Stage version of Disney's "Peter Pan"- Page 2

[mikey2573]

Posted: 7/15/11 at 6:47pm

Peter Pan the play and the novel, as written by Barrie, are in the public domain. That does not mean that adaptations or musical versions are also in the PD. My guess is that if you were to do the Peter Pan with music from the various sources you WOULD be violating copyright laws. The Comden/Green PP is still under copyright, as is the Bernstein and the Bricusse version. But if you want to really test it out, try doing the Disney version --they'll have their lawyers on you SO FAST!! Disney is NOTORIOUSLY protective of their property!! When I was in 3rd grade the school I went to had various Disney characters painted on the walls (Mickey, Minnie, Pooh, Alice, Goofy etc.) Disney found out and they were painted over within 24 hours.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/15/11 at 6:52pm

BK, "An Awfully Big Adventure: The Best of Peter Pan, 1904-1996"?

[best12bars]

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

"That does not mean that adaptations or musical versions are also in the PD. My guess is that if you were to do the Peter Pan with music from the various sources you WOULD be violating copyright laws."


You definitely would. Just like "The Wizard of Oz" is public domain, but not the MGM film. So no ruby slippers, or the songs, etc. That's all owned by Turner and Warner Bros., including the likenesses of the characters. And they're very protective as well.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/15/11 at 8:28pm

Are the ruby slippers actually something they could sue over? Wicked of course used both the Silver and the Ruby ones--did they need permission? I know the crappy Liza Mineli animated Journey Back to Oz used ruby shoes as well.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 7/15/11 at 9:11pm

Yes, provided the trademark has not expired, Time-Warner could sue any new adaptation of the novel that uses the ruby slippers. Disney had to pay a licensing fee to use them in Return to Oz back in the 80s, and I would assume that animated version with Liza had to do the same.

I don't know for sure about Wicked, but I do know in the novel that the shoes start out as silver (covered in silver glass bead, if I remember correctly) and then they take on a "ruby glow" after Glinda enchants them for Nessarose. I would think that that was Gregory Maguire's way of cheating around the trademark, since even after they look "ruby" he can argue that they are still the silver shoes that are part of the public domain. Again, that is speculation on my part, so if somebody knows if Maguire did indeed pay a licensing fee or received permission to use the ruby slippers please feel free to jump in.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/15/11 at 9:13pm

Wicked didn't use ruby slippers. They are "jeweled shoes," and they are colorful jewels (mostly white like diamonds) that are then hit with a red light when she shows them off.

They wanted to use ruby slippers, and they were told they would have to get the rights, so they "altered" it.

And yes, anybody who used ruby slippers has to pay for the rights to do so, or face the Warners/Ted Turner lawyers.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/15/11 at 9:37pm

I will add that there are several other things that border on copyright infringement with the MGM screenplay, but they have gotten away with it, as did Maguire when he wrote the book.

The two bad witches in the Baum book are not sisters. The Wicked Witch of the West is not after the shoes nor is she out for revenge over the death of the Witch of the East. She merely becomes furious at Dorothy when she sees her trespassing on her land (when the foursome is sent to get her broomstick by the Wizard). She only wants the Silver Shoes after Dorothy is enslaved in the witch's castle and she sees the girl wearing them one day. That's when the witch decides she wants the shoes for herself. But they are not a motivating factor in going after Dorothy initially.

All of that came from the MGM screenplay. So did Glinda the Good Witch of the NORTH. Glinda is the Witch of the South in the books. The Good Witch of the North is another character. They combined the two good witches for the MGM movie to make Billie Burke's role bigger. And just about every adaptation since then (with the exception of The Wiz) has combined the two witches and called Glinda the witch from the "north."

Over the years, Turner (and/or others who have owned the rights since 1939) have cut a lot of slack to the adaptations. But they always seem to draw the line at the Ruby Slippers. Probably because it's such an easy thing to prove legally. If they're ruby or red, that's the MGM movie. If they're silver or any other metal or stone, you're not infringing on their property.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/15/11 at 9:57pm

Besty, let's try garnet pumps and see how far we get.

I'm in for forty bucks in legal fees.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/15/11 at 9:59pm

I can match your forty!

How about Crimson Clogs?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/15/11 at 10:04pm

Ha!

But we have to finish our "From Kensington Gardens to Neverland: A Boy's Journey" first.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 7/15/11 at 11:54pm

I have yet to respond as most of what has already been shared is accurate, though I do have additional contributions.

The character "Peter Pan" did indeed appear in a section of the novel The Little White Bird which was later published as its own book Peter Pan In Kensington Gardens in 1906.

The Llewelyn-Davies children did inspire J.M. Barrie to write a play entitled Peter Pan, or the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up. This changed the character of "Peter Pan" as we knew him from the novel. The play was first produced at the Duke of York Theater in London in 1904.

This play became EXTREMELY popular and would never stop being performed. Not even World War I could stop it (though in 1915 WWI did take the life of its producer, Charles Frohman as he was a passenger on the Lusitania).

Barrie eventually adapted his play into a novel called Peter & Wendy, published in 1911. This introduced the character "Jane," Wendy's daughter.

Throughout its years on stage, Barrie continuously made revisions to his play, which was first published in 1928 (24 years after first being produced!!). Two major revisions included the addition of the final scene where Peter comes back to the Nursery to find Wendy has grown-up, and takes Jane back to Neverland instead, and the second being that Barrie added a new ingredient to be able to fly: fairy dust (the popularity of the story had caused children to try to fly at home, with reports of kids jumping off beds and out of windows causing negative press. Barrie cleverly altered his play so that in order to fly, you would also need fairy dust).

Peter Pan would inspire several adaptations. In film, there was first a 1924 silent movie starring Betty Bronson, followed by Walt Disney acquiring the rights from the Great Ormond Street Hospital and releasing his film in 1953 (WWII had delayed his adaptation of the film for some years).

Speaking of the Great Ormond Street Hospital, Barrie and his wife decided to give up the rights to Peter Pan to GOSH in 1929, 7 years before Barrie's death. The hospital has THRIVED due to the royalties they received over the past seven decades.

In 2004, GOSH knew their control over the property would diminish, so they publicly launched a campaign to find an author to write an "official" sequel to the novel so that they could continue to receive royalties of that proposed book. Geraldine McCaughrean was selected and Peter Pan In Scarlet was published in 2006.

Various stage musicals would be based on the play and novel. The most popular musical adaptation is obviously the Comden/Green/Charlap/Leigh/Styne version. I am aware of 9 different musical adaptations of the story.

In recent years, prequels and sequels to Barrie's novel have been written. Some are also spin-offs. There's a novel about Wendy before she met Peter. There's a novel about Captain Hook before he sailed to Neverland. And there's a highly successful series of prequels written by Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson, the first book in that series called Peter And The Starcatchers (which had a successful stage adaptation off-Broadway last season).

There is no legal proclamation that the play or novel versions of PETER PAN are now in public domain. Yes, there are national and international copyright laws, but GOSH could put up a fight and argue that the properties are still protected (which they have done many times prior to 2004). I do not know copyright laws well enough to make a judgment, but I will say that it seems GOSH is ready to take off their boxing gloves.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 12:42am

Capn, am I wrong in thinking that it wasn't performed in London for two years during WWII (though presumably still in the provinces)?

[CapnHook]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 1:19am

Correct -- not in London. During WWII, I'm only certain that there was a professional production of PP in France as I have a digital scan of the program somewhere. Other than that, I'd have to look over my notes about other European productions...though certainly PP was NOT performed in London for two years.

Something I would like to eventually research is how Peter Pan became a worldwide name between 1904 and 1911. I know in 1905 Charles Frohman produced the play in New York starring Maude Adams, marking the first time a production was done in America. My question is how many years did it take for the story to become truly global? (I had thought that it was known internationally prior to the novel's release...)

Updated On: 7/16/11 at 01:19 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 3:08am

Best, sho how much attention I spent during Wicked I guess--I was sure they said Ruby Slippers once her shoes were transformed. Interesting.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 4:28am

One addition toyour list of changes from the books to the movie, etc, (I was a huge Oz nerd when I was 6-10 or so--belonged to the International Wizard of Oz club, etc, though I haven't read the books since). Baum once said that the Witch of the North's name was *Linda*. I guess they thought using Glinda's name made her sound more glamorous...

(Actually, I don't know Wicked that well, but do they actually call her the Witch of the North or just the Good Witch Glinda? Cuz if they never call her the Witch of the North, they could just say they meant the original novel's Good Witch) Updated On: 7/16/11 at 04:28 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 7:17am

I don't think they call her the "Good Witch of the North," in so many words, in either version of Wicked, but they say she is from the north, and in the play she's from the "Upper Uplands" or something like that. And there's no other "good witch" in the story. So you have two "wicked" witches and one "good" witch, just like the MGM movie.

Believe me, I'm a huge Oz nerd myself (wrote a book about it), and I've never heard of Baum's "Good Witch of the North" having a name. She only appears in one book that he wrote: The Wizard of Oz, and that's it. (CORRECTION: She also makes one brief "cameo" appearance at Ozma's birthday party in The Road to Oz, where she performs a magic trick.) Perhaps others have given her this name, or maybe he mentioned it outside of the Oz book canon. But she's nameless in the series.

Incidentally, Dorothy didn't get a last name until the stage musical of 1904 and the third Oz book in the series: Ozma of Oz.

She was never called Dorothy Gale until then. Just "Dorothy."


EDIT: Just looked it up to be sure ... Baum never named the Good Witch of the North in the Oz books. He gave her the name of "Locasta" in his stage play, and in a Ruth Plumly Thompson book (The Giant Horse of Oz), she is a much different character called "Tattypoo" (sounds more like The Mikado).

Updated On: 7/16/11 at 07:17 AM

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 7:35am

*Getting a touch off topic, but I can't help it, also being a fairly big Oz nerd*

Though Baum never named his Witch of the North, Ruth Plumly Thompson did give her the name Tattypoo, expanding on the story Ozma tells of Mombi being defeated by a good witch in the north in Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz. This, though, is one of those continuity lapses in Baum's story, as in the fourth book the Wizard seems to be unaware of Ozma or her story, though in The Marvelous Land of Oz Mombi tells Glinda that the Wizard brought the infant Ozma to her to be hidden away.

As for Wicked, Maguire's Galinda/Glinda was born and raised in the Gilikin country to the north. In his world the southern Quadling country was a wild marshland. He seemed to be marrying Baum's novel and the MGM movie in his work, even having Glinda describing herself as wearing a "pink fantasy" number when meeting Dorothy in Munchkinland.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 8:00am

Heres' a Wiki link, confirming what AEA and I have said.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 8:28am

Well, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia for confirmation of anything, but this is all very interesting to me. (Not that I doubt anything you've said!) What with this and Jean Marsh just being nominated for an Emmy, I may have to get out my Return To Oz DVD today.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 9:05am

The Wikipedia Oz entries are surprisingly accurate and detailed, which I know is not always the case. I'm sure many "Oz nerds" are contributing to the information and maintaining it, but also remember that everything stated on that page is backed up by a source (see the notes below on the same page). So if you doubt it, check out the books mentioned. The info is correct.

Return to Oz is an entirely different beast. It's a combination of the second and third Oz books (The Marvelous Land of Oz and Ozma of Oz) with many liberties taken, including all of the scary Kansas scenes which were created solely for the screenplay. I personally like it a lot, even if it's darker in tone and different.

Updated On: 7/16/11 at 09:05 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/16/11 at 8:22pm

Best, PM me about your book--I'm curious! Maybe Linda was named that by Thompson or one of the later "canon" writers, though in my mind (and this is stuff I haven't really thought about for 15+ years so...) *edit* I see that's not possible from what you said* I thought Baum wrote it to some child in a letter when she asked. Or maybe I just thought as a child it would make sense to call her that, and somehow got that idea in my head. Sigh. LOL I'm gonna look into this--I still have my Int Wiz of Oz Club issues from 86-95 somewhere in a box lol.

I remember as a child--I was probably 5 when Return to Oz came out, my older brother and his friends went, but I wasn't allowed to go, which made me indignant seeing as *I* was the Oz fan, not him. In hindsight, I can see why my parents wisely didn't allow me to (particularly as I scared really really easily as a kid). I did read shortly thereafter the novelization.

Now, I actually like the movie a lot. But it always amuses me when people (and I hear this all the time) go on and on about how it's much more fiathful to the spirit of the Baum books than the MGM movie. Which clearly means they haven't read the Baum books--even the first one which is scarier than the later ones (and where creatures can actually die in Oz, unlike later, etc) the tone is never nightmarish the way it often is in Return (which seemed to want to merge the at the time popular darker teen fantasy of movies like Dragonslayer, Dark Crystal, etc, with the Oz books. Of course it flopped, just like Disney's other attempt to do the same with the much worse movie Black Cauldron also flopped).

[TulitaPepsi]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 4:16am

Disney should re-release RETURN TO OZ in theaters. It might do very well.

It's Tim Burton's favorite movie.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 10:32pm

Tim Burton must have several fave movies then... I actually doubt it would do much if re-released, except maybe to the cult movie crowd, although I do think it's vastly underated.

[romgitsean]

Posted: 7/22/11 at 2:10am

"Return to Oz" is actually my favorite movie.

I don't want to get into it, but that movie defined my childhood, and I actually think would argue that it is more in the spirit of the books. To say the characters weren't "portrayed as nightmareish" is untrue. I don't think it was intentional on Baum's part, but he has a very strange sense of humor and in the instance of the book "Ozma of Oz", Princess Langidwire (where the character Princess Mombi in "Return to Oz" is based from) however unintentional, came off as a creepy character because she could remove her head and replace it with another. It was weird. Not bad weird persay, but especially with her moody and vein attitude, I don't think there's really a way to dramatize that character without it coming off as a tiny bit strange and dark, especially to children. Also the Nome King is a villan and supposed to be threatening. However, in Baum's books he was an angry nome.

I also think the film accomplishes what "Wizard" cannot in terms of how they portray the adventures that they have (and partially because Return is not musical, therefore, songs do not slow down the action). I think all the adventures Dorothy encounters in Oz are thrilling to a degree (especially as the books go on. They're really more of fantasy-adventure novels) and because the tone of the story is darker, that makes their adventures seem more "real", therefore, more captivating and whimsical, as Baum intended.

Would love to see Return either re-released or given a very delicate remake treatment. I've said for years I'd love a loyal Oz mini series, but it'll never happen.

Updated On: 7/22/11 at 02:10 AM

[bk]

Posted: 7/22/11 at 3:34am

Reginald, no not An Awfully Big Adventure - they found out we were doing ours and rushed theirs, but it's not anywhere near the fun of ours. We had incredible people on ours - Susan Egan, Liz Larsen, Jonathan Freeman, Gregory Jbara, Lee Wilkof, Michelle Nicastro, Alet Taylor, and lots of other great folks, plus a full orchestra, really good arrangements, and orchestrations by Larry Moore. Our put-together of I'm Flying and You Can Fly is one of my favorite things I've ever done, arrangement-wise. The CD is called simply Peter Pan. Interestingly, it was one of the handful of non-Disney CDs that they sold at the Disney Store in Disneyland - they sold huge numbers of that CD.
Updated On: 7/22/11 at 03:34 AM