It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

This is not really a "Live" recording. This was not filmed in front of an audience. This is however taped on a soundstage and it is a first class production.Mary Martin plays "Peter Pan". She the originator of the musical adaption so all other versions will always be compared to Mary Martin! Even more modern television version may have bigger budgets that pale next to this version. The story is about the Darling family who get whisked away to Never Never Land. Where you don't have to grow up. There is no school but lots of danger including the pirate "Captain Hook" who is out to get Peter Pan at any cost!The other television adaptations had "Ashlie Williams" and "Cathy Rigby". "Cathy Rigby" version is the better version. The "Ashley Williams" version did not have actors "acting" is had actors "mugging". Christopher Walkin was wasted in that because he came across wasted.About this productionIn 1954, Fred Coe, production manager for NBC in New York, began work on Producers' Showcase, a 90-minute anthology series that aired every fourth Monday for three seasons. One aim of the series was to broadcast expensive color spectaculars to promote the new color television system developed by NBC's parent company RCA.On March 7, 1955, NBC presented Peter Pan live as part of Producers' Showcase (with nearly all of the show's original cast) as the first full-length Broadway production on color TV. The show attracted a then-record audience of 65-million viewers, the highest ever up to that time for a single television program. Mary Martin and Cyril Ritchard had already won Tony Awards for their stage performances, and Martin won an Emmy Award for the television production. It was so well received that the musical was restaged live for television (again on Producers' Showcase) on January 9, 1956. Both of these broadcasts were produced live and in color, but only black-and-white kinescope recordings survive.Peter Pan was restaged on December 8, 1960, this time in a 100-minute version rather than 90 minutes (not counting the commercials), and with a slightly different cast because the original children had outgrown their roles. Producers' Showcase had long since gone off the air, so the 1960 production was intended as a "stand alone" special instead of an episode of an anthology series. Act II was split into two acts, for a total of five acts instead of three, to allow for more commercial breaks. This version was videotaped in color at NBC's Brooklyn studio. Martin was also starring in Broadway's The Sound of Music at the time. The production was directed for television by Vincent J. Donehue, who received a Director's Guild Award for it. Peter Foy re-created the signature flying sequences he had staged for the 1954 Broadway production and the two Producers' Showcase broadcasts. This 1960 version was rebroadcast in 1963, 1966 and 1973. The video tape of that production was restored and rebroadcast by NBC on March 24, 1989, then again on March 31, 1991, after which it went to the Disney Channel, where it was shown several times more. Beginning in 1989, the program was slightly cut to make room for more commercial time. Eliminated completely was a dance that Liza (the Darling family maid) and the animals of Neverland perform to an orchestral version of Never Never Land. Also eliminated was Mary Martin's curtain speech at the end thanking NBC for making the program possible, which, in the 1960, 1963, and 1966 telecasts led directly into the closing credits. Gone also was the intertitle bearing the credit Peter Pan: Act III, but not the other intertitle credits, so that the show seemed to be performed in three acts, just as in the stage version.

Born in 1959, I can't be sure I saw this play on TV in 1960... but we definitely had the soundtrack LP, and I know I watched it in 1963 (not sure about '66 either, but, PROBABLY). Having taped it off the air in 1989, and finally played it back tonight, that makes 3 (or 4!) times I've seen it.I probably listened to the LP more times than any other version, so I'm no doubt coming to this from an unusual place. I used to wonder about the Disney film, as, being so familiar with the Mary Martin stage play, the promos for the Disney film just seemed "wrong" somehow. (Probably the way, as a Ron Ely fan, seeing promos for a Mike Henry TARZAN film made me, as a kid, say, "THAT's not the REAL Tarzan!") Inexplicably, my Dad NEVER took me to see the Disney film, no matter how many times it was reissued, and I finally had to go myself in the late 80's-- pretty close to the time this was finally rerun on TV. I came to love the Disney film on its own merits, though I recognized, especially when I was able to tape the stage play, the big differences.I see it this way... the Disney film was made for "family" audiences, and so, there's maybe about 5-10 minutes worth of it that's truly "embarrassing" for adults to watch. The stage play, however, is aimed at kids... and so, about 90-95% of it is "embarrassing" for adults to watch! I'm talking purely about the story and the way it's told here. The funny thing is, when I watched it in 1989, at the age of 30, it hit me that there were certain things in the story-- certain concepts and ideas-- that would go RIGHT OVER the heads of any kids watching it. I felt you had to be an ADULT to be "mature" enough to "get" what the story was really saying. So, ever since, I've joked that the stage play is aimed at "children and adults-- but no one in between". Teenagers are at that stage of growing up where growing up and being "cool" makes them forget childhood innocence-- but when you get old enough to have kids of your own, if you're lucky, you can remember it all over again.I guess one does go thru "different rooms" as one goes thru life-- because, having gone to quite a number of live stage shows in the 1990s, I found this MUCH easier to watch now than I did back in '89! Cyril Ritchard (who almost reminds me in spots of Rex Harrison) is a RIOT!! And yes, the bit about him almost being "seduced" by the "spirit of the forest" is particularly hilarious.The Disney cartoon may be one of my favorite Disney cartoons-- I adore their version of Tinkerbell!-- but to me, the stage play is the "real" version. I'm so glad someone had the foresight to PRESERVE it for posterity back in 1960-- something I wish they would do with all famous stage plays. (Is there a tape of Julie Andrews' MY FAIR LADY in existence? A few minutes of it were run on PBS as part of a "History of Broadway" documentary and it brought TEARS to my eyes!) Now if only I could see videos of the Sandy Duncan and Bonnie Langford versions of the play...!!

Without any doubt, I can say emphatically that this 1960 show is NOT a kinescope (film copy off a TV tube) but a videotape made from a television switcher. It was shot on 1st generation RCA TK 40/41 color television cameras in NBC's Brooklyn, NY studios. Mostly it was done in full segments live to 2" quad tape but I could detect at least a couple pick-up edits. The cameras were huge and incredibly heavy and the unevenness of the studio floor shows up in some of the shots as the cameras are dollied in and out for close ups. We recently showed the VHS version of this show to our 4 year old. He liked it but he likes the Disney animated show better.The technical quality of this VHS version from GoodTimes Home Video is only fair. Oddly enough, it is recorded in LP mode - the 4 hour speed. The audio track does not even use the VHS hi-fi tracks so the fidelity is really lacking. If it had been done in the best SP mode (2 hour speed) using the hi-fi tracks - the picture and sound would both have been better. The box reads SP mode but the tape is not.I have seen other color videotape of this era and it can actually be quite good - this tape is not. Perhaps the DVD transfer (about 1999) was better but I have never seen it. DVD is inherently sharper than VHS. The VHS version was produced in 1990. VHS quality has also improved substantially in the last 17 years.The show is what it is - and for me - the weak technical quality really gets in the way of the presentation. Although I loved it as a kid, it disappoints me now.Mary Martin is good but Cyril Ritchard as Captain Hook is fantastic!Even as a kid, I never did understand why they had a woman play Peter. Lord knows there have always been plenty of very talented boys who could play the role. Disney Studios and MGM were never at a loss to find the right kid to fill any part - no matter how challenging.

Like so many others, I was a young thing when I saw Mary Martin's PETER PAN for the first time. I was perhaps 3 or 4, and I recall ever-so-clearly wanting to be Wendy, and wearing my pink housecoat (similar to Wendy's nightgown) every time I watched this film (which was at least once a week). Years later, this is one film that still remains near and dear to my heart.Out of all of the adaptations of PETER PAN I have ever seen (including the Disney version which is also a classic), this is my favorite. But then again, how could one dislike anything which preserves the legend of the fabulous Mary Martin? The cast is absolutely terrific. While Maureen Bailey does not "get on my nerves" as some reviewers have stated, she does tend to over-act a bit. Seeing as how this was pretty much a direct translation of the stage show, however, there is a good chance Maureen had, at some point, been involved in the show. Anyone who knows anything about acting knows that acting for the stage and acting for the screen are two totally different ballgames, which could have resulted in her over-acting. Nonetheless, she makes for a charming Wendy (and later Jane). Sondra Lee is terrific as Tiger Lily, although I find it appalling that in this day and age where the part of Caucasian, blue-collar Bronx bus driver Ralph Kramden is going to be played on-screen by African-American comedian Bernie Mac, someone actually has the audacity to say that Tiger Lily can't be blonde because "she's an Indian." Does the fact that Tiger Lily is blonde really prove to be detrimental to the movie in any way? No, no it doesn't. Margalo Gilmore, an extremely talented veteran of both stage and screen, is a lovable Mrs. Darling, although she only appears at the beginning and toward the end of the show. Cyril Ritchard will ALWAYS be, in my humble opinion, the BEST Captain Hook (/Mr. Darling) to ever grace a screen (apologies to Dustin Hoffman and others who have played the famed role). His Hook is deliciously malicious, cunning, and hysterically funny. And Mary Martin - I don't even know if I can put into words how incredible she is in the role of Peter. Several reviewers have scoffed at the fact of Peter Pan as a woman - saying it defeats the entire purpose of everything. Show me a ten year old boy who could have acted, sung, dance, and flew the part (and performed it eight times a week on the stage) and I'll eat your hat. This was the perfect role for Martin, by my understanding her favorite role (she wanted a tomboyish role similar to Annie in ANNIE GET YOUR GUN), and what a treat it is to have it preserved. As a woman approaching 50, she is ridiculously agile, in fine if not incredible voice, and a treat to behold. Top all of this off with narration by the lush voice of the wonderful Lynn Fontanne, and you have a winner! Several reviewers have scoffed at the "cheesey affects," the visibility of the wires, and the "bringing Tinker Bell back to life" scene. As a 19 year-old cinema major, I am constantly baffled by the fact that people in this day of CGI refuse to accept the limitations of film and television in 1960. Not only do they refuse to accept it, but they simply have no concept of the era. PETER PAN is a filmed version of a STAGE MUSICAL, folks. You're going to see the wires. There were no computers at that time to generate images and special effects - get over it and embrace the past. As far as clapping Tink back to life - this is an integral part of the movie (and stage play for that matter). It's the audience's chance to embrace childhood and to believe in the unbelievable. After all, that is what Peter Pan is really all about.All in all, this is an amazing film, and I have no doubt in my mind that even though youngsters today have been brought up with films using phenomenal CGI technology and such, they will fall in love with the beautiful and catchy music, the energetic choreography (by Jerome Robbins, no less!), and the story of a boy who could never grow up.