How is the Mary Poppins Sequel legal when the author denied a sequel?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
In her will P.L. Travers stated that another movie version was not to be made. How is it possible for Disney to make and distribute Mary Poppins Returns based on the work of P.L. Travers when the author specifically denied Disney from making a sequel?
disney copyright mary-poppins mary-poppins-returns
|
show 9 more comments
In her will P.L. Travers stated that another movie version was not to be made. How is it possible for Disney to make and distribute Mary Poppins Returns based on the work of P.L. Travers when the author specifically denied Disney from making a sequel?
disney copyright mary-poppins mary-poppins-returns
12
Presumably they got permission from whoever currently controls the estate / IP? The final will and testament defines the author's desires, but it's only legally binding in terms of who it passes off control to. Whether that person decides to honor her wishes is something else entirey.
– Steve-O
Nov 24 '18 at 13:34
20
@Amarth - Per the FAQ; "What topics can I ask about here? - Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange is for questions targeted towards science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts. This includes questions about: Historical or societal context of a work + Behind-the-scenes and fandom information
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:01
8
@Amarth - It's a fantasy film.
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:10
13
@Amarth It has a women who can fly using an umbrella and transport living people into a world of animation.
– Skooba
Nov 24 '18 at 17:16
16
@Skooba - It's also a world where a man that looks like Dick van Dyke can have a romantic relationship with a woman that looks like Julie Andrews without being enormously wealthy
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:20
|
show 9 more comments
In her will P.L. Travers stated that another movie version was not to be made. How is it possible for Disney to make and distribute Mary Poppins Returns based on the work of P.L. Travers when the author specifically denied Disney from making a sequel?
disney copyright mary-poppins mary-poppins-returns
In her will P.L. Travers stated that another movie version was not to be made. How is it possible for Disney to make and distribute Mary Poppins Returns based on the work of P.L. Travers when the author specifically denied Disney from making a sequel?
disney copyright mary-poppins mary-poppins-returns
disney copyright mary-poppins mary-poppins-returns
edited Nov 25 '18 at 17:10
SQB
25.6k25146243
25.6k25146243
asked Nov 24 '18 at 13:22
UnderverseUnderverse
4641614
4641614
12
Presumably they got permission from whoever currently controls the estate / IP? The final will and testament defines the author's desires, but it's only legally binding in terms of who it passes off control to. Whether that person decides to honor her wishes is something else entirey.
– Steve-O
Nov 24 '18 at 13:34
20
@Amarth - Per the FAQ; "What topics can I ask about here? - Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange is for questions targeted towards science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts. This includes questions about: Historical or societal context of a work + Behind-the-scenes and fandom information
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:01
8
@Amarth - It's a fantasy film.
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:10
13
@Amarth It has a women who can fly using an umbrella and transport living people into a world of animation.
– Skooba
Nov 24 '18 at 17:16
16
@Skooba - It's also a world where a man that looks like Dick van Dyke can have a romantic relationship with a woman that looks like Julie Andrews without being enormously wealthy
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:20
|
show 9 more comments
12
Presumably they got permission from whoever currently controls the estate / IP? The final will and testament defines the author's desires, but it's only legally binding in terms of who it passes off control to. Whether that person decides to honor her wishes is something else entirey.
– Steve-O
Nov 24 '18 at 13:34
20
@Amarth - Per the FAQ; "What topics can I ask about here? - Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange is for questions targeted towards science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts. This includes questions about: Historical or societal context of a work + Behind-the-scenes and fandom information
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:01
8
@Amarth - It's a fantasy film.
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:10
13
@Amarth It has a women who can fly using an umbrella and transport living people into a world of animation.
– Skooba
Nov 24 '18 at 17:16
16
@Skooba - It's also a world where a man that looks like Dick van Dyke can have a romantic relationship with a woman that looks like Julie Andrews without being enormously wealthy
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:20
12
12
Presumably they got permission from whoever currently controls the estate / IP? The final will and testament defines the author's desires, but it's only legally binding in terms of who it passes off control to. Whether that person decides to honor her wishes is something else entirey.
– Steve-O
Nov 24 '18 at 13:34
Presumably they got permission from whoever currently controls the estate / IP? The final will and testament defines the author's desires, but it's only legally binding in terms of who it passes off control to. Whether that person decides to honor her wishes is something else entirey.
– Steve-O
Nov 24 '18 at 13:34
20
20
@Amarth - Per the FAQ; "What topics can I ask about here? - Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange is for questions targeted towards science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts. This includes questions about: Historical or societal context of a work + Behind-the-scenes and fandom information
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:01
@Amarth - Per the FAQ; "What topics can I ask about here? - Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange is for questions targeted towards science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts. This includes questions about: Historical or societal context of a work + Behind-the-scenes and fandom information
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:01
8
8
@Amarth - It's a fantasy film.
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:10
@Amarth - It's a fantasy film.
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:10
13
13
@Amarth It has a women who can fly using an umbrella and transport living people into a world of animation.
– Skooba
Nov 24 '18 at 17:16
@Amarth It has a women who can fly using an umbrella and transport living people into a world of animation.
– Skooba
Nov 24 '18 at 17:16
16
16
@Skooba - It's also a world where a man that looks like Dick van Dyke can have a romantic relationship with a woman that looks like Julie Andrews without being enormously wealthy
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:20
@Skooba - It's also a world where a man that looks like Dick van Dyke can have a romantic relationship with a woman that looks like Julie Andrews without being enormously wealthy
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:20
|
show 9 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Disney were keen to make a follow-up to Mary Poppins as early as 1982 but the movie ended up in a glorious legal mess because of legal clauses on both sides that required creative agreement from both Disney and P.L. Travers herself.
Former Disney vice president of production Marty Kaplan describes how this deadlock resulted in the sequel film being put into limbo for decades until her death (and agreement from her family and the trustees of her 'literary estate') allowed Disney to regain the rights to exercise full creative control.
It was 1988, and I’d been a vice president at Disney for two years.
From the time I got there, studio president Jeffrey Katzenberg had
wanted to make a sequel to Mary Poppins, and I was assigned to develop
a script.
...
But as the new movie, Saving Mr. Banks, does not depict, Mrs. Travers
intensely disliked Walt Disney’s 1964 version. And since she still
controlled the rights to her Poppins books, my efforts at getting a
sequel off the ground were entirely theoretical. But in 1987, when
Mrs. Travers was 87, Walt’s nephew Roy had been approached by writer
Brian Sibley, an acquaintance of his and a longtime friend of hers.
Sibley told Disney she was open to doing a second movie at the studio,
and within a few months their agent closed a deal, but she extracted a
steep creative price: Unlike every other features deal at the studio,
this one gave away control of the story, settings, and characters to
the author of the underlying material. To her.
...
We tried in vain to persuade her to reconsider her veto of our pitch,
so hers was the direction we took. Five months later, Sibley’s
treatment of the movie came in. I returned to her sitting room, again
bearing whiskey, for the second of what would be five visits, for me
to hear her notes on Sibley’s approach, and for them to hear the
studio’s notes. I was sure she would dislike our notes — they were all
requests for changes — and indeed she did.
...
Seven years, and many treatments, scripts, notes, and a couple of
writers after my association with Mary Poppins had begun, the studio
abandoned the project — it was just too hard to work within her
constraints
Mary Poppins Does Not Come Back
Her last will and testament didn't explicitly "forbid" Disney from making a sequel, nor did she have the legal grounds to do so. Her original licence rights with Disney from the 1960s would have certainly included the right for them to make additional films based on her books, all of which they optioned. No-one else was going to make a film and her goal seems to have been to make a film rather than to block it outright.
PL Travers published six children’s books featuring Mary Poppins
between 1934 15 and 1982. In 1960 she and a family company entered
into an agreement with Walt Disney Productions under which they agreed
to grant Walt Disney Productions an assignment of the right to make
motion picture adaptations of any of the Mary Poppins books (subject
to conditions as to approval of their content) and the sole and
exclusive motion picture rights in the books, together with what would
nowadays be called ‘merchandising’ rights. The rights assigned did
not include dramatic, radio or television rights, but PL Travers
undertook not to “exploit or otherwise deal with the dramatic, radio
or television rights” in the books “except through and by arrangement
with” Walt Disney Productions “upon such terms and conditions as may
hereafter be mutually agreed”
[2013] UKFTT 436 (TC) THE TRUSTEES OF THE MRS PL TRAVERS WILL TRUST (Appellants)
- and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE & CUSTOMS (Respondents)
A quick look at her will (as discussed in the legal ruling above) shows that she was anticipating that her other books would eventually be made into sequel films and made provision for how the proceeds would be distributed.
Any payments received by my Trustees in respect of or [sic] any future
commercial production or exploitation in any form whatsoever of any
books I have written (including any sequel to the film “Mary Poppins”)
shall be held by my Trustees UPON TRUST to distribute in the following
manner:
...etc
So what did her will explicitly forbid?
The answer is that Travers was adamant that any stage show should be based on accurate retelling of her books rather than the Disney film (which she hated with a vengeance). Disney, in turn, insisted that due to a clause in their original contract (that any production that launched in the West End or Broadway would be linked to their original film copyright after 21 days) meant that that any production had to be loyal to their film.
Although her will repeated this concern, ultimately Travers' death and a settled legal action between Disney and her trustees meant that a production, which ended up being a fusion of the books and iconic images from the film, was able to be launched in 2004.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "186"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f199248%2fhow-is-the-mary-poppins-sequel-legal-when-the-author-denied-a-sequel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Disney were keen to make a follow-up to Mary Poppins as early as 1982 but the movie ended up in a glorious legal mess because of legal clauses on both sides that required creative agreement from both Disney and P.L. Travers herself.
Former Disney vice president of production Marty Kaplan describes how this deadlock resulted in the sequel film being put into limbo for decades until her death (and agreement from her family and the trustees of her 'literary estate') allowed Disney to regain the rights to exercise full creative control.
It was 1988, and I’d been a vice president at Disney for two years.
From the time I got there, studio president Jeffrey Katzenberg had
wanted to make a sequel to Mary Poppins, and I was assigned to develop
a script.
...
But as the new movie, Saving Mr. Banks, does not depict, Mrs. Travers
intensely disliked Walt Disney’s 1964 version. And since she still
controlled the rights to her Poppins books, my efforts at getting a
sequel off the ground were entirely theoretical. But in 1987, when
Mrs. Travers was 87, Walt’s nephew Roy had been approached by writer
Brian Sibley, an acquaintance of his and a longtime friend of hers.
Sibley told Disney she was open to doing a second movie at the studio,
and within a few months their agent closed a deal, but she extracted a
steep creative price: Unlike every other features deal at the studio,
this one gave away control of the story, settings, and characters to
the author of the underlying material. To her.
...
We tried in vain to persuade her to reconsider her veto of our pitch,
so hers was the direction we took. Five months later, Sibley’s
treatment of the movie came in. I returned to her sitting room, again
bearing whiskey, for the second of what would be five visits, for me
to hear her notes on Sibley’s approach, and for them to hear the
studio’s notes. I was sure she would dislike our notes — they were all
requests for changes — and indeed she did.
...
Seven years, and many treatments, scripts, notes, and a couple of
writers after my association with Mary Poppins had begun, the studio
abandoned the project — it was just too hard to work within her
constraints
Mary Poppins Does Not Come Back
Her last will and testament didn't explicitly "forbid" Disney from making a sequel, nor did she have the legal grounds to do so. Her original licence rights with Disney from the 1960s would have certainly included the right for them to make additional films based on her books, all of which they optioned. No-one else was going to make a film and her goal seems to have been to make a film rather than to block it outright.
PL Travers published six children’s books featuring Mary Poppins
between 1934 15 and 1982. In 1960 she and a family company entered
into an agreement with Walt Disney Productions under which they agreed
to grant Walt Disney Productions an assignment of the right to make
motion picture adaptations of any of the Mary Poppins books (subject
to conditions as to approval of their content) and the sole and
exclusive motion picture rights in the books, together with what would
nowadays be called ‘merchandising’ rights. The rights assigned did
not include dramatic, radio or television rights, but PL Travers
undertook not to “exploit or otherwise deal with the dramatic, radio
or television rights” in the books “except through and by arrangement
with” Walt Disney Productions “upon such terms and conditions as may
hereafter be mutually agreed”
[2013] UKFTT 436 (TC) THE TRUSTEES OF THE MRS PL TRAVERS WILL TRUST (Appellants)
- and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE & CUSTOMS (Respondents)
A quick look at her will (as discussed in the legal ruling above) shows that she was anticipating that her other books would eventually be made into sequel films and made provision for how the proceeds would be distributed.
Any payments received by my Trustees in respect of or [sic] any future
commercial production or exploitation in any form whatsoever of any
books I have written (including any sequel to the film “Mary Poppins”)
shall be held by my Trustees UPON TRUST to distribute in the following
manner:
...etc
So what did her will explicitly forbid?
The answer is that Travers was adamant that any stage show should be based on accurate retelling of her books rather than the Disney film (which she hated with a vengeance). Disney, in turn, insisted that due to a clause in their original contract (that any production that launched in the West End or Broadway would be linked to their original film copyright after 21 days) meant that that any production had to be loyal to their film.
Although her will repeated this concern, ultimately Travers' death and a settled legal action between Disney and her trustees meant that a production, which ended up being a fusion of the books and iconic images from the film, was able to be launched in 2004.
add a comment |
Disney were keen to make a follow-up to Mary Poppins as early as 1982 but the movie ended up in a glorious legal mess because of legal clauses on both sides that required creative agreement from both Disney and P.L. Travers herself.
Former Disney vice president of production Marty Kaplan describes how this deadlock resulted in the sequel film being put into limbo for decades until her death (and agreement from her family and the trustees of her 'literary estate') allowed Disney to regain the rights to exercise full creative control.
It was 1988, and I’d been a vice president at Disney for two years.
From the time I got there, studio president Jeffrey Katzenberg had
wanted to make a sequel to Mary Poppins, and I was assigned to develop
a script.
...
But as the new movie, Saving Mr. Banks, does not depict, Mrs. Travers
intensely disliked Walt Disney’s 1964 version. And since she still
controlled the rights to her Poppins books, my efforts at getting a
sequel off the ground were entirely theoretical. But in 1987, when
Mrs. Travers was 87, Walt’s nephew Roy had been approached by writer
Brian Sibley, an acquaintance of his and a longtime friend of hers.
Sibley told Disney she was open to doing a second movie at the studio,
and within a few months their agent closed a deal, but she extracted a
steep creative price: Unlike every other features deal at the studio,
this one gave away control of the story, settings, and characters to
the author of the underlying material. To her.
...
We tried in vain to persuade her to reconsider her veto of our pitch,
so hers was the direction we took. Five months later, Sibley’s
treatment of the movie came in. I returned to her sitting room, again
bearing whiskey, for the second of what would be five visits, for me
to hear her notes on Sibley’s approach, and for them to hear the
studio’s notes. I was sure she would dislike our notes — they were all
requests for changes — and indeed she did.
...
Seven years, and many treatments, scripts, notes, and a couple of
writers after my association with Mary Poppins had begun, the studio
abandoned the project — it was just too hard to work within her
constraints
Mary Poppins Does Not Come Back
Her last will and testament didn't explicitly "forbid" Disney from making a sequel, nor did she have the legal grounds to do so. Her original licence rights with Disney from the 1960s would have certainly included the right for them to make additional films based on her books, all of which they optioned. No-one else was going to make a film and her goal seems to have been to make a film rather than to block it outright.
PL Travers published six children’s books featuring Mary Poppins
between 1934 15 and 1982. In 1960 she and a family company entered
into an agreement with Walt Disney Productions under which they agreed
to grant Walt Disney Productions an assignment of the right to make
motion picture adaptations of any of the Mary Poppins books (subject
to conditions as to approval of their content) and the sole and
exclusive motion picture rights in the books, together with what would
nowadays be called ‘merchandising’ rights. The rights assigned did
not include dramatic, radio or television rights, but PL Travers
undertook not to “exploit or otherwise deal with the dramatic, radio
or television rights” in the books “except through and by arrangement
with” Walt Disney Productions “upon such terms and conditions as may
hereafter be mutually agreed”
[2013] UKFTT 436 (TC) THE TRUSTEES OF THE MRS PL TRAVERS WILL TRUST (Appellants)
- and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE & CUSTOMS (Respondents)
A quick look at her will (as discussed in the legal ruling above) shows that she was anticipating that her other books would eventually be made into sequel films and made provision for how the proceeds would be distributed.
Any payments received by my Trustees in respect of or [sic] any future
commercial production or exploitation in any form whatsoever of any
books I have written (including any sequel to the film “Mary Poppins”)
shall be held by my Trustees UPON TRUST to distribute in the following
manner:
...etc
So what did her will explicitly forbid?
The answer is that Travers was adamant that any stage show should be based on accurate retelling of her books rather than the Disney film (which she hated with a vengeance). Disney, in turn, insisted that due to a clause in their original contract (that any production that launched in the West End or Broadway would be linked to their original film copyright after 21 days) meant that that any production had to be loyal to their film.
Although her will repeated this concern, ultimately Travers' death and a settled legal action between Disney and her trustees meant that a production, which ended up being a fusion of the books and iconic images from the film, was able to be launched in 2004.
add a comment |
Disney were keen to make a follow-up to Mary Poppins as early as 1982 but the movie ended up in a glorious legal mess because of legal clauses on both sides that required creative agreement from both Disney and P.L. Travers herself.
Former Disney vice president of production Marty Kaplan describes how this deadlock resulted in the sequel film being put into limbo for decades until her death (and agreement from her family and the trustees of her 'literary estate') allowed Disney to regain the rights to exercise full creative control.
It was 1988, and I’d been a vice president at Disney for two years.
From the time I got there, studio president Jeffrey Katzenberg had
wanted to make a sequel to Mary Poppins, and I was assigned to develop
a script.
...
But as the new movie, Saving Mr. Banks, does not depict, Mrs. Travers
intensely disliked Walt Disney’s 1964 version. And since she still
controlled the rights to her Poppins books, my efforts at getting a
sequel off the ground were entirely theoretical. But in 1987, when
Mrs. Travers was 87, Walt’s nephew Roy had been approached by writer
Brian Sibley, an acquaintance of his and a longtime friend of hers.
Sibley told Disney she was open to doing a second movie at the studio,
and within a few months their agent closed a deal, but she extracted a
steep creative price: Unlike every other features deal at the studio,
this one gave away control of the story, settings, and characters to
the author of the underlying material. To her.
...
We tried in vain to persuade her to reconsider her veto of our pitch,
so hers was the direction we took. Five months later, Sibley’s
treatment of the movie came in. I returned to her sitting room, again
bearing whiskey, for the second of what would be five visits, for me
to hear her notes on Sibley’s approach, and for them to hear the
studio’s notes. I was sure she would dislike our notes — they were all
requests for changes — and indeed she did.
...
Seven years, and many treatments, scripts, notes, and a couple of
writers after my association with Mary Poppins had begun, the studio
abandoned the project — it was just too hard to work within her
constraints
Mary Poppins Does Not Come Back
Her last will and testament didn't explicitly "forbid" Disney from making a sequel, nor did she have the legal grounds to do so. Her original licence rights with Disney from the 1960s would have certainly included the right for them to make additional films based on her books, all of which they optioned. No-one else was going to make a film and her goal seems to have been to make a film rather than to block it outright.
PL Travers published six children’s books featuring Mary Poppins
between 1934 15 and 1982. In 1960 she and a family company entered
into an agreement with Walt Disney Productions under which they agreed
to grant Walt Disney Productions an assignment of the right to make
motion picture adaptations of any of the Mary Poppins books (subject
to conditions as to approval of their content) and the sole and
exclusive motion picture rights in the books, together with what would
nowadays be called ‘merchandising’ rights. The rights assigned did
not include dramatic, radio or television rights, but PL Travers
undertook not to “exploit or otherwise deal with the dramatic, radio
or television rights” in the books “except through and by arrangement
with” Walt Disney Productions “upon such terms and conditions as may
hereafter be mutually agreed”
[2013] UKFTT 436 (TC) THE TRUSTEES OF THE MRS PL TRAVERS WILL TRUST (Appellants)
- and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE & CUSTOMS (Respondents)
A quick look at her will (as discussed in the legal ruling above) shows that she was anticipating that her other books would eventually be made into sequel films and made provision for how the proceeds would be distributed.
Any payments received by my Trustees in respect of or [sic] any future
commercial production or exploitation in any form whatsoever of any
books I have written (including any sequel to the film “Mary Poppins”)
shall be held by my Trustees UPON TRUST to distribute in the following
manner:
...etc
So what did her will explicitly forbid?
The answer is that Travers was adamant that any stage show should be based on accurate retelling of her books rather than the Disney film (which she hated with a vengeance). Disney, in turn, insisted that due to a clause in their original contract (that any production that launched in the West End or Broadway would be linked to their original film copyright after 21 days) meant that that any production had to be loyal to their film.
Although her will repeated this concern, ultimately Travers' death and a settled legal action between Disney and her trustees meant that a production, which ended up being a fusion of the books and iconic images from the film, was able to be launched in 2004.
Disney were keen to make a follow-up to Mary Poppins as early as 1982 but the movie ended up in a glorious legal mess because of legal clauses on both sides that required creative agreement from both Disney and P.L. Travers herself.
Former Disney vice president of production Marty Kaplan describes how this deadlock resulted in the sequel film being put into limbo for decades until her death (and agreement from her family and the trustees of her 'literary estate') allowed Disney to regain the rights to exercise full creative control.
It was 1988, and I’d been a vice president at Disney for two years.
From the time I got there, studio president Jeffrey Katzenberg had
wanted to make a sequel to Mary Poppins, and I was assigned to develop
a script.
...
But as the new movie, Saving Mr. Banks, does not depict, Mrs. Travers
intensely disliked Walt Disney’s 1964 version. And since she still
controlled the rights to her Poppins books, my efforts at getting a
sequel off the ground were entirely theoretical. But in 1987, when
Mrs. Travers was 87, Walt’s nephew Roy had been approached by writer
Brian Sibley, an acquaintance of his and a longtime friend of hers.
Sibley told Disney she was open to doing a second movie at the studio,
and within a few months their agent closed a deal, but she extracted a
steep creative price: Unlike every other features deal at the studio,
this one gave away control of the story, settings, and characters to
the author of the underlying material. To her.
...
We tried in vain to persuade her to reconsider her veto of our pitch,
so hers was the direction we took. Five months later, Sibley’s
treatment of the movie came in. I returned to her sitting room, again
bearing whiskey, for the second of what would be five visits, for me
to hear her notes on Sibley’s approach, and for them to hear the
studio’s notes. I was sure she would dislike our notes — they were all
requests for changes — and indeed she did.
...
Seven years, and many treatments, scripts, notes, and a couple of
writers after my association with Mary Poppins had begun, the studio
abandoned the project — it was just too hard to work within her
constraints
Mary Poppins Does Not Come Back
Her last will and testament didn't explicitly "forbid" Disney from making a sequel, nor did she have the legal grounds to do so. Her original licence rights with Disney from the 1960s would have certainly included the right for them to make additional films based on her books, all of which they optioned. No-one else was going to make a film and her goal seems to have been to make a film rather than to block it outright.
PL Travers published six children’s books featuring Mary Poppins
between 1934 15 and 1982. In 1960 she and a family company entered
into an agreement with Walt Disney Productions under which they agreed
to grant Walt Disney Productions an assignment of the right to make
motion picture adaptations of any of the Mary Poppins books (subject
to conditions as to approval of their content) and the sole and
exclusive motion picture rights in the books, together with what would
nowadays be called ‘merchandising’ rights. The rights assigned did
not include dramatic, radio or television rights, but PL Travers
undertook not to “exploit or otherwise deal with the dramatic, radio
or television rights” in the books “except through and by arrangement
with” Walt Disney Productions “upon such terms and conditions as may
hereafter be mutually agreed”
[2013] UKFTT 436 (TC) THE TRUSTEES OF THE MRS PL TRAVERS WILL TRUST (Appellants)
- and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE & CUSTOMS (Respondents)
A quick look at her will (as discussed in the legal ruling above) shows that she was anticipating that her other books would eventually be made into sequel films and made provision for how the proceeds would be distributed.
Any payments received by my Trustees in respect of or [sic] any future
commercial production or exploitation in any form whatsoever of any
books I have written (including any sequel to the film “Mary Poppins”)
shall be held by my Trustees UPON TRUST to distribute in the following
manner:
...etc
So what did her will explicitly forbid?
The answer is that Travers was adamant that any stage show should be based on accurate retelling of her books rather than the Disney film (which she hated with a vengeance). Disney, in turn, insisted that due to a clause in their original contract (that any production that launched in the West End or Broadway would be linked to their original film copyright after 21 days) meant that that any production had to be loyal to their film.
Although her will repeated this concern, ultimately Travers' death and a settled legal action between Disney and her trustees meant that a production, which ended up being a fusion of the books and iconic images from the film, was able to be launched in 2004.
edited Nov 26 '18 at 9:21
answered Nov 24 '18 at 13:42
ValorumValorum
416k11330333255
416k11330333255
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f199248%2fhow-is-the-mary-poppins-sequel-legal-when-the-author-denied-a-sequel%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
12
Presumably they got permission from whoever currently controls the estate / IP? The final will and testament defines the author's desires, but it's only legally binding in terms of who it passes off control to. Whether that person decides to honor her wishes is something else entirey.
– Steve-O
Nov 24 '18 at 13:34
20
@Amarth - Per the FAQ; "What topics can I ask about here? - Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange is for questions targeted towards science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts. This includes questions about: Historical or societal context of a work + Behind-the-scenes and fandom information
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:01
8
@Amarth - It's a fantasy film.
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:10
13
@Amarth It has a women who can fly using an umbrella and transport living people into a world of animation.
– Skooba
Nov 24 '18 at 17:16
16
@Skooba - It's also a world where a man that looks like Dick van Dyke can have a romantic relationship with a woman that looks like Julie Andrews without being enormously wealthy
– Valorum
Nov 24 '18 at 17:20