#51
Posted: 7/26/06 at 3:00pm
I don't really see the need for this. I'm quite content with my Cathy Rigby DVD.
PETER PAN flies again as television musical. — Page 3
#52
Posted: 7/26/06 at 3:00pm
st this point, a star name as Peter has been said and done. Trying to find a 'star' peter now would not be successful. They need to find a star Hook and have the press of finding a new talent as Peter.
#53
Posted: 7/26/06 at 3:01pm
I know! Zac Efron as Peter Pan! lol! jk.
I remember watching an interview with Mario Cantone on The Tony Danza Show on Halloween and he was dreased up as Peter Pan! (Tights and everything) He said he went as Peter Pan every hawlloween since he was 5! So Tony said: Did you ever watch the one with Mary Martin as a kid ?
Mario: Ok. Let me say this, I love Mary but PETER PAN HAD A DICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That always pissed me off!
Haha! He was sssooo funny! how about Mario as Smee or one of the other Pirates?
I remember watching an interview with Mario Cantone on The Tony Danza Show on Halloween and he was dreased up as Peter Pan! (Tights and everything) He said he went as Peter Pan every hawlloween since he was 5! So Tony said: Did you ever watch the one with Mary Martin as a kid ?
Mario: Ok. Let me say this, I love Mary but PETER PAN HAD A DICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That always pissed me off!
Haha! He was sssooo funny! how about Mario as Smee or one of the other Pirates?
"I'm tellin' you, the only times I really feel the presence of God are when I'm having sex and during a great Broadway musical." - Nathan Lane - Jeffrey
#54
Posted: 7/26/06 at 3:06pm
Peter Pan, in the book, is, at most, 13. I'd hate to see the actor (if it's a male) be any older than 16. (Jeremy was 16.)
And yes, I also hope it's more with the book than the musical is. The book is scary, and wonderful, and magical and everything... I've never thought the musical was that scary.
RE: Cathy Rigby? Give me a break. I own the DVD too, but God.. There's so much added crap. (Even though I do love the big drum sequence, I don't see them having timpani's in the treehouse.)
And yes, I also hope it's more with the book than the musical is. The book is scary, and wonderful, and magical and everything... I've never thought the musical was that scary.
RE: Cathy Rigby? Give me a break. I own the DVD too, but God.. There's so much added crap. (Even though I do love the big drum sequence, I don't see them having timpani's in the treehouse.)
#55
Posted: 7/26/06 at 3:12pm
I thought Jeremy was 13 or 14 when they made the movie.
"The gods who nurse this universe think little of mortals' cares. They sit in crowds on exclusive clouds and laugh at our love affairs. I might have had a real romance if they'd given me a chance. I loved him, but he didn't love me. I wanted him, but he didn't want me. Then the gods had a spree and indulged in another whim. Now he loves me, but I don't love him." - Cole Porter
#56
Posted: 7/26/06 at 3:18pm
I do agree that it seems like it's not the most necessary movie to make...why don't they do something that ISN'T already a movie - which isn't to say that I don't think that this will be a great project...
Hi, Shirley Temple Pudding.
#57
Posted: 7/26/06 at 3:24pm
jason, this isn't already a movie. This would be like saying "Don't make My Fair Lady when we already have a movie version of Pygmalion." The only versions of the musical Peter Pan currently on film are filmed stage productions. And the last one was no where near technically impressive for when it was made.
#58
Posted: 7/26/06 at 3:30pm
I want my Peter Pan to be a woman, and my Edna Turnblad to be a man.
Always.
I'm very traditional in my non-traditional casting.
Always.
I'm very traditional in my non-traditional casting.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#59
Posted: 7/26/06 at 3:31pm
I know that -- but there are plenty of properties that aren't available for home viewing AT ALL -- let's address those before remaking ones that ARE available.
Hi, Shirley Temple Pudding.
#60
Posted: 7/26/06 at 3:31pm
This is pretty interesting, seeing that our school just did Peter Pan for our musical.
#61
Posted: 7/26/06 at 6:08pm
"And the last one was no where near technically impressive for when it was made."
Are you talking about Rigby's DVD? It didn't strike me as being unimpressive at all. What didn't you like about it?
Are you talking about Rigby's DVD? It didn't strike me as being unimpressive at all. What didn't you like about it?
#62
Posted: 7/26/06 at 6:20pm
Cathy Rigby went all out on the technicalities. I enjoyed the visuals a lot better than the Mary Martin/cardboard flats. I could never understand why they put the Indians in the tree trunks. Stupid... stupid...
But I missed Mary.
EDIT: Oops. My bad. Jeremy was 13-14.
But I missed Mary.
EDIT: Oops. My bad. Jeremy was 13-14.
Updated On: 7/26/06 at 06:20 PM
#63
Posted: 7/26/06 at 6:27pm
well, it had the smallest cast of any production of peter pan, first of all.
the orchestra for the recording was basically canned.. look in the pit.. no one there...
i've been on those sets before... they are VERY basic... anything resembling any detail is actually a flat surface that has been painted and nothing more... all of the drops are very old-school.
nothing in the design was automated and there was NO show deck. I can't name any other production that does NOT have a showdeck in the last 15 years at least... they had to retain the antiquated full stage / in one/ full stage scene design to handle the transitions.....
the orchestra for the recording was basically canned.. look in the pit.. no one there...
i've been on those sets before... they are VERY basic... anything resembling any detail is actually a flat surface that has been painted and nothing more... all of the drops are very old-school.
nothing in the design was automated and there was NO show deck. I can't name any other production that does NOT have a showdeck in the last 15 years at least... they had to retain the antiquated full stage / in one/ full stage scene design to handle the transitions.....
#64
Posted: 7/26/06 at 7:01pm
Up close, the sets may be very basic. However, having seen the production live on numerous occasions, and seeing the DVD, I don't believe it comes across that way at all. It certainly looked better than the school-play cardboard trees from the Martin version. I thought many of the designs were quite clever, particularly the underground hideout set. It made a lot more sense than the fireman's pole they used in the Mary Martin version.
The orchestra and cast may have been smaller than the other productions because they essentially just filmed the stage production as it was. It was not a special production for TV, as the Martin version was.
Maybe it's because I wasn't alive to see Martin's production live onstage, but Rigby is my favorite Pan, and she's the one I'll always remember most in the role.
The orchestra and cast may have been smaller than the other productions because they essentially just filmed the stage production as it was. It was not a special production for TV, as the Martin version was.
Maybe it's because I wasn't alive to see Martin's production live onstage, but Rigby is my favorite Pan, and she's the one I'll always remember most in the role.
#65
the mary martin version WAS the stage version. they just just stuck the sets in a tv studio and didn't have an audience, but that WAS the stage version. the same cast breakdown, the same sets, the same lighting... the same everything. in fact, with the exception of the children, that video IS the original broadway company.
I saw each of rigby's revivals. the physical production never rose above average regional theatre.
at least, god awful though it was, robbins' concept came through in the production.. including the use of the firepole.
also, remmeber that in 1954, when PAN opened, the sets Martin had were elaborate and made use of the technology of the day. rigby's however, did not. it's all relative.
Posted: 7/26/06 at 7:08pm
the mary martin version WAS the stage version. they just just stuck the sets in a tv studio and didn't have an audience, but that WAS the stage version. the same cast breakdown, the same sets, the same lighting... the same everything. in fact, with the exception of the children, that video IS the original broadway company.
I saw each of rigby's revivals. the physical production never rose above average regional theatre.
at least, god awful though it was, robbins' concept came through in the production.. including the use of the firepole.
also, remmeber that in 1954, when PAN opened, the sets Martin had were elaborate and made use of the technology of the day. rigby's however, did not. it's all relative.
Updated On: 7/26/06 at 07:08 PM
#66
Posted: 7/26/06 at 7:11pm
It really is a shame that the planned NBC remake with Sandy Duncan in the late 80s never happened, because she was the definitive PETER PAN in my opinion. Funny how each generation has their own!
#67
Posted: 7/26/06 at 7:13pm
How old do you guys think the actress who plays Wendy should be? A petite woman or a teenage girl?
#68
Posted: 7/26/06 at 7:15pm
Wendy should be about 12 years old. The recent film version was ideal casting wise, and there is no reason those ages can't be carried over to a film version of the musical. The big debate is really over whether a boy would sound like a total FFA singing those Styne/Comden Green song.
#69
Posted: 7/26/06 at 7:16pm
the best casting i have seen in various productions of pan cast late teens-early 20s for peter, wendy, john, jane, the lost boys, tiger lily, and, ocassionally, michaal.
#70
Posted: 7/26/06 at 7:16pm
This is all how the actress looks, but she needs to look no older than 14/15. I don't want to see a 25 year old woman.
#71
Posted: 7/26/06 at 7:39pm
late teens early 20s is good for a stage production, but this is a planned movie version...
#72
Posted: 7/26/06 at 7:54pm
That was Elisa Sagardia's biggest problem in the last revival. She looked way too old to be playing Wendy. Wendy should be in her late teens, maybe very early twentys, in my opiinion.
I agree Michael Bennet, it's interesting that each generation has their own favorite Pan! It's a shame there isn't a video or recording of Duncan's Pan, because, being born in 1981, I missed that performance live too. I've heard lots of wonderful things about her, and am curious as to what I'm missing.
In terms of Rigby versus Martin (keeping in mind I never saw Martin live- only the VHS of the TV special), what did it for me was that I never for a second believed Martin was a little boy. Rigby, each and every time, made me believe. She inhabited that character. Her energy and boundless enthusiasm made it work for me (though I could have done without the random in and out English accent).
"it's all relative"
You can apply that argument to the size of the cast and orchestra as well. Economics have changed since the 50's. Most musicals have smaller casts and orchestras than they used to now. It's no longer feasible to have such large casts.
I agree Michael Bennet, it's interesting that each generation has their own favorite Pan! It's a shame there isn't a video or recording of Duncan's Pan, because, being born in 1981, I missed that performance live too. I've heard lots of wonderful things about her, and am curious as to what I'm missing.
In terms of Rigby versus Martin (keeping in mind I never saw Martin live- only the VHS of the TV special), what did it for me was that I never for a second believed Martin was a little boy. Rigby, each and every time, made me believe. She inhabited that character. Her energy and boundless enthusiasm made it work for me (though I could have done without the random in and out English accent).
"it's all relative"
You can apply that argument to the size of the cast and orchestra as well. Economics have changed since the 50's. Most musicals have smaller casts and orchestras than they used to now. It's no longer feasible to have such large casts.
#73
Posted: 7/26/06 at 7:59pm
adam, I apply it in that respect as well....
rigby had a cast of 23 onstage tracks and 1 swing in her first revival and 2 in the last.. that was all. additionally, usually each role was only covered by 1 understudy. I was SHOCKED to open the program at christmas and see some roles had 2 understudies this time. 1 swing and 1 understudy per role is risk that NO intelligent producer/director wants to take. it makes it VERY easy to be short on performers.
going back to the 50s though, i would have to check, but the cast wasn't THAT large... 35 MAYBE.. which is about the cast size you see in mamma mia, hairspray, beauty/beast, etc etc etc.
the rigby revivals were cheaply staged regional theatre passed off as broadway quality. great performers were in it for teh most part, buts till... broadway prices for low cost regional theatre??
rigby had a cast of 23 onstage tracks and 1 swing in her first revival and 2 in the last.. that was all. additionally, usually each role was only covered by 1 understudy. I was SHOCKED to open the program at christmas and see some roles had 2 understudies this time. 1 swing and 1 understudy per role is risk that NO intelligent producer/director wants to take. it makes it VERY easy to be short on performers.
going back to the 50s though, i would have to check, but the cast wasn't THAT large... 35 MAYBE.. which is about the cast size you see in mamma mia, hairspray, beauty/beast, etc etc etc.
the rigby revivals were cheaply staged regional theatre passed off as broadway quality. great performers were in it for teh most part, buts till... broadway prices for low cost regional theatre??
Updated On: 7/26/06 at 07:59 PM
#74
Posted: 7/26/06 at 8:14pm
This discucssion intrigued me enough that I went and looked to see how large the casts of some of the bigger Broadway musicals were...
BatB- 31 (but when they opened, the cast was larger)
Chicago- 27
Color Purple- 34
Hairspray- 34
DRS- 27
Jersey Boys-16
Mamma Mia-32
Spamalot- 26
Phantom- 40 (this number REALLY surprised me)
Wicked- 40
So, I guess you're right about the cast being rather small in comparison. The funny thing is, I never felt the cast was too small while watching the show (even though it was obvious that there was a lot of doubling up in the ensemble).
Interesting!
BatB- 31 (but when they opened, the cast was larger)
Chicago- 27
Color Purple- 34
Hairspray- 34
DRS- 27
Jersey Boys-16
Mamma Mia-32
Spamalot- 26
Phantom- 40 (this number REALLY surprised me)
Wicked- 40
So, I guess you're right about the cast being rather small in comparison. The funny thing is, I never felt the cast was too small while watching the show (even though it was obvious that there was a lot of doubling up in the ensemble).
Interesting!
#75
Posted: 7/26/06 at 8:36pm
"Strip away the decades of camp and cheese and panto tradition. return to the Barrie intent and give this an edge."
I would LOVE to see a production like this! To me, the story of Peter Pan should be scary and romantic and whimsical. The last production I saw was like Peter Pan on speed! The pirates were in bright colored costumes with oversized hats. Peter was obnoxious and so was Wendy...not at all the way a good British child of that time would behave.
I'm all for seeing a talented young boy take on this role. I have seen the Comden/Green version done that way, and liked it. As a music teacher, I'd also love to see a young boy singing in a natural head voice and not have it be made fun of....and to sing the score, Peter would have to sing in a boy's head voice.
I hope the modernization isn't taking it out of the time period it's written in. That adds to the fairy tale element of the story.
I love the idea of Tim Curry as Captain Hook. If you want to cast Cheno, make her Mrs. Darling...she could just use the wig she used for ABC's The Music Man!
I would LOVE to see a production like this! To me, the story of Peter Pan should be scary and romantic and whimsical. The last production I saw was like Peter Pan on speed! The pirates were in bright colored costumes with oversized hats. Peter was obnoxious and so was Wendy...not at all the way a good British child of that time would behave.
I'm all for seeing a talented young boy take on this role. I have seen the Comden/Green version done that way, and liked it. As a music teacher, I'd also love to see a young boy singing in a natural head voice and not have it be made fun of....and to sing the score, Peter would have to sing in a boy's head voice.
I hope the modernization isn't taking it out of the time period it's written in. That adds to the fairy tale element of the story.
I love the idea of Tim Curry as Captain Hook. If you want to cast Cheno, make her Mrs. Darling...she could just use the wig she used for ABC's The Music Man!
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95