Stage version of Disney's "Peter Pan"

[romgitsean]

Posted: 7/13/11 at 1:17am

Has there ever been one? Or if not, has it ever been in talks to be adapted into one?

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 7/13/11 at 1:21am

Never! Viva La Rigby!

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/13/11 at 1:28am

Well, considering that there already IS a stage version of Peter Pan, the idea seems a bit ridiculous.

[romgitsean]

Posted: 7/13/11 at 2:32am

Not really. There have been several stage adaptations, musical and non-musical of Peter Pan besides the famous Mary Martin version. To dismiss the idea because there "already is one" makes it seem like the Mary Martin version is the end all be all to stage adaptations of Peter Pan.

In fact, I think it would be a smart idea to release it on MTI's part, seeing as they have a partnership with Disney and could actually get a market for schools and community theatres to do it because their counterpart, Samuel French, who license the Mary Martin version, place restrictions on that version because of the tour.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/13/11 at 2:55am

I do rather think it's the definitive Peter Pan. I would think there would be legal ramifications with the already existing Peter Pan.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/13/11 at 2:57am

I do rather think it's the definitive Peter Pan. I would think there would be legal ramifications with the already existing Peter Pan.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/13/11 at 7:00am

Since the material's "public domain" status is still a little iffy right now, I don't think it's possible. James Barry wrote the original (non-musical) play and the novel adaptation that followed it, and he gave all his royalties and rights to the Hospital for Sick Children in London after he died. According to British copyright laws, it's still protected for a few more years. According to American copyright laws, it's already public domain (which means anyone could use the material without paying a fee or getting permission).

When Disney made the their animated film in the early '50s, there was no question the material was still protected around the world, and they had to pay for the rights and give screen credit to the hospital for allowing them to make it at the beginning of the movie.

At some point in the future, they won't even have to ask permission, but I'm sure Disney doesn't want to go that route right now. Plus, can you imagine the headlines if Disney decided to ignore international copyright laws and "rob" the Hospital for Sick Children in London to do the show on stage? LOL That will NEVER happen.

[pdjennings]

Posted: 7/13/11 at 9:12am

Whatever the version - I'd just be happy if they'd actually cast an actual age-appropriate BOY play the part. No offense to fans of Mary Martin or Cathy Rigby ... but that's always bugged the crap outta me. Granted - Peter in the original book was really supposed to be, like, 7 years old or so ... but it's been more than proven that a 12-13 year old can certainly carry a lead part.

[temms]

Posted: 7/13/11 at 10:09am

MTI will be releasing Disney's Peter Pan Jr. In the next few months, based on the animated film and using those songs (plus some additional material from the Disney vaults.). It's a one-hour version to be performed by school groups. There have been a few pilot productions and it will be officially released sometime soon. And a boy has played Peter in each of the pilots so far.

[romgitsean]

Posted: 7/13/11 at 4:36pm

temms, that's the confirmation I was looking for. Thank you. Now that I think about it, I think I knew one of the Peters in one of the workshops.

I am directing a non-musical Peter Pan right now and Peter is a boy. I personally don't like it when Peter is played by a girl. But that's another discussion for another thread (in fact, I think there is one, no?)

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 7/13/11 at 10:20pm

I recently came across the Leonard Bernstein take on Peter Pan. *Very* different approach. Not sure if I liked it or not, TTTT.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/14/11 at 4:14am

To be fair, the Bernstein was viewed as a play with some music (the CD I believe adds a ton of underscore that wasn't evgen used in the end). I admit that I grew up with the Disney version (as well with the two Barrie books--Peter Pan in Kensington Garden, which I think came before the play, and Peter Pan and Wendy which came after)--so when I saw the Martin version at age 7 or something I found it... Very weird. I wasn't used to the pantomime tradition and it just seemed so wrong (the novel Barrie did after the play has a very different tone).

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/14/11 at 4:52am

The play actually came before Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens.

But James Barrie wrote a novel called The LIttle White Bird, which had a few fantasy chapters included in it about a character called Peter Pan. That was his introduction to the public.

From that, he was inspired to write the full stage play (Peter Pan or the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up). Then when it became a huge hit, those chapters were published separately as a short book called Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens. He also novelized the play as "Peter & Wendy" in 1911.

Both Peter Pan books came after the play, though.

Incidentally, the name "Wendy" was invented (or at least popularized) by James Barrie for this story. It was the first time it was ever used in print. A childhood friend of his couldn't pronounce the "fr" in "friendy," which she wanted to call him. So she called him "Wendy." He liked the name so much, he called his young heroine "Wendy," and that's how the name was born.

So everyone who's named "Wendy" owes a bit of debt to this story.

Updated On: 7/14/11 at 04:52 AM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/14/11 at 8:14am

Unless my memory really fails me here, "Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens" is essentially just the PP chapters lifted from "Little White Bird" and published separately; there were minor revisions to, I think, 9 or 10 pages.

As "LWB" was pubbed in 1902 and the play debuted in 1904, you can't say the play came first, though you're right, obviously, that the play predates any book with "Peter Pan" in the title. But not the story contained therein, if you follow me.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/14/11 at 11:12am

I do follow you, and I said as much above. Maybe it was confusing. The two Peter Pan books ("Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens" and "Peter and Wendy") were published after the play, but the chapters about Pan from Little White Bird (used for "Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens")came before the play.

(see my above post again)

As "LWB" was pubbed in 1902 and the play debuted in 1904, you can't say the play came first, though you're right, obviously, that the play predates any book with "Peter Pan" in the title. But not the story contained therein, if you follow me.


Actually, most definitely the story contained therein. "Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens" just introduces the character and gives him a backstory. But that story is not the one we are familiar with. It's not Peter, Wendy, Captain Hook, etc. There's no Neverland. All of that was introduced in the play.


The section on Peter Pan from "Little White Bird" that preceded the play can be found here. It's lovely, but it's basically just a character introduction. It's not the story we all know and love.

http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Little-White-Bird2.html

Updated On: 7/14/11 at 11:12 AM

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 7/14/11 at 11:50am

Is this a brand new version or what? (video at side)
Peter Pan musical

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/14/11 at 11:56am

That song is pretty icky. And very modern. So yes, I'd say it's new!

*holds nose*

Maybe the UK is finally considering it public domain . (as I said earlier, according to US laws, it already has been for years.)

Or maybe they licensed it. I'm not sure when the UK rights ran (or run?) out.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 7/14/11 at 12:00pm

Yes, icky is the right word. Hope it doesn't make its way across the Atlantic.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/14/11 at 12:03pm

If it does, the critics will shoot it down like a big ol' Wendy-Bird.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/14/11 at 12:24pm

Besty, my only point was that the story that ended up as a book called "Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens" in fact predates the play. But at this point we're splitting hairs.

But I don't know that you can call PPiKG a backstory, really. The two don't jibe very well.

I wonder if it would be possible to connect the two: What happened between the story of the baby Peter we left on the Serpentine and the boy Peter who lives in Neverland?

Could this be your next book?

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/14/11 at 12:37pm

LOL, well I don't know about that, Reg. But I will say that I'm already exploring certain aspects ...


I guess I was considering the story in The Little White Bird a previous adventure or "backstory," but there are a lot of discrepancies, too. It's almost a different character. I think it's nice and charming, but it doesn't have the resonance of the plot in the play. Of course, Pan is only a small part of The Little White Bird anyway.

Still, it was the character's introduction, even if he became something else after that.


EDIT: And just to be absolutely clear about my interpretations of this and my answers when people ask ... "Was Peter Pan a book first?" My answer is NO, it wasn't. The character ("a baby Pan") was introduced in an earlier book. But the story we all know and love about Peter, Wendy, John, Michael, Captain Hook, Neverland, all originated in the play first, then it was novelized later as "Peter & Wendy."

Updated On: 7/14/11 at 12:37 PM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/14/11 at 5:44pm

I did know he Little White Bird element to Kensington Gardens, I should have been more clear, and appreciate the correction, Best. And as a kid obsessed with the stories, it did bug me that they don't complete mesh (at all really).

[mikey2573]

Posted: 7/15/11 at 11:45am

According to Barrie scholar Andrew Birkin, PETER PAN entered the Public Domain in 2007 --70 years after Barrie's death in 1937. There were rumors that the House of Lords put the property in "perpetual Copyright" but Birkin says they did not, and have no such power to do so. So, as of right now, Peter Pan is in the public domain in the USA and in the UK.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/15/11 at 11:46am

Sweet. Thanks for the info.

[bk]

Posted: 7/15/11 at 1:38pm

Some years ago I produced a CD of Peter Pan, telling the story by using songs from all the different versions, including stuff by Barrie, Newley and Bricusse, Charlap/Comden and Green/Styne, etc./Bernstein and even some musical interludes from a wonderful ballet. That's the version I'd like to stage.

The UK has some interesting ideas about copyright law, it seems. Apparently for music, it's fifty years and shifty companies in the UK are all releasing cast albums and soundtracks from before 1961 without licensing or a care in the world. But somehow Peter Pan is still under copyright there? It is to laugh.