PatrickvD wrote:I don't think it was within the budget to shut large areas of Disneyland down for several days of shooting and repaint whole rides to fit the time period.
My thoughts exactly.
I'm looking forward to this, especially since it looks much better than I initially anticipated.
PatrickvD wrote:I don't think it was within the budget to shut large areas of Disneyland down for several days of shooting and repaint whole rides to fit the time period.
Well there was a rumour that City Hall would be repainted in such a way as it was getting a new coat of paint anyway. Plus it would have been a good excuse to ditch the awful candy colours on Sleeping Beauty Castle.
Colours and trees are something forgivable. Fantasyland '83 is a big stretch though, and they could have built the old turnstiles on a soundtage and green screen the RR station in.
They did however, put the old letters on top of the entrance, the posters out front and change the banners on the bridge of SBC.
ajmrowland wrote:Jason Schwartzman. Now things just got awesome.
I just hope the pressure for Hanks to portray him "accurately" isn't just to fit the Studio's image of him.
From what I have read, Walt is not portrayed in any sort of negative light-- which really, isn't that to be expected from Disney? He's also more of a supporting player to Thompson's Travers, so to that end, I don't believe the movie will feel like some hagiographic account of how Disney conquered the evil Travers against unbeatable odds. The movie is more of an exploration of why "Mary Poppins" was just so important to Ms. Travers beyond an author's usual possessiveness.
I'm not asking for that. I know he was a good guy. I just like a flawed good guy too.
PatrickvD wrote:
UmbrellaFish wrote:
From what I have read, Walt is not portrayed in any sort of negative light-- which really, isn't that to be expected from Disney? He's also more of a supporting player to Thompson's Travers, so to that end, I don't believe the movie will feel like some hagiographic account of how Disney conquered the evil Travers against unbeatable odds. The movie is more of an exploration of why "Mary Poppins" was just so important to Ms. Travers beyond an author's usual possessiveness.
Exactly. And I wouldn't mind if they represent Walt as the businessman that he was. We all love to complain about Disney's current management, but I'm pretty sure Walt knew how to fire people. Though I think the major lay-offs at the animation studio predate the events in this film, so like you said, he'll probably be a supporting role in Tarvers' story.
Exactly.
Will watch the trailer.
Edit: saw the trailer now. Looks good. Like how they integrated hanks into some of the old footage ala Forrest Gump. The actors playing the Sherman Brothers look pretty good too. Didn't know how much of an inspiration Travers took from her own life nor that she hated the film for being too sweet.
Why do I get the feeling the ending might be a downer?
This is wishful thinking, but I personally hope the movie ends with them finding out that PL Travers's dying wish was for Mary Poppins to become a stage musical.
I still think Hanks was a miscast. I dont buy him as Disney. Should have gone with some no name.
PatrickvD wrote:I don't think it was within the budget to shut large areas of Disneyland down for several days of shooting and repaint whole rides to fit the time period.
I would think it would be in the budget to digitally recolor and correct some stuff though. I guess they just don't care enough.
Flanger-Hanger wrote:
The trip to Disneyland may be entierly fabricated. That and the park did not look like that in the early 60s. Turnstiles were different, trees were not as large, buildings were different colours, no brick pathways on Main Street and Fantasyland was totally different. Even the carousel had a different canopy and different coloured horses instead of the all white steeds now.
I don't think it was within the budget to shut large areas of Disneyland down for several days of shooting and repaint whole rides to fit the time period.
Maybe the Lone Ranger ate their budget that was supposed to be used to create a 60s Disneyland in CGI.
Kyle wrote:I still think Hanks was a miscast. I dont buy him as Disney. Should have gone with some no name.
I fully agree. My friend was happy to see Hanks and kept saying "he's such a good actor" as a reason for him to be in there. My feeling is, yes, Tom Hanks is a "good" actor, but is he the "right" actor? Based on the trailer, I have strong doubts that is the case.
I'm also having a hard time with the idea that this film is going to be PG-13. I was one of those fans that were uneasy about the PG-13 rating on a Disney film a decade ago when the first "Pirates" film came out, but I put it in the back of my Disney fandom because I loved the film so much. At this point however, I'm starting to feel more and more uneasy about PG-13 rated Disney films and this one may just be the straw the broke the camels back. Other studios can have PG-13 films, but not Disney! It just doesn't feel right. And the idea of finally getting a sort-of, kind-of biopic about Walt Disney and it's going to be PG-13 especially rubs me the wrong way. I want to know why it has the rating, but I may just end up skiping this one.
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.
I think we should watch the film and see precisely why it got a PG-13 rating before we get all in a huff. It could be for something as light as smoking (which the MPAA has gotten harder on in recent years), which would be accurate as Walt was a heavy smoker. Maybe the film goes into Walt's hatred of Communists. The MPAA's reasoning says "thematic material", which could be anything.
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland
This isn't just a fun family film about the making of Mary Poppins. It's dramatic Oscar bait with a lot of emotional themes. Thank God they didn't dumb it down to get a PG rating.
I wouldn't care to watch a Walt Disney biopic that WASN'T pg-13. Walts life wasn't fairy tales and pixie dust, and I think the real story is the story that people would want to see most.
That said, this most certainly isn't a biopic of Walt. This is the story of Ms Travers, in which Walt plays a part.
Seriously seriously seriously looking forward to this, and the trailer has only upped my hopes for the movie. The Sherman brothers made me laugh out lout, Emma Thompson looks spot on as usual ..... but sadly, I just don't think Hanks 'is' Disney.
He doesn't have a certain quality about him that Disney did. I know that would be hard for any actor to portray, but I felt like I was just watching Tom Hanks. With a moustache.
I think the PG 13 rating probably comes from the Colin Firth's character,Traverse's father.
Here is an ironic explanation for the casting of Tom Hanks as Walt from the interview
The first conversation we had was about casting, and in that first meeting it was, "We've got to get Tom Hanks to play Walt Disney because we need an icon to play an icon and make him real." You don't want to see any playacting.
Oh!I get it!The director didn't want role-playing acting for Walt.It's like how Johnny Depp is usually miscast.People are not interested in the character he is playing.They are more interested in Johnny Depp himself.
I am excited to see Schwartsman and Novak as the Sherman brothers.
You don't need an icon to play an icon, especially if its not the best fit. Clearly they don't have their priorities in order. Im not sure what they're saying regarding play acting. Are they suggesting somehow only huge household name can act? Come on, there are plenty of great actors that just haven't been given the chance. A number of which could do Walt more justice. Even some that have already proven themselves.
As for the pg-13 thing, that's a silly thing to worry about. I could see it if got a hard R its not. If anything this give me some hope that it wont be too sugary sweet.
Frankly I don't pay attention to ratings too much as there are PG-13 films that should be PG and G That should be PG and R movies that should be rated PG so on an so forth
The ratings systems flip flop worse than politicians do.
EDIT
I gave up on ratings being right instance for example
Alice and Wonderland's reasoning for PG
Alice in Wonderland is rated PG for containing a smoking caterpillar
Twister
Rated PG-13 for Intense Depiction Of Very Bad Weather
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
Debatable. He was anti-Semitic, racist, sexist, vehemently anti-Communist, patriotic, Republican, a control freak and ruthless. However, I don't care if the Tom Hanks Walt is more of a family-friendly version than the real thing. This movie looks utterly delightful.
Dr Frankenollie wrote:He was anti-Semitic, racist, sexist, vehemently anti-Communist, patriotic, Republican, a control freak and ruthless.
I think you've been grossly misinformed about Walt Disney. While he was certainly no saint he wasn't all those things people unfairly accuse him of. Notable historians like Fred Patten, Michael Barrier, Jeff Kurtti and Jim Korkis have long debunked the myths perpetuated in pop culture that he was an anti-semite and a racist. And where did the sexist accusation come from? Was it because women were only employed at the ink and paint department? That's hardly any indication he was sexist. And since when being a patriot is a character flaw? Did you perhaps mean chauvinist? Although I fail to understand how that applies to Walt.
I'd suggest you take a look at this article by Fred Patten (and pay attention to the comments below as well). It concisely provides evidence against these accusations. If you're looking for something longer and more detailed I would recommend Jim Korkis' book "Who’s Afraid of the Song of the South" and Michael Barrier's "The Animated Man: A Life of Walt Disney".
Plus it would have been a good excuse to ditch the awful candy colours on Sleeping Beauty Castle. 
CLUCK
