COLLECT WATCH TRACK RATE REVIEW APP
Manage your own movie collection and always keep it with you with our Apps. Price track movies and get price drop notifications instantly. Become a member to take full advantage of all site features.
GET STARTED

Best Blu-ray Deals

Best Blu-ray Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | Price drops  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Japan
The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Blu-ray)
$37.99
Cannibal Holocaust (Blu-ray)
$25.78
Ghostbusters 1 & 2 Double Pack (Blu-ray)
$19.96
The Swimmer (Blu-ray)
$17.29
Mr. Peabody & Sherman (Blu-ray)
$22.99
Pacific Rim (Blu-ray)
$9.99
Jaws (Blu-ray)
$7.99
World War Z 3D (Blu-ray)
$12.79
House of Cards: The Complete Second Season (Blu-ray)
$29.99
Freezing: Anime Classics Season 1 (Blu-ray)
$22.99
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Triple Feature (Blu-ray)
$9.99
The Legend of Billie Jean (Blu-ray)
$5.19
Lake Placid (Blu-ray)
$18.99
Ken Burns: The Roosevelts (Blu-ray)
$76.89
Batman: The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
$189.99
Sleepaway Camp (Blu-ray)
$18.99
Nymphomaniac: Volumes I and II (Blu-ray)
$17.99
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (Blu-ray)
$11.99
Breakheart Pass (Blu-ray)
$17.49

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Movies

View Poll Results: Rate 'Saving Mr. Banks' (Only Once You've Seen The Movie!)
One Star 1 2.00%
Two Stars 2 4.00%
Three Stars 6 12.00%
Four Stars 26 52.00%
Five Stars 15 30.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-18-2013, 03:27 PM   #81
Walts Ghost Walts Ghost is online now
Blu-ray Count
 
Walts Ghost's Avatar
 
Jun 2010
Orange County, CA
1347
208
32
1
Default

The revisions to history In the film are really what hurt the movie, and makes me like the film less and less as I think about it. I wanted to love this movie, but I simply don't, and it just feels like Disney patting themselves on the back for ever getting 'Poppins' made.
"Movies can and do have tremendous influence in shaping young lives in the realm of entertainment towards the ideals and objectives of normal adulthood."
Walt Disney

Follow me:
Twitter: @pj_campbell
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 03:43 PM   #82
Ernest Rister Ernest Rister is online now
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Ernest Rister's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
1
Default

Which means it is going to become increasingly impossible to ever mount a big-screen biopic of Walt even remotely accurate to the man's life.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 03:44 PM   #83
MacEachaidh MacEachaidh is online now
Blu-ray Samurai
 
MacEachaidh's Avatar
 
Aug 2011
Edge of the Accretion Disc
597
26
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Rister View Post
As for the revisionism, that's to be expected -- dramatic narratives are great fun, but very bad history. Life doesn't work out in three-act structures with the board set in the first ten pages of a screenplay.
Expected, in the sense that no-one should be surprised Disney Corp took the approach they did to making this film. It's a very Disney product. But it's not as if the way they chose to tell this story was the only way it could possibly have been told. The agenda is clear, and the film's attempt to excuse itself and Disney's misappropriation of Travers' Poppins by having Disney say "that's what storytellers do" is simply galling. People who were probably completely unaware that Mary Poppins was created by someone outside the Disney team are now assassinating her character and calling her names all over the internet, based solely on this one film, which demonises her in a one-sided way for the sake of "dramatic narrative". That's hardly fair.

The comment that rings in my head came from Victoria Coren Mitchell, in her recent documentary on P.L. Travers, "The Secret Life of Mary Poppins", which ended with her attending a British screening of the new Disney film. Her first post-screening comment is, "Well, they've done it to her again." (She does then go on to make some very positive comments about the film itself, but her feeling of injustice for Travers is quite clear.) For anyone interested in learning a little more about Travers' side of the issue, the documentary is on YouTube.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 04:10 PM   #84
Ernest Rister Ernest Rister is online now
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Ernest Rister's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
1
Default

Saving Mr. Banks was an acclaimed independent screenplay, acquired by Disney for production. The company didn't solicit or create the script in-house. It came to their attention, they snapped it up.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 04:45 PM   #85
MacEachaidh MacEachaidh is online now
Blu-ray Samurai
 
MacEachaidh's Avatar
 
Aug 2011
Edge of the Accretion Disc
597
26
2
Default

The way they snapped up Mary Poppins?

Regardless of the origin of the screenplay (who was it acclaimed by, by the way?), the film wouldn't have been made until the screenplay had been repolished to say exactly what Disney Corp wanted it to.

With a film about its founder, any large film corporation would have done the same. But it's unfortunate (and other, slightly stronger, words) that Travers and history got trampled in the process.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 04:47 PM   #86
nolfoc nolfoc is offline
Collectibles Moderator
 
nolfoc's Avatar
 
Nov 2008
311
109
49
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walts Ghost View Post
The revisions to history In the film are really what hurt the movie, and makes me like the film less and less as I think about it. I wanted to love this movie, but I simply don't, and it just feels like Disney patting themselves on the back for ever getting 'Poppins' made.
sorry to hear that Walts.. your Avatar is definitely sad
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 04:59 PM   #87
Ernest Rister Ernest Rister is online now
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Ernest Rister's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacEachaidh View Post
The way they snapped up Mary Poppins?

Regardless of the origin of the screenplay (who was it acclaimed by, by the way?), the film wouldn't have been made until the screenplay had been repolished to say exactly what Disney Corp wanted it to.

With a film about its founder, any large film corporation would have done the same. But it's unfortunate (and other, slightly stronger, words) that Travers and history got trampled in the process.
http://www.deadline.com/2012/02/disn...-mary-poppins/

And the Sherman Brothers certainly didn't feel Travers was trampled -- and people who have heard the studio session recordings feel she comes off as rude and even cruel during the adaptation process. If anything, the movie apparently softens her up, and even gives her credit for the ideas of others (such as casting George Banks as a father who needs to be saved by Mary Poppins...Travers had nothing to do with that).

Last edited by Ernest Rister; 12-18-2013 at 05:03 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 05:02 PM   #88
Blu Warrior Blu Warrior is offline
Active Member
 
Blu Warrior's Avatar
 
Jun 2009
Roseville, CA
19
337
Default

[QUOTE=With a film about its founder, any large film corporation would have done the same. But it's unfortunate (and other, slightly stronger, words) that Travers and history got trampled in the process.[/QUOTE]

But that's just it. This movie is not about Walt but about the process of getting Mary Poppins made into a movie. I feel people are going into this focusing on things like how does Hanks do as Walt and did they accurately get Disneyland details down to the year. (trust me they're doing it on Micechat.) This is not a biography about any particular person but a movie about two people stuggling to agree on an idea and a story.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 05:18 PM   #89
Todd Tomorrow Todd Tomorrow is offline
Power Member
 
Todd Tomorrow's Avatar
 
Nov 2008
16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Rister View Post
http://www.deadline.com/2012/02/disn...-mary-poppins/

And the Sherman Brothers certainly didn't feel Travers was trampled -- and people who have heard the studio session recordings feel she comes off as rude and even cruel during the adaptation process. If anything, the movie apparently softens her up, and even gives her credit for the ideas of others (such as casting George Banks as a father who needs to be saved by Mary Poppins...Travers had nothing to do with that).
The "softening up" is exactly what feels so phoney. It doesn't matter that she wasn't a "nice" woman, what matters is that unlike the real Travers the Travers in this film comes across as so one dimensional and that it reduces her objections to dumbing down her book and character to some childhood trauma, which is trite and cliched. Sure the way she objected was rude, but she had a point and her real reasons are never taken seriously, while Disney comes out knowing best.

Last edited by Todd Tomorrow; 12-18-2013 at 05:20 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 05:52 PM   #90
Ernest Rister Ernest Rister is online now
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Ernest Rister's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow View Post
The "softening up" is exactly what feels so phoney. It doesn't matter that she wasn't a "nice" woman, what matters is that unlike the real Travers the Travers in this film comes across as so one dimensional and that it reduces her objections to dumbing down her book and character to some childhood trauma, which is trite and cliched. Sure the way she objected was rude, but she had a point and her real reasons are never taken seriously, while Disney comes out knowing best.
The real subject of the film should have been Walt's relationship with his father, not Travers'. Walt was known to have private heartfelt conversations about it, still ruminating on it, even just a few years before his death. It's in Bill Peet's autobiography...Walt came to him, out of the blue, and just poured his heart out to him...then abruptly got up and left. He cried -- repeatedly -- hearing "Feed the Birds" from Poppins....maybe the whole enterprise is smuggling that information about Walt out to the populace instead of making a film about Walt directly.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 05:56 PM   #91
iScottie iScottie is online now
Blu-ray Baron
 
iScottie's Avatar
 
Oct 2010
Rhode Island
866
105
174
Default

If they took this story and made it fictional and it's just another Disney marketing film then I don't think I want to see this now.
La double vie de moi.
iScottie's Storefront
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 06:29 PM   #92
MacEachaidh MacEachaidh is online now
Blu-ray Samurai
 
MacEachaidh's Avatar
 
Aug 2011
Edge of the Accretion Disc
597
26
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Rister View Post
And the Sherman Brothers certainly didn't feel Travers was trampled
I was talking about Poppins in the first film, and Travers in the new.

Quote:
and people who have heard the studio session recordings feel she comes off as rude and even cruel during the adaptation process.
This is getting a bit beside the point, but sure, if you proceed from the assumption that she was wrong in her position, of course she comes out that way. Anyone would.

Travers was insecure, defensive, unknowledgeable and even misinformed about the process she was trying to have creative input into, and driven to desperation at her patronisation and marginilisation by the Disney team, including Disney himself. But that's not all she was, of course, and the fact that people are coming away from this film saying she was a b****, flat out, shows that it's fairly one-sided. Travers was repeatedly bitter and often in tears until the day she died over the experience; the film doesn't show that side of the story, nor what a flint-hearted bully Disney habitually could be.

Quote:
If anything, the movie apparently softens her up, and even gives her credit for the ideas of others (such as casting George Banks as a father who needs to be saved by Mary Poppins...Travers had nothing to do with that).
That's hardly something Travers would have been happy about. She was intensely private, and abhorred sentimentality. One of her issues with the original film was that she was appalled that people would associate what she saw as mawkishness with the Mary Poppins she created; she wouldn't have seen the new film giving her credit for some of the ideas she objected to as anything positive at all.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 06:31 PM   #93
Ernest Rister Ernest Rister is online now
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Ernest Rister's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iScottie View Post
If they took this story and made it fictional and it's just another Disney marketing film then I don't think I want to see this now.
Of course it's fictional -- I've never seen a film "based on a true story" that didn't alter truth. Even Schindler's List used Itzhak Stern as a composite of three different people working for Oskar Schindler. Movies are entertainments, but bad history.

But yeah -- the film apparently takes Disney's side in the battle.

Last edited by Ernest Rister; 12-18-2013 at 06:39 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 06:37 PM   #94
Ernest Rister Ernest Rister is online now
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Ernest Rister's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacEachaidh View Post
I was talking about Poppins in the first film, and Travers in the new.


This is getting a bit beside the point, but sure, if you proceed from the assumption that she was wrong in her position, of course she comes out that way. Anyone would.

Travers was insecure, defensive, unknowledgeable and even misinformed about the process she was trying to have creative input into, and driven to desperation at her patronisation and marginilisation by the Disney team, including Disney himself. But that's not all she was, of course, and the fact that people are coming away from this film saying she was a b****, flat out, shows that it's fairly one-sided. Travers was repeatedly bitter and often in tears until the day she died over the experience; the film doesn't show that side of the story, nor what a flint-hearted bully Disney habitually could be.


That's hardly something Travers would have been happy about. She was intensely private, and abhorred sentimentality. One of her issues with the original film was that she was appalled that people would associate what she saw as mawkishness with the Mary Poppins she created; she wouldn't have seen the new film giving her credit for some of the ideas she objected to as anything positive at all.
I just read Travers' original book...(a fast read, and it's great). There's sentiment. Plenty of it. Poppins even leaves secret clues to Jane and Michael that she will return and they are overjoyed. It just isn't American-oversized sentiment. It's a sort of cultural collision, I suppose. When studying for my BFA in theater, I had an acting prof tell me British actors admire American actors like Jack Nicholson because they are so free with their emotions, while American actors admire English actors for their emotional control and restraint.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 08:22 PM   #95
EricJ EricJ is online now
Blu-ray Baron
 
EricJ's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
The Paradise of New England
6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Rister View Post
If anything, the movie apparently softens her up, and even gives her credit for the ideas of others (such as casting George Banks as a father who needs to be saved by Mary Poppins...Travers had nothing to do with that).
Again, I was pretty much treating the movie on the Ed Wood/Finding Neverland/Hitchcock level, where the screenwriters were amazed to have learned one or two behind-the-scenes factoids most of the core fans already know (oo, Wood wore pink sweaters! Hitch used Ed Gein for his movie! JM Barrie knew the real family!) and concocted the entire fantasia out of worship for one overexposed icon that "singlehandedly changed our culture", like Edison inventing the lightbulb.
In this case, the writers found out 1) oo, Walt had a hard daddy!, and 2) oo, PL wasn't nice!, and Disney pretty much gave them the go-ahead greenlight to portray the movie itself as saintly, knowing they could jumpstart the original in tie-in sales.

Quote:
And the Sherman Brothers certainly didn't feel Travers was trampled -- and people who have heard the studio session recordings feel she comes off as rude and even cruel during the adaptation process.
There's a humorous children's book by Sheila Greenwald (from before Travers' death in the 90's) about a 9-yo. NYC girl who wants to meet all her favorite authors personally, and just happens to be a fan of a thinly-disguised Mary Poppins series--
One senses this will not turn out well, and yes, the author encounter turns out to be somewhat childhood-disillusioning.

I haven't read Travers' Poppins (still waiting for an eBook from the library), but I always had the sense that it was cold towards the kid readers she hated--
If you've read Jane Langton, for instance (who feels very, very Travers-influenced), you can sense a sort of harsh, ugly, almost Victorian/Edwardian unfamiliarity with what children want to read, and a narcissistically snotty tendency to talk down to them with what children's books are "supposed" to be about.
As one who dabbles in children's writing myself, I like to give the advice that "Good writing comes from within, and so does BAD writing." You can't fake it forever--If you're not the world's best person, the cracks in the storytelling are going to show.

Which's why you'll have to excuse me for taking Walt's side in the "injustice": Walt may have been prickly in real life too, but he had the innate instinct to know the storytelling directions his audiences did want-because they were what he wanted as well--and not step on them.
If you think Travers fans hate Walt, go to Italy some time and ask them what they think about Disney's Pinocchio--To hear them talk, you'd think it was an old WWII atrocity. And yet, to see the "original" book-Pinocchio, via Roberto Benigni...the original book was a howling mess. If we remember a "nice" Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket, well, Walt didn't like the book either. He fixed it, because it was broken.
And Travers, whatever inspired her to write the books, NEEDED fixing. By today's standards, she certainly ended up better onscreen than William Steig, Chris Van Allsburg, William Joyce, or even Milan Trenc--But in real life, PL and Walt didn't "hold hands"; she was nitpicking till the very end, and she wouldn't be the first author in recorded history to complain that her vision had been "betrayed", so get in f***in' line, Pam. (Try listening to E.B. White pick complaints about the cartoon "Charlotte's Web"...Like his would've been any better?)

Yes, the movie is pitched at ordinary dopes who don't read Bill Peet, and to be honest, I'd rather have the biography that fake "Walt" movie poster promised. Maybe Disney will be flush with attention enough to concoct a "Mickey on the train" story of young Walt ("Losing Oswald"?), to cross-promote the DCA park.
But in the meantime, there's just a little too much attention paid to treating the movie as if this was Established History, and it's coming from folks who either didn't do their homework, or didn't think we did, and think they're being "silenced by revisionism".
Okay, so I did, maybe we're both the odd ones.

Last edited by EricJ; 12-18-2013 at 08:40 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 08:42 PM   #96
akayw0718 akayw0718 is offline
Expert Member
 
akayw0718's Avatar
 
Apr 2013
Illinois, U.S.
121
57
24
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricJ View Post
Again, I was pretty much treating the movie on the Ed Wood/Finding Neverland/Hitchcock level, where the screenwriters were amazed to have learned one or two behind-the-scenes factoids most of the core fans already know (oo, Wood wore pink sweaters! Hitch used Ed Gein for his movie! JM Barrie knew the real family!) and concocted the entire fantasia out of worship for one overexposed icon that "singlehandedly changed our culture", like Edison inventing the lightbulb.
In this case, the writers found out 1) oo, Walt had a hard daddy!, and 2) oo, PL wasn't nice!, and Disney pretty much gave them the go-ahead greenlight to portray the movie itself as saintly, knowing they could jumpstart the original in tie-in sales.



There's a humorous children's book by Sheila Greenwald (from before Travers' death in the 90's) about a 9-yo. NYC girl who wants to meet all her favorite authors personally, and just happens to be a fan of a thinly-disguised Mary Poppins series--
One senses this will not turn out well, and yes, the author encounter turns out to be somewhat childhood-disillusioning.

I haven't read Travers' Poppins (still waiting for an eBook from the library), but I always had the sense that it was cold towards the kid readers she hated--
If you've read Jane Langton, for instance (who feels very, very Travers-influenced), you can sense a sort of harsh, ugly, almost Victorian/Edwardian unfamiliarity with what children want to read, and a narcissistically snotty tendency to talk down to them with what children's books are "supposed" to be about.
As one who dabbles in children's writing myself, I like to give the advice that "Good writing comes from within, and so does BAD writing." You can't fake it forever--If you're not the world's best person, the cracks in the storytelling are going to show.

Which's why you'll have to excuse me for taking Walt's side in the "injustice": Walt may have been prickly in real life too, but he had the innate instinct to know the storytelling directions his audiences did want-because they were what he wanted as well--and not step on them.
If you think Travers fans hate Walt, go to Italy some time and ask them what they think about Disney's Pinocchio--To hear them talk, you'd think it was an old WWII atrocity. And yet, to see the "original" book-Pinocchio, via Roberto Benigni...the original book was a howling mess. If we remember a "nice" Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket, well, Walt didn't like the book either. He fixed it, because it was broken.
And Travers, whatever inspired her to write the books, NEEDED fixing. By today's standards, she certainly ended up better onscreen than William Steig, Chris Van Allsburg, William Joyce, or even Milan Trenc--But in real life, PL and Walt didn't "hold hands"; she was nitpicking till the very end, and she wouldn't be the first author in recorded history to complain that her vision had been "betrayed", so get in f***in' line, Pam. (Try listening to E.B. White pick complaints about the cartoon "Charlotte's Web"...Like his would've been any better?)

Yes, the movie is pitched at ordinary dopes who don't read Bill Peet, and to be honest, I'd rather have the biography that fake "Walt" movie poster promised. Maybe Disney will be flush with attention enough to concoct a "Mickey on the train" story of young Walt, to cross-promote the DCA park.
But in the meantime, there's just a little too much attention paid to treating the movie as if this was Established History, and it's coming from folks who either didn't do their homework, or didn't think we did, and think they're being "silenced by revisionism".
Okay, so I did, maybe we're both the odd ones.



I don't agree with all of this, but as someone who makes a point of reading the stories/novels that Disney based his works on, I feel I can clap in approval. Yes, PL Travers created Mary Poppins, and yes her work has stemmed many a similar character (Nanny McPhee I'm looking at you). But, what Walt "did" to her precious book didn't hurt it. In fact, it made Mary Poppins even more of a well-known, embraced name. So it didn't turn out exactly like the book? Boo, freaking, who. Most of the books Walt turned into movies have little in common with each other. 101 Dalmatians, Alice in Wonderland, Pinocchio. Walt had a vision, and that vision is distinct from it's original entity.

Anytime I hear the PL Travers debacle, I just want to walk around asking people to tell me the story of Snow White, Cinderella, etc. How many of them will give me the Disney Story? How many people hear the words Mary Poppins and think Julie Andrews? Would she rather people not know who Mary Poppins was at all?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 08:50 PM   #97
Ernest Rister Ernest Rister is online now
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Ernest Rister's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
1
Default

I don't get the sense that Poppins is cold to the children in the book -- it is very much like the movie...they're involved in fantastic adventures and later, she pretends nothing happened. She does have far more creative insults for the kiddos, though, in the book, than the film, but unlike the film, she leaves personal clues that she's coming back to be with them again. I was surprised, really, how much of the book material they used. All of the characters Bert meets at the opening are straight from chapters of the book, as is a lot of dialog. Fun read.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 08:57 PM   #98
Ernest Rister Ernest Rister is online now
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Ernest Rister's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akayw0718 View Post


I don't agree with all of this, but as someone who makes a point of reading the stories/novels that Disney based his works on, I feel I can clap in approval. Yes, PL Travers created Mary Poppins, and yes her work has stemmed many a similar character (Nanny McPhee I'm looking at you). But, what Walt "did" to her precious book didn't hurt it. In fact, it made Mary Poppins even more of a well-known, embraced name. So it didn't turn out exactly like the book? Boo, freaking, who. Most of the books Walt turned into movies have little in common with each other. 101 Dalmatians, Alice in Wonderland, Pinocchio. Walt had a vision, and that vision is distinct from it's original entity.

Anytime I hear the PL Travers debacle, I just want to walk around asking people to tell me the story of Snow White, Cinderella, etc. How many of them will give me the Disney Story? How many people hear the words Mary Poppins and think Julie Andrews? Would she rather people not know who Mary Poppins was at all?
I'm far more pragmatic along these lines. I've been saying this since I was 21 years old...you can't take the town's money, and give them rights to your work, and then get on a high horse when they change your work. You have to know that's coming. Solution? Don't sell the rights to your work in the first place. You have to be a great fool to sell a story to Hollywood and not expect them to adapt it to their own liking. Travers didn't want to sell the rights to Poppins, she was broke, or near broke, her agent convinced her to sell, she did, that's the story.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 09:25 PM   #99
EricJ EricJ is online now
Blu-ray Baron
 
EricJ's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
The Paradise of New England
6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Rister View Post
I'm far more pragmatic along these lines. I've been saying this since I was 21 years old...you can't take the town's money, and give them rights to your work, and then get on a high horse when they change your work. You have to know that's coming. Solution? Don't sell the rights to your work in the first place. You have to be a great fool to sell a story to Hollywood and not expect them to adapt it to their own liking. Travers didn't want to sell the rights to Poppins, she was broke, or near broke, her agent convinced her to sell, she did, that's the story.
Growing up in Worcester, MA, we got to hear, several hundred times, Robert Cormier tell the story about how the first producers who wanted to buy "The Chocolate War" thought they were turning it into an 80's T&A drive-in comedy about girl's-school wacky prank war (those who saw Keith Gordon's dark text-faithful version are now ), and he decided, at the last minute, um, not to sell.
There's faithful, there's "adaptation", there's "grab the title and run", and then, there's just plain clueless. (Insert least favorite Dr. Seuss movie here.) The latter two are mostly due to the fact that in the majority of cases, Big Hollywood Hates Books. They know books are popular--and that they will magically attract audiences if they say "Hunger Games" or "50 Shades of Gray"--but they approach them with a constant fear of odd little inscrutable Dead Sea Scrolls written by an unknown hand that don't have, y'know, actual plots where cool stuff happens. The Bonfire of the Vanities movie we got is one of the definitive examples of studios' "Yeah, it's popular, but is it about something?"

Walt read Poppins, he gave the book to the Shermans, and they both circled the same chapters as movie material. (At least as far as he tells it.) That's an audience response, and I wouldn't put it in the same "clueless" category as, say, the "Dark is Rising" movie we got.
Every author needs one more draft, and movies sometimes give them that. I can pick out several "heretical" improvements Noel Langley made to Wizard of Oz that clean up the clunky style while keeping the author's rhythm, and that's the second draft we remember...And yet every discussion immediately brings out book purists that complain, "No, no, we didn't get the giant bat!"
In the silent days, "versions" of books were stage tableaus; nowadays we get real versions of the stories with dialogue, but the first job is capturing the "essence" of the book, and if you can get the plot and characters along the way, that's a good job. Walt and the Bros. did a good job, even if PL didn't get her giant bat.

Last edited by EricJ; 12-18-2013 at 09:30 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2013, 09:34 PM   #100
Ernest Rister Ernest Rister is online now
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Ernest Rister's Avatar
 
Jan 2008
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricJ View Post
Growing up in Worcester, MA, we got to hear, several hundred times, Robert Cormier tell the story about how the first producers who wanted to buy "The Chocolate War" thought they were turning it into an 80's T&A drive-in comedy about girl's-school wacky prank war (those who saw Keith Gordon's dark text-faithful version are now ), and he decided, at the last minute, um, not to sell.
There's faithful, there's "adaptation", there's "grab the title and run", and then, there's just plain clueless. (Insert least favorite Dr. Seuss movie here.) The latter two are mostly due to the fact that in the majority of cases, Big Hollywood Hates Books. They know books are popular--and that they will magically attract audiences if they say "Hunger Games" or "50 Shades of Gray"--but they approach them with a constant fear of odd little inscrutable Dead Sea Scrolls written by an unknown hand that don't have, y'know, actual plots where cool stuff happens. The Bonfire of the Vanities movie we got is one of the definitive examples of studios' "Yeah, it's popular, but is it about something?"

Walt read Poppins, he gave the book to the Shermans, and they both circled the same chapters as movie material. (At least as far as he tells it.) That's an audience response, and I wouldn't put it in the same "clueless" category as, say, the "Dark is Rising" movie we got.
Every author needs one more draft, and movies sometimes give them that. I can pick out several "heretical" improvements Noel Langley made to Wizard of Oz that clean up the clunky style while keeping the author's rhythm, and that's the second draft we remember...And yet every discussion immediately brings out book purists that complain, "No, no, we didn't get the giant bat!"
In the silent days, "versions" of books were stage tableaus; nowadays we get real versions of the stories with dialogue, but the first job is capturing the "essence" of the book, and if you can get the plot and characters along the way, that's a good job. Walt and the Bros. did a good job, even if PL didn't get her giant bat.
I will have to agree on the latter point...the movie is stuffed to the brim with references from the book...it isn't the same story, but anyone who read Travers' Mary Poppins and says Da Gradi, Stevenson, the Shermans, and Walt didn't painstakingly try to capture the atmosphere and literary whimsy of the book is lying. As far as adaptations of episodic plotless children's fantasy stories go, this is one of the best.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Movies


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:26 PM.