Why did Walt ultimately go with this version (which, If I'm assuming correctly, represented HIS dad), after promising to tell the story he finally understood she'd written (about HER dad)?
Am I even interpreting the film correctly?
The way I see it, Walt Disney was just as stubborn about getting his way as P.L. Travers was. The difference was, he did it with charm. The old saying about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar comes to mind. Did you notice how many times in the movie Walt says to someone, "how can I make you happy?" or "we need to make her happy." A lot.
The other thing is that Walt had a vision of the story and the movie it would become that was much bigger, happier and more optimistic than Travers' books ever were. Once he had her signature releasing the rights, he chose his vision over hers. And it's a good thing for generations of movie lovers -- and especially music lovers -- that he did.
I don't think, in the movie, that Walt promised to tell the story he finally understood she'd written. His words were closer to: Wouldn't you like to let go [of all your pain] once and for all? Trust me. Trust me with your story.
No. It is NOT a good thing he did. He hurt a poor woman who was honoring her father. He didn't give a *beep* about her father. He Just wanted things his way. He gave her father a second death. Mary Poppins is not a children's story. He re-killed her father.
sharethe whole thing is nonsense. Mary Poppins is not about P.L. Travers's dad. The Mary Poppins books are fantasy stories about children and their magical nanny. Mr Banks is only a background figure, as is Mrs Banks. they are really not very important i. The stories.
shareYou are 100% wrong. They are about Travers' father
shareMy point exactly. He was a Jerk and didn't give a flying *beep* about her father.
shareAnd yes, he wanted him one his father, not hers. He didn't care Mr. Banks was her father.
shareExcept much like Walt Disney's father, Traver Goff had a mustache. Also in an interview, she said that they weren't based much on her parents. And I hate to break it to you but The Mary Poppins books are in fact children books. I can't think of many authors for adults that want illustrations much less originally from the man who illustrated Winnie the Pooh.
shareThat is true.
shareUh, no. Travers Goff did not have a mustache. He was clean shaven. And even though she won't admit it, Mary Poppins WAS based on her family and father. She Just never admitted it.
shareYes he did.
http://www.1qct.org/2015/06/being-mr-banks/
Soylent Green is people.
If she never admitted it, then how could you know?
I respectfully disagree with you. Disney was under no obligation to "honor her father," which is such a subjective sentiment that no successful businessman--let alone Walt Disney--would ever agree to it. His business is to make films with mass appeal for mass profits. Of course he was going to make executive decisions if he didn't think her absurdly detailed specs would please the audience--that was his gig.
The emotional onus is 100% on her to deal with her feelings and frankly, if she was so protective, she should not have exposed her work to what she felt was a danger to its integrity. To share your creative work with others means you relinquish some control, because you can't tell the audience what to picture or think or interpret. If you can't handle that, you really should re-think selling.
And Disney wasn't obligated to follow the books to the letter--it's an ADAPTATION, not a reproduction.
"Now, bring me that horizon."