Originally Posted By mawnck >>Maybe the Sherman Brothers were a couple of goobers.<< You might make that charge stick to Dick, but definitely not Bob. He was a very sober, serious fellow in real life. (Yes, I met him.) Josh, in post 37, describes the real problem. P.L. Travers' original books are CLEARLY not about the father. The Sherman Brothers have always claimed credit for that idea, and I don't believe anyone has contradicted them until now. You wouldn't expect a BBC production to bash a beloved British children's book author, but there is more than ample evidence in the various biographies that she was hell on wheels throughout the entire production, and the movie turned out as well as it did over her (figurative) dead body. Disney deliberately broke their contract with her by releasing the final cut without her approval, knowing they would never get it. The alleged autobiographical aspect that's at the core of "Saving Mr. Banks" would appear to be revisionist history to make Travers seem more sympathetic.
Originally Posted By MissCandice Hmmm, I liked the trailer and I love Emma Thompson but the director has me worried. The movie The Rookie put me to sleep. I was sooooo bored during the movie.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>(2) PG-13, huh?<< I wonder if they're aiming for a higher rating as a way to indicate that, while not violent or vulgar, it's not really a film that kids would be interested in. With the material they're dealing with, I'm sure some people will get confused, so this might be a red flag. If a film meets G (or PG) rating standards, are they allowed to ask for a higher one? Or do they need to have something in the film that 'earns' the higher rating?
Originally Posted By JeffG The ratings board's explanation for the PG-13 is "for thematic elements including some unsettling images". It wouldn't surprise me if Walt's smoking is the main reason for the rating. -Jeff
Originally Posted By Dabob2 From what I've read, it wouldn't be very realistic if they showed him on screen for any stretch of time without smoking. But as it has been pointed out, "real" doesn't seem like this movie's strong suit. I still want to see it, keeping all that in mind. I really do think it's a shame, though, when movies invent things like this (sounds like they're going to show Travers' relationship with her father and try to say that's why the Mr. Banks character transformation became so important in the movie), when everything I know about the real story says that there was more than enough drama for a movie anyway. It's particularly frustrating when some of the principals are still alive and could provide the real story, or at least something closer to it. The creative process is always fascinating, and obviously there were tons of differences between Disney and Travers, constant massaging going on, etc. That's enough for a movie, if done well. And maybe Travers did have a troubled relationship with her father (I have no idea), and maybe they could have even taken a little poetic license and shown her reaction to the Sherman/Disney version playing that up and either liking that part of it, or going into denial, or whatever. Yes - probably invented too, but less egregious, particularly if anyone alive actually knows how she reacted to that aspect of it. That's not to say they couldn't make an excellent movie anyway. Gods and Monsters, to take another Hollywood story, was highly fictionalized, and yet somehow seemed to capture the essence of James Whale at the end of his life AND be highly entertaining. It's tricky, but sometimes you can invent things and still remain true to the people involved. Hope they do so here.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Is smoking really enough to get rated PG-13 these days? I've never smoked and never have any intention to, but that seems pretty extreme to me. People drink alcohol on TV and in G-rated movies all the time. Heck, you can even murder a character and still be rated G, depending on how much is shown. But smoking is a no-no? I just can't believe that people are really that sentitive to it. While I don't pay much attention to their ratings, characters on primetime network TV shows smoke with some regularity, so it can't be that much of an infraction
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I've read that Walt, especially towards the end of his life, had some severe coughing jags related to his smoking. Perhaps they're realistic about that, showing this smoking and hinting towards what was to come not that long after. Perhaps there's some profanity also, by all accounts not unknown to Walt. It's also possible that the "unsettling images" are completely unrelated to Walt and might be part of the Travers story growing up in Australia, especially if her father was abusive or cruel at all.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Just guessing: I'd put my money on the latter. I know this is not a Disney production, but Disney is still cooperating and I doubt they'd want to tarnish Walt's image in any but the slightest ways, even to a primarily adult audience. They might hint at the cancer that was to take him, but I don't think that's an "unsettling" enough image to rate a PG-13.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>That's enough for a movie, if done well.<< "Enough" for a movie still doesn't take into account the political aspects. BBC, a government-financed media network. Beloved British children's author. A country that is at best ambivalent about the Disney take on their classic children's literature (Dick Van Dyke's horrendous Cockney accent being a noteworthy example). There's no way they were going to present P.L. Travers realistically in this movie, if the American version of the story is at all accurate. Whether it was "enough" for the movie is beside the point.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I doubt they'd want to tarnish Walt's image in any but the slightest ways<< And yet they published the Neil Gabler book. Speaking of works of fiction loosely based on a true story.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I thought that was Knopf/Random House? <Whether it was "enough" for the movie is beside the point.> Perhaps beside the point of what the BBC was going to make, but not beside my point that you don't necessarily have to invent things (or at least not wholesale) to make a good movie.
Originally Posted By lesmisfan I saw the trailer and have to say I am really excited to see this film!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I agree with lesmis...the trailer looks great. Love the attention to detail that was show in just that brief clip. Great looking cast too.
Originally Posted By dagobert Finally I've seen the trailer and I have to say I'm really looking forward to that movie.
Originally Posted By basil fan Accurate? Probably not. Entertaining? Looks like. If the child Travers is shown serious jeopardy, isn't that enough to get a PG-13? Great Mouse Detective <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/basil/bakerst.html">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...rst.html</a>
Originally Posted By JeffG My speculation about the smoking being the reason for the harsher rating came from remembering an announcement from the MPAA a few years ago that it would now be a factor in their decisions. I just did a search and found a few articles on the announcement and I had forgotten that they did say it would specifically be mentioned in the published reasons for the rating. It isn't in this one, so there must be some other element of the film that prompted the PG-13. The speculation that it might come from the subplot about Travers' childhood sounds like a possibility. Here is the link to an article about the ratings board and smoking: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://movies.about.com/od/miscellanous/a/mpaa051107.htm">http://movies.about.com/od/mis...1107.htm</a> One thing I do find interesting is that the film is already rated this far in advance of its release. That indicates that the movie is already finished. I would imagine they are holding its release for the time period when it will get more attention for possible awards, but I wonder if some screenings at film festivals and other similar venues will start soon. Perhaps it could show at D23? -Jeff
Originally Posted By skinnerbox << Perhaps it could show at D23?>> If it's ready to screen, Jeff, Disney would be wise to go for it. The positive word of mouth from D23 members would be an asset to Disney's expensive albeit ineffective marketing campaigns of late. I'm sorry that Disney didn't go full out in promoting "Waking Sleeping Beauty" for its theatrical run. What a jewel of a film that folks discovered *after* it left the theaters. Disney definitely screwed itself out of greater box office receipts by doing that. Disney should take advantage of the loyal fan base with this film. I'd love to see SMB get widespread recognition long before its theatrical run begins.
Originally Posted By leemac CARA's description is rather vanilla: Rated PG-13 for thematic elements including some unsettling images. I don't ever recall PL Travers having a violent or inappropriate relationship in her youth - her father died very young and was a drunk but I don't recall reading any violence against her. Maybe bisexuality is enough for a PG-13 - if they choose to go down that route.
