Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Boardwalk cafe doesn’t have pictures of Emily Blunt for a reason.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
EPCOT Announced: Mary Poppins Attraction in UK Pavilion
- Thread starter TabulaRasa
- Start date
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Seems like Disney always has to make tough decisions with these sorts of things. Do they feature the original/classic version of a story/character? Or do they promote their more recent efforts, and leverage “synergy” (hate that word) to tie new attractions to newer iterations?
We saw how it went with Star Wars for SW:GE—they went with their more recent versions. But with all the remakes of animated features, they seem to stick with the originals in the parks. And with Mickey Mouse we see a bit of both (lots of classic Mickey in the parks, but MMRR featuring the Rudish version).
In either case, it seems like they get pushback from fans. Base a new Mary Poppins attraction on the originals, and fans will complain: “They didn’t really even promote the Emily Blunt and Lin Manuel Miranda version!” Base it on the Returns versions, and “They’ve completely turned their backs on the real Mary Poppins/Julie Andrews to promote their cheap new knockoff version!”
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Didn't they kind of know it was a box office disappointment by the time it was announced for EPCOT in 2019?
Besides, it would have to be based on Bob Iger's Mary Poppins because Walt Disney's Mary Poppins is not timeless, relevant or Disney enough.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
No one would complain about such a thing...except maybe Emily Blunt.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Yeah, maybe not quite like that. But I could see some on here saying something like, “See! Proof that they don’t believe in the new stuff they’re putting out—they know it’s bad!”
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Yet another Iger gem…
A reboot “trilogy” that looked like a bad (-as in unoriginally lame) attempt at a reboot.
Are we still going with “only the brand matters”??
He’s been quiet
A reboot “trilogy” that looked like a bad (-as in unoriginally lame) attempt at a reboot.
Are we still going with “only the brand matters”??
He’s been quiet
Last edited:
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
The fact it’s true blunts your sarcasm a bit.
But I don’t think Mary Poppins Returns is necessarily “bad”. The problem is it was a 100% remake they swore wasn’t…so they treat the very Disney devoted fans that know/appreciate Mary poppins as idiots.
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I wasn’t being sarcastic. It’s true.
The dreaded re-imagining of a classic.
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
Say what you will, but the reboot or sequel was however pitch-perfect. Perhaps audiences today don't want a family friendly adventure with a happy ending where nobody blows up and there isn't a super hero battle. I thought it was thoroughly charming, and a great match in tone to it's predecessor.
I for one wish there were more movies like this...I am bored with Super heroes and fighting and violence in my entertainment choices. Our current world is depressing and angst-invoking enough.
I for one wish there were more movies like this...I am bored with Super heroes and fighting and violence in my entertainment choices. Our current world is depressing and angst-invoking enough.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
The deep cultural reverence that still exists for the original would suggest that audiences are open to family-friendly adventures sans explosives. As would the fact that so much of Disney's output falls into that category.
It seems more likely that this one just didn't strike the chords with the greater public that it struck with you. I generally find that I wanted to like it more than I actually did, and that despite some fun moments it still stands firmly in the long shadow of the original. To me the sequel felt more concerned with polish than with plot - it's a handsome film, but it lacks the narrative genius of the first.
And of course those Sherman Brothers songs are hard to live up to. They're deceptive in how much heavy lifting they do for such seemingly light tunes.
Last edited:
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
This is similar to how I felt about the sequel. I liked it well enough and it was a fine film, but it's really not comparable to the original.
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
The problem is that the sequel followed the exact same beats as the previous movie. Unfortunately, this highlighted how much better the original Mary Poppins film was. We had a clean up number (Spoonful of Sugar/Can you Imagine That), a performance in an animated world (Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious/A Cover is Not A Book), a visit to one of Mary's cooky relatives (Uncle Albert in the first, cousin Topsy in the sequel), Mary singing a somber lullaby (Feed the Birds/The Place Where Lost Things Go). A chimney sweep dancing sequence is replaced by a lamplighter dancing sequence. Instead of flying a kite, they fly balloons at the end.
It was essentially a remake disguised as a sequel. Sort of like the Force Awakens in Star Wars. And the problem with being so derivative of the original movie is I kept thinking of how much better the first movie's comparative song/sequence was compared to the version we got in the sequel.
Mary Poppins Returns needed more originality. The first movie was bold and inventive for 1964. Mary Poppins Returns felt like an uninspired throwback
Bocabear
Well-Known Member
To me it felt more like a direct inspiration from the first movie made by people that revered the original but might have been afraid to get too far away from it. It felt like a bit of a tribute to me...rather than an uninspired throwback...a window for a younger generation perhaps... but yes very derivative. Would rather see something this beautifully crafted than ToyStory 6.
Either way I would think they would want to base the attraction more off the original...as it has the most nostalgia built around it.
Either way I would think they would want to base the attraction more off the original...as it has the most nostalgia built around it.
yensidtlaw1969
Well-Known Member
I felt like "Returns" had all of the trees but somehow missed the forest - it hit all those beats, but it missed the way the beats in the original brilliantly built to an unexpected lesson for the characters and the audience that offered genuine optimism, verging on catharsis.
The sneak attack of the first is that George Banks goes through a real transformation, and it's the fulcrum on which the movie turns. Michael in the sequel kind of stays the same, but . . . remembers a little more how to have fun? There wasn't much lesson for the audience to walk away with, just some forced positivity that didn't really earn itself beyond things working out for the characters because Mary made it so.
I love, too, the brilliant touch in the original that Bert is the one who finally gets through to George rather than Mary - she is merely practically perfect, after all. In the second Mary really is running the game, and sometimes she stops pulling the strings for no real reason beyond plot convenience. Her presence feels less essential this time - she didn't need to teach a lesson so much as help them rifle through a desk drawer.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
Blame PL The books are pretty much the same
I still blame Disney as a company. Walt said he was not interested in perusing sequels, and that was an extreme.
cookiee_munster
Well-Known Member
This is exactly how I felt about the film. I really enjoyed it. If the ride ever comes into fruition, i hope that both the original and the sequel get a nod in some manner.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
Actually, Walt wanted a sequel, but figured now that Julie Andrews was a big name, she'd be too expensive. And at that point I think he'd rather vacation in hell than deal with PL again. (Oddly at one time PL was indeed working with the Disney company for a sequel but it was abandoned).
DonniePeverley
Well-Known Member
387 pages on something that isn't even going to be built.
Amazing
Amazing
