DVDizzy Forum

Pasta67 wrote:Hmmm, have you met Teede?

Are you sure this ISN'T teede??

ifeeldizzy, all I can say is.. I feel dizzy

Let's hope this new series is as official as the queen latifah remake

who knows, maybe after all what have happened in the world the end of the world as we know it's really happening, and all will be turned into a sequel-world

---Insert Loud sound of scary scene"Boooom bom booooom!"---

ok, for that pic- it looks like anita from 101 dalmatians, wendy from peter pan, michael from peter pan, & trusty from lady & the tramp. if it was for real-i think we woulda heard something by now.

it was the daily record, Aug. 4th 1999
and Aug 7, 1999 ed. The Record in NJ

its just REALLY REALLY REALLY little known.


i'm not disagreeing, the letter I got could have been a fake.

Why are we not surprised? It's a sequel, but still...

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/mary- ... 201593194/

Omg like yaaaaaas im sooo excited...nobody can ever top Julie and co....but I would love to see some good old fashioned Disney back, hopefully again with 2D sequences...

I'm thinking who would be a perfect Mary...the first that comes to my mind is Carey Mulligan..Eva Green would also make a great Mary...

Oh, hell no.

They should get Laura Michelle Kelly and Gavin Lee to play Mary and Bert. Because they're the only two who (I think) fit the roles like a glove.

And have Dick Van Dyke return as Mr. Daw-. Oh. Wait.

Is nothing sacred, anymore? Disney has become the sell-out company. The decision to make a new adaptation of Mary Poppins seems to stem from a cynical, financial place. Neither the film, nor the original work is a property that warrants revisit.

I no longer have faith in Rob Marshall. Aside from Chicago, his filmography ranges from messy and convoluted to mediocre and barely decent.

I'm also frustrated and disappointed in Richard Sherman's lack of involvement. Since this is supposed to be some sort of sequel, shouldn't he be involved in some capacity? He's not even a consultant even though he's still very active today. He's written a couple of great new songs for Disneyland's 60th anniversary, just this year.

I'm also worried about the animated sequences; they will most likely be in CG. CG can't highlight the contrast between the real and the imaginary world like 2D does nor can it replicate its charm. CG is not associated with childhood innocence and imagination the way 2D is. If by some crazy miracle they do go with 2D, I hope they'll use a studio that can pull off high-quality, Disney-style animation (like the Duncan Studio).

Sotiris wrote:I'm also frustrated and disappointed in Richard Sherman's lack of involvement. Since this is supposed to be some sort of sequel, shouldn't he be involved in some capacity? He's not even a consultant even though he's still very active today. He's written a couple of great new songs for Disneyland's 60th anniversary, just this year.

Calm down!

Disney and Marshall are collaborating with the Travers estate and working with the support of Richard Sherman, who co-composed iconic songs like “Chim Chim Cher-ee” and “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” alongside his late brother, Robert.

Source.

I was calm and I did read that but having "his support" does not necessarily mean he'll be involved in the film.

From what I've read, it sounds like this may be an adaptation in the vein of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." Entertainment Weekly, which broke the story, said it is "decidedly not a sequel." That seems to eliminate a grown up Banks children plot line. Considering it's set in the thirties as the books are and that they've picked Robert Marshall to direct, a man known for his adaptations of dark musicals (and on the bright side, is friends with Julie. Choreographed her on Broadway in Victor/Victoria), that's what it sounds like to me-- a new, perhaps "darker" adaptation based on other stories from the books. I almost doubt they'll even include Bert, as he's more or less an invention of the film.

It's wholly unnecessary, but that seems to be the motto of Disney's live action division today.

UmbrellaFish wrote:
It's wholly unnecessary, but that seems to be the motto of Disney's live action division today.

What, "Fix what isn't broken?"

This movie is selfish and insulting in many levels. It's insulting to...

Julie Andrews and Dick van Dyke, whose performances are iconic and can not be outdone. Not to mention that she won an Oscar for it. Despite her age and singing voice, I can't see why Julie can't reprise her role. The fact that they're getting another actress is terrible. Dick's Bert can easily get a cameo. 

Walt Disney, who had no desire to make a sequel (Could be wrong) and didn't believe in sequels. And now, they're whoring (is this inapporiate?) out the company for $$$.

And most of all, P.L Travers, who hated the movie to literally the point of tears and now, they're making it worse for Travers with this sequels. Are the people, who hold the rights, even going to approve this? Disney needed special permission for the musical.

Sotiris wrote:I was calm and I did read that but having "his support" does not necessarily mean he'll be involved in the film.

I agree, there was nothing you said that implied you weren't calm.

After all their other re-makes, I guess I'm unaffected by this. Like all the other films they've made, it won't top the original so there's no real reason to worry in the long run.

disneyprincess11 wrote:Julie Andrews and Dick van Dyke, whose performances are iconic and can not be outdone. Not to mention that she won an Oscar for it. Despite her age and singing voice, I can't see why Julie can't reprise her role. The fact that they're getting another actress is terrible. Dick's Bert can easily get a cameo. 

Julie will be gracious about this. She complimented Carrie Underwood in The Sound of Music for goodness' sakes. She'll give the film her seal of approval, and if Disney wants her at the red carpet premiere or to do promotion for the film, she'll go. I'd love for her to rip it, but that's not Julie.

disneyprincess11 wrote:And most of all, P.L Travers, who hated the movie to literally the point of tears and now, they're making it worse for Travers with this sequels. Are the people, who hold the rights, even going to approve this? Disney needed special permission for the musical.

Well, I don't think P.L. is exactly spinning in her grave over this news, nor do I think Disney would have announced this project without securing the rights. There are contradictory reports regarding how Travers felt about the film-- some indicate she despised it, others that she watched it all the time. And in the 80s, P.L. actually worked on a script for a sequel to the Disney film that was to star Julie as Mary and Michael Jackson as Bert's brother as Dick van Dyke was deemed to have aged too much at that point. So, maybe P.L. hated the Disney movie, maybe she actually liked it in spite of herself-- we don't know. But she was always willing to capitalize off the property.

I wonder what they'll call the film? "Mary Poppins"? "Mary Poppins Comes Back" like one of the sequels? Something entirely new?

According to the BWW forums, Emily Blunt is Mary Poppins and it'll be announced soon.

Only the live-action Dumbo is as stupid an idea.

The only thing that might make me accept it is if it were an adaptation of the Broadway musical (which is quite a different kettle of fish) but if it's going to try and be a remake/reimagining/sequel of the 1964 film, then I really hope the people working on this project, like the nannies who responded to Mr Banks' advertisement, are blown away by a sudden gust of wind and are never seen or heard from again.

Wonderlicious wrote:The only thing that might make me accept it is if it were an adaptation of the Broadway musical (which is quite a different kettle of fish) :

Yes, a movie adaptation of the musical would be great! It's too bad that's not what this is.