Saving Mr. Banks Question

[aladdin2007]

Amazing movie first of all, loved it. Captured the magic of Walt Disney and something all the clueless execs should be made to see. But anyway, have a question. In the movie Walt goes after Mrs Travers to her home in London, to get her to agree one last time. Did Walt really fly to London and go to her home? Or was that one of the fictional parts in the movie. I know the driver was an added in storyline. But we are trying to figure the other part being real or not. Thanks

 

[englanddg]

Amazing movie first of all, loved it. Captured the magic of Walt Disney and something all the clueless execs should be made to see. But anyway, have a question. In the movie Walt goes after Mrs Travers to her home in London, to get her to agree one last time. Did Walt really fly to London and go to her home? Or was that one of the fictional parts in the movie. I know the driver was an added in storyline. But we are trying to figure the other part being real or not. Thanks

No. It didn't happen like that. Preliminary rights and a six year agreement were already signed before the real PL Travers flew to Disney. Walt didn't fly over to London to chase her down. All fiction. That whole thing about getting the "rights" to the character was made up for the story.

But, it was a great movie and it added to the plot, so...I'll take it!

 

[aladdin2007]

No. It didn't happen like that. Preliminary rights and a six year agreement were already signed before the real PL Travers flew to Disney. Walt didn't fly over to London to chase her down. All fiction. That whole thing about getting the "rights" to the character was made up for the story.

But, it was a great movie and it added to the plot, so...I'll take it!

Thanks, kinda thought Walt didn't fly all the way to London after her, but did make it interesting. Will let my friends know.

 

[Hakunamatata]

Amazing movie first of all, loved it. Captured the magic of Walt Disney and something all the clueless execs should be made to see. But anyway, have a question. In the movie Walt goes after Mrs Travers to her home in London, to get her to agree one last time. Did Walt really fly to London and go to her home? Or was that one of the fictional parts in the movie. I know the driver was an added in storyline. But we are trying to figure the other part being real or not. Thanks

Which of the execs are clueless and which are not? I would assume the execs who were involved with the movie are on the side of having a clue.

 

[Magenta Panther]

No. It didn't happen like that. Preliminary rights and a six year agreement were already signed before the real PL Travers flew to Disney. Walt didn't fly over to London to chase her down. All fiction. That whole thing about getting the "rights" to the character was made up for the story.

But, it was a great movie and it added to the plot, so...I'll take it!

Hmmm...I'm confused. Here's what Tom Hanks had to say about that scene:

Do you think the final conversation played out like we see in the movie?

I would love to have been privy to whatever that last meeting was, which did happen. I mean, he (Walt Disney) flew to London instantaneously. He might have just said, "Honey, you're gonna make a sh*tload of money." And that might have been enough to turn it around.

http://news.moviefone.com/2013/12/12/tom-hanks-saving-mr-banks/

 

[englanddg]

Hmmm...I'm confused. Here's what Tom Hanks had to say about that scene:

Do you think the final conversation played out like we see in the movie?

I would love to have been privy to whatever that last meeting was, which did happen. I mean, he (Walt Disney) flew to London instantaneously. He might have just said, "Honey, you're gonna make a sh*tload of money." And that might have been enough to turn it around.

http://news.moviefone.com/2013/12/12/tom-hanks-saving-mr-banks/

Not that I doubt Hanks, but I'd be curious to see where that is documented, or if he just conflated the script with real life (which, I agree, is doubtful, because he...as always...did a TON of research into this role so he could do it well)...

But, Walt flying to London after the Traver's visit isn't documented anywhere that I can find...outside of the link you posted.

 

[Disneyfanman]

The basics were true because I had read about them before. PL Travers needed the money and was angry about selling the rights. She came to CA with a chip on her shoulder. Disney did take her to DL as part of his courtship for the rights. She wasn't initially invited to the premier. Beyond that I am sure many scenes were dramatized to build up the film, but the basic story matched the facts as I understood them.

 

[luv]

The woman didn't want her beloved story turned into a ridiculous cartoon musical. I cannot blame her at all for that.

I also don't blame her for selling the rights if she needed the money. We do what we have to do.

If it's true that she had some ridiculous aversion to red and Walt put Dick Van in a red & white striped jacket just to passive-aggressively spite her, it doesn't speak very well of him. But, they obviously had their differences.

It was a good movie. SAD, but good.

 

[Hakunamatata]

The woman didn't want her beloved story turned into a ridiculous cartoon musical. I cannot blame her at all for that.

I also don't blame her for selling the rights if she needed the money. We do what we have to do.

If it's true that she had some ridiculous aversion to red and Walt put Dick Van in a red & white striped jacket just to passive-aggressively spite her, it doesn't speak very well of him. But, they obviously had their differences.

It was a good movie. SAD, but good.

My guess would be that the requests she made up front when she was really just going through the motions were addressed again and after she was more comfortable with what she was seeing she approved. After all, she continued to wear red lipstick.

 

[luv]

My guess would be that the requests she made up front when she was really just going through the motions were addressed again and after she was more comfortable with what she was seeing she approved. After all, she continued to wear red lipstick.

I hope so.

They said she really did cry at the premiere and was very unhappy with the movie.

Sometimes I think authors should just not watch the movies...but the temptation would be so strong, I'm sure!

Anyway, they're both dead now, so nobody is unhappy any more.

 

[Hakunamatata]

I hope so.

They said she really did cry at the premiere and was very unhappy with the movie.

Sometimes I think authors should just not watch the movies...but the temptation would be so strong, I'm sure!

Anyway, they're both dead now, so nobody is unhappy any more.

Well the movie made it appear that she was sort of crying out of happiness, or that was the impression I got. She made the comment she was crying because she didn't like the animation sequence, but I got the impression that was sort of said in jest to Walt as a way to explain away her crying due to pride.

 

[englanddg]

The basics were true because I had read about them before. PL Travers needed the money and was angry about selling the rights. She came to CA with a chip on her shoulder. Disney did take her to DL as part of his courtship for the rights. She wasn't initially invited to the premier. Beyond that I am sure many scenes were dramatized to build up the film, but the basic story matched the facts as I understood them.

The rights with a 6 year agreement were signed before Travers ever stepped foot in California. She did, however, retain final script approval. The fight wasn't over the rights (as the movie indicates)...it was getting her to approve Walt's treatment.

Also, it's been widely documented the "red" thing was true, but was simply her being spiteful with the production team.

 

[Hakunamatata]

The rights with a 6 year agreement were signed before Travers ever stepped foot in California. She did, however, retain final script approval. The fight wasn't over the rights (as the movie indicates)...it was getting her to approve Walt's treatment.

Also, it's been widely documented the "red" thing was true, but was simply her being spiteful with the production team.

Im guessing there must have been ongoing goodwill since we still see many things Poppins in the parks etc.

 

[englanddg]

Im guessing there must have been ongoing goodwill since we still see many things Poppins in the parks etc.

Contractual goodwill...that's all.

Travers got more bitter later on (possibly due to underbidding the IP and the accolades the film won, but that's my supposition)...she left in her will that Disney is to NEVER get any further rights to any other Mary Poppins stories, and fought that throughout the rest of her life as well.

That's why you've never seen one (which, honestly, may not be a bad thing)...

 

[luv]

Well the movie made it appear that she was sort of crying out of happiness, or that was the impression I got. She made the comment she was crying because she didn't like the animation sequence, but I got the impression that was sort of said in jest to Walt as a way to explain away her crying due to pride.

The movie was fictionalized. "Based on" real events, but fictionalized.

It was wonderful! The idea of a woman having a cathartic breakdown that brought her a sense of peace regarding her turbulent childhood - all thanks to good old Walt and his company's adaptation of her text...it was very moving. It was beautiful. It was one of many scenes that had me in tears. But it wasn't a factual account.

The author did not like the movie. She disliked it so much that even her will stipulated much about Mary Poppins and how the people involved with the movie were not be involved with it after her death.

She did cry at the premiere, they say, but they weren't happy tears.

The limo driver thing was made up because, they said, they felt she wasn't sympathetic enough and they "needed someone to like her."

I'm eager to read her biography and have already ordered it from amazon.

 

[Hakunamatata]

The movie was fictionalized. "Based on" real events, but fictionalized.

It was wonderful! The idea of a woman having a cathartic breakdown that brought her a sense of peace regarding her turbulent childhood - all thanks to good old Walt and his company's adaptation of her text...it was very moving. It was beautiful. It was one of many scenes that had me in tears. But it wasn't a factual account.

The author did not like the movie. She disliked it so much that even her will stipulated much about Mary Poppins and how the people involved with the movie were not be involved with it after her death.

She did cry at the premiere, they say, but they weren't happy tears.

The limo driver thing was made up because, they said, they felt she wasn't sympathetic enough and they "needed someone to like her."

I'm eager to read her biography and have already ordered it from amazon.

I'm curious if her estate, which I would assume there would be one, would be up in arms over this movie then because the five adults I went to see the movie with got the distinct impression "they lived happily ever after".

 

[luv]

I'm curious if her estate, which I would assume there would be one, would be up in arms over this movie then because the five adults I went to see the movie with got the distinct impression "they lived happily ever after".

I think her son died. The two were estranged, anyway, but I think I read that he died a few years ago. I'm not sure.

The movie DID leave the impression of a happy ending. No doubt!

It was "based on" real events, not a documentary. Even Disney isn't suggesting they didn't make stuff up. It isn't like anyone who reads the truth is catching Disney in a lie. I hope I didn't sound like I was implying that! Disney hasn't claimed it is all the Gospel Truth.

It's just a movie. And it was a great movie!

 

[Hakunamatata]

I think her son died. The two were estranged, anyway, but I think I read that he died a few years ago. I'm not sure.

The movie DID leave the impression of a happy ending. No doubt!

It was "based on" real events, not a documentary. Even Disney isn't suggesting they didn't make stuff up. It isn't like anyone who reads the truth is catching Disney in a lie. I hope I didn't sound like I was implying that! Disney hasn't claimed it is all the Gospel Truth.

It's just a movie. And it was a great movie!

Oh not at all. It's just the perception that Disney left. Someone could very easily make a version of the other perspective and I could see Disney being called to task about it.

I would still love to see a movie about how the parks came about. Start with the creation of Snow White which basically funded things, on to DL, then WDW.

 

[englanddg]

Travers...was a mentally disturbed woman.

A very interesting one...but a very complex one.

Had the movie tried to portray the truth, I don't think anyone would have wanted to see it.

I'm quite happy with the treatment.

 

[englanddg]

Oh not at all. It's just the perception that Disney left. Someone could very easily make a version of the other perspective and I could see Disney being called to task about it.

I would still love to see a movie about how the parks came about. Start with the creation of Snow White which basically funded things, on to DL, then WDW.

Or a miniseries. Come on Tom Hanks, do it!