what a #itch. why did he try so hard to please her? - Saving Mr. Banks (2013) Discussion

[–] My_Name_Is_Lydia 11 years ago

1) What second movie?
2) He promised his daughters.
3) He loved Mary Poppins.
4) He was a business man. A smart business man.

No signature required

reply

[–] mcolby-125-523976 11 years ago

Disney wanted to make other Mary Poppins movies and she turned him down.

reply

[–] bcheever 11 years ago

I was thinking the same thing. If this was made today the studio would just go around her and make a generic english nanny themed film without getting those specific rights.

I was just thinking that I really liked that she was never really "won over" and it didn't have a hollywood ending. It was just a really difficult project and credit to the team disney for figuring out a way to make it happen anyway.

reply

[–] gottfrid 11 years ago

nanny mcphee perhaps?

"It doesn't matter what Bram Stoker has told you... dead people don't come back from their graves"

reply

[–] Ricardo-36 9 years ago

There is a thing such as brand recognition. Plus, if they did that, she could have sued based on similarities.

"You keep him in here, and make sure HE doesn't leave!"

reply

[–] doug65oh 11 years ago

Therein lies the irony, in that it’s actually the other way around.

The following comes from the book Mary Poppins, She Wrote, written by Valerie Lawson. The underlying source (footnoted) is a 1965 interview of Pamela Travers by Janet Graham:

She told an interviewer that “there is provision for a sequel but on terms to be agreed.” A Mary Poppins Comes Back was unlikely, however, as Disney was “against sequels on principle” and Julie Andrews didn’t appear interested. She read that Andrews, who had gone on to make the movie The Americanization of Emily, and would soon star in The Sound of Music, now demanded $1 million or more for a picture. Pamela was so keen for a sequel that she was going to speak to Julie and “if he [Disney] wants her, she must be generous… He gave her her first chance. If he wants to do a sequel I’m on his side.”

In the end, it was Disney himself who vetoed a Poppins sequel in early 1966, as Ms. Lawson further notes.

reply

[–] 3s2m 11 years ago

Disney wasn't against sequels on principle. Before 1966 they made Son of Flubber and The Monkey's Uncle, both sequels.

reply

[–] KristenStewartForever 9 years ago

#2: he could've went to his daughters and said "I'm sorry, I couldn't get the rights."

#3: he didn't love Mary Poppins. He loved money. All he wanted was the title.

reply

[–] KristenStewartForever 9 years ago

#4: yeah. A liar businessman.

reply

[–] nsnces 11 years ago

There seems to be little evidence that Travers or her agent ever did much to see whether any other studio would have been interested in bidding for the rights; in other words, she should have been finding another way to pay for her precious house. Another studio likely would not pay nearly as much as Disney was offering, but still enough to ensure her financial security, and other studios wouldn't have been so wedded to an approach involving music and animation.

reply

[–] wuyuni 11 years ago

Don't see why people keep posting negative things about Mrs. Travers. Different ideas about manners and being social? Was it so bad that Mrs. Travers was stubborn and not very good with people? Disney had his stubborn streak too. They both had difficult childhoods so they both were insistent on having their own way. I don't see why Travers should be constantly nice when that would actually be less helpful.

reply

[–] mcolby-125-523976 11 years ago

How would that be less helpful? How about being nice for the sake of being nice? I read a short bio about her life the other day and the last sentence said by her son speaks volumes on her character "she died not loving anyone and nobody loving her".

reply

[–] wuyuni 11 years ago

Well the son must have been quite indecisive. He said he did end up loving his mom in a documentary. Everyone has different opinions of others dependinding on when they ask. Disney to me appeared to be nice but he was very self-absorbed and acting like he is the greatest thing ever. So I really don't see why people hate on Travers so much. People really have different perception. Maybe I just happen to root for the underdog but I can understand why she would have her guard up when she was butting heads with one of the biggest franchise in the world. Being nice usually makes you look easy and gullible and she was used to having to defend herself so much.

reply

[–] Winchester_1983 11 years ago

I like the quote "this is not about building an empire" haha sure it wasn't
look at Disney now

reply

[–] speedfreak515 11 years ago

In Walt's mind it wasn't. Things can change when you are gone and other people who control your company don't have he same ideas.

reply

[–] mcharis-1 11 years ago

She is a highly intelligent woman at her 50s (I think), and Disney wanted to add cartoon penguins at her masterpiece!
I don;t know how old are you, but when you will mature and grow up and learn to appreciate things better, you will change your opinion for this amazing woman.

I enjoy everything she did, I laugh every time she was talking back to Disney and I was satisfied when she step up and she insisted to add scenes that at the end it created a movie with some quality value to it.

She enhance with her ideas the original Marry Poppins film and she took it to a level to become one of the best movies in history.

Have some respect for such amazing woman, what your thread title says about you who are cursing such woman? You are far worst than her. How about you make the start being nice first and then talk about other people being nice.

reply

[–] Victoriousn09 10 years ago

She was straight up rude. Doesn't matter how talented and intelligent she was. She was rude. PERIOD.

reply

[–] Molly-31 9 years ago

This. What you are seeing is a clash of cultures. She's a proper English lady. It's almost like two different planets.

Well, the city's being built and I'm winning this game. So don't interrupt us with trifles.

reply

[–] tonychappell 9 years ago

They didn't exactly get off on the right foot when they filled her hotel room with stuffed Disney toys,ballons and the like lol...further exasperating her view of Disney as nothing but a cheesy money grubbing corporate machine....although a sweet scene was when Travers was calling England from her hotel room and saying how homesick she was she ended up grabbing the big stuffed Mickey Mouse and snuggling with it on the bed!

reply

[–] Molly-31 9 years ago

heh, yeah. Bet that part didn't really happen though! X-D

Well, the city's being built and I'm winning this game. So don't interrupt us with trifles.

reply

[–] veil182 11 years ago

Writers who don't understand that films and books are different are annoying.

reply

[–] Bellatrix_B_Lestrange 9 years ago

If you write and create something, you pour your soul into it - it becomes an extension of you, your child. To see what you created, what you saw in your mind be torn apart and changed by outsiders is difficult. She was an artist, this was her masterpiece.

People who don't understand that a writers art is a form of expression and writers have the right to be protective of it, are annoying.

Evil Regal

PROUD MEMBER OF SLYTHERIN

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 11 years ago

what a #itch. why did he try so hard to please her?

This is my biggest issue with this movie — it's told totally from the Disney Corporation's perspective, and it's almost libellous about P.L. Travers.

In the power struggle, Disney Corp. won. It got what it wanted, in pretty much every detail. So why at this distance from the whole thing did they feel the need to paint Travers so black, and Disney so white?

Travers was difficult. By all accounts she was opinionated, defensive, brittle and intolerant of disagreement. But she was *not* a #itch, though she's been turned into one for entertainment and Disney Corp's purposes. What about Disney himself? Disney was certainly not the wise and kindly man this movie paints him as — not always, anyway. Stories abound of how unpleasant he could be, especially to his employees; why aren't people talking about that?

made a lot of money she didn't deserve

Oh please. She created the character. And Disney made a business deal with her. Don't you think saying she didn't deserve the money her creations made her, just because you didn't like the way her character was drawn for dramatic purposes, is a little over the top?

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] gcarras 11 years ago

He made a promise to his girls.

MAGIC=Sarah Silverman.

reply

[–] jerryrip54 11 years ago

Are you in any way related to her? I guess you didn't wait to see the credits sequence in which the actual audio is played of her wanting all of these stupid nonsensical demands. From the moment she first said that she wanted the "number 17" put in the script (totally ridiculous), then a ban on the color red (totally insane), I took her to be a total *itch. It was amazing how this movie ever got made. Thank God it was, because it's one of the classic movies of all time, with 12 Oscar nominations and 4 Academy Awards.

reply

[–] mcolby-125-523976 11 years ago

I know I wouldn't have the patience to put up with her. What a sad waste of her life being miserable all the time. It says a lot that when she died her family said "she died loving nobody and nobody loving her".

reply

[–] DendelionBlu 11 years ago

Are you guys serious?

All her demands mixed with Walt Disney's vision made the movie what it was

Mary Poppins is a masterpiece - it's due to both Travers and Disney, and let's face it, without her input it was probably going to end up slightly lamer, like all the other live action Disney films of the time

You can't see that? That it was a collaboration and collaborations among stubborn people - Travers AND Disney - are always really difficult, and almost always yield great results?

Like it did in this case. Doh.

Follow the latest films around the world!! http://7films.dendelionblu.me

reply

[–] Mosquitha 9 years ago

Do you know that her life was ridiculous from this film? Maybe if you could be bothered enough to read her biography, or even her Wikipedia, you would realize what an interesting an adventurous life she had, very different from the view this film propose. Emma Thompson is a good actress, but the character she portays here is that of a sad bitter loner that could never completely detach from her childhood drama. Read her true story and you will see she was instead an adventurous and passionate woman with a great talent and many interests, a student of mysticism who traveled and experienced the world. I can understand how a person as her could be defensive and unappreciative of Disney and what he represented.

reply

[–] mcolby-125-523976 11 years ago

She wasn't just made into a #itch for dramatic purposes she was actually one in real life. There's a reason someone dies alone and unloved.

reply

[–] Ithilfaen 11 years ago

She wasn't just made into a #itch for dramatic purposes she was actually one in real life. There's a reason someone dies alone and unloved.

I suppose you knew her personally?

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

reply

[–] SataiDelen 10 years ago

Maybe you should do some research on her. She was NOT liked by people. Was she a gifted writer? Yes. Should you admire her for that? Certainly. However, you can like her books and still not like her (as many people who have done research on her, and learned the truth do).

My biggest sore point when it comes to her, is the fact that she went to Ireland, and adopted ONE boy from a set of twins. The grandparents who were at the time raising the boys, BEGGED her to not separate them and take both of them. She selfishly refused, took what she felt was the better of the two boys, and took him back to England to raise. To make things even worse, she lied to the boy and told him he was her NATURAL child, and that his father had been a sugar magnate who had died. He found out when he was 17 that he had a twin, because the twin showed up on P.L. Travers' doorstep. What did she do? She threw him out and forbade her son, Camillus, to ever see his brother again (which he ignored).

This is such a wonderful woman?

If anything, the movie, Saving Mr. Banks, makes her look better and more sympathetic than she really was.

reply

[–] fctiger 10 years ago

Holy shyt, that can't be real??? WTF?

That sounds like something only a true jackass would ever do. Yeah, I notice no one tried to offend this little nugget. 

12 Years a Slave Best Picture Of The Year!!!!!!

reply

[–] xanxei 11 years ago

Where's the damn "like" button? Everything puirt-a-beul said. Yes. So much yes.

reply

[–] theemaster 11 years ago

The whole point was overcoming "adversity"

Actually, if your watching the movie clearly.. she made it better.. by being the #itch she is.. she made it better.. they wrote whole songs about her.. remember?

Banks but all I keep thinking about is some rude, nasty, made a lot of money she didn't deserve.

Take a good look in the mirror.. there are a lot of unhappy people out there.. also the way I SAW the story.. her collaboration or hardship with Disney.. started her writing again.. the story could well be called "Saving Mrs. Helen Goth"

And so were clear hard colorations.. produces better art! (sorry if you don't get that.. )

reply

[–] ambiradams 11 years ago

Yes, she was a hard woman to please but that was only becuase she loved her Mary Poppins deeply and you can see most of the time she is very scared of letting her go. She was terrified that all her hard work, her memories of her father who she based Mr. Banks on who wasn't free of problems but was still a good man and that her personal story and feelings was going to be turned into poop on the big screen which is something that happens more often than not.

I wish more authors had more of a say in what goes on the screen when it comes to their precious work. It takes alot of blood, sweat and tears to create your child (novel). you raise them and watch them grow and to have someone come along and cut it to pieces and drastically change things can do horrible things to your heart.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bitemyneck22 11 years ago

Ribtim are you serious? Get out of here with that stupid crap. I'm surprised Disney kept his cool threw most of the production of Mary Poppins since what we have heard most of the author. That is not what I saw at all. I see Disney not giving up on his story and wanting to tell it. And that is very admirable and another admirable thing is Ms.Travers not wanting to let go of her story afraid that Disney will screw up her memories of her father. It's a beautiful story so you can take your Disney being Lucifer comment elsewhere. Disney did everything he could to satisfy her and it wasn't enough.

Great Scott -Doc Brown

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sailorspysedna 10 years ago

Disney has never "RAPED" fairytales at all! I believe Disney just wanted to make movies of the stories in what he thought would be a good version. Disney also wasn't an "antagonist" at all. He might not have been perfect, but I don't think he was a horrible person at all. I know that P.L. Travers originally wrote Mary Poppins, but the Disney movie was still great too!

So do us all a favor, stop acting like a troll and get your biased *beep* off of here!



reply

[–] tsw453 11 years ago

Are you saying he threw it out a window or something? Please clarify.

reply

[–] Sammerkona 11 years ago

I saw a movie where Disney looked deeper into "the old woman" and got a clearer understanding of what makes her tick by the end of the movie. All the flashbacks gave us insight into just why Mrs Travers was overprotective of her creation. If some want to call her a #itch for that, so be it. But would,t anyone act the same way to protect their "family"?

reply

[–] super-staff 11 years ago

Some people are kindhearted and do try to share that happiness with others, even if they tend to be awful. I'm not saying Walt Disney was one of the aforementioned folks like that (seems that he might've been) but they do exist. To me, sometimes you do catch more bees with honey than vinegar.

reply

[–] mikeglover-19-174920 11 years ago

Just wanted to point out that your saying "...sometimes you do catch more bees with honey than vinegar" is incorrect.

The original saying is "You can catch more FLIES with molasses than vinegar."

There are a number of other variations, such as:
"A teaspoon of sugar will catch more FLIES than a gallon of vinegar."
"You can catch more FLIES with honey than with vinegar."
"An ounce of honey gathers more FLIES than a gallon of gall."

And on and on and on...

Bottom-line: You don't CATCH bees with honey - they MAKE the honey.

reply

[–] tribek 11 years ago

At least she wasn't racist and misogynistic ;-)

As amazing as he was at producing cartoons loved by millions all over the planet the reality of the matter is he wasn't a very nice human-being !

reply

[–] delmoki 11 years ago

And I'm sure you know this because you were there.

reply

[–] super-staff 11 years ago

Oh, Jesus Christ. Are you serious? How uptight and angry do you have to be to go on a tangent like that because I allegedly misquoted an old saying? I'm just flabbergasted by this response.

reply

[–] brunhilda2013 10 years ago

Actually, you can catch flies with vinegar. Fruit flies. If you have a problem with them, mix cider vinegar with liquid soap in an open bowl and place it where they usually gather. Works every time.

reply