Showing posts with label mary poppins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mary poppins. Show all posts

Monday, September 17, 2018

Mary Poppins Returns -- New Trailer

Cue the "practically perfect in every way" and "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" puns. 

This morning was...rough, for a variety of reasons. But, then this trailer dropped and things got a little brighter:


First--that cast! I knew Emily Blunt was playing Mary Poppins (and that the iconic Dame Julie Andrews gave her her blessing); I knew that Lin-Manuel Miranda was playing Jack -- not Bert!!! -- I even knew that Dick Van Dyke was playing/reprising the role of Mr. Dawes (again, not Bert). 

But Angela Lansbury! Colin Firth! Julie Walters! And Meryl Streep!!!

Second--this is probably uber-nerdy even for an uber-Disney-nerd, but I love the film-specific castles in the front of each film:


But I also left a piece of my heart in London, so there's that. 

Third--the old-school 2D animation!!! 😍😍😍


ScreenRant has a really cool article on the attention to detail in this sequence -- how it's not just an homage to the original film or a remake of it, that's worth a read. (For example, how the characters' clothes look they were drawn/animated, which you can kinda see above!) 

Fourth--the CGI. When it came out in the 1960s, Mary Poppins was a technical innovation for its time (something that can always be said of Disney) -- but with the advances in CGI, the magic is going to seem so much more...fluid. 

I'm sure this film will be filled with Easter eggs and nods to the original film -- the kite, the original house with the infamous bannister, the chimney sweeps dancing, the 2D animation, Jane campaigning for women's rights, just like her mother -- which makes my heart happy on so many levels. There's even a questionable Cockney accent from LMM, continuing Dick Van Dyke's terrible accent tradition

Look, I'm sure P. L. Travers -- author of the original Mary Poppins book -- would probably hate this film too. I've blogged about Disney's Mary Poppins and Distory before, with the end result being my decision to both love the books as one of the cornerstones of children's literature and the Disney movie as a cornerstone of my own childhood. (Julie Andrews was one of my grandmother's favorite actresses and we watched this movie together a lot.) I know that the Disney movie(s) are Disneyfied versions of the books and while I wish Disney would reflect that in this film -- especially given it's setting during the Depression, a less cheerful, more no-nonsense Mary Poppins would fit -- I'm not expecting them too. The trailer reflects that -- it looks a magical concoction about the wonder and purity of childhood -- and I can't wait to see it. 

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Disney Working on Mary Poppins Sequel (Of Sorts)

The news that Disney is basically remaking every one of it's animated classics into a live-action film isn't new.

What is new is reports that they're pursuing Emily Blunt for the role of Mary Poppins -- but not in a remake.

(c) Entertainment Weekly / Getty Images
The news comes from a Variety report and indicates that Rob Marshall (Chicago, Into The Woods) would direct. 

The most important information of the report -- at least to Disney/children's lit scholars/fans -- is this:
"Insiders confirm the new film will take place in Depression-era London 20 years after the first film and will take story lines from P.L. Travers’ children books focusing on Poppins’ continued adventures with the Banks family."
First--it  does confirm the reports that this would not be a remake of the 1964 live-action/animated film starring Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. (In other words, Emily Blunt would not be replacing Julie Andrews, but rather stepping into her (albeit rather large) shoes.)

This is key, I think, namely because Julie Andrews is so beloved, and this was an iconic role for her.

What's interesting though is the decision to fast-forward 20 years. Jane and Michael will have (presumably) grown up at this point, so I'm assuming that perhaps Mary Poppins will come to deal with their children, the next generation. (Although Jane and Michael would have had to get married rather early in life to have children the same age they were when Mary visited them...but details.)

I'm also curious to see whether Emily-Blunt-as-Mary-Poppins will be more faithful to Travers' original vision of Mary. While Disney romanticized the relationship between Travers and Walt in the film Saving Mr. Banks, the true account is much more...contentious. Travers and Walt fought over almost every aspect of the film, and she left the premiere in tears. (Which apparently led to her reluctance to give the rights for the Broadway musical, but that Mary is much more in line with the literary version: sterner, less "spoonful of sugar.")

Of course, all speculation at the moment, since nothing is set in stone, but interesting nonetheless.