I haven't read Peter Pan in Scarlet, the recently published book that was an officially-commissioned sequel to J.M. Barrie's classic children's novel Peter Pan. The Peter Pan sequel was written not by Barrie, but by author Geraldine McCaughrean. Apparently Peter Pan in Scarlet takes place when Wendy and the Lost Boys are all grown up and learn that Neverland has been damaged by WWI. To save it, they have to find a way to become children again, since adults are generally disallowed in Neverland. I can't tell from the summaries whether the book is meant to appeal more to adults or to children.

I admit I have a built-in distrust of sequels that are not written by the original author -- I won't go anywhere near the "sequels" to Rebecca, Gone with the Wind, or The Secret Garden. It's a trend I would very much like to see fade away. However, Peter Pan in Scarlet has obviously gathered some popularity, as the film and television rights have just been sold ... and no, not to Disney, either, or any American studio for that matter. The rights to film the book were bought by a group that includes the U.K. Film Council, a government organization that encourages filmmaking in Britain, BBC Films, and the Headline Pictures production company. There's no word on whether the final result will be a theatrical release or a made-for-British-TV movie, although I would guess that the potential box office on a family film about Peter Pan would indicate the former. I would also guess that the feature will be live-action rather than animated, considering the groups involved. If you've read Peter Pan in Scarlet, do you think it would make a good movie, and why (or why not)?