And this is the proof that supports it:Sotiris wrote:Is nothing sacred, anymore? Disney has become the sell-out company.
I've ignored Descendants for the most part, but that clip was vile. It looks like the horrific love-child of Glee and some dreary fan-fic found on DeviantArt. I imagine a conversation like this was the impetus:disneyprincess11 wrote:And this is the proof that supports it:Sotiris wrote:Is nothing sacred, anymore? Disney has become the sell-out company.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIKhoEIBSxU[/youtube]
I wouldn't mind it at all. She's my favourite actress and this film has a wonderful screenwriter attached. David wrote the screenplays for 'Finding Neverland', for 'Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day' and for 'Life of Pi'.disneyprincess11 wrote:According to the BWW forums, Emily Blunt is Mary Poppins and it'll be announced soon.
Julie Andrews completely retired from acting after her husband Blake Edwards passed away, I think that Anne Hathaway could have made a great Mary Poppins. But will have to see what they do with this.Disney's Divinity wrote:Since this is happening regardless of what we'd want, it would be cute if Julie Andrews had a small role, maybe as a cook/maid or the bird-woman? I love little callbacks like that in re-makes. Maybe unlikely--I remember hoping the same thing for Lansbury in the B&tB re-make. Oh, well.
I wouldn't mind seeing Anne Hathaway as Mary Poppins either. While I like Emily Blunt--she's quite a good actress--her singing is merely okay. Hathaway is a great actress, has a connection with Julie, and can sing quite well, so she's my choice. Laura Michelle Kelly would be wonderful, too, but I'm not sure if she's known well enough by the general public.Disney Guru wrote:Disney's Divinity wrote:I think that Anne Hathaway could have made a great Mary Poppins. But will have to see what they do with this.
From what I read, it's not really a remake or sequel. It's Mary's other adventure. They're using the other book for this so I don't think it's really a remake.2099net wrote:I think there's a problem with consistancy here. How many people on this forum have said how much they enjoyed the REMAKE of Freaky Friday?
I don't see why a remake of Mary Poppins should automatically be dismissed before anybody knows anything about it?
By all means critisise away if/when you have seen the film, but please show a little more restraint until you can make a valid critisism. No film deserves to be critisised blindly
We know very little about this film - based on the casting I would say that this is more likely to be one of those 'reimaginings' rather than a remake. I doubt for instance that it will be set in London. Do we even know for example that it will include all the famous Mary Poppins songs?
Plus, I know for a fact Disney are joining with Cameron McIntosh to create a Mary Poppins stage production. Could this rumour infact be based around a stage production? Regardless, I can't remember anyone complaining about the news that Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King were going to be mounted as stage productions when each of those were announced.
As I pointed out in another post Chicago is a film of a musical of a film of a film [*] And yet that won best picture. I don't hear anyone critisising that!
If the new Mary Poppins film is made and the film stinks then by all means complain and critisise. But give the film a fair chance and stop prejuding!
[*] Chicago (2002), Chicago - Broadway (1975), Roxy Hart (1942), Chicago (1927)
Source: http://www.vulture.com/2015/10/rob-mars ... emake.html"It is not a new Mary Poppins," Marshall told Vulture last night at the National Arts Awards about his upcoming Disney musical about the iconic nanny. Instead, Marshall's project will be set in 1934, when the original P.L. Travers books were written, and draw from the other books about the iconic nanny. "P.L. Travers wrote eight books all together. They worked from the first book, and we are working from the other books, not touching the iconic brilliance of Mary Poppins. This is an extension. I'm a huge fan of the original, and I'm a very good friend of Julie Andrews, and I hold it in such awe," he said. "There is all this new material — it was the Harry Potter of its time — and they were never turned into anything further than that adventure."
Marshall would love for Julie Andrews, who played the nanny with a bagful of tricks, to be involved. "She is a very dear friend, and if she could be involved in some way, it would be very special," he says. "I know she is very happy that we're doing it and, after 50 years, feels that it is time."
I can only speak for myself, but one of the things about modern Disney that irks me (probably more than it should, if I'm being honest), is that fact that we have multiple versions of the same character. (*edit* If other companies want to take on the source material, be my guest, no huge complaints from me [Other than "Disney is better!"][I am who I am...] But in the "Disney World" (not just the Parks but in the universe of Disney), there is one Mickey Mouse, there is one pair of Chip 'n Dale, etc. Does Disney want there to be multiple girls in the world named Cinderella who have a very, very similar upbringing?? How does Disney want us to process this [or they don't, and I totally overthink this subject]?) Maybe my mindset comes from a theme park visitor perspective: I remember, for example, when Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was coming out; will we have both Walt's & Tim's versions of the Alice/Mad Hatter/Red Queen/even Dormouse represented? Because, I mean, in the world of either movie, it's not like Johnny Depp's & Ed Wynn's Mad Hatters have tea parties together; no, there is only one Mad Hatter...Does that make sense?tsom wrote:Also, Mary Poppins is based on a book. Doesn't mean there can't be more than one movie version. For example, the character of Elizabeth Bennett doesn't belong to just one actress.
But, a quick Wikipedia search shows, Mary Poppins is indeed in every book. So, unless they'd be making a Mary Poppins-less movie, she'd be in there, portrayed by an actress (It would be pretty amazing if Mary Poppins could be portrayed as her "true-if-we-go-from-1964" age by Julie Andrews! I'm all for that, to the extent of "What Would Walt Do?" (I know that he's long gone, but Mary Poppins was *his* film!!!).Sotiris wrote:"It is not a new Mary Poppins," & draw from the other books about the iconic nanny. "They worked from the first book, and we are working from the other books, not touching the iconic brilliance of Mary Poppins."
It seems the people at the BWW forums were onto something.disneyprincess11 wrote:According to the BWW forums, Emily Blunt is Mary Poppins and it'll be announced soon.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/disneys-mary-pop ... 1779675630Disney’s new Mary Poppins movie, starring Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel Miranda, and directed by Rob Marshall, is finally official! The sequel will be called Mary Poppins Returns and it’ll be released Christmas Day 2018. So, you’d imagine a third film to be called Mary Poppins Forever followed by Mary and Jack, then Mary Poppins Begins, followed by The Mary Poppins, The Mary Poppins Rises and then rebooted with Mary Poppins V Amelia Bedelia.
Blunt will, of course, play the title character and Miranda will be a new character, a lamplighter named Jack. Here’s how Disney describes the plot:
Drawing from the wealth of material in P.L. Travers’ seven additional novels, the story will take place in Depression-era London (when the books were originally written) and follows a now-grown Jane and Michael Banks, who, along with Michael’s three children, are visited by the enigmatic Mary Poppins following a personal loss. Through her unique magical skills, and with the aid of her friend Jack, she helps the family rediscover the joy and wonder missing in their lives.