I get why a lot of people don't like Joe Wright's movies, but there's something about his po-faced baroque qualities that appeal to me. And he's brought that to Pan, which looks more than a little bit like it was influenced by Hook (trailers for two Spielberg children in one day!). It's also influenced by a whole decade worth of savage prequelitis, including the profoundly dubious decision to make young Captain Hook into Peter Pan's BFF.
The thing about any prequel to Peter Pan is that JM Barrie already wrote it and called it Peter Pan in Kensington Garden, and it tells the story of how 7 day old Peter Pan flies out his window, into London's Kensington Garden and has adventures with fairies and other lost children. Peter wants to go home to his mother, but when he finally gets around to it he discovers she already gave birth to another child who has taken his place. The whole story is weird (Peter, like all infants according to Barrie, is part bird) and whimsical.
As for Pan - besides tossing aside the canon and the silly prequel bullshit with Hook, it looks interesting. It looks imaginative, at least. Colorful and exciting. I'm not looking forward to the discussions about the Indians (to me the Indians in Peter Pan were never Indians - they were always 19th century British children's versions of Indians, and trying to make them realistically Indian defeats that purpose. Although I also understand that the inherent exoticification of Indians as presented to young boys and girls is now also inherently offensive. As a relic from another age there's essentially no way to approach this aspect of Peter Pan without ruffling some feathers), but I understand that we have to have them.
What do you think? This looks like it should be a musical. Why aren't there more original musicals?