Peter Pan Live! on NBC 12/04/14 (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm R]

It's happening again.

Much like last year's production of The Sound of Music, the orchestral music in this production of Peter Pan is disproportionately louder than the vocals.

Must be mixed by the same crew that works on Christoper Nolan films.

I only watched about 30 seconds of the show, but I thought I also noticed an obvious sync/delay issue with the sound.

 

[TonyD]

There was a sync issue in the begnning.

I liked it, didn't love it.

Was more back ground entertainment for me.

Didn't have the "magic" that it should have.They could have aired this without saying it was live and know one would have known any better.I didn't feel like I was watching a live program.

 

[bujaki]

Off topic, but if NBC decides to do The Music Man (the real Pal Joey is unpalatable for a family audience), I wish they'd consider the radiant Kelli O'Hara for the role of Marian, and Neil Patrick Harris could do a very good con man Harold Hill.

 

[Matt Hough]

Kelli O'Hara's singing and acting were clearly the most professional and proficient of this year's production. Yes, she deserves to play a lead in one of these live TV events.

 

[Joel Arndt]

Glad I watched Rehab Addict and Chopped instead. One of my friends sent out a FB message during the broadcast of this production of Peter Pan asking, "How do you spell insipid?" referring to Allison Williams' acting or lack thereof.

 

[ABaglivi]

This production did little to erase the memories of Mary Martin and Cyril Ritchard as Pan and Hook.
The disruptive and numerous commercials were offensive. The new songs sounded out of place.

 

[Chris Will]

Am I the only one that is tired of seeing women play the title role? In this day and age there are young male actors that could easily play the role. They didn't even try and hide the fact it was a female with the makeup used and brief signs of cleavage. I'm probably the only one that feels this way but, Peter Pan is suppose to be the head of the lost boys, at least try and make her look like one of the boys.

I know, its tradition. I think it works on stage, not so much in TV and movies.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Am I the only one that is tired of seeing women play the title role? In this day and age there are young male actors that could easily play the role. They didn't even try and hide the fact it was a female with the makeup used and brief signs of cleavage. I'm probably the only one that feels this way but, Peter Pan is suppose to be the head of the lost boys, at least try and make her look like one of the boys.

I know, its tradition. I think it works on stage, not so much in TV and movies.

+1

I looked it up and apparently the tradition got started because of laws related to working minors on the British stage.

But that thought couldn't escape my head last night. Why not hire a young man to play the part? C'mon, people. I'm usually one to support traditions, but this one totally took me out of the story. And I just don't "get" why it continues.

Maybe the thought of Tiger Lily, Wendy and Tinker Bell all wanting to get it on with a female Peter Pan makes for a very edgy concept?!?

 

[schan1269]

+1I looked it up and apparently the tradition got started because of laws related to working minors on the British stage.But that thought couldn't escape my head last night. Why not hire a young man to play the part? C'mon, people. I'm usually one to support traditions, but this one totally took me out of the story. And I just don't "get" why it continues. Maybe the thought of Tiger Lily, Wendy and Tinker Bell all wanting to get it on with a female Peter Pan makes for a very edgy concept?!?

That would be Peter Can...

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Maybe the thought of Tiger Lily, Wendy and Tinker Bell all wanting to get it on with a female Peter Pan makes for a very edgy concept?!?

I was thinking the same thing!

I mostly agree with you guys: Williams was decent and Walken was a listless disappointment. (I wondered at times if maybe he was ill -- or maybe there was a watch up his tuchus.) Technically, it was impressive but didn't blow me away like last year's production did. Maybe my expectations were higher in that department.

And I have to comment on the final duel between Peter and Hook. God lord, that looked terrible. The slo-mo sword swinging would've been bad enough on its own, but the repeated interruptions of Peter shooting into the air at high speed just exaggerated the awfulness.

Also, the show itself is fun, but not in the same league as The Sound of Music. (There's nothing here even remotely as affecting as, for example, the Baron singing "Edelweiss" in the shadow of a Nazi flag.)

 

[GlennF]

I kept wondering why they didn't use a guy as well, especially since they really pushed the fact that Wendy was into Peter in a less than platonic way. Made it kind of weird.

Also had trouble with the Lost Men. I know in many of the stage productions they use adults just because it is easier and because of the evening shows, but that doesn't really fly any more, especially not on television. It just seemed kind of silly to have these men running around trying to act like boys. Didn't get the costumes either - they were supposed to have fallen out of their carriages, not out of the schoolyard.

Watch the "I'm Flying" sequence with Cathy Rigby on Youtube or Playbill.com and see how much better it can look, how much more energy, and that was filmed live, as it was a touring stage show.
(And you can hear the audience, which helps.)

 

[Mike Frezon]

Yes. Not really "boys" were they?

I'm sure the Darling family would adopt those little urchins quite easily...

 

[Matt Hough]

I wanted a male actor playing Peter from the get-go and have said so in this thread ever since the production was announced. It would have given this televised event something truly unique in the annuls of televised Peter Pans.

The ratings came in at about half of last year's audience. With it costing $10 million, I wonder if NBC thinks it was worth all the trouble (of course, it did double the audience of a typical NBC Thursday).

I think with this show, it should possibly have been cut to two hours rather than three which would have improved its pacing considerably.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Well, as far as whether it was "worth it" for NBC, they were probably thrilled to have kept Brian Williams happy...

And I agree about a two-hour production, Matt.

The biggest reason for the drop-off has to be the popularity of TSoM vs PP. It's not even close. I didn't even want to watch last night's production. The wife did. And even she said "we can be done" about half-way through.

 

[Citizen87645]

Am I the only one that is tired of seeing women play the title role? In this day and age there are young male actors that could easily play the role. They didn't even try and hide the fact it was a female with the makeup used and brief signs of cleavage. I'm probably the only one that feels this way but, Peter Pan is suppose to be the head of the lost boys, at least try and make her look like one of the boys.

I know, its tradition. I think it works on stage, not so much in TV and movies.

I think they made Williams look sufficiently androgynous for the role (especially compared to how glammed up she was in last week's making-of), but I agree it's time to forego the outmoded "tradition."

People complaining about Walken should not be surprised if they ever saw him host SNL. Chronic cue card reader.

 

[Stan]

I think they made Williams look sufficiently androgynous for the role (especially compared to how glammed up she was in last week's making-of), but I agree it's time to forego the outmoded "tradition."

People complaining about Walken should not be surprised if they ever saw him host SNL. Chronic cue card reader.

The cue card thing is funny, thanks Cameron.

I literally saw less than a minute of the show and it looked like Walken was reading a book, really stood out. Am waiting for the replay. My local station is showing "It's a Wonderful Life" tomorrow, but I called them and found out they'll be doing the replay December 13th, so I'll eventually get to see it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I missed the live broadcast last night, but DVR'd it, and hopefully will get a chance to check it out over the next few days. i've never actually seen "Peter Pan" on Broadway, but I grew up with the Mary Martin version on VHS which I wore out, so it feels a bit nearer and dearer to my heart than "The Sound of Music".

I'm still looking forward to seeing it, but there were two creative choices I don't really understand for this day and age. The first is that they still have an adult woman playing the role of Peter, an ageless boy. I understand why it was done that way for the stage production over fifty years ago, but it seems a little silly now. Especially for a one-time-only live performance, where there's no issue about having a child play the lead in a show eight times a week. (Broadway uses child performers in leads now - "Matilda" on Broadway is just one example.) I'm keeping an open mind towards Allison Williams - she's not the first woman to play the part and I'm not going to hold the producers choice against the actress. But if they wanted some way to differentiate this version from the Mary Martin or the Cathy Rigby versions, going with a boy Peter would have been one way to do it.

The other thing I don't get is that Christopher Walken isn't playing Mr. Darling. I thought the actor who plays Captain Hook always plays Mr. Darling. If they wanted to just have two different actors playing the parts, that seems okay I guess, but I always thought the point was that the kids have a lousy relationship with their father, who they perceive as a big, tyrannical oaf, and then they go to Neverland where Captain Hook is sort of an exaggerated version of their father. It always seemed to me to be part of the point of the whole thing was to have those parts done as a duel role. I'm trying to keep an open mind on that one too.

Were there a lot of sound sync issues? Since I missed it live, I'm wondering if the sync was as bad as some of the posts say, if I might be better off waiting for the rebroadcast?

 

[David Weicker]

The first is that they still have an adult woman playing the role of Peter, an ageless boy. I understand why it was done that way for the stage production over fifty years ago, but it seems a little silly now. Especially for a one-time-only live performance, where there's no issue about having a child play the lead in a show eight times a week. (Broadway uses child performers in leads now - "Matilda" on Broadway is just one example.) I'm keeping an open mind towards Allison Williams - she's not the first woman to play the part and I'm not going to hold the producers choice against the actress. But if they wanted some way to differentiate this version from the Mary Martin or the Cathy Rigby versions, going with a boy Peter would have been one way to do it.

As to this 'girl playing Peter Pan' thing, it hasn't been done for fifty years, its been done for 110 years - since Mr. Barrie first wrote the play and it was performed in London in 1904. Its not just tradition, it was the way the author created the character.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

As to this 'girl playing Peter Pan' thing, it hasn't been done for fifty years, its been done for 110 years - since Mr. Barrie first wrote the play and it was performed in London in 1904. Its not just tradition, it was the way the author created the character.

I think I lost an "over" somewhere in my post.. meant to say it's been this way for over fifty years.

I'm not sure if I ever knew that the play's book was specifically written for a woman to play Peter Pan, but that's cool to know and thanks for pointing it out. I guess what I was just trying to say was, if they're going to do an all new version of the musical, there's already the fantastic Mary Martin version still readily available, and the Cathy Rigby version is out there too. It would have been cool to get a different take on it in my opinion.

 

[Citizen87645]

As to this 'girl playing Peter Pan' thing, it hasn't been done for fifty years, its been done for 110 years - since Mr. Barrie first wrote the play and it was performed in London in 1904. Its not just tradition, it was the way the author created the character.

How would this differ from Shakespeare's plays, where he was essentially limited to having men fill all the roles, whether male or female, because of the culture and values of the time. If he had had the option, would he have had men play men and women play women?

From what's been described about Peter Pan, the culture/value limitation seems the same. Perhaps if Barrie had had the option of conceiving the role to be filled by an actual boy, he would have.

Of course, we'll never know, but it's interesting to ponder.

EDIT:
This Slate article says Barrie would have wanted a boy to play the part: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/23/peter_pan_played_by_a_woman_why_a_history_of_casting_the_j_m_barrie_character.html