Peter Pan Sequel's Film Rights Sold
Filed under: Deals, Family Films, Remakes and Sequels
I haven't read Peter Pan in Scarlet, the recently published book that was an officially-commissioned sequel to J.M. Barrie's classic children's novel Peter Pan. The Peter Pan sequel was written not by Barrie, but by author Geraldine McCaughrean. Apparently Peter Pan in Scarlet takes place when Wendy and the Lost Boys are all grown up and learn that Neverland has been damaged by WWI. To save it, they have to find a way to become children again, since adults are generally disallowed in Neverland. I can't tell from the summaries whether the book is meant to appeal more to adults or to children.I admit I have a built-in distrust of sequels that are not written by the original author -- I won't go anywhere near the "sequels" to Rebecca, Gone with the Wind, or The Secret Garden. It's a trend I would very much like to see fade away. However, Peter Pan in Scarlet has obviously gathered some popularity, as the film and television rights have just been sold ... and no, not to Disney, either, or any American studio for that matter. The rights to film the book were bought by a group that includes the U.K. Film Council, a government organization that encourages filmmaking in Britain, BBC Films, and the Headline Pictures production company. There's no word on whether the final result will be a theatrical release or a made-for-British-TV movie, although I would guess that the potential box office on a family film about Peter Pan would indicate the former. I would also guess that the feature will be live-action rather than animated, considering the groups involved. If you've read Peter Pan in Scarlet, do you think it would make a good movie, and why (or why not)?
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
Peter Jackson Says Spielberg's 'Tintin' is Done Filming, but...
Interracial Harmony: 'Ninja Assassin' vs. 'Blind Side'
Spin-ematical: New on DVD for 11/24
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-19-2006 @ 2:32PM
CapAmerica said...
Did you ever read Wicked?
Its a prequel not a sequal, But it was not written by the original author and it did a EXCELLENT job. I think L. Frank Baum would have been happy with it. Wikked did such a great job that I can't look at the Wizard of OZ the same way any more.
I'm really looking forward to Peter Pan in Scarlet now.
Reply
12-19-2006 @ 3:17PM
Jay said...
I don't remember all the details but when J.M. Barrie died he gave the rights to Peter Pan to an orphange. That Orphange still exists and made most of it's money off of Peter Pan. It is one of the top facilites in England for impovrished children. Recently the copyright on Peter Pan was about to expire making it public domain meaning no more income for the children's center. They held a contest for to find a writer to create a direct official sequel and give the copywrite to center so they would still have an income from Peter Pan. That is how the book came to be
Reply
12-19-2006 @ 9:56PM
Fuse #8 said...
The buzz in the kidlit world is that the book's actually rather fine. It's more than a little chortlesome (not a word, I know) that it came out the same year as Alan Moore's "Lost Girls", but that's neither here nor there. You can listen to Tim Curry reading a chapter here at http://www.simonsays.com/assets/isbn/1416918086/PC53_1416918086.mp3 if you like. Basically, McCaughrean lives up to the hype, though let's be honest here. Have you read the original Peter Pan recently? Creeeeee-eeepy! "Scarlet" may actually be the better book. In any case, it's a heckuva lot more faithful to the original than the Dave Barry version (at http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Starcatchers-Dave-Barry/dp/0786854456/sr=8-1/qid=1166583252/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-5748546-6393601?ie=UTF8&s=books).
Reply
12-20-2006 @ 6:26AM
Donall Crehan said...
It's the Great Ormond St. Children's Hospital in Bloomsbury in London that owns the rights to Peter Pan, having been granted them by JM Barrie. The rest is true.
Reply