger Lily was definitely tolerable, unlike what others might think of her acting. It was a solid performance, just too bland for a character that I should be rooting for by the third act.
Speaking of which, I didn't feel any thrills for any of the characters, as most of them are crucial to the story of Peter Pan so they couldn't die. If they were going to go all out, change up the dynamic of all of the characters; kill some off, introduce new ones, make it up as you go along, I wouldn't care. I'm willing to see where it goes.
This movie doesn't do the source material justice, but that is no reason to bash someone for trying something new. Any part of human society must change at some point, even Peter Pan. I just don't think that this was the right vision for it.
When I found out that this movie flopped and was panned (pun intended?) by critics, I wasn't sure what to think. Celebrate the fall of my "competition"? To panic that no one will read the story after the lack of interest in an origin story? I had no idea.
After watching the movie I gained respect for people that dared to change things. To remake the story of the Boy Who Never Grew up in World War II is something commendable. Originality is hard to find in art, but to make a character your own is just as good as making them yourself.
I respect this movie's vision and I'm sad to miss out on what could have been with this potential franchise. Overall, nice on the eyes but soft on the mind. Everyone tried their best, and it definitely shows. Yet that doesn't mean the film is perfect. It just isn't the origin story I had imagined for the character, and I mean that sincerely. Don't believe me? Check out the newest edition of my book on Inkitt, then we'll talk.
If you were looking for a film score, like IGN or any standard critic, sorry to burst your bubble. I don't grade films. I just judge them on their merits. You be the judge. Let me know what you thought about Pan. Did you like it?
UPDATE: What was really spooky about the film was that it had elements I put into my own version.
They had evil Nuns with ulterior motives... Sister Deborah was evil in the early versions.
Peter cried a lot... Same here.
He doesn't believe in bedtime stories... my Peter was a colorless rag in a washing machine, just going through the motions with nothing to believe in.
It's weird to see the similarities in the film as well as the differences.
UPDATE 2: SECOND TO THE RIGHT's story involved a version of Peter Pan being shown, which inspires him to become Peter Pan... Not exactly the same reasoning as Pan, but the fact that the story took place after the book also allows for a weird connection between our version and the book.
UPDATE 2: SECOND TO THE RIGHT's story involved a version of Peter Pan being shown, which inspires him to become Peter Pan... Not exactly the same reasoning as Pan, but the fact that the story took place after the book also allows for a weird connection between our version and the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment