Disney looking into sequel of Mary Poppins

[jcnewton]

Supposed to take place 20 years after the original? And who, pray tell, could they even possibly cast in this? I think they should just steer clear.

 

[boomgoesthemickey]

Kate Beckinsale as mary?
Ryan Gosling as Bert?

 

[adam.adbe]

Actually I'm very interested to see what they do with this movie. I think it has great potential.

I think it could be a good movie. The story is tried and tested, and with modern CGI they can certainly bring it together. I just have a soft spot for the original, and I'm mourning its slow fade into oblivion. I can't help feeling that with some of these redos, Disney will take the opportunity to discard the old 'Walt' material, in place of new shiny 'Disney' facsimiles.

 

[soniam]

Maybe it would be OK, but I am very skeptical Mary Poppins is one of the most dear movies of all time to me. I am not usually a crier, but it can do it, especially if DS is singing along. It's one of his favorite movies too. There's a massive shoe to fill, and I don't know if they have enough sense to do it well. I would be really surprised if they can get the rights to it. I know Travers threw a fit when they did the musical and insisted that no Americans could be involved.

 

[MinnieSweetheart]

I LOVE Mary Poppins, but I just think this sounds atrocious. Some things come together beautifully and shouldn't be messed with. Also, if this was Walt's last major movie, isn't it a tad disrespectful to build upon that with something that will highly likely be far inferior?

I don't know, maybe I'm just being very cynical, but I think this sounds awful.

It is far different to me than turning an animated classic into a more grown up and flushed out live action movie, a la Cinderella. The movies were the same but on two different planes. I don't think they should try to make another movie on the same plane as Mary Poppins.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I am wondering how Disney got around PT Travers will about *no Disney or Americans* will use the Mary Poppins books again???

AKK

 

[alicat8]

To get the most bang for their buck, they should plan ahead and simultaneously make a movie about remaking Mary Poppins.

HILARIOUS!!

 

[skier_pete]

Thank goodness it's not actually a remake as opposed to the OP / thread title says. I am not against the remakes/live action sequels though I think Disney is going overboard a bit, but when Cinderella makes half a billion dollars it's going to keep happening. But things like the original Alice In Wonderland and Cinderella's aren't really great movies. (Actually AiW is quite a mess, animated Cinderella is very, very good, and certainly a classic, but not sure I would call it GREAT.)

Mary Poppins though - Gosh it's just such a near perfect movie (OK, it's a little overlong, and then there's Dick Van Dyke's embarrassing accent...) I just don't know how you even try to make a sequel to that. At best it ends up being "well, that wasn't awful, but boy it's no original".) It's like doing a sequel to Wizard of Oz.

 

[JaxDad]

Kate Beckinsale as mary?
Ryan Gosling as Bert?

My first thought was they would go the 21st century diversity route, and almost simultaneously recalled that Whoopi Goldberg and Neil Patrick Harris were part of Night of Joy. Now it all makes sense...

 

[ronDisney]

I am certainly feeling uneasy about this whole venture. I love Mary Poppins, and the thought of attaching a sequel to something so classic is at best one of the most difficult movie challenges any studio/director/producer can face.

Mary Poppins though - Gosh it's just such a near perfect movie (OK, it's a little overlong, and then there's Dick Van Dyke's embarrassing accent...) I just don't know how you even try to make a sequel to that. At best it ends up being "well, that wasn't awful, but boy it's no original".) It's like doing a sequel to Wizard of Oz.

I'm totally in agreement...
So many things add up to the whole. The film itself, the trials and tribulations behind the scenes, and the little quirks (like the accent) all combine to make the film something truly great.

Speaking of Wizard of Oz...while they didn't make a sequel, they did make a prequel, and while I find that the movie was good and entertaining, I don't think it could be heralded as an instant classic. I suppose time will always tell on things. case in point...the original Wizard of Oz was actually a box office disappointment, but garnered popularity on television, years after. But, then again times have changed, and the way we consume media , as well as the almost infinite plethora of shows, movies, etc that are out there, makes it a difficult thing to to attain the title of "classic" these days.

Even the current juggernaut of "Frozen". While it has certainly become the Disney bomb that came out of nowhere...who's to say that in 5-10 years from now, we'll be able to say "it's a classic". There's every reason to believe the kids will have moved on to the next bigger and better thing, and even now...some have started to feel that "Frozen fatigue" that Pete talks about from time to time.

 

[skier_pete]

Speaking of Wizard of Oz...while they didn't make a sequel, they did make a prequel, and while I find that the movie was good and entertaining, I don't think it could be heralded as an instant classic.

Hah, I totally forgot that, I even saw it (at home on HBO). It pretty much lived up to my comment...It was better than I expected, but certainly not particularly memorable and nothing I will ever go back to.

 

[adam.adbe]

Jungle Book trailer leaked:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...live-action-remake-leaks-online-10501277.html

Not sure why the trailer is still held up. Are they doing a limited tease via iTunes/Movies etc first?

 

[adam.adbe]

Even the current juggernaut of "Frozen". While it has certainly become the Disney bomb that came out of nowhere...who's to say that in 5-10 years from now, we'll be able to say "it's a classic". There's every reason to believe the kids will have moved on to the next bigger and better thing, and even now...some have started to feel that "Frozen fatigue" that Pete talks about from time to time.

No worries, they'll just remake The Santa Clause, and re-skin Maelstrom as a Sleigh Ride. Bits of Norway are in the arctic circle right?

 

[nilla]

IMO, even if this is complete trash, it won't affect the Poppins brand one bit.

How many people stopped liking "The Little Mermaid" based on the straight-to-DVD sequels? Probably not many. If MP2 is bad, we'll just forget it ever happened.

 

[adam.adbe]

IMO, even if this is complete trash, it won't affect the Poppins brand one bit.

How many people stopped liking "The Little Mermaid" based on the straight-to-DVD sequels? Probably not many. If MP2 is bad, we'll just forget it ever happened.

See also, Cars 2, The Matrix 2, The Matrix 3, soooo many Police Academies, Star Wars Ep 1, 2, and 3 (but let's hope not 7, 8, and 9), ...

I'm still eternally glad that Peter Jackson had the good sense not to tackle The Hobbit. It'd be a shame if he ruined the Lord of the Rings trilogy by releasing a sub-par prequel.

 

[rteetz]

Jungle Book trailer leaked:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...live-action-remake-leaks-online-10501277.html

Not sure why the trailer is still held up. Are they doing a limited tease via iTunes/Movies etc first?

I think it looks good. CGI has come a long way.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I'm having trouble following your logic. The original movie was set at the turn of the twentieth century or at least pre WWI. If the sequel takes place 20 years later, that would place it in the 20s or 30s. Why would this make it less possible for fantasy?

To put another pin in that balloon, I'm pretty sure Harry Potter is pure fantasy, but it was set in modern day England. Worked for me.

But given how beloved the original Mary Poppins is, I can't help but think that the whole project is fraught with minefields. Not the least being the casting of the principal characters and the new songs. Trying to equal, never mind top the original score will be really difficult. And if they fail, they'll be tarred and feathered.

Yeah...I got my wires crossed a little there.

I was more pointing to how society has changed since 1964 - when the film was released - and how I don't see a storyline similar to Mary poppins being able to find a receptive audience now.

Things got way cynical/real... At least in America right after that...and Mary poppins is, if anything, innocent fun.

A good example is song of the south...which worked ok in 1947 but couldn't have worked very well in 1967...let alone now.

But those two films
Represent what made Disney a one of a kind brand in the 20th century...more than any other two examples I can give except perhaps the early cartoon movies - pinnocchio comes to mind, and perhaps Disneyland. And Mickey Mouse... Of course.

I think we should leave mary back there...when she sailed away as Burt said goodbye...

Not an 85 year old dick van dyke and Julie Andrews watching cgi penguins fly around like the Matrix.

 

[cmash95]

Thank goodness it's not actually a remake as opposed to the OP / thread title says. I am not against the remakes/live action sequels though I think Disney is going overboard a bit, but when Cinderella makes half a billion dollars it's going to keep happening. But things like the original Alice In Wonderland and Cinderella's aren't really great movies. (Actually AiW is quite a mess, animated Cinderella is very, very good, and certainly a classic, but not sure I would call it GREAT.)

Mary Poppins though - Gosh it's just such a near perfect movie (OK, it's a little overlong, and then there's Dick Van Dyke's embarrassing accent...) I just don't know how you even try to make a sequel to that. At best it ends up being "well, that wasn't awful, but boy it's no original".) It's like doing a sequel to Wizard of Oz.

wizard of oz sequel bombed. and this isnt going to be any better

 

[MinnieSweetheart]

IMO, even if this is complete trash, it won't affect the Poppins brand one bit.

How many people stopped liking "The Little Mermaid" based on the straight-to-DVD sequels? Probably not many. If MP2 is bad, we'll just forget it ever happened.

It might not hurt the brand, but could easily be disrespectful to Walt and PL Travers

 

[crazy4wdw]

I thought that P. L. Travers had said that Disney would never be allowed to make a sequel to Mary Poppins? She was so distraught over the film and really hated it. Its one issue that I did not like about "Saving Mr. Banks" as the film gave the impression that in the end she liked the film. She was crying at the premiere because she hated the film.

She did not want Walt Disney or Walt Disney Productions to make any more films about Mary Poppins. I thought she had put this in her will. I guess it depends on who currently owns the copyright to the books.