A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Bairstow]

I'm not looking for an argument here, but let me respond to 3 points:

When talking about a change of the name of the company, "tragedy" is probably an overstatement, but as these forums focus primarily on the Walt Disney World resort, ask yourself what makes the Disney parks any different than their competition. If you think "a demand for a quality product above all else," I submit that impression came from standards Walt Disney the man demanded of the operations at "his park," Disneyland. For a long time, those standards were required of cast members and operations at the Walt Disney World resort parks which opened after his death. If you say there is no difference or you think the difference is something other than quality, some people would say the company now operates under new priorities and expectations. Where I come down on this is really simple. Keeping "Walt Disney" visible and teaching cast the quality demands he required is good for park operations.

My real point is that for all relevant intents and purposes, including the one you mentioned, "Disney" works just as well as "Walt Disney".
Everyone knows exactly who you're talking about, and for purposes of everyday branding and corporate identity.
There aren't going to be a lot of people on this planet who hear the word "Disney" and think of, say, Wesley E. Disney.

Second, the movie "Saving Mr. Banks" came and went and there is little to show for it today or tomorrow. On the other hand, the exhibit "Walt Disney, One Man's Dream" is being removed from the Studios Park. Do you think making "Saving Mr. Banks" has more of a positive effect of preserving the memory of Walt Disney than the negative effect of moving that exhibit?

Oh definitely. The film kicked off a lot of public conversation about the man, his business practices, and his legacy. The recent PBS documentary or Meryl Streep comments don't get made without the film rekindling public interest.

I doubt very few people are aware of the exhibit at the studios park outside of the fanboy faithful. I liked it too, but we should be honest and admit that it wasn't particularly popular with most guests.

Last, I am not aware of the car company ever having been named the Henry Ford Company. While people may generally know the founder of the Ford Motor Company was Henry Ford, few people know much about him and most people associate "Ford" with cars and trucks and nothing else. Personally, I want more for my children and grandchildren when it comes to that little entertainment company that trades on the New York Stock Exchange.

You're going to have a hard time finding a US History textbook from the last century that doesn't discuss Henry Ford.
A great many of them will mention Walt Disney too.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

I watched a PBS documentary on Walt Disney and it was interesting. He is like Jobs and Lucas - would come to the forefront to take 100% of the credit when there was success for the company ( and keep the money ). A lot of his staff left because they were treated horrible. Walt was lucky he had his brother Roy because he was the businessman who kept the company going when it was in horrible shape. Plus' Walt had a very dark side to him.

I can't tell if you're serious.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

I'm not looking for an argument here, but let me respond to 3 points:

When talking about a change of the name of the company, "tragedy" is probably an overstatement, but as these forums focus primarily on the Walt Disney World resort, ask yourself what makes the Disney parks any different than their competition. If you think "a demand for a quality product above all else," I submit that impression came from standards Walt Disney the man demanded of the operations at "his park," Disneyland. For a long time, those standards were required of cast members and operations at the Walt Disney World resort parks which opened after his death. If you say there is no difference or you think the difference is something other than quality, some people would say the company now operates under new priorities and expectations. Where I come down on this is really simple. Keeping "Walt Disney" visible and teaching cast the quality demands he required is good for park operations.

Second, the movie "Saving Mr. Banks" came and went and there is little to show for it today or tomorrow. On the other hand, the exhibit "Walt Disney, One Man's Dream" is being removed from the Studios Park. Do you think making "Saving Mr. Banks" has more of a positive effect of preserving the memory of Walt Disney than the negative effect of moving that exhibit?

Last, I am not aware of the car company ever having been named the Henry Ford Company. While people may generally know the founder of the Ford Motor Company was Henry Ford, few people know much about him and most people associate "Ford" with cars and trucks and nothing else. Personally, I want more for my children and grandchildren when it comes to that little entertainment company that trades on the New York Stock Exchange.

A lot of saving Mr. Banks was fictional. Walt wasn't even around when PL Travers arrived to work out the script for Mary Poppins. He took off on vacation and left the Sherman brothers to deal with the author. I don't know if he did that so he could put in all of the things that Travers didn't want in the movie. Saving Mr. Banks painted Walt and PL in a more likable way (sugar coated). Maybe that movie was made to kick start the sequel to Mary Poppins that Disney is planning on rebooting soon.

 

[Phil12]

A lot of saving Mr. Banks was fictional. Walt wasn't even around when PL Travers arrived to work out the script for Mary Poppins. He took off on vacation and left the Sherman brothers to deal with the author. I don't know if he did that so he could put in all of the things that Travers didn't want in the movie. Saving Mr. Banks painted Walt and PL in a more likable way (sugar coated). Maybe that movie was made to kick start the sequel to Mary Poppins that Disney is planning on rebooting soon.

One of the big problems with Walt Disney is that the public relations department worked overtime for many years polishing his image. To this day many people believe in all of the hyperbole about Walt and don't realize or care to admit he had very serious flaws. Most people seem to prefer the sugar coated Walt.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

One of the big problems with Walt Disney is that the public relations department worked overtime for many years polishing his image. To this day many people believe in all of the hyperbole about Walt and don't realize or care to admit he had very serious flaws. Most people seem to prefer the sugar coated Walt.

Yep, drank too much and his smoking caused him to get lung cancer and pass away at the age of 66. WDW would look totally different unless Roy talked some sense into him. A lot of the FLA project was good but some of it was not feasible.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Henry didn't have to put his name on his cars for people to remember who founded Ford. Same goes this company.

Cadillac traces its roots to the Henry Ford Company, which was founded before the Ford Motor Company.

 

[Next Big Thing]

Second, the movie "Saving Mr. Banks" came and went and there is little to show for it today or tomorrow. On the other hand, the exhibit "Walt Disney, One Man's Dream" is being removed from the Studios Park. Do you think making "Saving Mr. Banks" has more of a positive effect of preserving the memory of Walt Disney than the negative effect of moving that exhibit.

The fact that film is forever I think automatically makes Saving Mr. Banks have a more positive affect.

 

[AEfx]

Surely soon to be considered the bargain of the decade.

For both Lucas and Disney, interestingly enough.

On paper Lucasfilm was really worth no where near that amount, it was virtually all the value of the IP it owned. Lucasfilm had effectively become a shell corporation for licensing. Lucas had two choices - go back into the Star Wars business himself again, or sell. So Lucas ended up with quite the vindication in terms of the value of the concepts he originated being perceived to have growing value for many years to come (to be worth that much money), and Disney stands to have Star Wars practically pay for itself by the time we are watching Episode VIII in theaters in a couple of years.

 

[AEfx]

The fact that film is forever I think automatically makes Saving Mr. Banks have a more positive affect.

If only it had any relation to reality whatsoever.

But hey, that's Hollywood.

 

[Next Big Thing]

If only it had any relation to reality whatsoever.

But hey, that's Hollywood.

It may have been a much more dramatic telling of the events that happened, but it still was a great movie (and a type of movie we rarely see from Disney these days) and tells a story that gets people interested in Walt and P.L. Travers, which can only be a good thing.

 

[AEfx]

I watched a PBS documentary on Walt Disney and it was interesting. He is like Jobs and Lucas - would come to the forefront to take 100% of the credit when there was success for the company ( and keep the money ). A lot of his staff left because they were treated horrible. Walt was lucky he had his brother Roy because he was the businessman who kept the company going when it was in horrible shape. Plus' Walt had a very dark side to him.

And of course, the reality is largely going to be somewhere in the middle. Which is why no matter what way a recently living person who becomes a myth really is, there will be varying opinions. Just like any of us. We all have our good days and bad days - though admittedly, some have much worse or best days than the average folk.

As much as I am no George Lucas apologist, though - I do have to say - the man was generous financially, to a lot of folks. He didn't have to give the main Star Wars actors points (officially, he bought their likeness rights with them, but they came out on the much better end of it, they and their heirs will have a piece of Star Wars in perpetuity), nor the key crew members he later gave 1/4 points to (and even a 1/4 point of Star Wars is "never work again" money). He is also known to be quite charitable.

He can't write his way out of a paper bag, and his directing skills seem to inexplicably bring the worst performances out of otherwise capable to excellent actors while at the same time elevating trash cans to compelling characters, but one thing I've never heard about the guy is that he was stingy or anything other than a generally good person. I think much the same of Walt Disney, though the man obviously had flaws and didn't always act the way he should have toward those that helped build his success.

As to Jobs...shiver...Ebenezer Scrooge would be a worthy Monopoly opponent for him.

 

[AEfx]

It may have been a much more dramatic telling of the events that happened, but it still was a great movie (and a type of movie we rarely see from Disney these days) and tells a story that gets people interested in Walt and P.L. Travers, which can only be a good thing.

I do want to feel that way, and I kinda do - because it was a fabulous movie. Really. But if you read any of the articles that actually delve into the history, and compare them (one was written by MiceAge I want to say, Koening? it was quite good), it was almost entirely fictional. Walt was barely there (only a day or two), he never went to London, etc. I actually feel bad talking about it, because as good as the article was, I wish I had never read it. LOL.

 

[ford91exploder]

Walt will never be a candidate for sainthood, He was a creative genius with a hard childhood which shaped his attitudes

 

[Prince-1]

One of the big problems with Walt Disney is that the public relations department worked overtime for many years polishing his image. To this day many people believe in all of the hyperbole about Walt and don't realize or care to admit he had very serious flaws. Most people seem to prefer the sugar coated Walt.

A sugar coated Walt is tastier than one without a nice sugar coating.

 

[truecoat]

It may have been a much more dramatic telling of the events that happened, but it still was a great movie (and a type of movie we rarely see from Disney these days) and tells a story that gets people interested in Walt and P.L. Travers, which can only be a good thing.

I liked the movie but the thing that bothered me is this build up to the aunt coming to save the day, aka Mary Poppins. She arrives too late and any relationship between her and PL Travers was never fully explored. The movie is almost over by that point.

 

[Cesar R M]

A lot of saving Mr. Banks was fictional. Walt wasn't even around when PL Travers arrived to work out the script for Mary Poppins. He took off on vacation and left the Sherman brothers to deal with the author. I don't know if he did that so he could put in all of the things that Travers didn't want in the movie. Saving Mr. Banks painted Walt and PL in a more likable way (sugar coated). Maybe that movie was made to kick start the sequel to Mary Poppins that Disney is planning on rebooting soon.

Agree on this.. Ms Travers never liked the movie and feel "betrayed" in reality.. refusing to give his subsequent books to anyone else.
I remember reading about this after watching the movie. They sugarcoated the movie a lot. Just says a lot of how unlikable in real life Ms travers was.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I can't tell if you're serious.

Yeah, let's hope he's kidding.

 

[Magenta Panther]

So here's the thing about P.L. Travers and "Saving Mr. Banks": Just how accurate was that movie in regards to Travers' opinion of the "Mary Poppins" film?

Well, that depends...on Travers' many moods. Here's what her biographer had to say on the subject:

Lawson says Travers believed there was an arrangement between her and the Disney company for a sequel to Mary Poppins, so she was very cautious and would say, ''Thank you, it was great,'' in correspondence about the film.

In a telegram to Walt Disney in the Mitchell collection, she is effusive in her congratulations after the movie's first night. She writes ''… from my point of view keeps contact with the spirit of Mary Poppins … and for your faithfulness my thanks and affection. Pamela Travers.''

However, Lawson says: ''But privately, in private letters more and more as she got older, she really hated it and then 10 years after the movie she disliked it, and 20 years after the movie she hated it and didn't hold back from saying that.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...oppins-creator-pl-travers-20140104-30akz.html

So did the movie lie about Travers' reaction? Well, yes and no, apparently. During her bitter, final years, she said she loathed "Mary Poppins"...yet, initially, she was really excited about its success. And isn't it interesting that Travers WANTED a sequel to Walt's "Mary Poppins", despite the fact that she supposedly hated it so much and all.

Now you all know that the press was out to get "Saving Mr. Banks", because it was soooooooooo certain that it wouldn't portray Walt in a "truthful" way and that it would make poor poor P.L. Travers look bad in order to make Walt look good. But the truth is, the film was really very kind to Travers. She was a genuine piece of work. What kind of person decides to adopt only one child of a set of twins on the advice of her astrologer? And then doesn't tell the kid he's got a twin brother, and he only finds out about it when his brother shows up on their doorstep one day? The kid grew up to be an alcoholic. I wonder why?

As for the PBS special, I haven't seen it yet, but if it harped on Walt's supposed "dark side", well, what a surprise. It did draw heavily on Neal Gabler's biography of Walt, which Diane Disney Miller hated. She and others, including author Michael Barrier, who's written a lot about animation in general and Walt in particular, have attacked Gabler's book for its inaccuracies. By contrast, Bob Thomas' Disney biography has never been attacked in such a way. So all in all, I think I'll stick to that one. After all, Bob Thomas actually MET and interviewed Walt himself several times. I think he - and Diane - are the greater authorities when it comes to portraying the kind of man Walt really was.

 

[michmousefan]

I watched a PBS documentary on Walt Disney and it was interesting. He is like Jobs and Lucas - would come to the forefront to take 100% of the credit when there was success for the company ( and keep the money ). A lot of his staff left because they were treated horrible. Walt was lucky he had his brother Roy because he was the businessman who kept the company going when it was in horrible shape. Plus' Walt had a very dark side to him.

I definitely saw the parallels to Jobs in the doc... much as you mentioned, plus when underlings rebelled they each took it personally and responded immaturely... both avoided signs of illness to the point of denial... both genius visionaries.

Didn't see as many parallels with Lucas, but maybe that's just me.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Walt will never be a candidate for sainthood, He was a creative genius with a hard childhood which shaped his attitudes

No, he wasn't a saint.

Nonetheless, he changed the world.