News Announced: Mary Poppins Attraction in UK Pavilion

Bocabear

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.
 
yensidtlaw1969

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
Bocabear said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
yensidtlaw1969 said:
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 original.

And of course those Sherman Brothers songs are hard to live up to.
Click to expand...

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

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
Bocabear said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

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.
 
yensidtlaw1969

yensidtlaw1969

Well-Known Member
Ghost93 said:
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
Click to expand...

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

Rich Brownn

Well-Known Member
Ghost93 said:
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
Click to expand...
Blame PL The books are pretty much the same
 
cookiee_munster

cookiee_munster

Well-Known Member
Bocabear said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

Rich Brownn

Well-Known Member
celluloid said:
I still blame Disney as a company. Walt said he was not interested in perusing sequels, and that was an extreme.
Click to expand...
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).
 
No Name

No Name

Well-Known Member
From another site:

“Former Imagineer here. There was a plan for an indoor teacup attraction between 2016-2020 but it was cancelled due to the expense (cancelled before Covid was a thing). The Travers’ Estate demanded too much money for the IP and trying to engineer a typically loud outdoor attraction to be indoors was also too much for a non E-Ticket.”
 
LittleBuford

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
egg said:
From another site:

“Former Imagineer here. There was a plan for an indoor teacup attraction between 2016-2020 but it was cancelled due to the expense (cancelled before Covid was a thing). The Travers’ Estate demanded too much money for the IP and trying to engineer a typically loud outdoor attraction to be indoors was also too much for a non E-Ticket.”
Click to expand...
I'm glad this never came to fruition. They can come up with something much better than an indoor teacup attraction.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom