Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login


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:
 
:iconwizardelfgirl:
wizardelfgirl Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2014
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.
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2014
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.
Reply
:iconwizardelfgirl:
wizardelfgirl Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
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.
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
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.
Reply
:iconwizardelfgirl:
wizardelfgirl Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
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.
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
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.
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
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.
Reply
:iconwizardelfgirl:
wizardelfgirl Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
"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.
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
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.
Reply
:iconwizardelfgirl:
wizardelfgirl Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
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.
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
Now it may not make sense that the hat is red, but a red hat in those days were very very rare. But it is still out of place because it is easily recognizable as Jessie's hat and no other disney character has that type of hat, so it's still out of place. I'm sure along with red coats there was a red hat in the late 1800s but it was very rare, and hell there was even red pirate hats worn from possibly blackbeard. But hell we can't be too sure. But I agree with you that cowboy hats were common back in the day, but red? No other disney character has a red hat like Jessie's so again, it is out of place.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
Yet just another excuse to try to protect your year's favorite movie. I can tell because you're trying so hard to protect it.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
Yes it does.

I have looked at the designs, trust me a long time ago. I've seen the design that Jesse's hat was based on. But it wasn't the color, and it's only because of Toy Story 2 does it seem like Jesse's hat, so in reality yes it is out of place. And yes it does matter it was created in the 1990s. If it were a regular hat of the same design then it would be relevant but seeing as how these hats had only brown white, and black color, it would be out of place. And the hat is easily recognizable only because of the Toy Story franchise which would make it even more out of place. You might not understand but it's the truth, I've looked a many cowboy hats, and studied these hats, yes I know that sounds weird, but yes. The Jessie hat is out of place.
Reply
:iconwizardelfgirl:
wizardelfgirl Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2014
A very interesting read, but it does leave me wondering what exactly you feel about Walt Disney and how much your review is "tainted", for lack of a better word, by your opinion of him.

Now I'm not going to try to defend Disney. I too have read different biographies and seen documentaries of him, and he was certainly no saint. He had a lot of defects, though in all fairness a lot of people in his generation had those same flaws. He was a man of his time, and while probably better than many, he was still the product of the era he lived in.

However, let's not forget that 1)This movie was all about Travers and Disney was a supporting character, and b) it's a Disney movie. Of course they're not going to portray "the real" Walt Disney. In fact, I felt they were somewhat bold in this movie, as they give a glimpse of the manipulative bastard he could be. If you paid real attention, you will have noticed that, as gentle and kind as he looked, they also let you see he was only being nice to get Travers to sign the papers, and once he got what he wanted he tried to discard her like an inconvenience. That's way more than I thought the studio would dare to show in regards to Disney's flaws.

I have also read the real story of P.L. Travers. I know this movie does not show the real ending. It hints at it, but it doesn't show it. Again, it's a Disney movie. Showing what really happened in the end would have left the audience with a bad taste in their mouths because they expected a happy ending that would match the Mary Poppins movie ending. This was all about the movie version of Mary Poppins, after all, not the book version. This is not about historical accuracy, it's about getting people involved in a romanticized story of how movie Mary Poppins came to be.

If you want a movie about the "real" Disney, I'm afraid you'll have to wait for another studio that isn't Disney to film it. And for the movie to actually be about Walt Disney, not about another character with special appearance by Walt Disney. In this regard, I would not dare compare Saving Mr. Banks with Lincoln. Totally different concepts. Lincoln is more of a biographical movie with insight into the characters' thoughts and emotions. Saving Mr. Banks is, not a docudrama, really, but more of an anecdote made into film, with no real historic importance but amusing all the same.

By the way, I don't know if it's polite to bash those who will most probably read your review (Disney fans) in your critique of the movie, belittling their ideas about Disney, whether accurate or not. Just a thought.
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2014
What does it matter what I feel about him? I feel that he was a good father, and a good friend towards his most loyal assistance<img /> but to lots of his animators, they felt that they didn’t he didn’t treat them right and they started to turn against him. Also another reason was to be that he’s letting people go because of the war they were losing money, and his animators didn’t like that, and neither did Disney.
Good. But it doesn’t seem like you’re not trying to defend him.

I said that somewhere in my review<img /> that this was not about Walt Disney, this was about P.L. Travers, and yet somehow you still think that I think this is a movie about Walt Disney, yeah real clever.
“It’s a Disney movie.” Okay seriously that is a pathetic, poor, and typical excuse for Disney fans<img /> to say, because it is not a good excuse at all. Why? Because that god-awful “Lone Ranger” movie was a Disney movie and it had R-rated violence but somehow the movie managed to pass on by with a PG-13. So that “It’s a Disney movie” excuse is not a good one at all. Terrible excuse, and for a movie goer like me, who’s learning to become a movie director, that excuse is poor, and irrelevant.

And again you used that pathetic typical excuse, and this time you also used a typical excuse of how it would’ve left the audience with a bad taste in their mouths because they expected a happy ending. Wrong actually, it would’ve shocked the audience, but it would’ve shocked them in a way that it was a movie that stayed very true to the real story. Now I’ll give you an example of a movie that did not have a happy story, or ending at all, whilst it did have some happiness in it. “Raging Bull” Starring Robert De Niro, and directed by Martin Scorsese. “Raging Bull” is about a famous boxer named Jake Lamotta, and it does not have a really happy story, and it somewhat has a happy ending but it’s still pretty sad, and yet the audience was not left with a bad taste, instead they were shocked, this is a GREAT film. Raging Bull made the title as “the best movie of the 80s” And indeed<img /> it was, it’s a great film. So no, a Walt Disney movie about Walt Disney that stays very true to the real story would not leave the audience with a bad taste at all, it would shock them, but I’m pretty sure they’ll still like him. I mean come on, I still like him he rocked my childhood. I was just shocked to see his dark side revealed but it didn’t destroy me at all. I still like him, even though I know his dark side now.

Oh and by the way, don’t say “you can’t compare a Disney family movie like “Saving Mr. Banks,” to a really gritty boxing movie like ‘Raging Bull’” Because one: I’m not comparing them, I’m using ‘Raging Bull’ as an example, there’s a difference. Two: Both are movies based on true stories, well one stayed a lot closer to the real deal, the other just faked, or alternated it a lot because the Walt Disney company is so full<img /> of shit, and they want to glorify itself. And that they did.

Why would we wait? Disney is not going to give rights to tell their story about Walt Disney to another studio. I don’t think so that is. “In this regard, I would not dare compare Saving Mr. Banks with Lincoln.” WOW… okay I’m not comparing those two, I’m using Lincoln as an example, two I’m saying a movie about Walt Disney that would tell both the good side and the bad side of him is not a bad Idea at all, a biographical movie about him that stays very close to reality would be a great Idea about. And yes<img />, it is a docudrama, it’s a historical comedy drama, therefore the “docu” can fit in there.

They would be impolite in the first place, and oh my the things they say. They would say “you’re just making it up” or “you’re taking things out of context.” Or for fuck sakes, and they would be rude about it too, so I’m gonna bash on them before they do something like that. Belittling their ideas<img /> was completely necessary.
Reply
:iconwizardelfgirl:
wizardelfgirl Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
Well, it's hard not to think you think this movie is about Walt Disney when your whole review is based on how inaccurately they portrayed him because they didn't show his dark side and how this is not the Walt Disney movie you were waiting for.

And why should I refrain from saying anything in the first place? It's not like *you* are refraining from criticizing my opinions. You seem to be very keen on belittling other people and their opinions ("your pathetic poor typical excuse", "typical of a Disney fan", "belittling their ideas was completely necessary") but it seems you're not that keen on having your own opinions questioned. That kind of makes it hard to have a healthy debate about the movie, which is what I was going for, but I should have realized from the beginning, based on how you phrased your whole review, that it would not be possible with you, so I will not try again.

Oh, when I said you'd have to wait for another studio to film a Walt Disney biographic movie, I didn't mean it literally, it was a figure of speech.
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
It's not how just about how they inaccurately portrayed him, its also about how they inaccurately portrayed P.L. Travers as well. And yet you say you've read my review, maybe you should read it again. Yes I did say it's not the Walt Disney movie we've been waiting, but the advertisements made it seem like it was about him in his quest to make the movie, but the movie told a different story. The same thing happened with Frozen, the trailers advertised an almost different movie, and when Frozen actually came out, we get a completely rushed story, and it's not how the trailer advertised at all.

Why would I belittle their ideas? Well mostly because I've herd their criticism the same way you've said it over and over again. They'd say "It's a Disney movie, it's supposed to have a happy ending." whereas I would say wrong, just because it's a Disney movie, doesn't mean you can't go past your limits. Animated movies have moved past their limits before, and they end up being great, Secret of NIMH is an example of that. That is a typical and pathetic excuse, and I've heard it over and over again. I can handle criticism but if it's the same shit over and over again, then yeah, I'll belittle their ideas because they have nothing new to come up with, other than "those were made up by people who were jealous of his success" That is beyond stupid. You're saying the same thing they're saying so yeah I am belittling your idea. You're no different than they are. You may know about him, but I know everything about him, so you saying "it's a Disney movie" is the same thing I've heard over and over again, it's a terrible excuse, and it doesn't mean you can't be ambitious on how you want to tell your story. That terrible movie "The Lone Ranger" (the worst western movie since "The Wild Wild West") was a Disney movie, but it was an R-rated movie that somehow managed to pass on by with a PG-13, very violent for a Disney movie.

A ludicrous figure of speech that is. :rofl:
Reply
:iconwizardelfgirl:
wizardelfgirl Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
*sigh* When I said "it's a Disney movie", I didn't mean it as "it's a Disney movie, it has to have a happy ending", I meant it as "it's a Disney movie, of course they're not going to put Walt Disney in a bad light, how could you even expect that?" And even if I had meant the first option I don't see why you should belittle the idea, no matter how many times you hear it. Does it mean I can belittle *your* ideas because I find your explanations unsatisfactory too?

All trailers tend to cheat when advertising a film. Many times they even use dialogues that you will not find in the film at all. Yet they never gave me the vibe that this would be a Walt Disney biographic film. Not even a P.L. Travers biographic film, for that matter. And because this wasn't a film about Walt Disney, this wasn't the place or time to portray all his many flaws. It would have distracted people from the main plot, which was how the movie version of Mary Poppins was born. Which is what the studio was obviously going for. The real conflict between Walt Disney and P.L. Travers was the excuse Disney needed to make the film, and they sweetened the story both because they didn't want to show the dark side of WD (or of Travers for that matter, because as we know a saint she was not) and because, yes, I do believe the studio wanted the film to have the same type of happy ending than the actual Mary Poppins movie has. And that is what I meant when I said people would have been left with a bad taste in their mouths. It would be totally discordant that they went to see a film about the creation of Mary Poppins and instead they watched a rather nasty conflict between Disney and Travers that brought to light Disney's grittier aspects of his personality. This movie wasn't a Disney biography, and this was not the place or time to disclose his dark side, not even the trailers hinted that any of this would be shown and people would have been kinda put out if instead of what they saw in the trailers they were treated to a "Disney was not the person you thought he was" fest.

Because you mentioned before that it doesn't look like I'm not defending Disney, I feel I have to point out I have not in any way, shape or form disagreed with what you have said about him. I have not defended his virtues, or said you're jealous of his success, or claimed you're putting things out of context or whatever. The only thing I'm saying is that this movie in particular was not the place or time for a real Disney biography to be portrayed.

And what exactly has The Lone Ranger have to do with being ambitious on how to tell a story? Making a movie violent does not strike me as a sign of ambition in a film (and have you even seen Pirates of the Caribbean? They're just as violent as Lone Ranger). If anything, it was ambitious that they tried to bring a long-dead character back to life, and they might have succeeded if they had made the movie about the Lone Ranger and not about a Jack Sparrow version of Tonto with special appearance by the Lone Ranger (see what happens when you deviate the audience's attention from the main plot, which should have been John's story and not Tonto's?) Or are you adding even more meaning to the "it's a Disney movie" thing and attaching non-violence to it too? Because I didn't even go there but it seems you're so biased about that phrase that you immediately assume meanings that weren't there in the first place.
immediately assume
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2014
Yes I should, because it’s the same shit over and over again. Don’t deny it you would do it too, and I’m pretty sure you did in the past. “How could I even expect that?” because it’s a historical comedy drama, that’s why, if it’s really historical it would stay true to the real story and not make shit up.

It gave most the vibe that this was a Walt Disney film about him, well not really about him but about when he made the movie Mary Poppins. Actually it was the place to point out his many flaws. Because one: this movie has Walt Disney always playing the sort of character like being the nicest man In the world, even at the studio, when in reality, he mistreated P.L. Travers, and she didn’t like the way not only him was treating him, but being treated by everyone else as well. So yes it was the place to point out the flaws. Of course they sweetened the story, they’re so full of themselves that they’re willing to alternate the entire reality of history just to get people wanting to think that they were all perfect when in reality they weren’t. And yet again, no they wouldn’t be left with a bad taste in their mouth, rather they’d be left with the taste of reality, that even one of their childhood “heroes” like Walt Disney isn’t the perfect man. I’ve already used Raging bull as an example. No, it wasn’t a biography about him, but it’s a historical drama, so yes it should remain true to the story, and again, yes it was the place and time to disclose his dark side. You think it’s not but in reality it was.

Okay. It may not be about Walt Disney, rather than that, it’s centered on P.L. Travers, and it is a historical comedy drama, so like I said, it should still remain true to the story, and this is the reason why I should reveal his true side. Even when Mary Poppins was in development, he still had his bad side.

And when did I ever say that the lone ranger Violence is being ambitious? Of course violence is not a sign of ambition on a film. I said that they went past the limit of it being a “Disney movie” and included violence. Now this may sound weird, but if people can survive the violence in POTC and TLR, then I’m pretty sure telling the real story about Walt Disney wouldn’t hurt a thing. (And wrong, TLR was far more violent than POTC, POTC is just intense, but TLR had intense scenes and so many violence that it should’ve rated it R). And yes I am somewhat biased about that phrase. Because it’s kind of dumb. It doesn’t limit anything.
Reply
:iconwizardelfgirl:
wizardelfgirl Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2014
Ok, just like with the figure of speech you find so ludicrous, allow me to explain. The "you" in my "how could you even expect that" was the generic, or indefinite, "you", I didn't mean you personally. Just to make that clear.

Uh, what did I do in the past? Belittle the "it's a Disney film" excuse? Believe it or not, that simple phrase, depending on the context, can explain more than you give it credit for. There are actually certain parameters Disney screen writers and directors do have to follow for Disney films. It's not a lie that Disney movie endings are expected to be happy, because of positive messages and defeating adversity and all that crap. There's a reason they have other brand names to take care of films that don't follow these parameters, such as Touchstone Pictures. I can't even think of a Disney movie with a sad ending. Bittersweet yes, but downright sad or negative? Nope.

Well look at that! You say I think it's not the place but in reality it was. I say you think it was but in reality it was not. Again, it all depends on the point of view. I believe including all the nasty bits of WD's and Travers' conflict would have distracted the audience from what the studio wanted them to focus on, which was promoting Mary Poppins. I'm viewing this through the studio's POV and what they ultimately wanted to achieve: a "based on a true story" comedy-drama that served as an emotional promotion of their film. You are viewing this through the POV of someone who wanted an accurate historical comedy-drama that would "awaken" people to the real Walt Disney and to see him for what he really was. Why the need to have people know the real Disney, or the real anyone for that matter, is beyond me. Personally I don't consider WD important enough to fight for an accurate biopic of him (if there ever is one of course I'll watch it, but I'm not really waiting for one). As such, I didn't mind his portrayal in this film, I liked that they gave a light glimpse of how manipulative and dismissive he was, while not deviating from the main plot plot by making it all about him and how rude and obnoxious he actually was. I was far more interested in the Sherman brothers, to be honest.

You were talking about how the "it's a Disney film" is a terrible excuse and it didn't mean you can't be ambitious on how you want to tell a story. And right after that you mentioned how Lone Ranger was a Disney R-rated movie that managed to get a PG-13 and how it was very violent for a Disney movie. The only ways for those totally different ideas to make sense was if you were equating violence with ambition or if you were equating Lone Ranger with ambitious storytelling which it was obvious you were not. So I went with option 1.
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2014
Actually sometimes it would be. The other day I was arguing with someone because they said the wrong thing, and the whole barney wouldn’t have started if it wasn’t for her mispronunciation. So yes it would be your fault sometimes.

You didn’t literally say it, but you made it sound like it is a bad idea. It would go against their policy, well in reality you don’t really know their policy. There are some movies that are not really family friendly and that’s the live action movies. The Pirate movies are okay, because their silly. However they’ve gotten more violent with The Lone Ranger… a supposed “family” movie, but with R-rated violence. So I’m pretty sure that revealing that their “uncle Walt” wasn’t the man they want to believe in wouldn’t hurt a thing. And yet you’re still making it sound like that. Yes I saw Waking Sleeping Beauty, about the time when the company was at its downfall and being beaten by former Disney member, Don Bluth with his “An American Tail” and “The Land before Time.” It was aired so a movie so close to the real story wouldn’t be.

Nope, wrong again, according to history. Yes history in movies has its share of movies with sad endings and yet people still came across for it being a great movie. For it being a Disney movie shouldn’t matter at all, it would come out as a great movie, and it wouldn’t leave a bad taste in their mouth, you think it might, but it wouldn’t.

Actually you said it was beyond you. Whether you wouldn’t understand it or not, that’s up to you. You said it was beyond you and I was agreeing seeing as how you’re trying to make it unnecessary for a move to stay true to history, and yet you say you’re not trying to defend Disney, but you really are.

Okay, if I become a movie director, I’ll prove you wrong. You keep thinking that a movie like this would hurt people, or make them have a “bad taste” in their mouths, okay, If I become a movie director, I’ll make it probably into a trilogy, seeing as how I want to cover pretty much everything, which is going to be very difficult to do, or maybe into two movies that’s it. One dealing with the golden age of the company, and then to the early fifties, and the other from the fifties to Roy’s death. I would include a scene with Roy dying, because something like that gets the audience moving.
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2014
Then instead of saying “you” say “how could one even expect that” If you’re not referring to me, then say “one” as in a person. Yes you can use one as a person, it’s been used like this before, and it still continues to be used like this.

Yes there are, but that doesn’t mean they can break that parameter, and make a new groundbreaking film. Though in this day and age, is any film “groundbreaking” other than Gravity?
Actually there are a few Disney films one would consider a “sad ending”. Say for example “The Fox and the Hound” good message about friendship, but in the end they still were separated, but it’s still a somewhat happy ending. “Dumbo” good ending but some of the movie is sad. “Bambi,” now keep in mind I’m naming Disney movies that have not only sad endings, but also movies that have sad moments with happy endings. However, a biopic with Walt Disney dying at a hospital would be sad indeed, of course we need that part in a movie, but then we can finish with Roy finishing Walts dream of a Walt Disney world. But I would also include a scene where we see Roy Disney standing in his bedroom and then he collapse and dies. In reality he died of a seizure, but that’s how I would portray the ending and then we cut to black. I’ve seen an ending like this. “The Godfather Part 3” when we see Michael Corleone in his old age sitting on a chair and then we see him falling off the chair onto the ground and died, sad but good ending. A Walt Disney biopic with a sad ending like that wouldn’t hurt the studio at all. And yet you make it sound like it would. Again, I’m not comparing this biopic with “The Godfather Part 3” I’m using that movie as an example. Totally different things.

 Wrong again, it wouldn’t have distracted the audience from the main point of view. Because in reality there are always setbacks or problems that we have to go through, though Saving Mr. Banks did portray that, it’s still a historical drama, and it still needs to stay very true to the source material. P.L. Travers had a son, who didn’t know he had a brother until they both bumped into each other at a restaurant or something. That would’ve been more interesting to see. I do see the film as promoting its own movie, which is why the Walt Disney Company is so full of shit. They wanted to not only glorify their masterpiece, but glorify themselves as well. And a more accurate movie is obviously beyond you. It is important, just like all those other biopic movies are important to us.

Yep, go with whatever right? But what I was talking about is that it being a Disney film doesn’t mean you have to be fully limited. The Lone Ranger, as fucking terrible as that movie is, it broke its limit. And people seem to like violence, for some f*king reason, so an emotional story might make them cry but it won’t destroy them and it won’t destroy the company.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconjnnmusicklover:
jnnmusicklover Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2014  Student Writer
With the 2013 disneyland thing, I mean, it's not like they shut the park down for the day. Accidents happen and 2013 guests still had access to the park. They did the best they could with what they had. 

And with the "Walt Disney" name at the head of the pictures, it wasn't because Walt Disney was being selfish. It was because he had established a brand. He wanted people to know that if they saw a Walt Disney picture, it meant good quality family entertainment. Put too many names in, people get confused over whose picture it is.  

Also I don't see why you mentioned that "it's not the Walt Disney movie we've been waiting for". Really? That movie has NOTHING to do about Walt Disney himself. And must we have a film about Walt Disney? I mean, the documentaries are pretty good. With actual footage and photos and everything.
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2014

Accidents  should've corrected, I mean that's just lazy right there. Anyways I didn't have a problem with it, I just joked around with its poor arrangements that's all.

"Put too many names in, people get confused over whose picture it is." Okay no disrespect but WOW!!! WOW!!! that's gotta be the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. Look at todays pictures, motion pictures that is, all those credits and we all know who's movie it is, it's the directors, but all those credits don't make it confusing not one bit. Old movies wouldn't be confusing if he had credited his animators which he didn't. Yes Walt Disney was the name of his company but he barely credited his workers, and whenever there were Oscars handed out , he gets all the credit, and the reward. And yet he didn't share the credit. He sometimes wouldn't thank his animators. And one would think he's an animator working with the production, but in reality he didn't do anything, he did with the animators, he couldn't even draw worth crap. Yet he was getting the credits and not sharing them with his animators. His studio also mistreated women as well. You'll understand when you learn more about him.

"Also I don't see why you mentioned that "it's not the Walt Disney movie we've been waiting for". Really?" Yep just another Disney fan who knows nothing of Walt Disney, and is trying to come up with excuses and make a movie about him sound unnecessary to protect his reputation.

And yes we must have a film about him, just like we had a film about Abraham Lincoln with Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" GREAT movie by the way, and we've also had a film about King George the stammered in his awe inspiring movie "The Kings Speech" we must have a movie about Walt Disney. Biographies about a certain person who did things are one of the greatest genres in movies so yes, we must have a movie about him. And we're still waiting for that movie. Yes documentaries are there, but they don't get enough attention, a movie would be the best and most necessary choice to tell the story of the real Walt Disney. Yet you're trying to make it sound unnecessary, when in reality it is, to try to protect him.

Reply
:iconjnnmusicklover:
jnnmusicklover Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2014  Student Writer
I reread what I posted. Oh silly me, I misquoted a biography. With the whole "put too many names in" bit, I messed up. I will admit that. Now, let me try again. It was "shrewd business sense" to promote his name. Possible example of an ego drive? Yes, it's possible. However "increasingly over the years, 'Walt Disney Presents' became recognized throughout the world as a symbol of quality entertainment for the family." Promoting "Walt Disney" wasn't to snub animators of credit. "You're new here, and I want you to understand one thing: there's just one thing we're selling here, and that's the name 'Walt Disney.' If you can buy that and be happy to work for it, you're my man. But if you've got any ideas of selling the name 'Ken Anderson,' it's best for you to leave right now." Sorry to get all research-y, but I wanted to make sure I got the right words across. 

And as far as the animating? He did a lot at the beginning. But as he added more artists to his staff, he was able to focus on different aspects of the company, different areas like Disneyland or live-action films. He did have artists who were better animators than he was, and it makes complete sense to have others animate instead of him. You do what needs to be done to get the best product out there. 

With the Walt Disney movie, yeah I would like to see that as well as anybody. But if it's going to be done, it's going to be done right and right now, well, I don't think we have the talent for such a project. Steven Spielberg is a fabulous director, but there just isn't the right talent pool to fill up the cast. Until then, I'm happy to watch documentaries and enjoy vintage footage. 

A couple more points: "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." Actually a docudrama is a dramatized movie or television version of a true story. So liberties can be taken if the creative team decides it. 

Oh and when you say "His studio also mistreated women as well. You'll understand when you learn more about him.", well, you come across about as sexist as you claim Walt Disney to be. 
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2014
Yes... You're right about the promoting his name and such. However, I know that he wasn't trying to act selfish, but if he wasn't trying to act selfish, why is it when one of his animators Billy Mendez, I think that's how you spell his name, requested that they have a little award show of their own, for best animation and best whatever and they get a prize, and Walts reaction was "If there are any prizes are gonna be given out, I'll receive them?" Yeah that's definitely not selfish, that  totally makes sense. You obviously did not watch this one: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtzyao…

Yes he did animating but it was "one dimensional" and it would never progress at all. Yes he did have great talented animators and that's a good line you said, but still, don't treat them like that, don't say "only I'll receive the rewards" don't treat them like that.

By talent you mean actors or the right actors right? Well for Walt Disney, you're definitely right, no one looks like him at all. Tom Hanks though as good as actor as he is, I see no Walt Disney, all I saw was Tom Hanks. And yes It's going to be done right. It's going to not only talk about his good side, but also his dark side, his demons, the way his mother died and how it plagued him with guilt for the rest of his life. How he met Ub Iwerks, how he started with his "Alice comedies" shows, and "Oswald the Lucky Rabbit" shows. WOW... I seriously want to be a director so, me a director and someone who knows pretty much everything about him, I would talk about everything, but I think I would need a trilogy. heheh. I would require someone who looks and sounds like him but that's going to be hard. I'll tell his good side, but I'll also tell his bad side as well. Because a lot of people need to learn about his dark side, and learn that even a man like Walt Disney is not perfect.

Yes it is a dramatized movie or television of a true story, cpt obvious :D. Like I said, I'm studying to be a director so, yeah I know what it is. But it still a docudrama and needs to stay very close to the real story. So your excuse doesn't change anything. It needs to stay close to the real story, and one or two perfect examples of movies based on true stories, that stayed very close to the story is "Lincoln" and the TOTALLY UNDERRATED civil war movie "Gettysburg." It stayed amazingly close to the real thing. The "dramatized movie or television version of a true story, so liberties can be taken if the creative team decides it." Wrong.

Walt Disney wasn't sexist towards his wife, but his company mistreated women, and he thought women would get the hard job.... okay I'm misquoting the documentary look at Secret Lives Walt Disney, you'll know what I'm talking about. It did seem he would be sexist after watching that documentary. It's the link I put up there in the first paragraph.
Reply
:iconkartoon-kompany:
Kartoon-Kompany Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2014   General Artist
"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."

I didn't see this movie, nor really plan to, since this type of movie tends to bore me, even though I like Disney.  But like you, I am a stickler for historical accuracy. It's like seeing a Shakespeare play and someone is wearing sneakers with their costume (this really happened) and also thinking that Tom Hanks can play any character!!! Even though I like Johnny Depp...he's another one who is overused A LOT in Hollywood.  I can also understand your feelings about trying to separate Hanks enough to try to enjoy the storyline.  Good review.
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2014
Yep, historically accurate movies are the best. You want a great example? Go check out "Lincoln" the one with Daniel Day-Lewis, and directed by Steven Spielberg. GODDAMN that was a great film. Its very close to the real thing, even my history teacher said it was close. That was a great film. Thought Lincoln did get a few things wrong, that still wasn't enough to bother me due to the fact it got SO MANY right!

Then there's also the totally UNDERRATED film Gettysburg. That would be an excellent choice. 

"It's like seeing a Shakespeare play and someone is wearing sneakers with their costume (this really happened)" HOly shit that sucks!! :XD:

"I can also understand your feelings about trying to separate Hanks enough to try to enjoy the storyline.  Good review." I know right and thank you. Yes Tom Hanks is a good actor and all, but all I saw was Tom Hanks, I didn't see Walt Disney. Again Thank you. :)
Reply
:iconsky-lily:
Sky-Lily Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Ugh, tell me about it. -_-'

I once made a dA journal talking about racist moments in the older animated films-- not even as a "omg DISNEY IS EVIL" thing but a "wow holy crud, I didn't know this stuff existed!" kind of thing.

And then one of my friends immediately retaliates in a comment making an upset rant about how "the past is in the past" and "that's not how Disney is today" and "Princess and the Frog." 

Also, this review convinced me to not watch the movie |D
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2014
I know right?

Yep, yep and yep. Why do people always assume we're trying to say "Disney was evil" we're not saying that, we're saying he's not the perfect human being everyone mistakes him to be. People think he's the "god" of cartoons, well he didn't do shit, he couldn't draw worth anything. People would approach him sometimes and they would say "draw mickey" and he couldn't do it, he didn't know how to.

Oh god, I'd be like "get out of my face with that." Yet another Disney fan who really knows nothing about him, and just wants to believe he's the perfect human being.

Hah! that was so unintentional but if you're also bothered by historical inaccuracies, then yeah this isn't the Disney movie for you, not yet of course. I'm still waiting for the Disney movie About the man himself and MAKE IT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE PLEASE!
Yeah after seeing this movie, I learned one thing about the Disney company.... It is so full of shit.
I get that they want to inspire greatness and creativity, but they would go as far as to make a fake story about P.L. Travers (well not really fake, but altered in so many ways) just so that they can see and hear people say "oh man what a great perfect man Walt Disney was" or "what a great company Walt Disney is." Both of those are very questionable, and lets face it, the studio made this film just to glorify itself.
Reply
:iconkartoon-kompany:
Kartoon-Kompany Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2014   General Artist
I think Hollywood and the Disney Co. likes to "assume" there are folks out here who won't know much about the true story about P.L. Travers and Disney, so they put what THEY want the general public to see and believe, and think everything came out all "wonderful." **no one will know the difference**
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2014
I know right? It does seem like that, but they appear to be wrong, just assuming that we know nothing. :D yeah, they're so full of shit.
Reply
:iconsky-lily:
Sky-Lily Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
That it did.  That it did...
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2014
did what? What did it do?
Reply
:iconsky-lily:
Sky-Lily Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Oh, that was in response to your last statement.  That the studio made the film just to glorify itself ^^'

Sorry, probably should have clarified.
Reply
:icondrock625:
Drock625 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2014
oh okay. :) yea really they're full of shit.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:icondrock625: More from Drock625


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
January 14, 2014
Image Size
102 KB
Resolution
1280×1024
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
490
Favourites
2 (who?)
Comments
45
×