I can’t see any reason why he would say anything at all about a writer adapting his own work.
Well, I don’t know enough about Ellison to know what he might think, but I can think of some reasons why an advocate of creative control for writers might be leery of a major adaptation for a different format, even if done by the author him or herself:
If Hugo got strong encouragement to revise a certain way from the opera producers (“hey, victor, a nice big check awaits if you…” Could easily be construed as selling out.
If Hugo made a major change for the money, that’s compromising a creative vision. Boo Radley could be the senator next door who saves scout and Jem. HoldenCaulfield could vow to turn his life around in the final three pages. Those would be very different books with different narratives and different tones. A sad ending changed to a happy ending…I can easily see that being a real concern for someone like Ellison from this perspective.
And if Victor does it, for whatever reason, that just makes it more difficult for other writers to resist the pressure on them to do the same.
As I said, no idea if this would be an issue for Ellison himself. But I can see it for someone who thinks that way.
And don’t forget, Dickens changed the ending of Great Expectations after one of his friends read the original not-happily-married-ever-after one and said, “You know, Chuck, this isn’t very satisfying.”
Little known fact: Peppermint Patty was good friends with Dickens. 
I’ll add Bedknobs and Broomsticks to the list. The movie wasn’t very close to the book (Bed-knob and Broom-stick) but the movie was watchable entertainment while the book was a difficult slog.
Be that as it may, Mary Poppins the movie was almost unwatchable as far as I’m concerned. Try watching it while skipping past all the musical numbers and there’s almost no there there. Over 60% of the “plot” is just a segue to get to the next song and doesn’t forward the trajectory of the story in the slightest. And what’s left is about 22 minutes’ worth of movie.
And the book is even more episodic than the movie…there’s very little in the way of overarching storyline. Each chapter is its own little short story with not much to connect it to the rest of the book.
Well, Mauren O’Hara’s Esmerelda doesn’t die, and neither does Laughton’s Quasi… but Quasi isn’t happy at the end. He has to watch the love of his life depart with another man, and as the movie ends, he’s weeping to the gargoyles that he wishes he too were made of stone.
To that extent, it indeed keeps the theme of Hugo’s novel: if you are ugly, you’re screwed. 
Wait, what? You preferred Bedknobs and Broomsticks to Mary Poppins? You’re literally the first person ever that I’ve heard of with this opinion. To each their own, but I find B&B a pretty weak attempt to replicate MP. It has its moments, but really doesn’t work.
It would make for an interesting WWII trilogy, in between Schindler’s List and Come and See
Back to the original topic for a moment…
As I said earlier, I have seen the movie version of Mary Poppins, and liked it (but didn’t love it), despite its corniness and Dick Van Dyke’s atrocious hamming and awful Cockney accent. I have never read any of P.L. Travers’ stories. I have no dog in this fight. I don’t know if she was right to consider Disney a sleazy liar, if he was right to view her as an unreasonable pain in the rear, or if the truth lies elsewhere.
The only thing I WILL say is that the ending was dishonest, and the (allegedly) real-life ending would have made for a better movie ending!
P.L. Travers DIDN’T like the movie, despite what Saving Mr. Banks shows. It would have been much better, more honest and more dramatic to show Emma Thompson approaching Tom Hanks at the end, demanding that the animation be removed, and to have Hanks tell her, “Pamela, that ship has sailed.”
Hijack - where are you from? - I have friends in Bedford and my husband spent his summers in Mt. Ayr.
Its really stunningly beautiful down there.
Went to see him and Peter David signing books (and talking non-stop, which was ok because he was hilarious). I waited in line and as I shuffled past him he croaked “What? You’re too cheap to buy a Harlan Ellison book? You know I’m dying, and this could be your last chance…” “Sorry, but I’m just here to get Mr. David to sign a comic book.”
“You do realize that I’m ready to just keel over and die any minute, don’t you? And you, YOU, could own Harlan Ellison’s last autograph! But, no, now it’ll be that little old lady behind you…Ma’m! If I shuffle off this mortal coil right after I sign your book, promise me you won’t keep it-- get it up on eBay right away, make some money off me!”
Average IQ, not total.
Reviving this thread because I just re-watched Song of the South last night. Despite all the controversy about the film, it really did offer a situation in which Disney’s interaction with one of the folks involved shows him in an extraordinarily good light. Actor James Baskett was an accomplished performer with several films to his credit, and who already had done voice work for Disney in Dumbo, when he decided to audition for another voice part in the upcoming Song of the South. Disney reportedly heard the voice, wanted to meet him, and signed him up for the Uncle Remus part (although he ended up doing a couple of cartoon voices in the film as well). His work was almost universally praised, but the story is that he could not attend the opening in Atlanta because of racial segregation in the city. (I have read accounts claiming that this was true, and others calling it a legend. It could be that they feared difficulty with some of the festivities, and with getting a room for the actor and so decided to avoid the entire scene) He nevertheless won an Oscar for his role (albeit a special one), the first black performer to be so honored. To quote Wikipedia on this:
They could’ve made a film about Baskett and Disney and their relationship, and have a genuine feel-good ending that is true. But it would also dredge up the controversy about the film all over again, so it probably wouldn’t be a net win.
Hattie McDaniel won an Oscar in 1939 for Gone With the Wind, becoming the first African-American to win a statuette in any category. Baskett was likely the first African-American Disney player to win the award.
Other than that, good story, Cal.
I actually saw most of SOTS in the theater in 1980. Purchased tickets for the Dyan Cannon Smokey and the Bandit ripoff Coast to Coast, which sucked so bad it pulled me into the other theater, showing SOTS. I think that is the only time I have ever done that.
I was mislead by my reading – it said that Baskett was the first black man to win an Oscar. The sources didn’t mention that a black woman had already won one.
Several things:
[ol]
[li]PL Travers was an exceptionally unpleasant woman in real life - Any film with her as a major character would have to include that fact. This is a woman who adopted an orphan but not his sibling because her astrologer told her not to and who routinely lied about her past, even to people who knew differently[/li][li]Disney is trying to rehabilitate Walt - The task is so dofficult that they seem to being trying to do it by taking a circutious route like the Hank’s film. But you can see that they are attempting it. Unfortunately, he’s greedniess and anti-Semitism are really going make that a difficult task[/li][li]Song of The South is the worst Disney film ever made - It is so racist that it is inconceivable that there would be a time when Disney would feel comfortable again releasing it. I saw it in 1974 at the theater and as a young Black kid I was offended by the themes. As an adult I have seen it on bootlegs and I can see where it would “problematic” to release such a film to any audience in the future.[/li][li]Harlan Ellison has unfortunately reduced his legacy to that of being a crank - Ellison worked in entertainment industry long enough to know that what you write is rarely what gets filmed. He was (and is) handsomely paid for his his efforts (far more than greater writers than him ever were) and yet he is still whining about how reality intruded upon how he thought things should have gone.[/li][/ol]
As a White kid, I am surprised.
Is it offensive in the way Jews might resent the portrayal of Shylock in Shakespeare?
It’s been released numerous times on VHS and DVD – just not in the United States.
You also wouldn’t think it, but it was re-released to theaters after you saw it, in 1980 and 1986, according to Wikipedia. I could swear I last saw it theatrically in 1982 or 1983, not 1980.
As for racist – well, it’s not even close to the black stereotypes and minstrel shows that other studios produced in the 1940s.
It Is based on black folktales as related (in often stultifying dialect) by a white guy who heard them growing up (but they are corroborated by “legitimate” folklorists 9rather than "literary’ ones like Harris), so they seem to be accurate. The story is post-Civil War, but it presents an idealized view of the South as seen by a white audience – he black folk are happy and sing, although they live in poverty, don’t seem concerned about their status, and are all concerned when Bobby Driscoll’s character gets hurt. And there’s no racial tension. It’s unrealistic and white-centered, but it’s a lot less offensive than some Warner Brothers cartoons of the period.