Since this thread now has a general H.E. subthread, I’ll add this in case anyone hasn’t read it, which, along with the hired & fired at Disney story, will both be major links on his online tombstone.
I’m not surprised by what Harlan Ellison has to say. When I first heard about the film, my thought was Why are they making a film about Travers and Mary Poppins? When she saw the film the first thing she wanted to do was to change everything!" Good to see someone else recognized that.
You believe that Walt Disney is dictating sexual references several decades into the grave, yet you’re talking like we’re the crazy ones.
You presume to know what I believe by skimming thru the topic? Maybe you should read my first post where I said I know Walt Disney has been dead since 1966, and this may have nothing to do with the man himself.
And sure… Treat me like I’m a conspiracy theorist… Lol
I think I’m being perfectly reasonable, tone is just so hard to convey via text.
To get back to the original post, though, any film about Disney MADE by the Disney Company is going to tend towards hagiography. The reports I’ve heard are mixed on what Travers thought about the film. Neal Gabler, in his bio of Disney, says that Traver’s wrote Disney a letter praising the film saying that it was a “splendid spectacle.” Other reports say that she was crying as she came out of the theater saying that she hated it. The rumor (that I haven’t been able to verify yet) is that Disney KNEW Travers was going to hate it so much that she wasn’t even invited to the premiere and had to wrangle an invitation herself.
Nevertheless, it was Disney’s most successful film to date. He wanted to make a sequel, but Travers steadfastly refused to have anything to do with him from that point on. So, there is that as well.
May have? Seriously, how is there room for any doubt in this? My question stands.
If you look hard enough you can find sexual, racist, and/or drug references in any collection of work. Given the size of Disney’s output, people seem to only find a few minor smirkable items. People who want to find naughty parts always manage to locate some.
I feel that this reflect more on the persons looking for salacious content than upon the creators of such. As Dr. Johnson said, after a reader noted that there were no impolite or off-color words included in his dictionary, “I would have included some, madam, if I had known you would be looking for them.”
Okay, really your going to play the semantic game with me?
If you would have gone back and read my first post like a good little boy, your question would be answered already.
I also just read an interesting piece about how the artists at Disney have been putting subliminal messages in there works going back to the 20’s.
Interestingly enough, Disney’s top artist was the one who drew the penis in the tower in the cover of “The Little Mermaid.” He worked for Walt Disney since the 50’s so maybe Walt himself put the artist up to it! From the Grave! Lol jk
While I agree with this to a certain extent. There are documented cases of this for Walt Disney company. It’s not some conspiracy theory, it’s there. In The Rescuers, there is a picture of a topless women in a scene where they get into the albatross. It is very common for artists to put subliminal political views or erotica in their work dating back hundreds if years.
Entirely aside from the rest of this threadjack about zombie Walt guiding the hands of his animators from beyond the grave, typically Walt is represented as the opposite–a complete prude, firing employees for making “in-house” joke art/films of characters getting up to naughty business and the like. (I’d thought this was a 100% verified/true story, but Snopes lists it as “undetermined”.) My suspicion is that if Walt was going to rise from the grave over fleeting prurience in his company’s later films, he wouldn’t be doing it to encourage it.
Semantics game? Really? You say a man who has been dead for a few decades may be responsible for the sexual innuendo you’re imagining in the movies. Don’t accuse other people of having communications issues until you stop posting things that are totally insane.
Um. Me? When a movie attempts to portray events from real life with characters that actually existed, I do expect at the very, very, veeeeery least a good faith attempt at being somewhat accurate. Not in the case of, say, inglorious basterds, where the audience is expected to know that the plot is purposefully fictional, but in the case of movies being marketed in any way as biopics.
A company portraying a person who actually existed as having a point of view relevant to her being literally the opposite of the real one about one of the products from said company? I have a strong problem with that. That’s insulting somebody’s memory.
Yes, semantics is what your arguing. Your taking my meaning literally instead of just reading my original post which is very clear. I even acknowledged in my original post that it more than likely has nothing to do with Walt Disney the man. But for all anyone knows, Walt Disney had a tradition to put sexual innuendos in his movies. So why don’t you stop being so inflammatory, and realize nothing I’ve said is insane. Your just being rude.
I apologize for being a major contributor in hijacking this thread. I acknowledged it was ignorant to associate Walt the person with all of his company movies, but when you name a company after yourself, your going to get ALL of the credit for it good or bad.
I saw Emma Thompson on a UK chat show discussing this movie a few weeks ago. She said that PL Travers was really nasty to Disney, the Sherman brothers and everyone else involved in the movie. Thompson mentioned that Travers insisted that all of the negotiations be recorded and Thompson listened to these recordings to prepare for the role.
It’s not semantics, it’s the English language. Learn it.
You don’t get to claim that a deceased person may be involved in something, then boo-hoo about semantics when someone calls you on the ridiculous thing you said. Hell, you’re (see how that’s spelled) still leaving room for it as a possibility.
I’m going to do my best to help this hijack die now.
It’s funny, but re-reading yesterday it I had much the same reaction and I’m ( roughly ) 46. Still entertaining in a way, but not as much as it was when I first came across it decades ago. I still think Ellison is talented, but I may have lost my taste for his brand of histrionics.
Actually I remember the last large chunk of stuff of his I read was his collected volume on movie criticism some years back and I found myself getting tired of his ranting about halfway through. Don’t think I have opened anything of his since.
I haven’t watched the Harlan Ellison video yet, but I saw Saving Mr. Banks last week.
I don’t remember a scene like that. They show Travers watching the film at the premiere and I don’t remember her talking to anybody after the movie’s over.
Saving Mr. Banks is not about Walt Disney, it’s about P. L. Travers. Tom Hanks is Supporting Actor to Emma Thompson’s Best Actress (both possibe and deserving Oscar nominations). It seemed to me that more time is spent throughout the film in flashbacks of her growing up in Australia and her complex relationship with her fun-loving but alchoholic father than her dealings with Disney and his people. The way the movie presents it, Travers didn’t want Disney to Disneyfy her book not because she’s a horrid control-freakish old bat, but because the characters of Mr. Banks and Mary were very close to her, being inspired in many ways by her father and her mother’s sister who came to care for the children at a time when they needed her most. She was finally worn down by Disney and his people and let them make changes and additions that I’m sure she later regretted (she was dead set against Dick van Dyke, for one, and she was horrified by the thought of an animated sequence, for another).
I’ve only seen Disney’s Mary Poppins once, when I was a kid and it was first released. From the scenes the movie showed, Travers was absolutely right to resist as many changes as she could, and to be appalled with what Disney had done to her beloved Mary Poppins. I’m sure the movie’s a lot of fun on its own, with cute sequences and catchy music, but after having seen the tragic background of the child who would grow up into a woman who would want order in her life, and who would channel her love of fantasy into characters and books that would mean a great deal to her, the movie just seems too silly and frothy.
Saving Mr. Banks didn’t make me want to see the Disney Mary Poppins again, but it did make me want to read Travers’ books.
Thirded. When I was 22, I thought he was America’s Greatest Living Writer. He might still be, but much of his stuff is so histrionic it’s off-putting.
Oh, good, you’re here*. 
I have the choice between this film and “American Hustle” this Sunday while my wife and daughter go watch “The Hobbit” again. Knowing that you’ve likely seen both, which should I choose?
He’s not dead, he’s frozen.