Mary Poppins Returns (2018)

[Jake Lipson]

Title: Mary Poppins Returns (2018)

Tagline: In a place we hold dear, where wonder once lived… but soon from above, a new story begins.

Genre: Fantasy, Musical, Family

Director: Rob Marshall

Cast: Emily Blunt, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Ben Whishaw, Emily Mortimer, Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh, Joel Dawson, Julie Walters, Meryl Streep, Colin Firth, Jeremy Swift, Kobna Holdbrook-Smith, Dick Van Dyke, Angela Lansbury, David Warner, Jim Norton, Noma Dumezweni, Tarik Frimpong, Sudha Bhuchar, Steve Nicolson, Christian Dixon, Christopher Godwin, John Dagleish, Karen Dotrice, Ian Conningham, Billy Barratt, Felix Collar, Kate Attwell, Chris O'Dowd, Mark Addy, Edward Hibbert, Jon-Scott Clark, Calvin Chen, Craig Stein, Leon Cooke, Alex Sturman, Tara Nicole Hughes, Bernardo Santos, Johanna Thea, Jag Patel, Nina Kumar, David Gambier, Jeremy Azis, Bern Collaço, Steve Carroll, Nick Owenford, Martyn Mayger, Alex Jaep, Richard Price, Fran Targ, Raj Awasti

Release: 2018-12-19

Runtime: 131

Plot: In Depression-era London, a now-grown Jane and Michael Banks, 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.

While discussing the Mary Poppins Returns release date in the Han Solo thread (in relation to whether or not Disney will move Han to December), I realized Mary Poppins Returns does not have its own thread as far as I know (I searched and couldn't find one), so I thought I would go ahead and create one for it.

To start off, for the record, because I have seen multiple people all over the internet misidentifying it as such, Mary Poppins Returns is not a remake or reboot but a straight-up sequel to the original film which, while using different actors because of the 50-plus-year gap between films, treats the original film as canon and is intended to follow it, not retread it.

That being said, my feelings towards it are very similar to how I view Disney's current live-action remake blitz, by which this project is clearly inspired, even though it is technically not one. The original film does not need a sequel and no one asked for this to be made. However, if they are going to go do it anyway in the name of money, then, well, at least they have assembled an amazing group of first-class, really talented people to star in the film and to work on it in all capacities. I am really impressed by the list of people working on this film, and it has made me cautiously optimistic that if they're going to do it, it has a pretty good shot at being good, and I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with together.

Obviously, the original Mary Poppins is one of the greatest films of all time and it's not really fair to expect this one to come close to it. However, I'll take "very good," and hope we may get it with this group.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm hoping that this ends up being surprisingly good. Sort of the way that the original Blade Runner stands on its own, and didn't need a sequel, but turns out to have gotten an unusually good one. Hopefully this will be at that level of quality and pleasant surprise.

 

[dpippel]

Me too Josh, and I think the casting of Emily Blunt was a very good move. When I saw it in the theater as a young kid, Mary Poppins was the first film that ever made me cry so it's near and dear to me. I'm hoping for the best with this sequel.

 

[Brandon Conway]

They couldn't have cast the main role better, and they couldn't have brought on a better songwriter for the music. So two big encouraging elements right there off the bat for me.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Josh and I sort of worked our way into a discussion of Mary Poppins Returns over in the middle of the Disney-Fox merger thread. I'm going to quote that stuff here and then we can continue the conversation on Mary Poppins specifically without derailing that thread.

In discussing Disney's habit of acquiring content since their attempts to launch original franchises like Tomorrowland failed, Josh said:

But I guess it's easier to just say "People don't like original stuff!" and spend $200 million on a Mary Poppins sequel instead instead of asking some hard questions about this whole "mystery box" addiction that the Bad Robot guys have.

Then I said:

And yet...I've gotta wonder....was anyone in the world at all asking for a Mary Poppins sequel 54 years later with a different cast? Sure, it would have been great to get Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke back together in the late '60 to do another one, but P.L. Travers wasn't having that, and now Mary Poppins is more of a revered masterpiece than something where people have been begging to revisit that world. I think that, if they are going to do it, they've sure assembled an extremely talented group of people, which increases thee chances that it will be at least decent. But I still haven't been convinced that it is creatively necessary. We'll see how it is responded to in about a year.

Then Josh said:

I don't think so. But, you could argue, after the prequels, a lot of people weren't asking for a new Star Wars movie either. No one was asking for a new Trek movie when Abrams rebooted it. You can definitely catch lightning in a bottle by trusting your instincts and going after the right property, but there's also the potential that it's indeed something no one is interested in. I loved Blade Runner 2049, but it's also a $200 million sequel to a film that was a flop 35 years ago - maybe not the best idea. I think Mary Poppins has some built in advantages, the original film is still popular, and Disney's name always gives them an advantage with family fare (I honestly think Disney and, for instance, Universal could release the exact same movie, and the one with Disney's name on it will make more because of the name), so I think they can certainly break even on it, which is an achievement when your film costs $200 million.

Then again, perhaps the success of the recent Broadway show (as well as the film Saving Mr. Banks) let them know that the property was more alive than we thought.

And here we are.

 

[Greg.K]

Mary Poppins Returns, Y'all.

 

[Edwin-S]

If he were still breathing, Walt Disney would be the first one asking....Why?

 

[Jake Lipson]

It's interesting that you brought up the stage musical, Josh. Did you see it?

I loved that show -- but what I love about it is that they didn't simply throw the movie up onstage and call it a day. The songs from the film that get used are rearranged and mostly recontextualized into new story points, and things have been subtracted, too, not to mention all the new songs.

All of this helps to make it feel like a different version of the story, which means that the actress in the role has more freedom to make it her own instead of doing a Julie Andrews impression. I hesitate to call it a "reboot," because that word is overused a lot these days, but it really did feel like the stage version was taking the best from the movie and the best from the books and mixing it up to come up with their own, original thing, which was somewhat divorced from the cinematic version anyway by virtue of existing in the realm of live theatre.

But that's not what they're doing with this new film. It's not a remake or reboot. It is a straight-up sequel, which treats the original film as canon, but which features a new cast and, presumably, an updated style. And, of course, it's back in the cinematic space, which invites more inevitable comparisons to the original than the stage version did. Because they are picking up the narrative from there, it will probably cause more scrutiny than if they had gone with a clean reboot.

I'm going to see the film. I hope it's good. I certainly like all of the people involved in it. But there seems to me to be a fundamental difference between producing a sequel 54 years later, than producing a remake along the lines of Beauty and the Beast or something, and that increases skepticism around it. This is particularly true because the original film is widely acknowledged as one of the best films ever made.

Even Blade Runner didn't have to contend with this issue because 2049 was able to return Harrison Ford in his original role, instead of going the recasting route for literally everyone who appears in the film.

It's just going to create a kind of disconnect with the original that will be difficult to overcome. Granted, they didn't have much choice, but the disconnect is still there.

 

[Edwin-S]

There is such a disconnect between the first one and this sequel in terms of time that you'd think it makes more sense to do a remake first and then think about a sequel. It's like you said. A sequel to the first one would have made sense if Dick Van Dyke and Julie Andrews had reprised their roles since continuity between the two films would have been maintained by the appearance of the same actors.

 

[Jake Lipson]

But why would anyone want to see a remake of the story in the original Mary Poppins? Because it was (mostly) live-action to begin with, they can't change mediums to justify redoing it, a la Beauty and the Beast.

I think the best approach for this film would be to be a "soft reboot," where the Mary Poppins character is back and interacts with a new family and there is a new story. They wouldn't have to say anything about the previous film at all, which would make it more acceptable to use a new actress.

But what they are actually doing is having Mary Poppins return to see the adult versions of Jane and Michael Banks, and presumably to be the nanny to kids that one of them has. That makes it a direct canonical sequel to the original film, which is going to cause the disconnect we're talking about.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

A sequel to the first one would have made sense if Dick Van Dyke and Julie Andrews had reprised their roles since continuity between the two films would have been maintained by the appearance of the same actors.

Dick Van Dyke is reprising his role.

Did you see it?

I actually didn't. And I avoided it, like I avoid pretty much all shows based on films, because I think the idea of translating from screen to stage is a bit silly. I'm not sure what the distinction is between what people in those shows do onstage, and me recreating Star Wars in the backyard with my friends as a little kid.

I see merit in adapting a play to the screen. Not everyone can make it out to see the play. If your show runs on Broadway for a year in a theater that seats a thousand people, that doesn't really give the vast majority of humans on earth even the opportunity to see that work. By making a film of it, you're taking something which is inaccessible to everyone except for a tiny minority and turning it into something that everyone can potentially see, and that can survive almost forever for posterity. Put it this way: if West Side Story was only a stage show, I wouldn't have had the chance to know it. It was produced on Broadway before I was born. It was revived in my lifetime, but when I was living far away from Broadway. It's never been produced by a regional or local company at the time I was living near such companies. Were it not for the stage-to-screen adaptation, I'd be ignorant of this outstanding piece of work.

I think the recent trend of turning movies into stage shows really accelerated with The Producers back in 2001. With Mel Brooks writing the script, and Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick starring, it seemed on paper to be a brilliant idea. I loved the original movie. I saw that show and it was one of the worst things I've ever seen in my life. At best, it was two great actors imitating something I had already seen and could watch at home anytime. At worst, it took bits of business that were hilarious in the film and replaced them with dull songs that nearly put me to sleep. And yet, it was a massive hit, and everyone other than me loved it.

That Mary Poppins was changed substantially from screenplay to Broadway book is a good thing. I don't think I would have seen it anyway, but certainly knowing that they're not just imitating the movie completely is a mark in its favor.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Mary Poppins Returns = Stupid.

(I was going to write "Stupid Idea" but, then, it's really not much of an idea, is it?)

How did the Travers estate ever go along with this? I guess they don't have the concern for the characters as their creator did. Much like the way the Disney company doesn't have the same value attached to creating new stories and ideas as did Walt.

I'm going to go watch Mulan 2 now.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Dick Van Dyke is reprising his role.

Where did you see this news? My understanding is that Dick Van Dyke will be making a cameo, but not as Bert.

This is obviously intended to make you think of the original film, but I do think it's sort of a wise choice. It would seem wrong to have him, as Bert, acting opposite a Mary Poppins who is not Julie Andrews. But having him there as someone else is just a fun wink to the past and that's fine.

 

[Jake Lipson]

How did the Travers estate ever go along with this?

Now that is an excellent question. Obviously they are being well-compensated for it, but they know that she would never approve such a thing, and they did anyway.

As I've said before, my usual thought process on these Disney remakes applies here too, even though it's not a remake. Whether I think there is a creative reason to do it or not is irrelevant, since they're going to do it no matter what I happen to think. If they're going to do it, I'm too curious to not go, and at least I am glad they are getting a lot of really great people to work on it, which is certainly an upgrade over the '90s when they were coming out with all those direct-to-video sequels with nominal budgets and effort. It doesn't mean I'm not skeptical, but knowing the pedigree of talent involved here certainly makes me more inclined to buy a ticket and give it a shot.

 

[cinemiracle]

I am looking forward to seeing a new version of MARY POPPINS. The original was a classic,and still is. I saw it numerous times where I worked upon it's original release..It was a massive hit..As a child ,P.L.Travers used to live across the road from where I now live.Her house is still there.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I actually didn't. And I avoided it, like I avoid pretty much all shows based on films, because I think the idea of translating from screen to stage is a bit silly. I'm not sure what the distinction is between what people in those shows do onstage, and me recreating Star Wars in the backyard with my friends as a little kid.

A large part of the appeal, for me, of the Disney ones in particular, is that they usually bring back the original composers to augment the film score with new songs. Mary Poppins is an exception to that rule because, in order to stick it to the Sherman brothers, Travers stipulated in the license agreement that any new musical numbers written for a stage version must be written by a British songwriters, which she knew the Sherman brothers are not, so they had no choice but to go to other songwriters for the new songs in that.

But usually, Mary Poppins aside, they go back to the original creative team for extra songs, and getting to have more from them is always a treat. In the case of Aladdin, they actually dusted off old Ashman/Menken trunk songs that had been written for the film but got cut and put them back in, and being able to hear those, in particular, is very cool. And in the New York company, Jafar is played by Jonathan Freeman, who is the voice actor for Jafar from the animated film. It's awesome to hear him on the cast album because he's got a new song and he sounds EXACTLY like he did in 1992.

Since Disney is adapting musicals to the stage based on films that were already musicals to begin with, that allows for a more seamless transition.

The Producers, too, was about the making of a musical, so it had one foot in the theatre to begin with, and that made sense. The merits of the score for that one are up for debate, and I like that more than you did, but it must be noted that given how many Tonys it won, it should still be running and isn't. It ran out of gas anytime it was being performed without Lane and Broderick in it, and wasn't a strong enough piece of material to withstand their absence.

However, as more and more producers do this, there are some that are more difficult to rationalize from a creative standpoint (like, say, Pretty Woman The Musical and King Kong The Musical, both of which are coming to Broadway next season.)

Incidentally, for Mary Poppins, P.L. Travers also tried to screw Disney over by selling the theatrical license to producer Cameron Mackintosh, rather than Disney, which is why Mackintosh is a co-producer on Mary Poppins for the stage. He had the stage rights, but he knew Disney had the songs from the movie, and he was smart enough to know that audiences would not embrace a Mary Poppins stage musical without the famous songs from the movie, so he and Disney worked out a co-production agreement, which Disney usually doesn't do with their other stage titles.

This allowed them to go back to the books for inspiration, so the musical is a combination of elements that worked in the film as well as other elements straight from the novels, which makes it more interesting than just vomiting the movie up on stage verbatim. And as usual for a Disney production, the stagecraft is second to none. In the Step in Time number, the actor playing Bert tap dances upside down on the top of the stage, and then back down again, and that is one of the most stunning dance effects I've ever seen.

So, you know, it can be really good if it's done right. Or, if not done right, it can absolutely be a cash grab that doesn't work. Much like a film remake, a Broadway production of a beloved title can be very difficult to manage because you've got to walk the tightrope of giving the audience something that feels familiar enough to what they know, but also gives them enough of a new experience to justify paying the money to come to the theatre instead of simply watching the movie at home. Their track record hasn't been perfect either (Tarzan and The Little Mermaid did not work onstage to any great degree), but more often than not, Disney has hit the mark by marrying the stories people like with new songs, and really impressive theatricality.

If Mary Poppins Returns ends up being as good as the stage musical is, we would all be very lucky indeed.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I'm going to go watch Mulan 2 now.

I get that you're joking, but I've actually seen that because they included it on the Mulan Blu-ray and I got curious. What a waste of terrific Lea Salonga voals that film was.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I get that you're joking,

Yeah, I was only joking. I watched Cinderella 2 instead.

 

[TJPC]

I haven’t read the original books since I was a child, but they were favorites. There are about 10 I think, and if I remember correctly, Mary Poppins goes to different families as the children get too old to believe in her magical world. Isn’t one even called “Mary Poppins Returns”?

I believe also that Disney wanted to make another film at the time, but was blocked by the prickly author.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I saw the film Mary Poppins' House of Sin which I think was shot in the 1970s and also starred Pam Grier...let's just say it had a totally different tone than the original film and...well...Mary was a very, very naughty nanny in it.