Saving Mr. Banks Trailer

[Tonka's Skipper]

1. We both mentioned that I just elaborated further what she found wrong with the portrayal of the character in the film.

2.Once again did I mention anything of legality? Nope, I was merely referencing that she was clearly affected by working with american's and the film industry that she didn't want them anywhere near the musical, which is 100 percent true. Also if the contract didn't have any legal standing then the Sherman brothers, who were still around writing mind you, would have written more songs for the play, but they simply were excluded based of the contents of her will.

You stated the will stated no Americans, I pointed out that Disney did the play its been around for years and there are Americans in it and producing it. Disney already had the stage rights, she had nothing to say about it. Her wish's may have been stated in the will but it had no legal standing.

3.She hated the film process simply because it took creative control out of her hands, that would be stifling for any author who wishes to see a faithful representation of their movie. If you look at my post not once will you see the word, she was angry she didn't get her way so I don't know who you are arguing against. Also in your original statement you claimed that after the premiere "Walt reminded her that her rights to change the movie ended at the premier and said I am not changing anything" Which if we are going to be historically accurate is not true. If you don't believe me here are some sites you should check out (x) (x) (x).

Of course she hated it, but if she wanted it done only her way she should not have sold the rights away in the contract. Walt statement I mentioned were quotes from Walt as to what was said.........a fact. Mrs. Travers may have said what you quoted, that I do not know.

4. You clearly stated in response to me posting that Disney had wanted to purse sequels due to Walt's philosophy and he moved on to other films, that it was not simply true, here look "Yes they did not do more work together, but that was because Walt never liked to do follow up films" which was not the case that I was making as I mentioned she did not want anything else to do with the "Disney company" which is completely accurate.

Again I said the fact Walt did not like to do sequels is very true and well documented in interviews. I never said it was the only reason. I believe after Walt died 2 years after the film opened, the production teams running Disney asked Mrs. Travers to do more movies, which of course she didn't grant them.

I know plenty about the kind of woman P l Travers was, she was a brilliant author and wanted to see a faithful version to her piece of work on the screen which she had every right to and to make that happen she was not afraid to step on some toes. All of which you are stating has nothing to do with the original statement I made, which you seemingly "Corrected".

Not totally correct, of keeping total control was what she wanted, she should have produced a movie herself or not signed over the rights to Disney for the money.

I believe we are agreeing more then we realize. We will just have to agree to disagree on the other things.


Just for the record, the Sherman brothers did work on the stage play, both in London and New York, check their bois or the shows histories.

AKK

 

[Sped2424]

Not totally correct, of keeping total control was what she wanted, she should have produced a movie herself or not signed over the rights to Disney for the money.

I believe we are agreeing more then we realize. We will just have to agree to disagree on the other things.


Just for the record, the Sherman brothers did work on the stage play, both in London and New York, check their bois or the shows histories.

AKK

Not totally correct, again, Except producing a movie isn't as simple as waving a magic wand through thin air which is why she had to go through a studio to do it especially back the in day (plus the 100 thousand grand in advance didn't hurt either) Also the Sherman brothers were cited in those play bios because of the previous songs that were included in the play from the film itself. They were not allowed to include any new original material or work with the production, so of course they would be cited. The fact you miss is that I never challenged that Walt didn't like to do sequels, you were bringing in a fact that really didn't help your argument in the context of this information. I am not disagreeing simply correcting where you seemed to have already "corrected".

 

[PirateFrank]

Listen....I love Tom Hanks....but he's not making the transformation for me.
I'm not seeing Walt Disney. I'm seeing Tom Hanks with his pre-castaway gut and a skinny mustache trying to look like Walt. That's it.

Am I the only guy that had great expectations for this film, but got disappointed after seeing the trailer?

 

[englanddg]

Listen....I love Tom Hanks....but he's not making the transformation for me.
I'm not seeing Walt Disney. I'm seeing Tom Hanks with his pre-castaway gut and a skinny mustache trying to look like Walt. That's it.

Am I the only guy that had great expectations for this film, but got disappointed after seeing the trailer?

When I saw it the first time...I didn't get the "Walt" feeling from him until later in the trailer.

Now, I am willing to suspend my disbelief...

I don't think you are wrong though, when I first saw the comparison shots, I thought...he looks NOTHING like Walt!

But, all that being said, I couldn't think of a better headlining actor to play Walt at this point...and I'm sure Hanks will nail the part in the end, as he normally does.

 

[Sped2424]

When I saw it the first time...I didn't get the "Walt" feeling from him until later in the trailer.

Now, I am willing to suspend my disbelief...

I don't think you are wrong though, when I first saw the comparison shots, I thought...he looks NOTHING like Walt!

But, all that being said, I couldn't think of a better headlining actor to play Walt at this point...and I'm sure Hanks will nail the part in the end, as he normally does.

i agree he doesn't look like Walt but that's alright, as long as he captures his attitude in the performance which I am more than sure tom hanks can!

 

[Magenta Panther]

[quote="Sped2424, post: 5598360, member: 86754"
I know plenty about the kind of woman P l Travers was, she was a brilliant author and wanted to see a faithful version to her piece of work on the screen which she had every right to and to make that happen she was not afraid to step on some toes. All of which you are stating has nothing to do with the original statement I made, which you seemingly "Corrected".
[/quote]



She may have been brilliant, but um, well, there's this:

At the age of 40 Travers adopted a baby boy from Ireland named Camillus Hone. He was one of seven grandchildren of Joseph and Vera Hone, Joseph being W. B. Yeats' first biographer. Camillus was one of twins, but Travers refused to take his twin brother Anthony or any of their other siblings. She selected Camillus based on advice from her astrologer. Anthony remained with his grandparents. Neither boy was aware of the other twin's existence until the age of 17, when Anthony appeared unannounced at Travers' London home.[7]

 

[Californian Elitist]

Angela Bassett looks nothing like Tina Turner, but she did a fabulous job playing her and she snagged an Oscar nom for her performance.

It's about the acting skills, not the looks.

 

[Magenta Panther]

It just occurred to me...if "Saving Mr. Banks" is successful, I wonder if TDO/Disney will consider putting some kind of Poppins attraction in the parks? It's waaayyyy overdue...

 

[englanddg]

It just occurred to me...if "Saving Mr. Banks" is successful, I wonder if TDO/Disney will consider putting some kind of Poppins attraction in the parks? It's waaayyyy overdue...

Just a reason to go see it 17 times in a row when it comes out.

 

[Sped2424]

[quote="Sped2424, post: 5598360, member: 86754"
I know plenty about the kind of woman P l Travers was, she was a brilliant author and wanted to see a faithful version to her piece of work on the screen which she had every right to and to make that happen she was not afraid to step on some toes. All of which you are stating has nothing to do with the original statement I made, which you seemingly "Corrected".

She may have been brilliant, but um, well, there's this:

At the age of 40 Travers adopted a baby boy from Ireland named Camillus Hone. He was one of seven grandchildren of Joseph and Vera Hone, Joseph being W. B. Yeats' first biographer. Camillus was one of twins, but Travers refused to take his twin brother Anthony or any of their other siblings. She selected Camillus based on advice from her astrologer. Anthony remained with his grandparents. Neither boy was aware of the other twin's existence until the age of 17, when Anthony appeared unannounced at Travers' London home.[7]

[/quote]

OH MY lol I said brilliant author, never said perfectly perfect person in every way ;D. But seriously that sucks.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Not totally correct, again, Except producing a movie isn't as simple as waving a magic wand through thin air which is why she had to go through a studio to do it especially back the in day (plus the 100 thousand grand in advance didn't hurt either) Also the Sherman brothers were cited in those play bios because of the previous songs that were included in the play from the film itself. They were not allowed to include any new original material or work with the production, so of course they would be cited. The fact you miss is that I never challenged that Walt didn't like to do sequels, you were bringing in a fact that really didn't help your argument in the context of this information. I am not disagreeing simply correcting where you seemed to have already "corrected".

All true on producing a movie, but she wanted the money and the control, she didn't have the control so she played the poor book writer being picked on by the mean Mr. Disney. Plainly, not getting your way doesn't mean you have the right to beat up on the production and general staff making a movie, all that shows is a pushy old gal being rude and very impressed with herself.

The Sherman were sited for work when the stage play was in production in London and other additional cities and were in London in 2003 and 2004 working with Cameron Mackintosh on the new stage play songs and score. That's much more then just their original songs/score.

I never missed the fact you didn't say anything about Walt not liking to do sequels. However you continued to ignore that I never said that Walt not liking to do sequels, was the ONLY reason they didn't do it. You just repeated that Mrs. Travers wouldn't release the rights to do another movie. A fact I agreed with you and confirmed.

So the corrections stand.

AKK

 

[Sped2424]

All true on producing a movie, but she wanted the money and the control, she didn't have the control so she played the poor book writer being picked on by the mean Mr. Disney. Plainly, not getting your way doesn't mean you have the right to beat up on the production and general staff making a movie, all that shows is a pushy old gal being rude and very impressed with herself.

The Sherman were sited for work when the stage play was in production in London and other additional cities and were in London in 2003 and 2004 working with Cameron Mackintosh on the new stage play songs and score. That's much more then just their original songs/score.

I never missed the fact you didn't say anything about Walt not liking to do sequels. However you continued to ignore that I never said that Walt not liking to do sequels, was the ONLY reason they didn't do it. You just repeated that Mrs. Travers wouldn't release the rights to do another movie. A fact I agreed with you and confirmed.

So the corrections stand.

AKK

but you didnt agree with it, you can even look at your own post which I have even quoted for you to see but I suppose we will both have to agree to disagree. Also poor mr disney is not the way that worked out at all, as stubborn as she was he was just as equal. She didn't bully anyone, this was a woman wrote a book and when she was offered something that differed from her vision she got upset. Which is completely and totally fair it does not mean she is picking on anyone she is trying to make sure her vision is represented the way she wanted it. Also sherman brothers did not write anything new for the stage play, "and it’s set to original Sherman brothers music as well as new songs by the British team of George Stiles and Anthony Drewe" Here is a quote for you from this article (x). But everytime I display something with backing you seem to brush it off and keep your stance so I suppose we are going to end this argument here then. My point from the beginning is why correct a statement that withheld its own standing and was correct with your own quote on something that doesn't pertain to the situation.

So my original statement stands.
OK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

but you didnt agree with it, you can even look at your own post which I have even quoted for you to see but I suppose we will both have to agree to disagree. Also poor mr disney is not the way that worked out at all, as stubborn as she was he was just as equal. She didn't bully anyone, this was a woman wrote a book and when she was offered something that differed from her vision she got upset. Which is completely and totally fair it does not mean she is picking on anyone she is trying to make sure her vision is represented the way she wanted it. Also sherman brothers did not write anything new for the stage play, "and it’s set to original Sherman brothers music as well as new songs by the British team of George Stiles and Anthony Drewe" Here is a quote for you from this article (x). But everytime I display something with backing you seem to brush it off and keep your stance so I suppose we are going to end this argument here then. My point from the beginning is why correct a statement that withheld its own standing and was correct with your own quote on something that doesn't pertain to the situation.

So my original statement stands.
OK

My point was that Walt was not the ONLY reason there were no sequels!.....MY Post:


I never said it was the only reason. I believe after Walt died 2 years after the film opened, the production teams running Disney asked Mrs. Travers to do more movies, which of course she didn't grant them.

So you can see I did agree.


She did in indeed bully the movie crew, to the point some were in tears and she was restricted during some of the production. There is no debate she was a mean old nasty gal.

Yes, she wrote a book and sold the rights to that book to Disney and had very LIMITED control. So if she didn't like the final movie, she should have gotten FULL CONTROL in the frist place. She has no one to be upset with but herself.

She had no rights to control the movie. Why would keep saying she does?

Lastly I have read enough to know that the Sherman brothers did add to the stage play:

Quote:

In later years, with Robert's move to London, the brothers wrote many new songs for the stage musical presentations of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and Mary Poppins, produced collaboratively by Disney and Cameron Mackintosh.

Now you can keep saying she had the right to make the movie her way, even though she did NOT!, you can keep saying that due to her will she controlled and prevented any Americans or anyone that worked on the movie from being involved in the stage play, but that is just not true as well.

So this ends it!

AKK

 

[Sped2424]

My point was that Walt was not the ONLY reason there were no sequels!.....MY Post:


I never said it was the only reason. I believe after Walt died 2 years after the film opened, the production teams running Disney asked Mrs. Travers to do more movies, which of course she didn't grant them.

So you can see I did agree.


She did in indeed bully the movie crew, to the point some were in tears and she was restricted during some of the production. There is no debate she was a mean old nasty gal.

Yes, she wrote a book and sold the rights to that book to Disney and had very LIMITED control. So if she didn't like the final movie, she should have gotten FULL CONTROL in the frist place. She has no one to be upset with but herself.

She had no rights to control the movie. Why would keep saying she does?

Lastly I have read enough to know that the Sherman brothers did add to the stage play:

Quote:

In later years, with Robert's move to London, the brothers wrote many new songs for the stage musical presentations of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and Mary Poppins, produced collaboratively by Disney and Cameron Mackintosh.

Now you can keep saying she had the right to make the movie her way, even though she did NOT!, you can keep saying that due to her will she controlled and prevented any Americans or anyone that worked on the movie from being involved in the stage play, but that is just not true as well.

So this ends it!

AKK

Sorry to be that guy but wikipedia isnt the most reliable source when it comes to information is writing it wrong is extremely easy ( also if you look at the top of the page you listed it tells you that the additional music was written by george stiles and anthony drewe) But I digress . She had a right to fight for artistic integrity, it is her work after all she let them do the film on the basis she would be an adviser to the production. And her will did specifically state that but like I said I suppose we have to agree to disagree.
So this ends it. And we can go back and forth but your original post an original statement all the way back at the top was "Yes, they did not do anything more work together, but part of that was because Walt did not like doing follow up movies. He has moved on to other films" which that had nothing to do with why there was not any more follow up films, it was not part of it simply didn't matter. Also I think you should take a film class because getting full creative control over a project when someone is adapting your novel is not only hard its almost unheard of. Its not a blame herself type deal its she tried to work with what she could get and accomplish through working with a film company. Am I saying the end product was bad not at all I love Mary Poppins, I am arguing that as an author it is understandable that she would get upset when she sees something different form than what she wrote.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Just a reason to go see it 17 times in a row when it comes out.

If I like the film, I'll be seeing it more than once, I promise you!

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Sorry to be that guy but wikipedia isnt the most reliable source when it comes to information is writing it wrong is extremely easy ( also if you look at the top of the page you listed it tells you that the additional music was written by george stiles and anthony drewe) But I digress . She had a right to fight for artistic integrity, it is her work after all she let them do the film on the basis she would be an adviser to the production. And her will did specifically state that but like I said I suppose we have to agree to disagree.
So this ends it. And we can go back and forth but your original post an original statement all the way back at the top was "Yes, they did not do anything more work together, but part of that was because Walt did not like doing follow up movies. He has moved on to other films" which that had nothing to do with why there was not any more follow up films, it was not part of it simply didn't matter. Also I think you should take a film class because getting full creative control over a project when someone is adapting your novel is not only hard its almost unheard of. Its not a blame herself type deal its she tried to work with what she could get and accomplish through working with a film company. Am I saying the end product was bad not at all I love Mary Poppins, I am arguing that as an author it is understandable that she would get upset when she sees something different form than what she wrote.

So course, your article is right and mine is wrong....................YOU DO LIKE TO GO AROUND THE BARN AND HIDE WHEN YOUR PROVED WRONG............

this is cute as well:

Yes, they did not do anything more work together, but part of that was because Walt did not like doing follow up movies. He has moved on to other films" which that had nothing to do with why there was not any more follow up films, it was not part of it simply didn't matter.

So the head od Disney not liking sequel was not important? or part of the reason?........that is plain silly............PSST.........your hiding behind the barn again.


Also I think you should take a film class because getting full creative control over a project when someone is adapting your novel is not only hard its almost unheard of. Its not a blame herself type deal its she tried to work with what she could get and accomplish through working with a film company.

Whether is hard to get total control is not the point...she sold that rights away and whined and bullied other people about it afterward.

Am I saying the end product was bad not at all I love Mary Poppins,

This we agree!


I am arguing that as an author it is understandable that she would get upset when she sees something different form than what she wrote.[/quote]


upset.........mad.................unhappy.......sure not a problem. Aware of how the book would be used.......she knew! and the money must have been more important

Bullying and being nasty to everyone......that is childish and rude. As stated before she wanted things her way and se was a plain mean person.

AKK

 

[Sped2424]

So course, your article is right and mine is wrong....................YOU DO LIKE TO GO AROUND THE BARN AND HIDE WHEN YOUR PROVED WRONG............

this is cute as well:

Yes, they did not do anything more work together, but part of that was because Walt did not like doing follow up movies. He has moved on to other films" which that had nothing to do with why there was not any more follow up films, it was not part of it simply didn't matter.

So the head od Disney not liking sequel was not important? or part of the reason?........that is plain silly............PSST.........your hiding behind the barn again.


Also I think you should take a film class because getting full creative control over a project when someone is adapting your novel is not only hard its almost unheard of. Its not a blame herself type deal its she tried to work with what she could get and accomplish through working with a film company.

Whether is hard to get total control is not the point...she sold that rights away and whined and bullied other people about it afterward.

Am I saying the end product was bad not at all I love Mary Poppins,

This we agree!


I am arguing that as an author it is understandable that she would get upset when she sees something different form than what she wrote.

upset.........mad.................unhappy.......sure not a problem. Aware of how the book would be used.......she knew! and the money must have been more important

Bullying and being nasty to everyone......that is childish and rude. As stated before she wanted things her way and se was a plain mean person.

AKK[/quote]
Lol no barn my friend the only site that claims the sherman brothers added new material is wikipedia. Also yes the ceo of a company not doing sequels does not matter when he is no longer there its why they contacted her for sequels in the first place. You seem to just reiterate no matter what I show you lol if anyone is going behind a "barn" its gotta be you she was an advisor to the project therefore her input was going to be given.

 

[stevehousse]

I think ur arguing is annoying and not necessary! The movie looks great! With every "true story" movie you never always get te whole or real truth and its pointless to argue about it!

I think the movie looks great and can't wait to see it!

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

upset.........mad.................unhappy.......sure not a problem. Aware of how the book would be used.......she knew! and the money must have been more important

Bullying and being nasty to everyone......that is childish and rude. As stated before she wanted things her way and se was a plain mean person.

AKK

Lol no barn my friend the only site that claims the sherman brothers added new material is wikipedia. Also yes the ceo of a company not doing sequels does not matter when he is no longer there its why they contacted her for sequels in the first place. You seem to just reiterate no matter what I show you lol if anyone is going behind a "barn" its gotta be you she was an advisor to the project therefore her input was going to be given.[/quote]



Walt was there the first 2 years after the movie opened. and after that it is possible Disney asked to do a sequel or sequels and as Mrs. Travers made clear, she was not interested. Your just repeated your statement.

You have not shown me anything but the Sherman Brothers working on the Stage play. My understanding and reading disagrees with you. Even you posting on the Sherman brothers prove that Disney and Americans were working on the play.

Just because she may have been a advisor does not in any way mean that her advise is going to be taken! She SOLD those rights and your just ignoring that she was just a advisor and nothing more and had no rights in insist that the movie be made the way she wanted.

AKK

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I think ur arguing is annoying and not necessary! The movie looks great! With every "true story" movie you never always get te whole or real truth and its pointless to argue about it!

I think the movie looks great and can't wait to see it!

I agree the new movie will be very interesting. We are talking about the original movie and the stage play.

AKK