I'm with you. Too much emphasis is placed on a part of his life that has no major impact on his personality for the rest of the movie. He feels a kinship to the workers and is dedicated to keeping that promise of them having jobs, and it made a good excuse to have the compass. And some of the entries are disproven by events of the movie.
Not sure the best way to add this in, but I got the impression that, until Christopher Robin specifically was caring about them, all the characters from the 100 acre wood stopped existing.
We see Pooh wake up from a deep sleep right after Christopher looks at his picture that Madeline found (and Christopher spills honey on, for added effect). The wood is super foggy and Pooh is all alone, because Christopher’s memories are foggy and he has only really thought about Pooh (though he did see Piglet’s acorns).
When Christopher finally goes back to the wood, its still foggy, in no small part because he just doesn’t really care about the others, he just wants to go home. When Christopher blows up at Pooh, he also stops existing.
Its only when Christopher has his dream in the trap, and then sees the bridge and starts to really care anout it all - Eeyore comes back, and then the others come back specifically after Christopher thinks about them each in turn, examining Owl’s house. After then, he finds them easily.
So, for large chinks of the movie, most or all of the animals are effectively gone.
The page says that only CR and his daughter can see Pooh and the others as anything more than regular stuffed animals, but there's a scene in this
trailer where a man can clearly hear Pooh speak, causing him to bump into a lamp post, resulting in CR telling Pooh not to move or talk in front of people.
So, can other people see Pooh and the gang move and talk or not?
Hide / Show Replies
I just saw the movie, and....yes. Yes, other people can interact with the Pooh gang. It’s the source of several comedic moments as people just go WTF at the sight. I was going in to edit that, but the page is locked. This really should be fixed, though...
I don't think Artistic License- History would apply to the movie based off of the books unless it applied to the original books as well. The movie is not based off of real life. It is vased off of a fictional story whose Christopher Robin was insirpred by the author's son but he was not the same boy. In fact in the movie Christopher's last name is Robin which means he is not the same man as the author's son.
Edited by LadyErinNY Hide / Show Replies
I beg to differ. The film's cherry-picking aspects of the real C.R.'s life, like the family dynamic and his desire to create a separate identity from his childhood. (Though mainly it's erasing Clare that concerns me. C.R. adored his daughter in real life, and did all he could to accommodate her disabilities. They could have at least kept her name. Even if it's not Disney's intentions, and I do believe that it isn't, it appears like disability erasure.)
In the books, A.A. Milne would be the narrator and directly talk to C.R. to tell him the story, so he did exist.
Okay, give me a source that says that's what they are doing. Because TV Tropes is facts not opinions. Also the guy in the film's last name is Robin not Milne so they are not the same character. Artistic License History is not about characters that are based or insipired by real-life people. Christopher Robin is not Christopher Robin Milne so Artistic License History does not apply.
So let me get this straight: you expect that Disney would admit in printed material that they deliberately erased a disabled person because it would be harder to get insurance for a child with cerebral palsy, and cherrypicked from a person's real life to make their movie flow better into a story about a man learning to appreciate his family and not give so much to work? Did they do that for Saving Mr. Banks or with other Disney films that were based on real life, and were criticized for straying away from actual history?
The film will be the source. But if you are serious, I've emailed the Clare Milne Trust to ask if Clare was left out for legal reasons, if they wanted to keep her image out of the public eye. If I get a response, that will be the main source. In the meantime, there are articles that describes tactfully some of the creative liberties.
Also, C.R. Milne was once the Christopher Robin of the books; he just grew up and changed, because that's what people do. He himself said that in his memoirs that once he was that boy, but people didn't want to see that he was getting older and growing into his own person.
In addition, this article confirms that they are taking beats from the real C.R.'s life, like his war veteran status.
Saving Mr. Banks is based on history while this movie is based on a fictional book. It's basically the Winnie the Pooh version of Hook. It's not supposed to be based on real life aside from the fact that the fictional Christopher Robin is inspired by a real boy.
Edited by LadyErinNY
Here's a paragraph from your source. "Christopher Robin was a real person but this movie is obviously a fantasy. His wife, Evelyn, is fictitious, but she represents a real type of postwar individual: the woman who held the homefront together, only to find herself relegated back to housework when her husband returns from war." The movie is fantasy, his wife and daughter are fictitious. It has nothing to do with the real Christopher Robin Milne.
Is this part of the Disney Live Action Remakes franchise? Or not, because it's a sequel to the animated Pooh movies rather than a remake?
Is it just me or are all the references to "Christopher Robin slaughtering vast hordes in the hellfire of WW 2" a bit overblown? It's presented as part of his loss of innocence, yes, but not in any way the main issue. Christopher Robin served as a British officer, got injured and demobbed. It's just another part of him growing up just like getting married and having a kid. If anything it's the job that's presented as far more soulcrushing.
Hide / Show Replies