In Which Peter Pan Becomes The Bad Boy of Fiction

August 23rd, 2005 · 4 Comments
by Booksquare

We will freely admit that we held no high hopes for the much-publicized Peter Pan sequel (though we did enjoy the cheerful cynicism that accompanied the decision). After all, why did we need a sequel? Isn’t it enough to let the story end. Yes, we’re still processing the finale of Six Feet Under, a series we feel will not succumb to a reunion show.

Geraldine McCaughrean won the chance to write the Pan sequel, thereby assuring that the Great Ormond Street Hospital continues to own the rights to the character. While the book isn’t finished, she’s suggested that we’re not going to get a Disney film here. Even eternal adolescence has its dark side, and Peter, having lost his evil twin, must compensate.

While we’re not entirely sure the sequel will be greeted as the second coming of Harry Potter, we are sufficiently intrigued by the re-visioning of a story that the original author felt was complete, especially given this:

“There is that heartless thing about childhood – the egocentricity; the fact they can forget people as soon as they are not there. That side interests me about Peter. One of the themes in the book is dressing up, about how children, when they dress up, become somebody else. Peter’s nature will slide according to what he’s wearing. All of the main characters are altered by what they are wearing.”

File Under: Books/Mags/Blogs

4 responses so far ↓

  • Karen // Aug 23, 2005 at 11:44 am

    I can’t think of a single instance where a sequel was a good idea, and that includes Godfather II (that’s a minority opinion, I know, since for many people II was better than I).

    But, hey, how about that last episode of 6 Feet Under! It whined and wept and dragged, and DRAGGED — until the last 5 minutes. Holy cow. I had insomnia that night, and every time I woke up, I saw them all keeling over, one by one, decades apart.

  • Booksquare // Aug 23, 2005 at 1:55 pm

    I was in tears by the end (no surprise, I cry over coffee commercials). I kept dreaming of the Keith sequence for some reason.

    But you’re right…sequels are generally bad. I’m trying to think of a really good one, but nothing springs to mind. I can think of series that worked (though there were misses as well as hits), but not a sequel. Of course, I’m one who feels manipulated by sequels.

    But this one’s for the kids…

  • Susan Gable // Aug 23, 2005 at 4:38 pm

    Did you see Finding Neverland? I have no idea how accurate it was, but I found it quite interesting to watch. Depp did a great job, so that didn’t hurt, either.

    Still, it seems odd to write a sequel at this point – oh, wait, it’s about the money to be brought in – still, it IS for a good cause!

    Don’t know if I’ll be waiting to read it, though.

  • Booksquare // Aug 23, 2005 at 7:30 pm

    I am both ashamed and proud to say that I’m years behind on movies. I have heard from reliable sources (the mother, the sister) that it was a great film. As for accuracy? What is accuracy, really?

    And yes, good cause. Those poor children. Hopefully they’re reaping the benefits of the continued life of Pan. And I doubt I’ll read the book either, unless someone convinces me it’s a can’t miss title.