Even though Pan was almost universally panned by critics and audiences it may deserve a second chance, before Disney releases their remake.
When Pan was announced, I was incredibly excited for it. The live-action, 2003, Peter Pan is my all-time favorite movie and Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice, Atonement, Anna Karenina) is one of my favorite directors. It seemed like nothing could go wrong, that is, until the reviews came out. I still went to see it opening night in 2015, and even though I was immensely disappointed, I still find myself defending it.
Peter Pan has been one of the greatest victims of remakes and adaptations in all media, with varying degrees of success. Naturally Disney is remaking Peter Pan with their onslaught of remakes. They should heed Pan’s warning noting not only what went wrong but also its advantages.
What went wrong
Peter Pan is not a superhero
Pan was not doomed for being an origin story: Peter and the Starcatchers is a great reimagining of Peter Pan. Their problem was how they created his origin. They tried to fit Peter Pan into the mold of superhero origins. This is innately problematic because Peter Pan is not a superhero.
Peter Pan is a shadowy character, so is Captain Hook. Neither are completely good or evil; they both act largely based on their own interests. In Pan, Peter is fated to be the savior of Neverland. This removes nuance from Peter’s actions, changing his character to be less selfish and forcing his actions to be wholly heroic.
Casting
Some of the backlash against Pan was likely anticipated by the casting of Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily. Even though within the world created in Pan Tiger Lily is not Native American, but Native Neverlandian, this was not a necessary casting decision. The majority of the casting in it felt weak. Not only were the characters written poorly with little dimensionality, but also many of the adult actors gave flat performances.
What would have made it better
Tone
Pan erased the darkness and fluid morality to create a child-friendly film. The problem is, these are not mutually exclusive. With framing Peter as a superhero it ignored his interesting flaws. This bright-colorful world made everything clear cut, good vs. evil, which Neverland is most definitely not. Also countless side characters die in a puff of colorful smoke. This feels too light-hearted considering the source’s focus on death.
Setting
Peter Pan is classically set in the early 20th century, however Pan shifted it to take place in the middle of World War II. This could have been an interesting change. However, this setting seems to have been changed to exist entirely for a single joke with the flying ship. It is frustrating how unnecessary this change is, because it could have been interesting and could have helped darken the tone. They could have worked with the parallel that Blackbeard was essentially running a labor camp. The children could have been excited to leave their war-torn country, only to find Neverland was also suffering.
World building
Pan used covers of “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and “Blitzkrieg Bop” for no apparent reason. On one hand, it is an interesting creative choice that stands out from many other adaptions. On the other hand, it makes no sense. The songs are anachronistic and serve no purpose in the story. It maybe could have worked though. A theory I have is that Blackbeard’s ships can travel into any point in time. This could explain the songs, and the characters’ varying wardrobes. If this theory is accurate, it would have been interesting if the characters sang songs from drastically different points in history.
On Page 2: Why ‘Pan’ is still worthwhile
Why it is still worthwhile
‘Star Wars’
My first thought after the movie was that it held a loose Star Wars parallel. This mostly existed in the character relationships. Peter, Princess Tiger Lily, and Hook stand in for Luke, Princess Leia, and Han respectively. Obviously some of their names are kind of similar. Additionally, Tiger Lily is a sisterly figure for Peter, as Peter’s mother trained her. Finally, Hook and Tiger Lily initially have a sort of love-hate relationship, with lines between them even poorly imitated from Star Wars.
Crazy theory and the main reason I want a sequel: Blackbeard is Peter’s father. I may be imagining this a little to complete the Star Wars parallel, but it actually makes some sense. Peter’s father was a fairy prince who turned into a human to be with Peter’s mother, but a fairy in human form can only survive for one day. Blackbeard smokes pixie dust to stay young. However, I think it is possible that he is Peter’s father and has to smoke the pixie dust to stay alive. It never establishes whether people actually age in Neverland. Additionally, there could have been some deception describing Blackbeard’s history, to maintain this plot twist.
It is still fun!
Pan sacrificed story and character for visual effects. The visuals are more than a little extreme but some are fairly beautiful. Despite the dissimilarities to the source, Peter is a fun protagonist and the world has potential. There is little to no depth, but Pan is still very enjoyable, much more so than many other modern action/adventure movies.
Many problems that Pan had could be solved in a sequel. Unfortunately this will likely never happen due to the criticism, leaving a lot of questions unanswered. It still bugs me that I will likely never know if Blackbeard is Peter’s father. Additionally the main promise of Pan’s existence of how did Peter and Hook become enemies in this specific mythology is not fulfilled.
What can Disney learn
Peter Pan‘s mythology very delicate. Many of Disney’s other fairytales are based on oral storytelling told and adapted through many cultures. In contrast, J.M. Barrie created Peter Pan. It has a specific origin and when it strays too far it can feel like something totally different. Additionally, even though Peter Pan’s main theme is childhood, the story should not feel simplified. Peter Pan should be able to work on separate levels for both children and adults, not just candy-coated for children.