Mary Poppins Returns

It's out in Europe, at least, but it's apparently getting good reviews. Some say it's derivative from the original but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

Saw this the other day. Wasn't super amazing, but it still had loads of charm and was overall enjoyable. My only real issue is that the Cousin Topsy sequence felt totally unnecessary in an already long (if still paced decently) movie.

Also, it was great to see 2D Disney animation again.

Edited by Karxrida on Dec 24th 2018 at 3:29:48 AM

The 2D animation sequences were amazing. Disney really needs to start investing in that again.

2D is a thing of past in Disney's eyes,they want to remain current and relevant so it's worth more investing 3D

For now, but I think once Disney feels that the time is right for giving the audience something traditionally animated again they will do it. Mary Poppins might even help with that considering that the animated scenes seems to be one of the main reasons a lot of people are excited about the movie in the first place.

Agreed. It didn't add anything to the plot or themes. I expected a Chekhov's Gun or something to come back. Or even just the Bowl. But the Bowl is never mentioned again and neither is Topsey. I think it was only there for the 'We need another Uncle from the original kind of scene'. Nevermind that, even as a kid, I never cared for that scene either.

I think the Angela Lansbury scene at the end was originally written for Julie Andrews. It felt so... odd. I don't know. I kept thinking during the scene that it would have a stronger resonance if it was the original Mary Poppins reading the lines.

Just saw it and while I don't have much emotion towards the original, I found it enjoyable. The 2D scene was definitely the highlight.

We need more quirky live-action musicals.

One thing I liked about it, was that it was a true, old fashioned musical, complete with Broadway style big ensemble dance numbers, and scoring. After the Big "Light Fantastic" sequence, I actually almost started clapping, because it felt so much like the big act break number before intermission!

The music was pretty good, although not quite as memorable as the Sherman Brothers songs from the original, and the animated Sequence was amazing.

Edited by megaeliz on Jan 4th 2019 at 2:15:20 PM

Watching the movie I had a bit of an epiphany of the main problems with most of the Disney remakes, mostly that the movies are beloved because of their magic and whimsy and it's functionally impossible to simply recreate that. The movie is trying desperately to remind you of how much you liked the previous film, to the point I would imagine a side-by-side viewing you could check off nearly every reference point. EVERY song is a counterpoint to the original, almost all in the same order too. And that's the reason it undermines it's own attempts. The biggest change is that Mary's magical abilities are far more pronounced, to the point that Michael and Jane even comment on not being sure how real they were and Mary later saying that adults always end up forgetting. The original movie played with Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane because the whole point of the story is that our approach to life (imagination and love) matters more than the circumstances around us. You can't have the same moral when there is actual magic involved and an actual villain plotting against you.

I will admit that the "Light Fantastic" song comes about as close as anything to being enjoyable, "Steppin' Time" still kicks its ass but you got at least a little sense of the energy and athleticism that makes it so good. Relatedly, Jack tries his best as a Bert analog but Bert was something of a Greek Chorus while Jack gets too involved with the story.

I don't know. I really liked 'Can You Imagine That?'. And Blunt's singing for 'Royal Dalton Music Hall' is fantastic.

I don't know. I kind of felt like aspects of this one are more or less commenting on the original. Instead of children who need to grow up a bit and do chores instead of playing all the time (but still have fun), its children who had to grow up too fast and need to learn to relax and imagine things instead.

And its not like stories that counter-point their original are inherently bad. A lot of movies and even some musicals do similar techniques.

Edited by InkDagger on Jan 10th 2019 at 2:52:29 AM

The problem with post-modernism is it assumes commenting on prior works is good storytelling in and of itself, when in reality it falls under the same issue as Parody Retcon. In the original movie, the previous nanny quits in anguish and the Banks family has to find a new nanny for the kids, which is where Mary Poppins arrives as one of the applicants. There is a cause and effect. In this movie, she literally just shows up, the kids say they are old enough to not need a nanny and Michael literally can't afford to pay for her, but she steps in anyway because the movie needs her in that role. It's leapfrogging to the obvious conclusion without properly setting up any narrative need. No cause, only effect.

Similarly, Michaels' dilemma in the movie is much different than Mr. Banks, he has an immediate Race Against the Clock that is in the best interest of the family while Mr. Banks was just wrapped up in his own career such that he was ignoring his family. In fact, the assumption is that Michael is in this dilemma because he was so wrapped up in taking care of his family that he overlooked their finances. He wasn't sulking in his corner or acting stern to his children like his father, his outbursts to his kids was because of literal and immediate stress of the situation established at the beginning of the film. It's trying to mimic every aspect of the original film without realizing that these small differences are the reasons the film was so good.

I saw the movie over last Christmas break. (After watching it, my memories of the original needed to be refreshed). Needless to say, more 2D animation in a movie is the best thing ever. If there's ever a third movie, which we hopefully don't have to wait until 2072 for, they'll probably use even more stuff from the books, which there's plenty of.

In Maybe Magic, Maybe Mundane works, I prefer the fantastic stuff being real, for obvious reasons. I don't like when works explicitly say or strongly imply it wasn't real, and fan theories that the work was All Just a Dream or whatever are my least favourite fan theories.

Also, the role of the Balloon Lady was supposed to be for Julie Andrews, but she turned it down because she didn't want to overshadow Emily Blunt, so it went to Angela Lansbury. Julie got a cameo in Aquaman instead.

Honestly, the effects were better in the new movie (well, at least some were). In the original, it was so obviously all on a set. It looked like a set in California, not London, never mind a fantastic London. There was no bigness to the setting. Here, not so much.

I can't decide if Mary Poppins vs. Nanny McPhee would be great or suck.

Edited by Lymantria on Jun 14th 2019 at 10:44:26 AM