Here's the real story


The film is to some extent a self-serving whitewash produced by the Disney studios. The real story: The Disney musical adaptation was released in 1964. Primarily based on the first novel in what expanded into a series of eight books, it also lifted elements from the sequel Mary Poppins Comes Back. Although Travers was an adviser to the production, she disapproved of the dilution of the harsher aspects of Mary Poppins' character, felt ambivalent about the music, and so hated the use of animation that she ruled out any further adaptations of the later Mary Poppins novels.

At the film's star-studded première (to which she was not invited, but had to ask Walt Disney for permission to attend), she reportedly approached Disney and told him that the animated sequence had to go. Disney responded by walking away, saying as he did, "Pamela, the ship has sailed."

Enraged at what she considered shabby treatment at Disney's hands, Travers would never again agree to another Poppins/Disney adaptation, though Disney made several attempts to persuade her to change her mind. So fervent was Travers' dislike of the Disney adaptation and of the way she felt she had been treated during the production, that when producer Cameron Mackintosh approached her about the stage musical when she was into her 90s, she acquiesced on the condition that only English-born writers and no one from the film production were to be directly involved with creating the stage musical. This specifically excluded the Sherman Brothers from writing additional songs for the production. However, original songs and other aspects from the 1964 film were allowed to be incorporated into the production.

It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek

reply

It's really quite a wonder that Disney was able to make two successful movies and a Broadway play with (or without) Ms. Travers!

reply

Disney didn't do the Broadway play. Mackintosh did. He Just borrowed songs from the Disney film. And Travers had full say of the musical. Even in her will

reply

The banners and marquees read:

Disney and Cameron Mackintosh present:

and the OST was issued by Walt Disney Records.


How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

What makes you think your vague statements are the "real story". what in the movie is the truth. They play the tapes in the credit sequence, there is no whitewashing the person that SHE is. I fail to understand your point.

"We had part of a Slinky, but I straightened it."

reply

Yes, everyone knows she was prickly. But I was pointing out that the film was extremely biased in favor of Disney Studios. The part of the story that is often overlooked, and that was largely overlooked in the film, is Disney's bullying and underhanded treatment of her. If you're still unclear, then Google it.

It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek

reply

If anyone did any ''bullying'' it was Travers. And just WHO put a gun to her head and FORCED her to sell the rights to her books?.

reply

She's not the only one who was, essentially, tricked. Igor Stravinsky, widely regarded as the greatest composer of the 20th Century, allowed Disney to use his music in Fantasia. But Disney edited and rearranged the music to a horrible extent, and Stravinsky felt that a lot of the animation was mostly silly concoctions. A far cry from the avuncular image he tried to portray to the public.

I'm not saying that Stravinsky's opinion should prevail. I'm just saying that Disney was often heavy handed and misleading in his negotiations with writers/composers.

It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek

reply

Apparently this movie made Travers more likable than she was is real life.

The movie also specifically shows Disney not inviting her to the premiere on the basis of "We have to protect the picture", AFTER he flew to London and coaxed her into signing over the rights (which is NOT even what happened in real life), so there's an extra bit of fictional "douchbaggery" that the Disney Company allowed their creator to be portrayed as doing. They hardly whitewashed it or made it self serving.



How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

I just watched it again and I think it showed the problems she had with Disney very well. He clearly badgers her in several places, especially when he goes to London but she needs the money and that was that. She was clearly beaten down.

reply

Exactly. Exactly. The real Disney was an SOB. He betrayed Travers. Hurt her. And stabbed her in the back. Just wanted money. Not even giving a *beep* about her father. He didn't care if she was honoring her father. All he cared about was making money. Especially when he promised her no animation and put it in. He ruined her father's honoring. For his own benefit. All she got from it was money. That's not enough. For such an important thing to her, she should've been given final say. But Disney was an SOB. If I was Travers I would've said "if you ask me one more time for rights to my film, I'll file for harassment I said no." Or even better, I would've sued Disney for breaking his promises he made her. He promised her no animation. And lied to her. That's enough rights to sue. Her books were not for children. They were meant for others. Nothing for kids. I feel so bad for Travers. I am 100% on her side. Cartoon penguins. So stupid and against the authors wishes. And no, I don't I don't give a crap that that's what happens when you sell rights. He harassed her to sell him the rights and tricked her. He should've been sued for what he did. No. If you are promised something then you should be granted that promise. What Disney did was say "I promise you. No cartoons, no animation. I swear it. Please give me the rights." She signs it and he went "ha! I lied! I got what I want! Cartoons are going in! Haha!"

reply

Travers would never again agree to another Poppins/Disney adaptation


Actually, Soviets did their own version of Mary Poppins in 1983. Travers was still alive at that time. I wonder, if the Soviet filmmakers had Travers's permission? It's quite possible they didn't. You can watch this version on youtube, it doesn't look like much, but the music is quite catchy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHUbnASEzPM

reply

Well, they did it illegally.

reply

Is Helen's aunt in the film her aunt or great aunt?

reply

Best untangling of the issues I have found so far.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/12/23/saving_mr_banks_true_story_fact_and_fiction_in_walt_disney_p_l_travers_movie.html

reply

Thanks. I've made the link clickable:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/12/23/saving_mr_banks_true_story_fact_and_fiction_in_walt_disney_p_l_travers_movie.html

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.–J.B. Haldane

reply

Thank you. I'm sorry.

reply

You can't expect a completely unbiased, factual retelling of the events when Disney themselves are making it. That being said, glimpses of Mr. Disney's shrewd and occasionally pushy business mind show through the cracks of his "friendly uncle" veneer on more than one occasion, which is above and beyond what I expected from what Disney had every "right" to turn into a self-congratulatory hagiography. On the opposite side of the spectrum, they turned Travers into someone even halfway sympathetic, with plenty of handy excuses for her exercising "creative rights" where she, in reality, had none.

Though far from their usual approach to things like this, Disney were as professional and accommodating as they could reasonably be expected to be, if not even moreso.

reply