MovieChat Forums > Mary Poppins (1965) Discussion > Anybody Here Read The P.L. Travers Novel...

Anybody Here Read The P.L. Travers Novels?

posted 13 years ago by webfix
14 replies | jump to latest

Has anybody here read any or all of the P.L. Travers Poppins books? If so, what did you think of them?

Myself, I read them as a kid, and thought that the Poppins character in the book is much more curt and dismissive than the film version. Do you all agree?

Oh yes, and loved the different coloured stripes on each Poppins book sequel, along with those engaging illustrations. One of the joys of my childhood was going to my local library and seeing another Poppins book on the shelves!

The Webmaster
www.trueghoststories.co.uk

[–] laurence01 13 years ago

Myself, I read them as a kid, and thought that the Poppins character in the book is much more curt and dismissive than the film version. Do you all agree?

Yes, this is why she hated the film so much.

[–] x-caitlin-x 13 years ago

It says in the trivia that she had script approval for the film. Is that not true? If it istrue, why did she let them go ahead if she hated it? (I'm guessing money is the answer, but I'm interested to know if there's more to it than that!)

x-caitlin-x

[–] laurence01 13 years ago

I'm not sure that she realized how much she hated it until after she saw it.

[–] teenasung 12 years ago

money was the correct answer. she didn't want her book sales to decrease, which would have had she attained the final script.

[–] kelane21 10 years ago

She had some degree of script approval but not final draft approval so there were elements that were filmed that she was definitely not on board with but could do nothing about since she had contractually given the rights to Disney to make the film.

I don't think it would differ much from today's adaptations of other books to film....most authors are allowed to give some script notes but are rarely involved in the "trimming" of the book into a format suitable for a movie or serial television show. If memory serves, its one of the reasons Stephen King remade The Shining back in the 90s so he could regain some artistic control over how he thought the book adaptation should have been filmed.

[–] brunhilda2013 9 years ago

She had some control over the script, but not the editing. Even when an author writes or approves a movie script it's the film editors that decide what's seen in the finished product,

[–] MetFanMac 12 years ago

I've read a few of the books and agree with your appraisal of them. The books' Mary isn't a very likeable character.

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

[–] jschillig 12 years ago

I dunno...many biographers have praised P.L. Travers for going against the OMG EBIL WALT DISNEY (I mean, how dare he adapt a novel so it plays better onscreen?) and for "not suffering fools gladly".

But the more I read of her, the more it seems that her definition of "fools" was "anyone who is not Pamela Lyndon Travers". I mean, she even tried to ban the color red from the movie because she didn't like it (or so the story goes...granted, it may have been coming from an unreliable witness).

I do love the original Mary Poppins (haven't really read the other novels in the series). They, like many of the stories Disney adapted, have a beauty and a charm all their own. But they are also very episodic and disconnected, and would never have made for a good, unified movie without some changes.

Like Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy, I believe that Disney's Mary Poppins was the best possible film version that could have been made, and maybe Travers would have seen that if she had stopped carping for five minutes.

[–] novastar_6 12 years ago

I read the first book a few years ago, I'll have to read it again and the sequels, but I HATED Mary Poppins in the book, she came off to me as being a cold bitch towards the children.

[–] nicktierce 12 years ago

The adaptation at work is remarkable, especially considering how many hands helped to craft it toward an incredibly singular vision with concise trajectory of metaphorical imagery.

Traver's books play far more episodically, which seemed to be a trend in comparable fiction of that era, though it does little to present the imaginative whimsy in its best lest -- particularly if considered after the narratively balanced approach taken in the film depiction. I can appreciate the breath and talent of the imagination, but the presentation and structure leave much to be desired.

[–] phillindholm 10 years ago

Read the first book, after I saw the movie, That may have been a mistake, because I loved the film (still do) and, as one poster said, the stories are very episodic, and do not easily lend themselves to a coherent screenplay. The first book was enough for me. Just got the new ''Mary Poppins'' BLU RAY. I'll stick with that to get my ''Poppins'' fix.

[–] ja_kitty_71 10 years ago

I had read the first three books and I love them. As to which is better book or movie? I choose both
--
*nya* *purr*

[–] louiseculmer 9 years ago

Yes. i enjoyed the books as a child, but they have not worn well for me, they are not books i have ever felt like re-reqding as an adult. I agree the character of mary Poppins is different in the books, she is very cold and severe and sometimes even frightening. frankly, i would not want someone like her looking after my kids.

[–] liscarkat (16530) 5 years ago

I've read all of the novels. Mary Poppins is grim and unpleasant in them. The two Disney films are an improvement.