Peter Pan Live! - ugh!

CMGragain

Anybody watch this three hour waste of time?

Aray82

I did! Don't even get me started. I kept posting YouTube clips of Cyril Ritchard to Facebook just so everyone would see how the show is supposed to go. Christopher Walken looked drunk--and not in a goofy Captain Hook kinda way. My parents taped the live broadcast when it was re-aired in the 60s and I may have to watch it again when we're there in a few weeks!

CMGragain

When Tinkerbell was dying, Mary Martin's plea made me cry.  This - nothing.

I keep thinking of how good Alan Rickman would have been as Captain Hook.  He would have sneered and swished his way through it!

theartistformerlyknownas

I wasted about 20 minutes on it. It was terrible.

flyingfoxes

The whole thing looked like it would be awful - we skipped it.

duhitsd

Anytime we went to the video store when I was a kid and I didn't know what movie to get, I always got Mary Martin's version of Peter Pan. I'm sure I watched that like 20 times as a kid. This performance was not up to par with that one. Walken was TERRIBLE - no emotions, his "singing" was just speaking in rhythm and I was not impressed with his dancing. I liked Peter but meh. And yes, I watched the entire thing. =/

Jen4948

I saw it and I agree, Christopher Walken just didn't have any power in the role. Neither did the girl who played Wendy.

But yeah, the Mary Martin performance set the bar very high.

theartistformerlyknownas

Jen4948 said:

I saw it and I agree, Christopher Walken just didn't have any power in the role. Neither did the girl who played Wendy. But yeah, the Mary Martin performance set the bar very high.

Is it just me, or did the girl playing Wendy look like she was about 46 years old?

Fran1985

lolo883 said:

Jen4948 said:

I saw it and I agree, Christopher Walken just didn't have any power in the role. Neither did the girl who played Wendy. But yeah, the Mary Martin performance set the bar very high.

Is it just me, or did the girl playing Wendy look like she was about 46 years old?

She did- I think it was the wig. I tuned in at the end for about 5 minutes when they were doing the fight on the ship but it was really really bad

stefuhknee

I didn't tune in and after reading this thread I am glad.

VulgarGirl

I was watching Mom and the McCarthy's on CBS and totally forgot this was even a thing.

cosenti7

I would have to disagree. I personally thought it was enjoyable. I'm a theatre fanatic and I can be super critical but it was cute. It's difficult to perform live and I think the dancing was amazing. I'm not a huge fan of Walken but I was pleasantly surprised. It was way better than Sound of Music Live. Kelli O'Hara, who played Mrs. Darling, is a goddess. And IMO I thought Alison Williams was cute! If these live performances spread the love of the arts, it is doing its purpose.

Aray82

CMGragain said:

When Tinkerbell was dying, Mary Martin's plea made me cry.  This - nothing.

I keep thinking of how good Alan Rickman would have been as Captain Hook.  He would have sneered and swished his way through it!

Oh they didn't delete the fairy scene? I watched till the end and didn't even notice it--that's about the impact it had on me!

Aray82

cosenti7 said:

I would have to disagree. I personally thought it was enjoyable. I'm a theatre fanatic and I can be super critical but it was cute. It's difficult to perform live and I think the dancing was amazing. I'm not a huge fan of Walken but I was pleasantly surprised. It was way better than Sound of Music Live. Kelli O'Hara, who played Mrs. Darling, is a goddess. And IMO I thought Alison Williams was cute! If these live performances spread the love of the arts, it is doing its purpose.

I did think Alison Williams was better than Carrie Underwood and Kelli O'Hara is always great. They've just done these performances the last two seasons trying to replace icons like Mary Martin so it's hard when you're comparing them. I'd be interested to see Peter Pan played by an older woman as the role typically has been, but I don't know who they'd get now...

cosenti7

Aray82 said:

cosenti7 said:

I would have to disagree. I personally thought it was enjoyable. I'm a theatre fanatic and I can be super critical but it was cute. It's difficult to perform live and I think the dancing was amazing. I'm not a huge fan of Walken but I was pleasantly surprised. It was way better than Sound of Music Live. Kelli O'Hara, who played Mrs. Darling, is a goddess. And IMO I thought Alison Williams was cute! If these live performances spread the love of the arts, it is doing its purpose.

I did think Alison Williams was better than Carrie Underwood and Kelli O'Hara is always great. They've just done these performances the last two seasons trying to replace icons like Mary Martin so it's hard when you're comparing them. I'd be interested to see Peter Pan played by an older woman as the role typically has been, but I don't know who they'd get now...

I agree. It's hard to be open-minded and compare when you already love the original icons. I just think of the younger generations and how exciting it would have been to watch this version for the first time. Generally, I am thrilled that musical theatre is becoming more mainstream. I literally can not wait for Into the Woods and The Last 5 Years to come out in movie theaters. Don't get me wrong, I love to snark on it too. I just think people should think about the difficulty of performing live and find some joy in it. At least give the performers some credit, all of them have been working their butts off for months.

daria24

Oh lord there was so much terribleness. It looked like Christopher Walken was reading all his lines off of floor monitors. And wtf was Tiger Lily's costume? It looked like it was made out of that plastic grass you use to make Easter baskets. 

I thought Allison Williams was meh. She can't belt, but at least she was all in. 

I think Peter Pan is a really difficult musical to put on TV. The flying seems so much more magical in a theatre. And when you have the distance of an audience member it's a lot less distracting to have a grown woman playing a young boy. The closeness of the TV camera just seems to scream IT"S A LADY! 

novella1186

I did not bother to watch but when I heard they were doing this I was extremely confused. Was Sound of Music not a huge embarrassment? Did they not learn their lesson the first time? 

Maggie0829

I watched about half of it.  It was just SO. SLOW.  Like 3 hours?  Really?  I understand that there are commercials but it so could have been 2 hours, 2.5 hours tops.  Hell NBC could have gotten so high paying advertisers to sponsor a commercial free show with breaks just for the separate acts.

And why add new songs?  Why?  It just doesn't make sense and it really ruins the flow.  The entire time Wendy was singing in the boat I was just wondering what the hell song that was.

And Christopher Walken was beyond bad.  He had to have been high or drunk or both.  Half the time he looked like he didn't even want to be there and at moments it seemed like he was kind of chuckling about how ridiculous it was.

daria24

novella1186 said:

I did not bother to watch but when I heard they were doing this I was extremely confused. Was Sound of Music not a huge embarrassment? Did they not learn their lesson the first time? 

The ratings for Sound of Music were NBC's best for a non-sports/non-awards ceremony in years. They learned "who cares it's a shitshow! People will watch!"

The Peter Pan ratings were down a LOT though. I think they'll do another one next year though. Even a 2.3 rating is good for NBC these days. 

Maggie0829

daria24 said:

novella1186 said:

I did not bother to watch but when I heard they were doing this I was extremely confused. Was Sound of Music not a huge embarrassment? Did they not learn their lesson the first time? 

The ratings for Sound of Music were NBC's best for a non-sports/non-awards ceremony in years. They learned "who cares it's a shitshow! People will watch!"

The Peter Pan ratings were down a LOT though. I think they'll do another one next year though. Even a 2.3 rating is good for NBC these days. 

That is probably because they had it on a Thursday right when football was on.

novella1186

daria24 said:

novella1186 said:

I did not bother to watch but when I heard they were doing this I was extremely confused. Was Sound of Music not a huge embarrassment? Did they not learn their lesson the first time? 

The ratings for Sound of Music were NBC's best for a non-sports/non-awards ceremony in years. They learned "who cares it's a shitshow! People will watch!"

The Peter Pan ratings were down a LOT though. I think they'll do another one next year though. Even a 2.3 rating is good for NBC these days. 

omg seriously?! lol I didn't know they got such good ratings for that mess. 

theartistformerlyknownas

daria24 said:

Oh lord there was so much terribleness. It looked like Christopher Walken was reading all his lines off of floor monitors. And wtf was Tiger Lily's costume? It looked like it was made out of that plastic grass you use to make Easter baskets. 

I thought Allison Williams was meh. She can't belt, but at least she was all in. 

I think Peter Pan is a really difficult musical to put on TV. The flying seems so much more magical in a theatre. And when you have the distance of an audience member it's a lot less distracting to have a grown woman playing a young boy. The closeness of the TV camera just seems to scream IT"S A LADY! 

Yeah a lot of my gripes were more related to the camera angles/closeness/actors interaction with the cameras than with the performance itself. I think if it had been on stage, I would have liked it a lot more. But some of these things are just NOT meant for TV. There shouldn't be that much awkward eye contact through the camera. Made it creepy, and I don't like that some people could see something like this and determine "well I guess I don't like musical theater" when it's not a fair comparison at all. 

cosenti7

daria24 said:

novella1186 said:

I did not bother to watch but when I heard they were doing this I was extremely confused. Was Sound of Music not a huge embarrassment? Did they not learn their lesson the first time? 

The ratings for Sound of Music were NBC's best for a non-sports/non-awards ceremony in years. They learned "who cares it's a shitshow! People will watch!"

The Peter Pan ratings were down a LOT though. I think they'll do another one next year though. Even a 2.3 rating is good for NBC these days. 

I've heard The Music Man is next year.

duhitsd

I forgot that a lot of people didn't like the Sound of Music last year. I enjoyed that one more than this one.

flantastic

lolo883 said:

daria24 said:

Oh lord there was so much terribleness. It looked like Christopher Walken was reading all his lines off of floor monitors. And wtf was Tiger Lily's costume? It looked like it was made out of that plastic grass you use to make Easter baskets. 

I thought Allison Williams was meh. She can't belt, but at least she was all in. 

I think Peter Pan is a really difficult musical to put on TV. The flying seems so much more magical in a theatre. And when you have the distance of an audience member it's a lot less distracting to have a grown woman playing a young boy. The closeness of the TV camera just seems to scream IT"S A LADY! 

Yeah a lot of my gripes were more related to the camera angles/closeness/actors interaction with the cameras than with the performance itself. I think if it had been on stage, I would have liked it a lot more. But some of these things are just NOT meant for TV. There shouldn't be that much awkward eye contact through the camera. Made it creepy, and I don't like that some people could see something like this and determine "well I guess I don't like musical theater" when it's not a fair comparison at all. 

This. H and I: "What works and makes this fun on stage is not working here." He really likes Walken, too, and we both agreed that he seemed totally disinterested in the whole thing.

cosenti7

Maggie0829 said:

I watched about half of it.  It was just SO. SLOW.  Like 3 hours?  Really?  I understand that there are commercials but it so could have been 2 hours, 2.5 hours tops.  Hell NBC could have gotten so high paying advertisers to sponsor a commercial free show with breaks just for the separate acts.

And why add new songs?  Why?  It just doesn't make sense and it really ruins the flow.  The entire time Wendy was singing in the boat I was just wondering what the hell song that was.

And Christopher Walken was beyond bad.  He had to have been high or drunk or both.  Half the time he looked like he didn't even want to be there and at moments it seemed like he was kind of chuckling about how ridiculous it was.

To the bolded: I agree with you. This musical is fairly slow overall, IMO, but it's family oriented and a spectacle. I highly doubt NBC would pick a musical that wasn't well-known or a classic. Most people wouldn't watch. Good or Bad, people are talking about it.

arrippa

I am bummed that I missed this since I love mocking bad tv shows.

PrettyGirlLost

Why do the networks keep picking shitty musicals to produce live, and then act shocked when the ratings are low?

theartistformerlyknownas

PrettyGirlLost said:

Why do the networks keep picking shitty musicals to produce live, and then act shocked when the ratings are low?

Maybe they're producing crap on purpose to get people to watch it to make fun of it. They're making the same ad revenue whether people like it or not.

MadHops21

Watched the entire thing because I love watching bad things on TV. I felt really really bad for Walkin, it looked like he didn't want to be there and read a prompt the entire time.

Peter Pan made me cringe a lot...the fact that they kept referring Wendy as "mother" and Wendy was trying to get it on with Peter...was weird...and Peter was.....weird....and Tiger Lily was pretty hot. 

That's my professional review. 

sophhabobopha

Can somebody explain to me why Peter is played by an adult woman? I think it's creepy.