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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 . 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.
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.
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!!
"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.
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
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.