Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

:icondrock625: More from Drock625

More from deviantART


Submitted on
January 14
Image Size
102 KB


2 (who?)

Rating: 5/10

Well let’s start off by saying this is a good film but there are a lot of flaws in it. Most of it has to do with historical inaccuracies.

But let’s talk about the film itself. P.L. Travers refuses to let Walt Disney “ruin” her book, but then it comes off to a happy ending, no shit. Good morning everyone.
Saving Mr. Banks is a dramatization of how the Walt Disney Company made the all famous “Mary Poppins” and they did it with the books writer, P.L. Travers. Emma Thompson plays P.L. Travers in this movie, and does a great job at doing so.  Her character is this sort of, or not sort of, lonely character that really has segregated herself because the loss of her father. Played and well done that is by Colin Ferrell, who did a great job at playing a drunken failure of a father but has a lot of time for his daughters. The flashback towards Childhood is nice as well, we see this caring and loving father, but we also see this worried mother, who wants her husband to wake up to reality.
But then we move forward to the time when we finally meet Tom Hanks as Walt Disney. Now let’s talk about Tom Hanks, did he “Kill it” as Walt Disney, well he did, but when I see him all I see is Tom Hanks, I don’t see Walt Disney, which was a big problem to me, it was just way too noticeable, basically nobody looks like Walt Disney, if we actually get an actor who looks like Walt Disney, then it wouldn’t be so distracting. I’m just saying, it was obviously Tom Hanks, so yeah.
In the movie, Walt Disney loves making Mrs. Travers feel at home, and he liked approaching her and doing whatever he needs to make her feel comfortable to sign over the rights to her book.

In one scene, Walt Disney tricks her into going to 1960s Walt Disney Land, where SOME people dress up like its 2013!!! XDXDXDXD HAHAHA
Hey write down below if you saw a kid wearing a Jesse hat from Toy Story 2. ;)
Anyways then as we move forward, we start Seeing P.L. Travers starting to get into the Disney spirit. She was dancing to “Let’s Go Fly A Kite” which was a rather, soothing scene.  But then we get that misunderstanding cliché where she didn’t want animation and she returned to England, but then Walt Disney followed her there, and then he convinced her to trust him in making this film. Sure enough, they finished it, she was happy with the results, and everyone was happy.

Well the screenwriting, and acting, and story telling was okay, but as far as historical accuracy goes, it’s just not there. The movie shows Walt Disney as being this sort of kind hearted character, and in the movie it shows that he was always with Travers almost the whole time but in reality, he was never really there with her. He just completely abandoned ship and left her with the brothers to do the work with her, which is one part this movie got right but not fully right.
Also P.L. Travers never danced around to any of the songs, in fact the only song she sort of found rythem to was “feed the birds” but she never got up and danced around.
And also Travers wasn’t alone like how the movie portrays. She was planning on adopting two sons, but she only adopted one. She was a mother, which was never announced in the movie.

Yes P.L. Travers did cry in the movie premiere, but not in the way the movie portrayed.  This movie is structured to make us root for Walt Disney, after all we know the story ends with the creation of the family classic Marry Poppins. In Saving Mr. Banks, P.L. Travers played by Emma Thompson weeps as she overcomes the apparent relief and feeling, finally, that she had some closure on the death of her erratic, and alcoholic father. Again this is not accurate, in reality, Mrs. Travers cried to the embarrassment of Disney and his staff. She was in such a shock that name on the screen, “Mary Poppins” was so sudden, it hardly mattered and then she also didn’t like that she was listed as a “consultant.”

And the whole thing that happened to in the movie, Walt Disney being so nice, but in reality he was sort of a pushover. Travers would approach Disney and say the Animation has to go, because she so hated animation (which was portrayed almost accurately in the movie) but Walt Disney would respond to her by walking away, saying as he did “Pamela, the ship has sailed.” After that, she was enraged by what she believed was “shabby” treatment at his hand and would never again agree to anymore Poppins/Disney adaptations, even though he tried to persuade her to change her mind.
So in reality, Travers hated the film and was displeased by her mistreatment during the production.

I don’t know you guys but a more historically accurate movie would’ve been more interesting,. As good as “Saving Mr. Banks” is, it really made me feel like watching Mary Poppins, and I did, a more historically accurate film would’ve been better. The Real Travers’ life is more interesting than the made up one in the movie.
And don’t even get me started with the Walt Disney in the movie, far inaccurate from the real Walt Disney. In reality, Walt Disney was not really the Walt Disney most people would think him to be. He has acted in ways such as selfish, power hungry, unfair, racist, etc. Selfish in the sense that when a Disney film is released, his name dominates the opening credits, whilst the real animators, who animated the movie, really don’t get any credit, and they didn’t like that at all. This “Uncle Walt” Was starting to look less like a fatherly figure and more like a tyrant. Okay that’s a strong word but I can’t think of any other words. I know he wasn’t a tyrant, and I know what a tyrant is and Walt Disney was far from that. Yes the Real Walt Disney wasn’t like the one we want to believe in. And don’t give me that “ah you just got it from the internet” bullshit because I didn’t. I got it by watching documentaries, reading books, and biographies of Walt Disney, and then searched on the internet as a last resort. And the people who actually worked with him knew who he really was, and saw exactly what I just said. A false “uncle walt” that was far from an “uncle” figure. I swear there are a lot of Disney fans that are just so one sided, they don’t want to face facts, and they’re sort of like those people who believed that the Jewish Holocaust was made up and never happened when the evidence is there.  And then this one Disney fan tried to argue with me by saying “everything you just said was made up by the other companies because they were jealous of his success” okay yeah that is stupid on so many levels, because one: there is no evidence that points to that, two: there is evidence that supports my claim, three: with all these sources I can prove to you I’m right, but then again you’ll still refuse to believe in facts, so if you guys want to embarrass yourselves, go right ahead and make yourselves look like idiots, I don’t care. I sort of love making fools out of you.  Honestly, saying that all those bad things are made up by people who were jealous of his success is BEYOND STUPID.

Oh and before you say “umm… last time I checked this isn’t a documentary” no its not, but it is a docudrama, so it needs to stay close to the real story.

“who cares about historical accuracy just enjoy the movie”
Okay, first of all: I did
Second of all: Very typical for so called “Walt Disney Fans” who know nothing of the real Walt Disney to say. For someone who knows everything about Walt Disney the historical inaccuracy is just way too noticeable for someone like me, and it’s bothersome. I still enjoyed the movie, but you get the historical inaccuracies, and then we go to 1960s Disneyland some people dress up like its 2013. XDXD way too funny. That kid with the Jesse hat. Oh man.

In conclusion, this movie is good, or at least, just okay, it does have some good moments, and it also has some emotional moments as well, there were some parts where I started getting teary eyed, but still, it’s not the Walt Disney movie we’ve been waiting for. I’m pretty sure a lot of us are waiting for the movie about Walt Disney himself, Saving Mr. Banks was not about Walt Disney it was about Travers, the false story about her that is. The real story is way more interesting.
Whilst this movie is good, its not the Walt Disney movie we've been waiting for. We're still waiting for the movie about the man himself, and make it historically accurate please. Because for some people who know everything about him, the historical inaccuracies are way to noticeable. And two, these so-called "Disney fans" who know nothing about him, need to learn about their childhood "hero." Since they don't wanna face facts.
And Get Steven Spielberg to direct it. I mean,  did you guys see "Lincoln?" That is a great GREAT GREAT FILM!!!! And it so historically accurate despite only like what 2 or three inaccuracies, okay maybe there are more then that, but goddammit, Lincoln was so very very close to reality, it was the Lincoln movie I was waiting for, it was the one i was hoping for, it is one of Americas greatest films. "Saving Mr. Banks" however, is just not the Walt Disney movie we've been waiting for.
Add a Comment:
Oh, forgot to add. About the Jesse hat being worn by a boy in the movie... it's not necessarily a historical inaccuracy. It can also be a cameo, you know, a kind of homage. Cowboy hats were pretty common at that time so the hat itself is not out of place. They just decided to use the design of Jesse's hat for it. It's like the Mickey Mouse cameos, or Pixar adding their signature Pizza Planet truck in Brave. A wink to the fans.
WOW!!! Okay seriously, like I told the other person, I was joking around with it, no it’s not historical inaccuracy, but it is still inaccurate to the movie’s time period, and thus would result in lazy film making. “Cowboy hats were pretty common at that time” yes but not anything from the Toy Story franchise, so yes it is out of place. Just another typical excuse from a Disney fan. “They just decided to use the design of Jesse’s hat for it.” And this proves my point. And yet you’re comparing cartoons with cameos, to a docu/comedy/drama. Yeah like that totally makes sense. Hey I used examples of different docudramas or biographies to support my Idea of a Walt Disney movie that stays close to reality, whilst you used cartoons as an example. Yeah… “A wink to the fans.” Totally unnecessary.
Hey, you compare Saving Mr Banks with Raging Bull and Lincoln, I compare the act of including cameos in animated features with including them in live-action films. Your comparison doesn't make sense to me and my comparison doesn't make sense to you, so I say we're even.
PS: At least this movie was better than Frozen. Frozen, as beautiful as it's animation, and its designs are, it lacks a good story.
Frozen is a whole 'nother can of worms, and since you have pointed out that comparing cartoons to live-action makes no sense to you this is a topic I will leave for another discussion.
Who said anything about Comparing Cartoons to Live actions? I sure as hell didn't. You said something about using future cartoons from the 21st century in a movie that takes place in the 1960s, that's the one I said that doesn't make sense. We didn't talk about comparing cartoons to live action, we were talking about using 21st century cartoon (or figures like statues or costumes) in a film in 1960s era.
At least mine makes more sense than yours, mine deals with movies that are based on trues stories, whilst yours have cartoons from 2013 in a movie that is centered in the 60s. Yeah like that definitely makes sense. XD

If I am going to make a movie about him, I will be as accurate as I can, with no modern things that haven't come out yet, because one: Critics like that, two: It's pretty dumb, three: It's also kind of lazy film making, four: It's a biopic, five:...... and that's it.  :rofl: I tried finding a fifth but couldn't

Oh and what did I tell you about me using those other movies as an example of story telling? I'm not comparing them, I'm using Lincoln and Raging Bull as examples. There's a difference.

Okay, in conclusion, it's a pretty good movie, I gave it 5 out of ten, the drama is there, the actors are good, the writing is good, but the historical inaccuracies are just way too noticeable and it really hurts the movie. If the inaccuracies were to be changed, it probably would've altered the movie completely. I also have a problem with the actress who played P.L. Travers' mother. She was also in that stupid Lone Ranger movie. I don't know, she has this emotionless face and she's had that in her TV show, and in both the films. Her talent was completely wasted in "The Lone Ranger." I don't know maybe it's me.

As okay as this movie's fake story is, the real story would've been more interesting.
"At least mine makes more sense than yours..."

Yeah, I figured you'd say something like that, as it seems that's the way it goes with you: "If the idea is mine, it makes sense, if it's from another, it doesn't because it's not my idea". You didn't disappoint me :)

If you do become a director, you will learn that, when it comes to biographical dramas, there is no "real" story. There is the author's interpretation of the story. No matter how accurate you try to be, there will always be aspects that enter more in the category of speculation or downright hearsay that can't either be proven or disproven and it will be your decision to include it or eliminate it, and if you include it, how far you take the idea will also depend on your own interpretation. Not to mention, there will always be an element of fiction in this kind of movies, some added drama/comedy/action intended to attract the average movie viewer. So unless you decide to focus on documentaries that in theory only state proven facts in an unbiased way, even a Walt Disney biography movie made by you, a lover of accuracy, will be open to interpretation, speculation, and fictionalization.
Glad I didn’t ;). And I’m guessing you still don’t understand why my using historical dramas as an example to help a historical drama become good, instead of giving bullshit. Or comparing historical dramas to historical dramas, or whatever you want to say whilst you want to put 2013 cartoon cameos in a historical drama that takes place from 1901 to 1972. Yeah, like that definitely makes sense. Use it as a sort of “wink” to the audience. Okay yeah, I get what you’re saying, but that’s really ludicrous.

Of course, it’s just the author’s interpretation of the real story. And yes I agree with you. I truly do, there will always be some criticism. Yes speculations will always be a part of telling the story, only a documentary can tell you this happened and that happened, but you have to interpret it. And try to make it as close as to reality as possible. Lots of historical movies did this, and did it almost perfectly.
I might dare to say it's you who doesn't understand why I consider both things a comparison and why I consider both comparisons valid. It all depends on the point of view, right?

It all boils down to what you believe to be ludicrous and what others believe to be ludicrous. It's not like they inserted a cellphone in there, or a Stitch plushie. Woody's and Jessie's designs are based on toys and costumes of that era (you can find vintage photos of kids dressed as cowboys and the hats, while not red, are very similar in design) so, technically, a Jessie hat cameo is not that out of place. It doesn't matter that it was created in the 1990s, the design itself is from the 9050s.
Add a Comment: