Mary Poppins Sequel in the works

[216bruce]

I agree with you about "Wicked" the book. Absolutely horrible.

Totally agree on the books. After I saw the musical I went out and bought the book. Go about 30 or so pages in and said "I have no idea what this is." Put it down and never opened it again.

 

[216bruce]

I appreciate your thoughtful analysis, and agree in most spots, maybe disagree in some.

I think part of the reason for disappointment in sequels is one of the very things you cite: they often (intentionally) don't try to compete with or sometimes even continue the storyline of the original. They rely heavily on new characters. People who loved the original want to see more of it, even if it is similar, though I think we'd most all prefer it wasn't too similar. Of all the Oz-related movies, cartoons, etc. beyond the original, most were severely disappointing to me. Oz: The Great and Powerful was not. That doesn't mean it's on the level of the first, but overall I enjoyed it and it was respectful to the original.

Side note: Wicked in the theater was wonderful, I thought. It basically went right through the Wizard of Oz towards the end, all the while seemingly filling in some blanks pretty cleverly IMO. It set the same tone as WoOz. I'm not the biggest fan of the Broadway musical and went in a little skeptical, but really enjoyed it. This at some point inspired me to read the book, Wicked, which I absolutely did not enjoy at all. It was not the tone of the Wizard of Oz or the musical Wicked at all. It was dark, at times gross, what a miserable tale to tell! I strongly dislike it and would never read any of the other books in the series.

I never permitted myself to watch the remake of Charlie & The Chocolate Factory. The original means too much to me. I don't think it can be improved upon. I don't want any glimpse of a new one spoiling my watching of one of my all time huge favorite movies.

Conversely, I did go to the theater to see the new Poltergeist, and it fell extremely flat. Really poorly done. The original had so much more character development and made you really care about every person. It had a feeling of almost two movies in one - after they got Carol Anne back, it could have ended - main crisis resolved, right? But it kept going and was excellent to the end. The new one felt like they were just trying to hit every big point and get on to the next.

I'm sure there is a lot of emotional weight on all our parts that factor into these things regardless of the quality of a film.

The first 3 Star Wars films made (4,5,6) were equally iconic to me. I never understood the criticism that Jedi had gone downhill and the gasp that Ewoks were too cute or whatever. I loved it all. One of the biggest theatrical disappointments for me was episode one. But years later I went back and watched 1, 2, and 3 on DVD with a different set of expectations, and was able to enjoy them more in context. And I think part of the problem was the detachment from episode 4. Again, one of the reasons the first three films made were so successful was because we loved the main characters and the actors who portrayed them. None of that would have made sense in the prequels, but I think I was still looking for it somehow (even though we still had Yoda and the droids.) I wasn't interested in new worlds, Naboo, whatever. I wanted to dig into the pre-history of the worlds I already "knew." I realize the irrationality of this in the practical sense of film making. I still think that's one reason why these things often bomb.

The Harry Potter films all worked for me. But in fairness, those were very much planned to be what they were. Nobody tried to write the last set of three without the original author, or so many years removed from the original. It was a well done series (very much borrowing from the Star Wars storyline IMO - the young prodigy is at first unaware of himself, and is connected to the primary representation of evil - wands vs. lightsabers, etc.)

I very much enjoyed Saving Mr. Banks. I think that colors my willingness to accept a new Poppins. Plus I don't think I was all that enthralled with the original Poppins. I certainly didn't care for it as a kid. I watched it in connection with the Mr. Banks movie.

Which brings me to other factors: age and perspective. Big difference between someone who saw Star Wars in a theater as a kid, someone who saw it in the theater as an adult, and someone who never saw it in the theater, but on DVD or VHS. And as I am now in my mid-40's (yikes) 10 years means something very different to me than it did in my 20's or 30's. Ten years go by a lot faster now, it seems. Someone who is a kid today might get excited by another Spider-Man reboot. Me, I'm thinking: again? already?!?

With all that said, I tend to be a more open-minded and optimistic individual. It really bothers me when somebody poo-poos an idea before it ever gets a chance to be worked out. If I listened to everyone who ever told me, "that won't work," I probably would be managing a Walgreens right now or something instead of running my own business. If you want to make it work, you will find a way. If you want to make it out to be awful, you will.

One thing I know from the music business that can relate to this discussion is the people making the decisions are often not fans. They are guessing what their customers want, and that's why they so often get it wrong. When they reissue a certain artist's catalog with bonus content, and the bonus content falls flat - that couldn't really happen if a fan had been making the decisions and/or had full creative control (including licensing, etc.) Very often a release like that will come out, and the fans uniformly decry it, and the label is clueless - because they are not fans. This is just a fact of life. The biggest business people probably won't be the biggest fans or understand what fans want. Sometimes people are very well-intentioned, but just get it wrong. OK. Try again. (Haunted Mansion.)

And sometimes it's just budgetary restrictions holding things back.

Briefly, re: Tomorrowland: wanted to like it. Started out great, I thought. Fell apart towards the end.

The creative state, in general, of the movie biz is pretty sad. There's just such insane amounts of money poured into these things that they really have to play it safe from a business perspective, so when I go to a tentpole film I just expect entertainment. If it happens to be 'pretty good' or 'original' at all, I'm pleased. That being said- mindless repetition of plot like "Jurassic World" is just a pure cash grab. Nothing new at all. Cardboard characters, over-the-top predictable plot (you know before you see it what will happen), but a LOT of folks love repetition so they keep making them and folks keep going to see them and the cycle continues. Those are pure remakes in essence. Oz, Maleficent, Potter films, Star Wars movies are either a different 'take' on a familiar property or parts of a continuing story. No problem at all with that if they are well written and crafted. If you learn something about a character or the plot/story advances, they can be great and are usually at least 'good enough'.
Yeah, the original of something- the first big, well-made, appearance of it, like "The Wizard of Oz" that sets the brand as special is almost always going to be the best by definition, since it will always be 'the original'. That doesn't mean that other spin-offs, sequels, prequels, or alternate 'takes' can't be good also. Look at "The Godfather" and "The Godfather 2". It can happen that a sequel is even better, but it's rare.

There's a lot of small budget, fantastic movies made all the time but they don't make a ton of money. Some of them just aren't heard about and some are just hard to find. The last two 'small' movies I saw- "Mr Holmes" and "Grandma" were amazingly well-written, acted/crafted and made pocket change when compared to anything we've mentioned so far. Sadly, Disney doesn't make very many small movies at all- The DisneyNature series and sports inspirational movies like "McFarland USA" and "Million Dollar Arm" come to mind, but very few folks see them- you certainly never see them mentioned here.

I think there's a fine line between 'remake', 'sequel/prequel' or 'alternate look or interpretation'. The only one that is usually a pure cash grab is 'remake', but that being said, I found "Cinderella" fantastic and even personally preferred it to the original animated version (sacrilege!). To each their own, but I like keeping an open mind at a movie and usually walk out happy that I saw the film to some degree. There are exceptions..."Jurassic World"...ugh.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Totally agree on the books. After I saw the musical I went out and bought the book. Go about 30 or so pages in and said "I have no idea what this is." Put it down and never opened it again.

I forced myself to finish it, thinking there had to be a payoff somewhere. There wasn't. I read wikipedia about the subsequent books, and realized there was no point in going there. I think I've never hated a book so much.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

The creative state, in general, of the movie biz is pretty sad. There's just such insane amounts of money poured into these things that they really have to play it safe from a business perspective, so when I go to a tentpole film I just expect entertainment. If it happens to be 'pretty good' or 'original' at all, I'm pleased. That being said- mindless repetition of plot like "Jurassic World" is just a pure cash grab. Nothing new at all. Cardboard characters, over-the-top predictable plot (you know before you see it what will happen), but a LOT of folks love repetition so they keep making them and folks keep going to see them and the cycle continues. Those are pure remakes in essence. Oz, Maleficent, Potter films, Star Wars movies are either a different 'take' on a familiar property or parts of a continuing story. No problem at all with that if they are well written and crafted. If you learn something about a character or the plot/story advances, they can be great and are usually at least 'good enough'.
Yeah, the original of something- the first big, well-made, appearance of it, like "The Wizard of Oz" that sets the brand as special is almost always going to be the best by definition, since it will always be 'the original'. That doesn't mean that other spin-offs, sequels, prequels, or alternate 'takes' can't be good also. Look at "The Godfather" and "The Godfather 2". It can happen that a sequel is even better, but it's rare.

There's a lot of small budget, fantastic movies made all the time but they don't make a ton of money. Some of them just aren't heard about and some are just hard to find. The last two 'small' movies I saw- "Mr Holmes" and "Grandma" were amazingly well-written, acted/crafted and made pocket change when compared to anything we've mentioned so far. Sadly, Disney doesn't make very many small movies at all- The DisneyNature series and sports inspirational movies like "McFarland USA" and "Million Dollar Arm" come to mind, but very few folks see them- you certainly never see them mentioned here.

I think there's a fine line between 'remake', 'sequel/prequel' or 'alternate look or interpretation'. The only one that is usually a pure cash grab is 'remake', but that being said, I found "Cinderella" fantastic and even personally preferred it to the original animated version (sacrilege!). To each their own, but I like keeping an open mind at a movie and usually walk out happy that I saw the film to some degree. There are exceptions..."Jurassic World"...ugh.

I agree about Cinderella vs. the animated.

But I am a big fan of the Jurassic series!! I guess I've always been interested in dinosaurs since I was a kid. Once you get past the premise - again, it's my version of a fun roller-coaster ride - something you don't take too seriously, just sit back and enjoy. Britney Spears is no vocalist, but I can enjoy a bunch of her songs on a different level than I would Frank Sinatra.

Movies and songs can have different reasons to resonate - pure fun, serious emotional movement, political message, religious message, etc.

Once again I'll mention "What Dreams May Come." Has anyone seen it? Robin Williams' best, IMO. Still gets to me every time.

 

[216bruce]

I forced myself to finish it, thinking there had to be a payoff somewhere. There wasn't. I read wikipedia about the subsequent books, and realized there was no point in going there. I think I've never hated a book so much.

Or been so disappointed.

Back to the original post...Mary Poppins sequels. It's going to be a hard act to follow, no doubt. But after reading all of the books it could be really, really good. Plenty of room left in the story with other situations and characters that haven't even been seen or mentioned yet that were in the books and not in the original or in the Broadway show. The problem will be that purists will slag it beforehand as an attempt to 'top' perfection. I'm going to wait and see. If it's a continuation of the story...yay! We'll always have the original and both can exist just fine.

 

[216bruce]

I agree about Cinderella vs. the animated.

But I am a big fan of the Jurassic series!! I guess I've always been interested in dinosaurs since I was a kid. Once you get past the premise - again, it's my version of a fun roller-coaster ride - something you don't take too seriously, just sit back and enjoy. Britney Spears is no vocalist, but I can enjoy a bunch of her songs on a different level than I would Frank Sinatra.

Movies and songs can have different reasons to resonate - pure fun, serious emotional movement, political message, religious message, etc.

Once again I'll mention "What Dreams May Come." Has anyone seen it? Robin Williams' best, IMO. Still gets to me every time.

All true. Like I said, to each their own.

 

[prberk]

You know what I find irritating about the current trend of re-makes? The idea that things have to be re-made in order for young people or new generations to watch them. And worse yet, many young people buy into it, or make it that way by thinking anything old is old-fashioned and not worth their time. Not all young people feel this way, of course, and I applaud and reward the ones who don't; but too many do -- and I lay significant blame at the feet of both parents and a complicit media industry (including Disney, especially with the all-new-all-the-time "Disney" Channel).

Disney used to re-issue the classics, INCLUDING even the live-action classics like "Old Yeller" and "Mary Poppins," regularly to theatres; and this lasted well into the time of VCRs and movies on home video.

Star Wars itself was re-issued in 1997 (all three in order) in preparation for the upcoming pre-quels that were being made at the time, and it raked in gazillions then.

And, of course, we saw the numbers when Disney re-issued "The Lion King" to theatres a couple of years back. Yes, it was in 3-D, but it was also in regular resolution -- and I think most people took their kids to have them experience it on the big screen.

We also used to see the originals to most classics show up in prime time on TV, and win good ratings. They were promoted as a special event.

I do enjoy a good new movie, including some remakes and sequels. Sometimes they are good, and worth making.

But I also would like to see the classics re-issued regularly, with even some promotion. It would never be as expensive as making a new film -- and for Disney it would have the residual effect of keeping its characters and classic films in the public eye, thus feeding the amusement park properties and even "plush" toy sales down the road.

It made sense then, it makes sense now.

 

[216bruce]

You know what I find irritating about the current trend of re-makes? The idea that things have to be re-made in order for young people or new generations to watch them. And worse yet, many young people buy into it, or make it that way by thinking anything old is old-fashioned and not worth their time. Not all young people feel this way, of course, and I applaud and reward the ones who don't; but too many do -- and I lay significant blame at the feet of both parents and a complicit media industry (including Disney, especially with the all-new-all-the-time "Disney" Channel).

Disney used to re-issue the classics, INCLUDING even the live-action classics like "Old Yeller" and "Mary Poppins," regularyly in theatres; and this lasted well into the time of VCRs and movies on home video.

Star Wars itself was re-issued in 1997 (all three in order) in preparation for the upcoming pre-quels that were being made at the time, and it raked in gazillions then.

And, of course, we saw the numbers when Disney re-issued "The Lion King" to theatres a couple of years back. Yes, it was in 3-D, but it was also in regular resolution -- and I think most people took their kids to have them experience it on the big screen.

We also used to see the originals to most classics show up in prime time on TV, and win good ratings. They were promoted as a special event.

I do enjoy a good new movie, including some remakes and sequels. Sometimes they are good, and worth making.

But I also would like to see the classics re-issued regularly, with even some promotion. It would never be as expensive as making a new film -- and for Disney it would have the residual effect of keeping its characters and classic films in the public eye, thus feeding the amusement park properties and even "plush" toy sales down the road.

It made sense then, it makes sense now.

I don't know if they have this where you live, but around here (Cleveland) and in, I assume, a lot of other bigger metro areas there is a thing called "Disney Screen" where they play, all day, for like 5 bucks for the whole day a program of old and newer Disney movies. This past week they showed - Absent Minded Professor, Pollyana, Old Yeller and Swiss Family Robinson. The schedule changes pretty regularly and they've ran just about everything in 'the canon' of animated and Walt era live action. Of course, you'd never know it existed unless you stumbled on it...but yeah, it's an actual Disney sanctioned 'thing'.

Here's a link....http://movies.disney.com/disney-screen

I hear ya, I wish it was so, but it isn't. The market and how we watch movies and what we watch has just changed so, so much since even when my kids were young back in the distant '90s. Once corporations started making movies and studios got 'sucked up' by Sony, etc. it became just another product subject to test groups, surveys, etc. Back around the time of "Jaws" and "Star Wars" it dawned on corporations that there was some serious scratch to be made and the originality and creativity of the business lost a lot for 'big' movies. Like I posted earlier- there's still a LOT of great original movies out there, but people just don't want to see them, don't know about them or just want 'safe and known'. I suspect it's all of the above.

As an aside...the same thing happened to rock and roll and country. They both used to be great, everywhere and fantastically original...then the corporate 'business model' got a hold of them. Now...yeesh. Bro-country and pseudo rock.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I don't know that many people would pay to see the original Mary Poppins in theaters. I see once in awhile they'll rerun the Wizard of Oz or Jaws in mainstream theaters - they did that with the original Star Wars series for awhile as well (supposedly upgraded versions.)

What you have to consider is what would the theater be losing by putting Mary Poppins on one screen vs. a new movie coming out that Friday.

But I don't hate the idea - especially with the classic Disney animation. It is a whole different experience to see it in a movie theater than at home on a DVD. Maybe they could put new (or old) shorts in front of the movie for extra draw.

It could be a good idea to play a double-feature of the original Mary Poppins and then the new one (assuming that would make sense story-wise.)

 

[216bruce]

I don't know that many people would pay to see the original Mary Poppins in theaters. I see once in awhile they'll rerun the Wizard of Oz or Jaws in mainstream theaters - they did that with the original Star Wars series for awhile as well (supposedly upgraded versions.)

What you have to consider is what would the theater be losing by putting Mary Poppins on one screen vs. a new movie coming out that Friday.

But I don't hate the idea - especially with the classic Disney animation. It is a whole different experience to see it in a movie theater than at home on a DVD. Maybe they could put new (or old) shorts in front of the movie for extra draw.

It could be a good idea to play a double-feature of the original Mary Poppins and then the new one (assuming that would make sense story-wise.)

I think that in general most people these days prefer to just sit home and watch movies. At work, most of the folks will tell me, "Yeah, I'll just wait for it to be on Netflix. I'll see it then". In the past, you had to wait a long time for a home video release and there was no Netflix.
I have no idea how many folks go to see the Disney Screen showings. The one time I went it was a few weeks ago and while school was still out, the place was well-attended. About a month ago one of our local, independent movie theaters ran "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and there was about 100 or so folks at a Sunday, 10am showing. Not bad for a Sunday morning. I think there's a market for re-releases of classic Disney in theaters. Not a huge one, but a decent one. The problem is that there are just so many ways to see a movie at home with a hi-def screen, great sound and whenever you want to. Heck, if you have to "go" you can pause it even. Can't do that in a theater, but you also don't get a giant screen and the experience of a crowd. That is still, for me, special and adds to the enjoyment (if only folks would put their (*&^%$# phones away and stop blabbering)!

 

[prberk]

I think that in general most people these days prefer to just sit home and watch movies. At work, most of the folks will tell me, "Yeah, I'll just wait for it to be on Netflix. I'll see it then". In the past, you had to wait a long time for a home video release and there was no Netflix.
I have no idea how many folks go to see the Disney Screen showings. The one time I went it was a few weeks ago and while school was still out, the place was well-attended. About a month ago one of our local, independent movie theaters ran "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and there was about 100 or so folks at a Sunday, 10am showing. Not bad for a Sunday morning. I think there's a market for re-releases of classic Disney in theaters. Not a huge one, but a decent one. The problem is that there are just so many ways to see a movie at home with a hi-def screen, great sound and whenever you want to. Heck, if you have to "go" you can pause it even. Can't do that in a theater, but you also don't get a giant screen and the experience of a crowd. That is still, for me, special and adds to the enjoyment (if only folks would put their (*&^%$# phones away and stop blabbering)!

Like any movie "release," the size of the crowd would be helped by advertising the release, just like the big "Lion King" re-release or the '97 "Star Wars" re-release. Of course that is a cost, but nothing compared to the production of a new film. And today's digital distribution methods have to cost less.

I do not have the "Disney Screen" in my area (Richmond, VA), but we do have some classics screened every now and then, just usually not Disney. And as for official re-releases, I am only talking about one every six months or year, in an off season, like Spring or Fall, with a modest advertising push. And they can follow it in a few months with a video or on-demand release, using the tailwind of the movie's recent popularity and advertising.

 

[216bruce]

Like any movie "release," the size of the crowd would be helped by advertising the release, just like the big "Lion King" re-release or the '97 "Star Wars" re-release. Of course that is a cost, but nothing compared to the production of a new film. And today's digital distribution methods have to cost less.

I do not have the "Disney Screen" in my area (Richmond, VA), but we do have some classics screened every now and then, just usually not Disney. And as for official re-releases, I am only talking about one every six months or year, in an off season, like Spring or Fall, with a modest advertising push. And they can follow it in a few months with a video or on-demand release, using the tailwind of the movie's recent popularity and advertising.

I'd love it, especially for stuff that is 'locked in the Disney Vault'. Wherever that is.
I used to love looking forward to these re-releases. Because of that my daughters first Disney film was "101 Dalmations". It's a great way to expose kids to older film and a nice nostalgia trip for parents and grandparents. Yeah, it wouldn't cost much and just how many screens at a multiplex need to show "The Avengers" at one time anyway? I know that right now (Fall) there really aren't any big releases and it would make great sense. You know what would be amazing...."Fantasia" or "Fantasia 2000" in 3D and 7.1 sound. Done well, it would be mind blowing.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Totally agree on the books. After I saw the musical I went out and bought the book. Go about 30 or so pages in and said "I have no idea what this is." Put it down and never opened it again.

I didn't make it THAT far! Not even through the first chapter. I really hate it that some people think that the way to "update" classic entities is to make them darker. I really wish the media would stop underestimating us. I am so sick of going to a fantasy film and seeing no joy, no sparkle, just weirdness and "edginess". I'm beginning to think such stuff is due to a real lack of creativity and laziness. It's easy to take something wholesome and corrupt it and attract curious onlookers, if nothing else. It's even happening to the Muppets, which I don't even care about, but there's something awful about taking a family property and trying to pound it into the jagged hole of vulgarity and cynicism (sorry for the metaphor - best I can do on a Monday) in an effort to make it...relevant or something. Cynicism and darkness and misfortune and sadness existed in real life in 1939, after all; but moviemakers back then felt their job was to provide a distraction from all that and offered a hopeful vision. That's what Walt wanted to do. I think that's what audiences STILL want. I think society needs it. Well, sorry for the rant. I just hate stuff like "Wicked".

 

[216bruce]

I didn't make it THAT far! Not even through the first chapter. I really hate it that some people think that the way to "update" classic entities is to make them darker. I really wish the media would stop underestimating us. I am so sick of going to a fantasy film and seeing no joy, no sparkle, just weirdness and "edginess". I'm beginning to think such stuff is due to a real lack of creativity and laziness. It's easy to take something wholesome and corrupt it and attract curious onlookers, if nothing else. It's even happening to the Muppets, which I don't even care about, but there's something awful about taking a family property and trying to pound it into the jagged hole of vulgarity and cynicism (sorry for the metaphor - best I can do on a Monday) in an effort to make it...relevant or something. Cynicism and darkness and misfortune and sadness existed in real life in 1939, after all; but moviemakers back then felt their job was to provide a distraction from all that and offered a hopeful vision. That's what Walt wanted to do. I think that's what audiences STILL want. I think society needs it. Well, sorry for the rant. I just hate stuff like "Wicked".

AGREE 100%. (but I did enjoy the musical of Wicked). I despise everything being dark, dystopic and edgy. Without getting on a rant, I'm convinced that that's a major reason for "Tommorowland" doing a floperoo. It tried to tell people that 'Hey, the future is what you make of it you lazy, negative, self-fulfilling, life stinks losers.." Anyway, Yup!

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I didn't make it THAT far! Not even through the first chapter. I really hate it that some people think that the way to "update" classic entities is to make them darker. I really wish the media would stop underestimating us. I am so sick of going to a fantasy film and seeing no joy, no sparkle, just weirdness and "edginess". I'm beginning to think such stuff is due to a real lack of creativity and laziness. It's easy to take something wholesome and corrupt it and attract curious onlookers, if nothing else. It's even happening to the Muppets, which I don't even care about, but there's something awful about taking a family property and trying to pound it into the jagged hole of vulgarity and cynicism (sorry for the metaphor - best I can do on a Monday) in an effort to make it...relevant or something. Cynicism and darkness and misfortune and sadness existed in real life in 1939, after all; but moviemakers back then felt their job was to provide a distraction from all that and offered a hopeful vision. That's what Walt wanted to do. I think that's what audiences STILL want. I think society needs it. Well, sorry for the rant. I just hate stuff like "Wicked".

Frickin Piggy and Kermie broke up!! WTH?!

 

[216bruce]

Frickin Piggy and Kermie broke up!! WTH?!

I'm surprised they made it this long. Interspecies relationships usually don't work out.

 

[RandomPrincess]

Some possible casting news - Emily Blunt is looking good for the part of Mary.

http://www.slashfilm.com/emily-blunt-as-mary-poppins/

Newest rumor - Lin Manuel Miranda of Hamilton fame is rumored to play a lamp lighter named Jack. I'm guessing it's the Bert type role.

http://www.broadway.com/buzz/183949...-miranda-board-disneys-new-mary-poppins-film/

Rob Marshall, who helmed the recent big-screen adaptation of Into the Woods, is on board to direct. Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman, the team behind Hairspray, Smash’s Bombshell and the Broadway-bound Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, will compose a new score and original songs.

Rumored plot. Michael Banks now all grown up with his own family. Mary returns to help out. Takes place about 30 years after original.

 

[DisneyManOne]

Lin Manuel-Miranda also is planning to do the music for the new movie.

 

[RandomPrincess]

Lin Manuel-Miranda also is planning to do the music for the new movie.

That's the rumor. He is already working on Moana for Disney so it would make sense.

 

[Disneyfanman]

I have moved from "Worst idea ever" to thinking...................."Maybe". Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman are a pretty talented team, and Emily Blunt would be a practically perfect Mary. I'm warming up to this. I really thought I would hate the stage musical after I heard they jiggled the plot and music and I LOVED IT. I predicted Cinderella would be awful and I loved that too. I even liked Maleficent. I'm even kinda looking forward to "Pete" and "Jungle Book". Go live remakes and sequels!