Without having seen it, it looks very interesting. A good example of the wonderful things that are possible when copyrights are allowed to grow old, wear a tie, and finally expire of old age.

Yeah, those darned copyrights. Maybe if the copyright expired for Lord of the Rings, someone could make a good film from that, too, right?

Edited by author 07-26-2003 07:09 PM
... but there is a subtle difference. It's more like getting a shiny fishhook in the 'nads.

Condour75's point was not that if Peter Pan was copyrighted that we wouldn't be seeing movies featuring the character, but rather that we wouldn't see this type of Peter Pan film. Here's one description of the film,

Neverland is...an innovative interpretation of this ultimately fantastical story of hope and sorrow, a psychedelic ride through the adventures of the Darling children, strewn with transgendered Indians, pirates with leather fetishes and bits and pieces of the original dialogue thrown in for good measure.

I don't think if, say, Disney owned Peter Pan that we'd be seeing a Pan film featuring pirates with leather fetishes.

One of the problems with copyrights in perpetuity is that we have all of these iconic characters that are now part of the culture that are also completely creatively frozen because the best way to exploit such a property is to turn out the same safely boring derivative product every two or three years (like the Disney's excrable treatment of its Winnie the Pooh franchise).

Sounds interesting.

This now makes 3 "Neverland" movies coming out in a one year period.

J.M. Barrie's Neverland (Starrinng Johnny Depp and Kate Winslet)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0308644
(This one is said to be about the author and how the story came to be.)

Neverland (The one Cory is reporting about with Wil Wheaton)
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0349880

Peter Pan
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0316396
Based on the trailer it's roughly a dark retelling of the cartoon.

Condour75's point was not that if Peter Pan was copyrighted that we wouldn't be seeing movies featuring the character, but rather that we wouldn't see this type of Peter Pan film.

Are you saying we would be better off if artists no longer had any control over their creations? Should Hollywood studios be allowed to appropriate any artist's creation without owing anything to the artist?
I think Hollywood has far too much power as it is without giving them any more.

I think if the artist is dead, they really won't mind.

Disney wants copyrights to go on forever.

The distinction is between copyrights owned and managed by the original artist/creator, and that by a corporation. There's also the matter of heirs to the original creator owning the copyright. There probably needs to be a legal distinction among the three.

"Are you saying we would be better off if artists no longer had any control over their creations? Should Hollywood studios be allowed to appropriate any artist's creation without owing anything to the artist?"

So you're horrified that people are making Peter Pan films without the permission of JM Barrie's descendants?

Of course artists should lose control over their works after their copyrights expire -- that's the whole point of copyrighted works entering into the public domain.

Went to the movies, saw two trailers for pirate films followed by industry spot demanding an end "to piracy." My sister, my daughter....