There were lots of children in attendance at yesterday afternoons performance as well, all impeccably behaved - if it wasn't for the children sat behind me, I would have told the buffoon sat next to me, in less than polite words, to behave or bugger off back to the bar but I didn't want to have an argument.
Oh God, Tinkerbell! Well, to be charitable, they tried something different... I think the worse thing is that s/he didn't make much impact. In the book she is a really strong character, in this she pops up once to shoot Wendy (to no consequences that I recall) then again to drink poison, which just felt random as I'd forgotten she existed by that point. Bit of a lost opportunity.
Lots of kids in when I saw it, they seemed to react well to it.
Well, I guess kids who don't go to the theatre very often will be inherently excited by the fact that stuff is happening live in front of them - I was, and it's still essentially what keeps me going to the theatre. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with adults looking at the same production and being a bit more critical.
I spotted about six kids in the stalls when I saw it. At the NT's new prices, it really isn't getting many families in.
As for what people might not enjoy - awful tuneless unnecessary songs, charmless uncharismatic Peter, galumphing un-fairylike Tinkerbell, bland Captain Hook, dreary set, annoying Lost Boys... that enough for you?
If it hadnt been for the 5 or 6 school groups there on Thursday it would have been very quiet in the circle.
A level of acting I'd have been embarrassed to witness in a school play seeing family members performing, let alone in a London theatre with an audience that had paid for their tickets. Mr. Darling and his two sons being the worst culprits.
Nana - OK so they did'nt want to have someone in a dog suit, but having a man in some frilly Victorian underwear was just rubbish, and if you weren't that aware of Peter Pan, you wouldn't have known Nana is supposed to be a dog. The 'wolves' were similarly rubbish.
Tinkerbell, who as other people on here have said, was just terrible, whoevers idea it was to have him/her/it speaking that mangled whatever should have been ashamed to cash their paycheque.
The sets - no effort (or money either, by the look of things) whatsoever (just a bed for the Darlings house, and people should have something to be a bit excited about or impressed when the 'action' switches to Never Never Land, not what looked a low budget version of Rent.
I only had problems with Mr Darling when he was playing Mr Darling, his other roles were perfectly fine so it must have either been an actor or director decision to play it in such a mannered fashion.
I didnt know Nana was a dog when it started but its set out very very clearly in the dialogue that Nana is actually a dog, I dont understand how anyone could miss that plot point its spelled out at least twice.
Tinkerbell was indeed a disaster,
As you left at half time you missed the money shot in terms of set design.
Saw this last week. The kids in the audience certainly enjoyed it as did my inner child. Didn't like Peter very much though, he just seemed far to bitter to have never grown up. I had no problem with Tinkerbell and thought the invented language was quite effective. Nana appealed to me in a very pantomime dame dog sort of way. The rest of the actors were all enthusiastic in their various parts while Wendy and Captain Hook both did justice to their roles. I do think the latter needed some hiss boo from the audience though.The staging was very clever especially in the second half. All in all I felt happy and almost feeling quite lost boyish at the end.