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...!!

This version of Peter Pan was, in my opinion, better than the Disney animation. Peter Pan is played by Mary Martin, and the film is made like a theatre production. It was much more enjoyable to watch than the animation, although I never really enjoyed the story of Peter Pan and the lost boys. This film has its charm because of the techniques used in production. It's interactive more than anything else, and the flying scenes are amazing. It is amazing what they could do to create the story, and I guess that is why it is better (in my opinion) than the animation. I would recommend this to children as I think it is enjoyable and I think Mary Martin did a good job.

In my opinion, this film should not be missed by any child, adolescent, or adult who likes music and loved J.M. Barrie's masterpiece novel. Unlike the animated Disney film made seven years earlier (also a classic musical), this film follows the original story more closely, as adapted by Jerome Robbins for the stage. The music is beautiful, catchy, and fun. Peter Pan is portrayed by a woman because any male old enough to play the role would have gone through puberty -- thus no longer looking or sounding like a 10 year old. In this day of shows about cross dressing and sexuality bending, is it really such a stretch to believe that a woman in costume is a little boy? Of course its special effects are lacking in quality: it was filmed in 1960, before the innovation of Lucasfilm, and is not just a movie, but a filming of an actual stageplay. This is the reason for the "poor" special effects. Sorry, videogame generation, there's no CGI, so you'll have to leave something to your imagination...if you still have some.

This is truly a magical movie. The singing, the colors, the flying. Mary Martin embodies Peter Pan so gracefully and whimsically that I cannot imagine this character as played by anyone else. I view this Peter Pan as the best and most classic depiction of the boy who never grew up.