Tony Perkis
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't dispute that at all.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Oscar Nominations 2014
- Thread starter danlb_2000
- Start date
AndyLL
Member
The screen writer says the script was written without input from Disney:
http://www.slashfilm.com/interview-kelly-marcel-on-writing-saving-mr-banks/
Tony Perkis
Well-Known Member
Fun fact: scripts aren't always filmed as originally written.
AndyLL
Member
So what. She says Disney did not change the script
Tony Perkis
Well-Known Member
So, you're willing to bet that the interpretation portrayed in the film is accurate, right?
I'd put hard money against that idea.
Skip
Well-Known Member
I can't believe this argument has gone on for as long as it has...
Entertainment value does not necessarily = cinematic quality. Does it offer value? Yes, of course, but a thoughtless action film can be very "fun" without having deeper thematic value that warrants awards attention.
Entertainment /=/ deserving of Oscar nominations/wins
Financial success /=/ deserving of Oscar nominations/wins
Audience love /=/ deserving of Oscar nomations/wins
What's so hard about this? Also, to suggest Wolf of Wall Street was "smut" says a lot about one's inability to perceive cinematic quality...
Saving Mr. Banks seems to be a pleasant enough, sugarcoated film. (I haven't seen it yet, but I plan to.) It's underperformed financially. I'm a bit surprised Emma Thompson wasn't nominated, but, it isn't the hugest injustice. To suggest the film wasn't sugarcoated in any way betrays a considerable amount of naivete.
Entertainment value does not necessarily = cinematic quality. Does it offer value? Yes, of course, but a thoughtless action film can be very "fun" without having deeper thematic value that warrants awards attention.
Entertainment /=/ deserving of Oscar nominations/wins
Financial success /=/ deserving of Oscar nominations/wins
Audience love /=/ deserving of Oscar nomations/wins
What's so hard about this? Also, to suggest Wolf of Wall Street was "smut" says a lot about one's inability to perceive cinematic quality...
Saving Mr. Banks seems to be a pleasant enough, sugarcoated film. (I haven't seen it yet, but I plan to.) It's underperformed financially. I'm a bit surprised Emma Thompson wasn't nominated, but, it isn't the hugest injustice. To suggest the film wasn't sugarcoated in any way betrays a considerable amount of naivete.
AndyLL
Member
Nobody said that. You were wrong so now you're trying to move the goal posts.
You said:
So you are wrong in your claim that any inaccuracies were because of Disney unless you claim the scriptwriter is lying.
We know there are inaccuracies in the film. One of them is that Travers by most accounts was much nastier in real life then portrayed in the movie.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
"Haven't seen it yet", yeah, that really boosted your credibility.
If you believe that Wall Street and its denizens are intrinsically evil, and you don't mind 3 hours worth of naked debauchery, yeah, "Wolf" is for you. I snickered all the way through it myself.
And I'm happy to say that "Banks" will be profitable. It's made over 75 million here to date, and it's going great guns in Australia as I type this, with many more countries to go. Audience reaction for it has been overwhelmingly positive. It's gonna kill on Blu-Ray, wait and see.
Skip
Well-Known Member
"Haven't seen it yet", yeah, that really boosted your credibility.
If you believe that Wall Street and its denizens are intrinsically evil, and you don't mind 3 hours worth of naked debauchery, yeah, "Wolf" is for you. I snickered all the way through it myself.
And I'm happy to say that "Banks" will be profitable. It's made over 75 million here to date, and it's going great guns in Australia as I type this, with many more countries to go. Audience reaction for it has been overwhelmingly positive. It's gonna kill on Blu-Ray, wait and see.
Whether or not I've seen Saving Mr. Banks does not impact the legitimacy/accuracy of my earlier statements, which you have conveniently ignored. I have done my share of the research on the PL Travers v. Disney affair, and the evidence seems to enormously support the notion that this film is sugarcoated - but you simply refuse to recognize that, so I won't pursue that avenue any further, you're going to believe what you'd like to believe.
I think you missed the point of the debauchery - and hell, the entire film. It needed to be edited down by another 30-45 minutes, but it was one of the strongest films of the year. Either way, the joke is on you, since you apparently paid for a movie ticket to see it.
Banks will probably be profitable. Doesn't mean it didn't underperform to their expectations (and per the industry, it has). Audience reaction has been positive, which is great for the film's longevity - but again, that doesn't warrant awards attention, nor does its probable profitability (see my three equations above). You seem to be defending Saving Mr. Banks with an odd aggressiveness, as if implying this film underperformed in any way, shape, or form is somehow a personal attack on you... legitimately, I'm not sure why.
Tony Perkis
Well-Known Member
I would absolutely believe that the scriptwriter was lying. She's not a Hollywood heavyweight, and it would do her career no favors to say Disney wanted the film to be taken in a cleaner, ager direction. Upon the release of Spider-Man 3, Sam Raimi made mention that the studio didn't interfere with his vision, yet years later, it's clear that wasn't the film he wanted to make at all. News flash: people lie to protect their careers. Don't off the people signing your checks by complaining about them to the media.
Let's say I'm incorrect. If this truly was her script, then she wrote one of the safest, most ambition-less films of the year, and she's just as guilty of revising history as I'm claiming Disney is.
Tony Perkis
Well-Known Member
If all you saw in The Wolf of Wall Street is 3 hours of unwarranted debauchery, then the film went over your head. It isn't even a subtle film. It's hilarious and maddening at the same time, and you're not supposed to laugh out loud as if this group of Wall Street brokers were nothing more than regurgitating The Hangover films. If that's all you saw, condescending as it will sound to you, you flat out missed the point of the film.
Travel Junkie
Well-Known Member
Virtually every script is changed quite a bit between the sold stage and the beginning of production. Only auteur’s like Tarentino have control over their scripts. There are writers that are paid to rewrite scripts to the wishes of the studio. Most of the time these writers do not get screen credit for their re-writes, but are instead paid very very well. It’s an open secret, but in interviews screenwriters will not admit their script was changed.
RandomPrincess
Keep Moving Forward
Hollywood always changes the facts in a true story to make it more entertaining. Just look at the Butler this year, they even changed the name of the main character because it became it's own thing, so much was changed it's unbelievable.