Originally Posted By basil fan I know tapes exist of the story meetings, so does anybody know if Mrs. Travers was really "down on red," or was that one made up for the film? Josie and the Pussycats <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/glitch/jpglitch.html">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...tch.html</a>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I have no idea, but I do wonder about that. It could have really happened, or it could have just been used in the film as an example of the over-the-top requirements that Travers demanded during the story meetings In the 40th anniversary edition audio commentary, Julie Andrews points out that the lining of her coat is red, which she liked because it hinted at the character's "cheeky" side. Perhaps it was also a subtle jab at the "no red" rule But if you look at the film, there's red all over the place. Her highly-visible scarf is reddish-pinkish-orangeish, and her lips are always a very bright red (to match the flowers on her hat). In the Jolly Holiday sequence, both her and Bert's costumes have red accents. But for whatever reason, the film only uses red sparingly; perhaps at Travers' demand, perhaps for other reasons (weren't special effects scenes like the modern green screen filmed in front of a red screen at the time?) And for what it's worth, the Mary Poppins costume in the oh-so-very-soon-to-be-retired parade at the Magic Kingdom has her wearing a red coat, as does the AA of her in The Great Movie Ride
Originally Posted By basil fan Yes, that Step-In-Time coat is red, and I thought about the lipstick. But even though there is red in the picture, it still might have been an actual demand, just one that wasn't exactly adhered to. In any case, it was funny. Less Is More <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/sherlock/less.html">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...ess.html</a>
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Oh, cool, a spoiler thread. Before we go any further... Did the movie ever get made?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Before we go any further... Did the movie ever get made?<< Pamela, that ship has sailed.
Originally Posted By JeffG I was wondering if the bit about the color red was a fiction for the movie as well, but keep in mind that a running theme of the movie was that Walt and crew ended up ignoring pretty much all of her demands. The movie is a musical, Dick Van Dyke starred as Bert, there was animation, Mr. Banks had facial hair, etc.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Did she actually ever come around and somewhat like the film, I wonder?
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I don't know the agreement, but, if she shared in the profits I wouldn't doubt that it might have softened her outlook a little. Hope she got a bunch.
Originally Posted By doombuggy "Did she actually ever come around and somewhat like the film" NO she did not. She left the movie crying because she felt they ruined M.P. She even tells Walt all that singing and dancing with the animals must go. Walt tells her that's it, the movie is done. I was really dumbfounded how they changed in this movie what really happened at the premier.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Did she actually ever come around and somewhat like the film<< It depended on who she was talking to at the time. I've watched a couple documentaries in preparation for going to see SMB (which I still haven't done), and one of them played a radio interview, from late in her life, on which she said it was a good Hollywood movie and she was quite happy with Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins, but that it wasn't much like her book. Probably worth noting: If you think she hated "Mary Poppins", that's nothing compared to how much she would have DESPISED "Saving Mr. Banks"!
Originally Posted By oc_dean Is there a full list of the inaccuracies throughout Saving Mr. Bank's film? I just got home from seeing it. Enjoyable. But it drove me crazy wondering .. what was true, and what was false. Like Walt showing up on Traver's front door step the day of, (or was it the day after?) after she got home in England. Among a whole bunch of stuff. I loved Emma's performance, as I'm sure voters of the Golden Globes did too. I couldn't help but to see Tom Hanks .. Not Walt Disney (though he captured his "essence" fine.) I hated how not once .. not twice .. but MANY times Pinnochio's Daring Journey marquee comes up in the background! Really! They took the time to "CGI" out the Hollywood & Hyland Entertainment complex behind Grahman's Chinese .. but they couldn't cgi out the letters to Pinnochio's Daring Journey. And .. and the Main Gate ... Gee .. I didn't know they had flat bed screens mounted to the top of turnstyles entrances without the turnstyles, themselves. We can see now, they did zero CGI work to remove or change any background, or anything else, physical .. aside from the posters mounted at the Mickey hedge out front. And as anyone here on this site is a major "geek" about Disney, Mary Poppins, Disneyland circa 1961, .. I'm sure you all stuck it through the credits .. where in the halfway point .. they show that old fashion reel to reel .. playing an actual audio track of the real PL Travers talking for a minute or so.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I didn't worry about it. I figured the film was about as accurate or inaccurate as any history-based film is. I'm sure "Saving Private Ryan" didn't capture the landing at Normandy with 100% accuracy either. But since none of us were there, no-one worried about it.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros More importantly, there's nothing that even indicates that Travers and Walt ever went to DL in the first place. Screw the fancy turnstiles and safety handles on the carousel horses, they shouldn't have been at the park in the first place!
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Come on though! We went to the movies and got to see Disneyland IN the actual movie! Worth making it up and adding it just for that!
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I don't deny that the scene was a lot of fun. It's not every day that DL makes it into a big Hollywood movie, and even more rare that it plays a 'character' by getting dressed up for a different time period. But if we're going to nitpick about the signage in the background, I tihnk we should at least acknowledge the fallacy of them being in the park in the first place
Originally Posted By Tikiduck I wonder if they had any guys like Tony Baxter doing consultation on the period look. I would bet that he was not too happy with the inaccuracies.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>But it drove me crazy wondering .. what was true, and what was false.<< A couple o' articles for your perusal: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/saving-mr-banks.php">http://www.historyvshollywood....anks.php</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="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">http://www.slate.com/blogs/bro...vie.html</a> From the second one: >>Another visit seen in Saving Mr. Banks may never have occurred at all: Pamela and Walt’s trip to Disneyland. Lawson’s book makes no mention of the two attending the theme park together, and I can find no evidence elsewhere of this happening, either.<<
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>I tihnk we should at least acknowledge the fallacy of them being in the park in the first place<< As I'm noticing. Just irks me. The point of this movie is to give the story of making of another movie .. and still ... there is license taken ... to make stuff up along the way. In the end .. the viewer doesn't get to know the real & accurate story. And it makes you wonder - Why bother?
Originally Posted By mawnck Real and accurate stories don't generally make good dramatic movies. If you want accuracy, there are several good documentaries on the topic.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo Never ever expect movies based on true stories to be accurate. It never happens. Except for Fargo. That one was 100% accurate.
