Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Dec 24, 2013 - 7:46 AM   
 By:   RoryR   (Member)

You gotta love this guy, no matter how un-lovable he can be.

 
 Posted:   Dec 24, 2013 - 8:01 AM   
 By:   Storyteller   (Member)

Go Harlan, go.

We need more like him.

 
 Posted:   Dec 24, 2013 - 8:50 AM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

I was really looking forward to seeing this until I read it was mostly fabricated Disney propaganda. I don't have a problem with changing some things, it's a docudrama after all, but I can't enjoy a film knowing they are completely lying to me about the facts.

 
 Posted:   Dec 24, 2013 - 8:55 AM   
 By:   RoryR   (Member)

Yeah, like that crap from last year called HITCHCOCK.

 
 Posted:   Dec 24, 2013 - 9:08 AM   
 By:   Ron Hardcastle   (Member)

Sometimes people don't want to be told that the emperor's new clothes don't exist, or they, to mix metaphors, ignore the elephant in the room. I had no great desire to see the movie anyway, and now after watching Harlan Ellison have even less desire to see it.

Over the weekend I managed to gore some fans' sacred cow when I posted a less than flattering review of a beloved young singer, which made me the bad guy, when I was merely trying to be fastidiously honest about it. Harlan, if he is anything, is fastidiously honest, which has come back to bite him on the butt a number of times.

Thanks for posting this.

 
 Posted:   Dec 24, 2013 - 11:55 AM   
 By:   Mr. Marshall   (Member)

what's up with the title?

who the eff is "Mr. Banks"
Private Ryan's father?

smile
bruce

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 24, 2013 - 1:25 PM   
 By:   zooba   (Member)

Robert Sherman's son obviously feels the same and joins in:

http://micechat.com/forums/walt-disney-pictures/184456-robert-shermans-son-speaks-about-saving-mr-banks-its-not-terribly-positive.html

 
 Posted:   Dec 24, 2013 - 6:11 PM   
 By:   Ron Hardcastle   (Member)

A few hours after writing something above, I was thinking about what Harlan Ellison had said and decided that the main thing was that they had to mess around with the facts to make a more interesting story, which screenwriters do all the time when telling stories based on historical facts. But after reading what Robert Sherman's son wrote, it now seems that the screenwriters didn't just mess around with the facts, they rewrote history and did a disservice to the songwriters, and THAT is unforgivable.

 
 Posted:   Dec 24, 2013 - 7:04 PM   
 By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)

Or, they came up with a story they wished was true, decided it "worked" better than the true story, then bent the facts to match the fiction they'd concocted. I saw the film and was actually very moved by it. Now I feel cheated. In a way, I'm experiencing what P.L. Travers must have felt, firsthand. I understand Hollywood "magic" so much more now, ironically.

A couple of things irritate me in particular. One is the use of the authentic recording of Travers meeting with the songwriters and screenwriter over the end credits, as if to say (or brag?) see?-- it's all true, just the way we depicted it.

Another was the line where Travers asks why Robert Sherman walks with a cane. The Richard Sherman character says something like, "he got shot," to which Travers replies something like "I'm not surprised." What a cheap shot, I thought. This was, of course, a war injury. A genuinely dramatic fact about the character was lost for a sloppy screenwriter's cheap laugh.

There's still a very interesting movie to be made about the real-life Sherman Brothers. I heard talk that Ben Stiller's company was interested in doing it, shortly after the (very good) documentary "The Boys" came out. Now, it's probably been sidelined in favor of this whitewashing job. Sad.

http://filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=69402&forumID=1&archive=0

 
 Posted:   Dec 24, 2013 - 8:51 PM   
 By:   Sirusjr   (Member)

The guy takes 10 minutes to tell you what could have been presented in 2 minutes, 3 tops. Yawn. Still, not surprised that this movie is not truthful anymore.

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 25, 2013 - 1:23 AM   
 By:   zooba   (Member)

The guy takes 10 minutes to tell you what could have been presented in 2 minutes, 3 tops. Yawn. Still, not surprised that this movie is not truthful anymore.

That's just because Harlan loves Harlan. He says it himself, that he's full of himself.

 
 Posted:   Dec 25, 2013 - 2:01 AM   
 By:   Francis   (Member)

For a moment I thought this was going to be a rant about how in the movie Walt Disney travels back in time to... wink

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 25, 2013 - 4:38 AM   
 By:   Kev McGann   (Member)

Next, Harlan rages about historical lapses in Braveheart!
Coming soon, Harlan dissects Mel Gibson's The Patriot! wink

I enjoyed the film, although it is 30 minutes too long and VERY repetitive.
As he says, it's very well made and acted and I think it has the nicest Thomas Newman score I've heard in a while. But, it ain't the first Hollywood film to play fast and loose with the facts or reality and it won't be the last.
It is indeed poppycock, but it's enjoyable poppycock. I thought Travers was the most likeable and honest character in the film, most of the others seemed to be just shysters.

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 25, 2013 - 2:10 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Next, Harlan rages about historical lapses in Braveheart!
Coming soon, Harlan dissects Mel Gibson's The Patriot! wink



That would be awesome. I'd love to see him have a go at them.

Of course, the difference is that the MP movie deals with (un)truths that are easily verifiable because they are connected to events far more recent. Distant past... not so much.

Ideally, it would have been best if the Disney machine not be allowed to stick its finger in this particular pie. (Now THAT would have been a more interesting film, eh?) But because the story had to, by necessity, portray Disney, the result is what it is and there's no changing that. Which is why it's important that people (like Ellison, in this instance) get out there and remind everyone how things really went down.

 
 Posted:   Dec 25, 2013 - 2:38 PM   
 By:   Mike_J   (Member)



That's just because Harlan loves Harlan. He says it himself, that he's full of himself.


He's certainly full of something

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 25, 2013 - 4:43 PM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

So what izzit that makes him especially unlovable?

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 25, 2013 - 6:25 PM   
 By:   zooba   (Member)

He seems to have an arrogant way of expressing himself and that he's usually angry or unhappy about something and has something huge, eternally lodged way up his ass. Other than that I'm sure he's fun to take out bowling or roller skating. I praise any partner he has, wife or whatever just to co-habitate with someone of his ilk. If he had a horrible home life as a child and was mistreated, I may possibly understand.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malcontent

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 25, 2013 - 11:03 PM   
 By:   haineshisway   (Member)

Harlan can be fun and Harlan can be tiresome and Harlan can certainly be self-serving, which he is in this tired video rant.

Saving Mr. Banks would have been unbearable if it had strictly stuck to the facts. So, the screenwriters did what they had to do to make it a movie audiences would like to see. As someone posted above, it is in a very long line of movies based on truth that have played fast and loose with facts - well, I mean, really, how many movies this year have we seen with that stupid line "Based on a real-life story" or "Inspired by true events" - most of those films manipulate facts to have the movie actually work - that's just the way it is.

Richard Sherman loves the film, and he knows precisely why they did what they did in the sections where things were manipulated. And he agrees with what they did because he knows that to have stuck strictly to the actual happenings and how Mrs. Travers actually was would have resulted in a one-note, strident movie that no one on the planet would ever want to see.

 
 
 Posted:   Dec 26, 2013 - 4:43 AM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

[ Harlan can be fun and Harlan can be tiresome and Harlan can certainly be self-serving ... ]

In Other Words, Generally Just Like ALL of Us Department:

Which also falls under the heading: sometimes (scratch that, most tymes) it pays to separate the definitive difference between one's Talent and one's personality.

They have absolutely Nada to do with one another.

 
 Posted:   Dec 26, 2013 - 5:59 AM   
 By:   Warlok   (Member)

Zooba, true... Harlan Ellison does seem to be reliably angry (!). Then again, so are alot of us - this world presents more than enough bull***t to propel us to such states.

Haineshisway, interesting view. I am always annoyed when a true story is only *based UPON* a true story... which means to say that, "...What we have here may or may not have any bearing on reality whatsoever!!! Mu-HAA-ha-ha-ha..."

(maniacal Evil laughter voice)

I wonder if a great deal of the controversy could be made less so by the simple inclusion of a starkly honest special feature presentation that compares the two. My same idea with Hitchcock.

The true story being something nobody would wish to sit through? I can understand the logic (based on my limited inferences... I know nothing about Travers, Mary Poppins, etc.), but I don`t think I`d agree that properly presented the truth would be uninteresting. Anyhoo, Ellison is always entertaining. Its too bad nobody contracted him to do film reviews in a high-profile broadcast format...

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.