-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Mary Poppins Sequel in the works
- Thread starter Sped2424
- Start date
Mawg
Well-Known Member
What was the last Live Action Musical? I really can't think of any recently that weren't made for TV. I don't see a huge demand for Musicals these days. Maybe they are reading the current masses differently than me but I can't picture a huge demand for this type of movie any more. I predict major flop.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
Anne Hathaway?
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
I just tried to sit through into the woods. It took two days, completely lost me by the last half hour – really kind of hated it. They may be sending troops to take back my gay card.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
Is there no optimism in this group? It can't be worse than that haunted mansion dreck. ( waiting hopefully for the new haunted mansion dreck!)
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
I can't agree more. This is just the way Disney is right now and I guess I just have to accept the fact that they might never be the creative juggernaut again. Here's looking forward to the Apple Dumpling Gang imax 3D remake...
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I just read about this. The only reason I'm not looking for a torch and pitchfork right now is that this...thing...is supposedly going to be set about 20 years after the time period portrayed in the actual film. Also, Richard Sherman is okay with it...so...ahhhhh, heck, I don't know. 
There WERE several Poppins books written by P.L. Travers, as I recall. One of them was, I think, called "Mary Poppins Opens The Door". But what's significant is that I am pretty sure that in all of the books, she was only involved with the Banks' children as CHILDREN. This new movie is going to be set 20 years after that? Is she going to visit the Banks' children's children, kind of like how Peter Pan took up with Wendy's daughter?
I wish...oh how I wish...that this were animated, and that Julie and Richard Van D. could provide the voices. No such luck, of course.
Really, I don't know why the dumb suits in Hollywood can't ever learn anything. Why they can't figure out that some things simply cannot be repeated. For instance, every attempt to revive some aspect of the land of Oz as a motion picture has been abysmal. Even "Oz the Great and Powerful' was pretty lame, although not as bad as it could have been. But at least it wasn't a musical. Jeez...
Well, maybe if this hits, Mary Poppins will finally get a dark ride or something in the parks. But she should have one by now ANYWAY. Man, I hate Iger...
There WERE several Poppins books written by P.L. Travers, as I recall. One of them was, I think, called "Mary Poppins Opens The Door". But what's significant is that I am pretty sure that in all of the books, she was only involved with the Banks' children as CHILDREN. This new movie is going to be set 20 years after that? Is she going to visit the Banks' children's children, kind of like how Peter Pan took up with Wendy's daughter?
I wish...oh how I wish...that this were animated, and that Julie and Richard Van D. could provide the voices. No such luck, of course.
Really, I don't know why the dumb suits in Hollywood can't ever learn anything. Why they can't figure out that some things simply cannot be repeated. For instance, every attempt to revive some aspect of the land of Oz as a motion picture has been abysmal. Even "Oz the Great and Powerful' was pretty lame, although not as bad as it could have been. But at least it wasn't a musical. Jeez...
Well, maybe if this hits, Mary Poppins will finally get a dark ride or something in the parks. But she should have one by now ANYWAY. Man, I hate Iger...
I agree from a creative standpoint something good could be made, the question is should something have been made at all?
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
From Disney? Into the Woods, and it didn't receive a lot of love.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Some of us can't be optimistic, including myself. Disney hasn't had a great live-action film in over a decade, in my opinion, and all of their upcoming live-action films are based on their animated features. There's no creativity, and the main reason they've been turning their animated films into live-action is because they know they'll make money. And now a Mary Poppins sequel? What?
I liked it :/ but from a story standpoint the major issue with the film was the sanitizing of it's darkness. Takes the bite out of the entire story.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Disney tends to do that a lot nowadays. They even took the dark out of Maleficent, which I hated, by the way (the film as a whole).
I spent a day watching their films from the Renaissance period last week. Ever since then, I've been feeling bitter towards the more recent films lol. I'm still waiting for Disney to release something on The Lion King's caliber again. In terms of live-action, I'm waiting for Curse of the Black Pearl quality.
ShoalFox
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
I think I came to this conclusion a while ago. It's a combination of desecrating EVERYTHING and the final killing traditional animation after the brief revival. But hey, remember it's all about that $$$$
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
Disney and pretty much all of Hollywood is averse to taking risk. This, like many of the others of recent are just another of their searching for something to turn into another franchise based on a known property. They tried with John Carter, Alice, then OZ and most recently with a new unknown, Tomorrowland. Going back to Mary Poppins will likely do as well as any of the others mentioned.
I'm not opposed, considering it's not just a re-boot, and they're using Richard Sherman. However, I doubt it will be a classic.
I'm not opposed, considering it's not just a re-boot, and they're using Richard Sherman. However, I doubt it will be a classic.
Magenta Panther
Well-Known Member
I've read the Poppins announcements at the Variety and Hollywood Reporter websites. And the comments posted are uniformly outraged. Good to see!
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
There's some creativity, just no originality - so what's new under the sun? Walt took many of his biggest hits from Grimm, Travers, folklore, etc.
I enjoyed Maleficent and Cinderella. Most movies of all stripes suck these days. Of course, born in 1971, the first films I saw in theaters were Jaws and Star Wars, which forever ruined movies for me, as nothing can compare to a child seeing those in a movie theater.
But just the idea of a MP sequel without any details - I can't trash it until I hear a reason to trash it.
Plus, the Tomorrowland disaster pushed any originality off the table. They just want bankable, low-risk money makers. Or maybe they should find a new fairy tale to co-opt.
Or here's an idea - the few originals and the biggest Disney stars: Mickey, Donald, Goofy...hello?!
Darth Sidious
Authentically Disney Distinctly Chinese
At least unlike Oz: The Great and Powerful this movie can use a song or two from the iconic first film.
216bruce
Well-Known Member
Thank you for being reasonable. I mean..."Into the Woods" was fantastic and this is the same director.
I agree on "Maleficent" and "Cinderella" and the dearth of originality in most big studio films these days.
Also, Travers books are pretty episodic and tough to make into a movie. The original MP was strung together from at least two of the books 'chapters'. I'll withhold judgement until it's made. Yeah, it's a VERY tough act to follow but it might actually be enjoyable.