I think that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Footnote: The original Jane is exactly three weeks older than I. Also, my mother's name was Jane.
Emily Blunt has said that she prepared for the role by reading the books, and purposely avoided trying to copy Julie Andrews' performance. Blunt's performance is closer to the books than the original movie.
i enjoyed that while i love the first movie felt like this time had originality esp when i read she was trying keep personality of Mary from the books. her personality bit harsher but the children grew love her and she loved them each time she departs i cry bit . i hope there will be a third sequel but hope like within few years not long span like first movie
@Jason Hettinga it's so funny how our opions are different. I always felt that Julie's Mary Poppins was cold, rude, smug and arrogant & I think Emily's Mary Poppins is less cold and more nicer. Also Emily's Mary Poppins has a great sense of humour and sarcasm. Haha no hate to Julie (she is really a queen & splendidly amazing in the sound of music). It's funny how you prefere the old & I the new😂 but the original one is still really great. I just loved Emily as Mary more and some other elements & story I loved more. Totally respect your opinion though. Haha we all have different taste.
@Jason Hettinga Mary Poppins in the books certainly comes off as smug, arrogant, and sorta cold (also a bit of a narcissist!). Disney softened up the characters quite a bit, which is one of the reasons why P.L. Travers disliked the film so much.
@@aflowerthatcannotbebloomed I completely agree with you in thinking that Julie's Mary Poppins was mostly cold, aloof and dismissive. I have major nostalgia for the original Mary Poppins and so I can't help but be fond of it, but there is definitely a certain warmth missing from the character because of how Julie played her/the screenwriters chose to depict her. I'm not sold on Emily Blunt being the perfect replacement the way that so many others seem to feel but one thing I did appreciate about her portrayal was her winking playfulness and tendency to nurture and comfort as opposed to being so quick to get stern with the children. There were times in the original movie where it seemed as though Julie's Mary Poppins didn't even like the kids but that wasn't an issue this time around.
At the end of the film, when Mary looks at her reflection in the balloon given to her by the balloon lady, they should have snuck in a Julie Andrews reflection to maintain continuity between the 2 films
If they sneaked in a CGI version of Julie Andrews' Mary Poppins in the scenes where Emily Blunt is staring at her reflection, then it would not only maintain continuity between the 2 films, it would also let us know that we are watching the very same Mary Poppins take care of the new Banks Children and going on a new adventure
I put the personality change down to what the children needed. Jane and Micheal were rowdy, but lacked love and attention. So she's kind but firm. The new three need to learn to have fun again in a tough time, but are still a little snooty. So she pulls them into line, only to push them towards being children again. It's what they need. I've only seen part of the movie though, so obviously I'm not perfect in judgement.
CMHolden, I like your observation on the personality change. IMO, after watching it in the theatre, I believe it's still very much what P.L Travers said to Walt when making the first film. "You think she's here to save the children?" I think it is still apparent that her personality is to reflect what each father has forgotten and to help him find it in his children. Micheal and Jane wanted (and needed) firm but kind, not just from their nanny but, indeed their father, George. As a result, they caused a fuss to be noticed. George was not one for liking change. Mary (and Bert) were there to help George realise the precious time he was missing out on, like childhood, as the time period, (just prior to WW1) was soon to be a time of rapid change. In the case of Michael, he and his children, have gone through a sudden rapid change, with the bereavement of their wife/mother, while being faced with the struggles of the Great Depression. As a result, they face uncertainty and ponder many questions. Here, Mary and Jack help Michael to remember what it was like to be a child, by helping him realise that children find the wonder in life and that living in the present can help things look more clear. (Sorry for any spoilers)
I loved Mary Poppins in 1964, when I was 54 years younger, and I love Emily Blunt's slightly snarky, slightly risque Mary Poppins of today! Of course, I saw "Saving Mr. Banks" five years ago, so I had some idea what Mary was really supposed to be like, and Emily had read the Travers books before doing this, so she also knew. Nevertheless, it was magical and fantastical and a couple of hours of escape from the depressing headlines of real life.
Ps. Did I mention that Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel Miranda are both amazing (especially the "Cover Is not the Book" number), as is Dick van Dyke's table dance?!
Wonderful to hear you enjoyed the sequel so much, Bryan - I thought it was a real treat as well! Oh, and I absolutely loved seeing Dick Van Dyke's new routine - what amazing energy! - as well as A Cover Is Not The Book too - such a fun song and dance routine performed with great spirit by Emily Blunt and Lin-Manuel Miranda! :-)
Yes! Julie as Mary was also a bit snarky and that was something I loved about the character. She was the perfect balance of kind and strict that was necessary in a nanny. Both ladies played it very classy yet playful and sharp tongued Mary's very nicely!
I think the snowglobe is not an error. It is more another nod to the Books. In the original Books Mary always left a present for the children. And the Snow Globe may be one of these, that Mary maybe left them at a later visit somewhere between the two movies. It wouldn't surprise me, because in the attic you can make out "props" from other Stories out of the books. For example the Telescope from "Merry Go Round" or the magic Compass from "Bad Tuesday". Also in one Scene Jane is clearly wearing the necklace with the little lark on it, that mary left her.
@Aristide Twain Magic can *easily* be the work of humans in a fantasy setting... Magicians aren't some unfathomable type of CREATURE; they're merely individuals who can do things *most* humans can't.
Honestly, her being a Time Lord would explain her change in personality from the first movie to this one. Because when a Time Lord regenerates their new regeneration tends to have a slightly different personality from their last one. So she could’ve just regenerated at some point in between the 20 years after she left the Banks children at the end of the first film.
True but I didn't feel like her personality changed very much. She showed a little more vulnerability in the new one by having moments of feeling a little more sad or acting a little more haughty. But she was still playful and witty and kind while still being stern. And of course, she still knew that she knew best. I felt like she acted very much the same and the only differences were due to the situation she was dealing with lol
Stuff and Nonsense and just grasping as it is perfect plausible that a snow globe was acquired by the children. I am sure Mary Poppins wasn't the only owner of a snow globe!
Is it me or does jack behave like a fan boy? The moment before Mary Poppins appears, he’s got this look on his face like his favorite celebrity is coming to town.
Cause Mary Poppins is from his childhood and when something from you're childhood comes back it is like you're favorite celebrity is coming, like my parents eyes light up when they see stuff from their childhood.
I think this is due to the fact that Lin-Manuel Miranda is just a grown up fanboy and was probably still in awe of the fact that he was working with Emily Blunt and in the sequel Mary Poppins
Mary Poppins still being young isn't just a consciously overlooked goof, and here's why: I own a 40th-Anniversary edition of the 1964 film's soundtrack, which includes bonus tracks of story meetings between P.L. Travers, the Sherman Brothers, and director Don DiGradi. In an interesting sound bite Travers mentions wanting to include a "clue" where "Mr. Banks half-guesses the truth that Mary Poppins had once been his nanny [as well]." Since Mr. Banks portrayed by David Tomlinson was in his mid-forties in that film's 1910 continuity, he probably would've been a child in the late 1870s, before Julie Andrews' Mary Poppins had been born (if she was supposed to age). Therefore, it's authorially canonical that Mary Poppins never gets older (or at least, does very slowly). She's really more of a guardian angel than a person.
Or she is a Time Lady, they age much slower than humans, if she has a TARDIS she can travel through time and space. The Doctir litteraly lives on a cloud with his TARDIS for like a year in one episode. A fuly functunal TARDIS can be hidden in plain sight. The bigger on the inside (her bag) is Time Lord technology. I love this theory more because in that case she chooses to spend her knowledge and longer life helping humans on an to her alien planet.
Loved Lin-Manuel Miranda's "rap" scene. I swear they wrote it specifically just for him. You can't have Lin-Manuel in a movie without giving him an amazingly fast paced song to belt out perfectly.
Saw it this afternoon with my grandchildren. I was 9 when I saw the first Mary Poppins. 1) Dick Van Dyke deserves MANY kudos for his reprise as the banker. My dad is 92 and cannot move or dance like that!!! 2) The Meryl Streep scene did NOT belong in this film. It seemed like it belonged in a Harry Potter-esque hybrid musical...but did NOTHING to advance the story along in Mary Poppins Returns. 3) I particularly enjoyed 3 numbers, and thought they mirrored the Sherman brothers quite well: Trip A Little Light Fantastic, A Cover Is Not The Book, and There's Nowhere To Go But Up. 4) The animation scene was well done, and loved that it came earlier in this film. It wasn't "exact", but it DID match the elements of the first movie. I thought it melded well between the illustration on the bowl in Returns and the chalk painting from the first film.
JoAnna The Singer oh well everyone step aside, she’s a voice teacher, if she does not care for a song we should all listen to her. Well I’d like you to write your own song that’s half as catchy as any one from the original film instead of judging everything just because you teach spoiled little brats proper breathing techniques.
I liked the new movie and respect that Emily blunt took her inspiration from the books. I do think she should have found some shade of Julie Andrews that she could have emulated in a tiny way to blend the two Mary Poppins’s characters together just a bit.
I like the idea that "Mary Poppins" appears in the way that YOU need her to be when she comes to you. So she looks different every time. She's magic and she's the perfect version of the nanny that YOU need when she comes to you. When she came the first time, she looked and acted the way that the Banks children needed or wanted her to look/act. The next time she came, the Banks children were older and had children of their own. Maybe they remembered her differently (as we all do when we get older and try to remember something from childhood...we do not get it exactly right). Or maybe the new Banks children are the ones whose imaginations caused her to look and act the way she did. When she comes back in the future, she could be played by another actress and be totally different. There could be Mary Poppins-es all around the world like how they had that at the London Olympics where a whole bunch of them in all different ethnic backgrounds came down from the sky with umbrellas to fight the Voldemort puppet. I liked that imagery and it made me imagine the powers of Good dispatching these "Mary Poppins" angels to fight the forces of Evil all over. Every child should be able to summon the perfect Mary Poppins for that child when they need her.
I prefer to see it not as a sequel to "Mary Poppins" the movie. As in not canon to the movie with Julie Andrew's. This movie works much better on its own as a sequel to the book series. Any reference to Julie Andrews specifically would ruin it.
I think the Admiral had the time right all along. When the men are climbing Big Ben, Mary huffs at how slow they are and says "you'd think they'd never done this before". If they had done it before, maybe they were responsible for the disparity between the Admiral's time and Big Ben's to start with?
I would agree the Admiral has always been on time yet perhaps we have been the ones who have been speeding up. It took Mary Poppins to come back into our lives to remind us to slow down a bit and take time to enjoy life a bit more.
The Emily Blunt sequel is more accurate to the P.L. Travers book. She read the book before she started filming the movie. It's said that P.L. Travers loathed the original 1964 film with Julie Andrews. I enjoyed both performances by Julie and Emily!
Not sure how accurate the ‘saving mr Banks’ movie was but it suggested that she did like the movie at least otherwise she wouldn’t have given the rights for it to have been created
@@annasophia2826 Travers did hate the original Mary Poppins, and Disney was kind of a scumbag by making some lasts minute changes in the film he had told Travers he wouldnt do (like the animated scene). However, i think that if Travers saw the sequel, she would outraged by how cliched the "evil guy wants to ruin a family" plot of this movie is
I think the reason why in the original film they used an American Robin is because they couldn’t fit all the wires needed to make the animatronic move into a European Robin. They had to use an American Robin as it was simply bigger and gave them more room to put all the wires. Julie said she felt like she was wearing a computer!
I'm not convinced, Sarah. I think it's just the age old problem of Hollywood failing to understand British fauna. I still haven't recovered from the appearance of a racoon in Suffolk in the live 101 Dalmations remake! And as for the presence of Gopher in Winnie the Pooh ...
The confusion between UK and US fauna is not new in pop culture. Famously Vera Lynn’s “bluebirds over the White Cliffs of Dover” - not unless they are very lost indeed!
Mary’s alternating colors on her coat and hat *DEFINITELY* reminds me of 11’s alternating bow ties and 13’s alternating shirts. She’s definitely a Time Lord.
I didn’t notice the snow globe but anyways I find this sequel practically perfect in every way. I appreciate every single moment of it and its scene similarities to the first movie makes it so nostalgic - I just love that. Blunt did an awesome job as I expected. I actually even like her Mary Poppins a bit better than Andrews‘. :x
I totally agree. Maybe it was meant to show that Mary Poppins is a good actress and entertainer in addition to being magical but there was nothing else in the movie or even the original film to support such an off-character moment. The difference was too jarring.
I don't know why but the 1964 movie is something magical, there was Walt Disney himself behind it, I grew up with that first one so I can't find this one so magical, maybe because I have a different age, but but maybe because people, even Disney people are loosing the originality and the enchantment
saibirina I think nostalgia influences our opinions. I didn’t watch the original Mary Poppins movie until a few days ago and I watched the new one a day after, because I didn’t watch the first one when I was a kid, I can see both movies as equally as magical.
I am sure everyone who grows up with this sequel will remember it fondly. I grew up with Julie Andrews and I didn't find the magic either in today's Mary Poppins either. Julie Andrews was perfect ... in every way.
It's not only nostalgia. I grew up in the early 90's and even then I found movies from decades ago much more magical than the stuff that was current back then. Since I was a child, there was no nostalgia involved in that feeling, but I still prefered "Mary Poppins" a thousand times over all the 80's and 90's movies. The ending of the original "Mary Poppins" was perfect, on point and never asked for a sequel. I'm not sure why I'm so resentful against all these Disney sequels and life action remakes that are currently flooding the cinemas.. it feels like they took away the uniquness of the original movie. Suddenly there are two Mary Poppins', two Lion kings etc etc. It's a shame they seem to be out of new ideas. Imagine in the old days Disney would just have remade "Snow white" and "Pinocchio" over and over again... there wouldn't be any "Mary Poppins" or all the other gems.
The first one is simply the better one. I've went to see the new one a few days ago. Aaaaaaaaand none but none of the songs in the movie were catching... When I walked out with my wife we both couldn't rely remember any of the songs... The first one has one catchy song after another... Also the story was much better.
I love both versions of Mary Poppins. The new version of Emily Blunt is much more arrogant and gives Mary Poppins a very good Kind of superciliousness. That works very good for me.
I liked it. I will always like the original best, but I enjoyed the songs and the musical numbers and the story was fine. The one thing that did disappoint was the dancing--it was not as...elaborate as the dancing in the first film. I noticed this especially in the lamplighter number, "Trip a Little Light Fantastic," which was fun, but the dancing paled next to "Step in Time." I agree with those who say it will grow on people.
@@killtheipadbaby Very true! The number was a lot of fun, and I did like it-. I just thought the actual foot choreography was not as complicated as "Step in Time." -- Laurie Z.
It honestly makes a lot of sense for her to go cockney for that song, since that song is all about not judging someone on their appearance, and it kinda gives a little insight into her character a bit more, where she maintains her poshness, but is very street wise.
The vaudevillian song-and-dance reminded me quite a lot of Catherine Zeta-Jones in Chicago, perhaps it was just the hairstyle they gave Emily Blunt in that number?
Yes,Steve,nice to kbow that someone else made the connection too...And letting my stream of consciousness follow the soundtrack of its music memory I could not help but think of Marlene Dittrich and pre world two German cabaret
I have been scrolling through the comment and I have seen a lot saying “the animated scene is too adultish” I honestly think it’s perfect I mean it’s not too rude and the adults can have a laugh as well as the children that’s what makes it a family film. So everyone can enjoy Also I absolutely love love love this film. Dare I even say it could be better than the classics. Now I never ever in a million years would have said that cause I love classics but I think this movie has definitely topped the charts for me I love all the little Easter eggs and EVERY SINGLE SONG I suffer from extremely bad mental health and anxiety. So for a few hours it really takes you out of that constant fear and into a magical world. This is amazing ❤️❤️
I went to go watch this movie two days ago. Was having a really bad day. Screwed up at work. Also suffering from anxiety. This movie made me feel good. Was just what I needed.
I totally agree with you. To be honest I was scared that Disney would screw it up. When they announced a return movie I was afraid about that. But when I saw it few days ago I was already on the top of my chair when I found out they even remained true to the 60’s cinematic music. And even had a credits roll before the start of the movie. Just like back in the days. I think the animated scene was adult and childish enough to have both enjoy it. Sure the lyrics were a bit adult, but the fun graphics with the interaction of the actors is surely fun for kids too. So I felt it was a good balance. For me, this movie is among the classics. A modern classic. Emily is a real good Mary Poppins. I loved all the songs too. Even tho I felt turning turtle was a bit to much exaggeration. Overall my favorite movie this year.
I felt the exact same way! I went to the movies, having gone through such an awefull few days. The songs completely cheered me up, and when I saw Dick van Dyke at the end, I couldn't stop smiling. I left the movies with such a good feeling, humming all the songs, and throughout my rough days I had been having, it helped me feeling so much better :)
You know what? @marypoppinsreturns was amazing!! ⭐️👍🥇. I just saw it today and it was unreal and out of this world 🌍. It was such a well written and well put together movie 🎥. Emily blunt and all the other actors were fabulous🎉. And all the children actors were tremendously great as well!!💯🔥. The film was basically “PRACTICALLY PERFECT IN EVERY WAY” 🎖🏆🌟. This film must win loads of awards because it was amazing and really deserves a lot of credit!!🎩🌂. And now I come to talk about the wonderful songs in this film. Basically everyone thought that now way can you top the songs from the original Mary Poppins film but obviously you can because this film just did!!🥇🏆🎖🏅. Songs like “spoonful of sugar & supercalifragalisticexpialadotious” were amazing in the original film but songs like “a cover is not the book & can you imagine that” were even better than the original songs!!🎤🎼. The instrumental parts in the film were also amazing and breathtaking!!🎷🎺🎻🎹🎬🎤🎧. The acting and singing and dancing in this visually stunning movie musical was also practical perfect in every way. Such a talented cast and crew in the movie. The ‘trip a little light fantastic’ musical number was outstanding because there was so much going on in the number and so many actors and dancers being so amazing!! 🤩. The animation in the film is exceptionally amazing. I think I’m my opinion the animation in the new film is much better thank the old film. Mainly my reason for that is well firstly obviously with modern day technology it looks better but secondly the story line in the animation is much better thank the original Mary Poppins film. I loved the whole aspect of the royal Dolton bowl and how they go to fix the carriage and the musical number in the animated world is amazing!! There are so many amazing things from Mary Poppins returns that I haven’t mentioned due to spoiler alert 🚨 and stuff but all I will say is that if you haven’t seen this film then you need to see it NOW!!😀. I love this film now so much and I can’t wait till the dvd is released in the spring of 2019 so that I can purchase it and watch the amazing film again!!🌂🎩🎬🎤🎥🎹🔥⭐️
They kept referencing Big Ben striking Midnight as if it is the clock. Big Ben is the bell in the clock tower. Often in other plot lines, the last chime is the deadline. Here it was the beginning of the chiming.
There's nothing wrong with saying Big Ben is striking Midnight after all a clock can't strike without a bell or gong, what's wrong is when people say the time on Big Ben is Midnight, but as Molly said people just tend to think of the hole tower as Big Ben even though most people know it's the name of the bell... wish this spellcheck would stop changing words.
The worst part of Mary Poppins: Returns was the part when Mary visits her cousin (Meryl Streep) to fix the broken vase from the nursery. The song "Turning Turtle," made me want to turn away from the film. Luckily this was all fixed at the end when I seen Angela Lansbury as the balloon lady.
I felt this way too when I first watched it because I couldn't understand all they were singing. Once I listened to the song again a few times i am starting to like it. Can't wait to watch the scene again to see if my perspective of the whole scene seems better to me.
As a lot of people know the late P.L. Travers, Mary Poppins writer, didn't like the first 1964 movie mainly because of the way she was portrayed by the more kindly Julie Andrews but I wonder how MS Travers would have liked Emily Blunts version?🤔
PL Travers did not like the fact Bert was the one who gave the speech to Mr Banks which saved the family and felt it stole the entire purpose for Mary Poppins coming into the story in the first place. Additionally she was vehemently opposed to the animation sequence. There were parts which she felt the movie was a bit too saccharine and sentimental yet she did love the melancholy nature of "Feed the Birds" and the upbeat nature of the closing number "Lets Go Fly a Kite." Miss Travers was under negotiations with Disney to make a sequel before her death and her estate obviously agreed. The Credits state the original version is solely owned by Disney once it was released and was not approved by P.L. Travers. Which is probably a stipulation for Disney being allowed to make additional movies with this I.P.
Just took my daughter to watch the film it was fantastic. I prefer the original but this was really good to. I don't know if anyone realised that Dick Van Dike was playing the bank man at the end. And the lady who sings the beauty and the best song (dance) was the balloon lady.
I think anyone who knew it was him in costume for the old bank owner in the original would know it was him, I knew it was when I saw him in Returns because I only recently learned that myself when rewatching the first! :)
I absolutely loved this movie and I think it will live to be a classic just like the original. Miranda and Blunt are perfect together and so talented. Who knew Emily could hit those high notes! Love the new songs reminds me of the way the Sherman brothers wrote theirs, very similar lyrics, but the new ones are more poignant
I saw it twice, just to make sure. I would say that the film wasn't innovative enough, plus, it felt short. They didn't make room for the Banks's struggling ordinary life "Prior" to Mary Poppins's Extraordinary arrival. Yes, the children lost their mother, but No, I saw no sign of struggle(besides the foreclosure thing). They just needed groceries.
@@jackwells8107 Well, in "The Great Slump" of Depression Era London, the fact of having more than one job and not having to see his children on a Daily basis. Michael took up a PART TIME job at The Fidelity Fiduciary Bank as a clerk( assuming Michael already had a Full time position inherited from his father George) and he gave up on being an Artist. But the mother has been gone for almost a year, and she was the ONLY financier in number 17 Cherry Tree Lane? Even if Colin Firth's character did get the house in the long run, they still had back-up plans: Micheal and the children were going to Jane's apartment, and, of course, Ellen was going to her sister's. Really, I didn't see the Foreclosure as a true threat.
@@jackwells8107 Thank you. All I know, and what I've learned from Mary Poppins is this: It can never be too late to do right by your own family. A house can ALWAYS be replaced, but your family, never. P. S. Of all the heros with their spandex and capes, I'll pay more attention to the Nanny with a talking parrot head umbrella to deal with family matters.
@@jackwells8107 Zedrick Calllaway claimed to not "see the foreclosure as a true threat" because apparently no one faced the possibility of homelessness. Callaway didn't claim that the situation was not a bad thing.
I liked when Mary Poppins gets ready to dive into the tub to go on a big adventure and it's obvious she can hardly wait to go! This is different from the first film and it's my favorite part of the movie because it reminds me of how much my mom loved and lived to go on great adventures with us! My mom was like a big kid herself who took me to see the first Mary Poppins and it does me good to remember this! 😀
I enjoyed it. Wasn't at the same level as the first movie, but hit all the right beats, I think it will grow on people. I wasnt that big on The Greatest Showman at first, but it grew on me and now I love that movie.
I saw this film when I was a little kid and to this day I still think of Mary Poppins when I hear about a nanny and I also think of the show when I use an umbrella.
Original a 10. New is a 9. The only problem was the songs in new one were not as catchy as the original. They are good but not as easy to sing in the moment for.
Mary Poppins, the original is the true childhood memory I will keep. The “new” Mary Poppins is just what it seems, an attempt to cash in on childhood memories. Not the same and I still remember my childhood fondly. Spoonful of sugar for me.
For me one of the worst and most annoying things of the sequel is having a miscast Michael Banks. I love the idea of having Mary Poppins back, and I appreciate LOTS of things that have been achieved in this new film but, who on earth cast Ben Wishaw as a grown up Michael Banks? He does not look like Matthew Garber, the original Michael at all!! It really spoils the magic for me...
I agree Michael Banks was annoying and his character was so wimpy it made me ill. I was 10 years old when I saw the original Mary Poppins, it was my first time in a theater and I fell in love with the movie. Mary Poppins Returns is a big disappointment to me. I actually dosed off a couple of times and then towards the end while the lamp lighters was singing, l walked out of the movie for a small break and returned for the very end of it. My granddaughter, age 12, accompanied me and she enjoyed the movie but agreed that it is not as good as the original....
I went to the premiere at Disney's theater, El Capitan, in Hollywood, California and they had the original kite and snow globe on display. That was sooo cool!
Of course MP was/is magic, that explains the eternally youthful appearance. But having a cousin in MPR throws that off a bit. Are they both time lords? Also, whose uncle exactly loves to laugh in the original? Is it MP's or Bert's? If Mary's, is he a timelord also? Could explain his own magical activity. Finally, I always thought Bert may be a mystical creature/"timelord" like MP since he seems almost her parallel in the first film. Their friendship and apparently budding romance, his fluency in the magical worlds she creates, his innumerable talents, his closeness with the laughing uncle, etc. However maybe this could also be explained that, he was also a prococious child visited by MP many years ago! That would explain his childlike demeanor and MP's intimate knowledge of him. Could make for an interesting prequel/origin story! Anyway, thanks for the vid, just some thoughts.
I can explain the family stuff - Mary Poppins has a lot of relatives in the books, who may or may not share her immortality - it's never really made clear. Mary Poppins herself definitely has some kind of extended lifespan and obviously has magical powers, and her relatives at least have some magical aspects to their characters. So yes, Uncle Albert is Mary Poppins' uncle. And in the part of the second book where Meryl Streep's scene is derived from, her cousin Arthur Turvy is the one who has the upside-down "powers" (though I'm pretty sure Meryl Streep's character is actually inspired by his wife, who's called Topsy). Plus, in the books you also find out that one of her cousins on her mother's side is a snake, and that said mother was friends with the cow who jumped over the moon. So basically, Mary Poppins comes from some kind of magic family, but she seems to be the all-powerful one for unknown reasons. I don't know how helpful that was but I hope I explained some of the stuff you were thinking about :D
"6 Ways Mary Poppins Returns IGNORED Mary Poppins (1964)" **Goes on to explain why they DIDN'T ignore the original because they intentionally CHOSE to make all but 1 of these changes.** Lollz! XP
I think the film shares more creative DNA with Bedknobs and Broomsticks than Mary Poppins, especially the animated sequences. - The Trip A Little Light Fantastic number was okay until you added BMX bicycles. - None of the songs had the impact of Feed the Birds from the original film. - While I appreciate Blunt trying for an original performance, it was such a jarring difference from soft to knife-sharp that it tough to watch. Some might appreciate it. I'm not among them, sadly. - The music hall performance was gratuitous, designed to shoehorn in Lin-Manuel Miranda's patter virtuosity without advancing the plot. In fact, the actual plot moment in that sequence came after the musical number, and Mary was completely absent.In the end, it -literally- drops into a plot hole. I wanted to like it more than I did. I was disappointed.
I hope they do a third movie. The next one could be set in the 1950s or 1960s with the next generation of Banks children (the originals would be grandparents at that point). Have Mary appear once a generation.
It seems almost impossible that Emily Blunt never saws Julie as Mary in the first film !! As a stand alone movie, it's fine, but my biggest gripe were overlaps and repeats, where you could see the writers had almost cut and pasted lines and put them in different contexts. That being said, I did enjoy it and was happy to have seen it on the big screen, but as cinema is quite expensive now, will think twice before seeing other sequels or live remakes. The magic of childhood is being lost in this increasingly cynical and sexual world.
Not aging Mary Poppins was a weird choice as it’s never mentioned in the books and P.L. Travers approved Julie Andrews returning for the sequel Disney was planning in the 80’s (except she hated the plot), so if Mary Poppins wasn’t meant to age she wouldn’t have approved her returning. But it’s still a choice that makes sense and I think that’s why they did it, to keep that magical, unexplained quality.
Both my 17 year old daughter & I loved both of them. We liked that still had the same "feel" and many nods to the original but at the same time, it was a sequel and not just another re-make.
I don't usually respond to such comments but I just want to point out that in big productions such as this film, props and costumes are two different departments and there's no way one person would work on three different pieces like these. In fact, on big prods, there'll be different persons in charge of making, oroutsourcing set props, wearable props, action props, hats, clothes, etc...
There is one editing boo-boo in MPR at the "Balloo'n's Up" song at the end. While Angela Lansbury has already ascended, like everyone else, the next quick shot of people on the ground show her still in her bench (lower left of the screen). If you blink, you'll miss it. Also, why is MP so aggressive-passive in this film? You just know that the film is just biding its time before she decides to act and save the day. I thought that was rather "patronizing." BUt then again, I say that as a knowing adult viewer. I liked many of the songs.
The Animation Sequence was somehow Choppy from the First movie, and it didn't seem to live up to the Original version when the was Released in December 19th, 2018 on Wednesday.
Sorry you didn't enjoy it. I thought it was very innovative and especially enjoyed the "A Cover Is Not The Book" song, but yes the sequence was darker in tone than the version from the original movie.
They've never really explained in the movies who Mary Poppins is I don't know about the books I've never read them but she just shows up when the winds in the right direction then leaves when her job is done! she clearly has an interest in the welfare of the banks family but it would be interesting to know how she encountered other people who also know her throughout the story,
I saw that. I think a big hint that they were doing it for dramatic affect was when she said "Really, you'd think they'd never done this before". If however they really were at risk, it confirms what I thought about the first Mary Poppins too, as in waiting for the last minute to fix someone or something that is in danger with her powers. When I rewatched Mary Poppins a few years ago, I realized she acts very full of herself and wasn't a very nice person over all. I hope the line means that she knew they would all be okay, otherwise she's kinda narcissistic and even sociopathic to let them risk their lives when she could of easily done all that herself.
1. The snow globe - clearly not the same snow globe, chances are Michael got a new one when he was a kid after Mary took his old one. 2. Uh... Right... Okay. It's still possible for American robins to arrive in the UK but sure. Whatever. 3. It's been 20 or so years. 20! You're telling me she can't change her attitudes mildly in that time? 4. Nobody said this was the same Umbrella bird, not even the movie claims it is. She likely has numerous. Otherwise, maybe she just had it redesigned? 5. SHES MAGIC. WHO THE HELL CARES? You even said this in the video. IF CHER CAN DO IT, SO CAN MARY! 6. Uhh... What? What even is this change?
I'm not a huge fan of the second movie. I couldn't feel the magic I felt in the first. The first thing is that Jack feels like a second Bird for me. The looks are the same, both are friends with Mary Poppins, wear similar clothes, are "streetworkers" and have a large group of friends which are also their coleegs. The dance Jack and the other did was kinda uncreative in my opinion. It felt like a repetition of Bids dance. The plot is okay but you can tell that it's a modern movie. I really missed the Mary-Poppins-macigal-music-theme. The music doesn't fit and makes me feel strange. But I like that Mary is a bit stricter and more like the book Mary. I liked it that when they traveled the world was drawen. I think that was really nice.
This film had a lot of problems. The songs were not very memorable unfortunately, I can't remember one the same way I do as with the original. Lin Manuel Miranda has way too much screen time and took away the focus from the titular character. Meryl Streep's character feels too forced in trying to recreate the magic of Uncle Albert. The vaudeville song was horrendous, just doesn't fit at all with the vibe of the movie, and they put in that one song that's sung at breakneck speed; the point of Mary Poppins was always to make the songs memorable, not intensely incomprehensible, feels like they were harkening back to Supercalifragistic with the ridiculousnous of it but you could catch the words with that one and everyone was singing it by the end. I don't like how the animated scenes from the bowl had villains, why would animated characters have any ill-intent - felt very misplaced. I also didn't like how they ruined Michael's charitable act in the first one where he wanted to give his tuppence to the bird lady, and it turns out his father did actually put it into the bank - that just negates the changes that Mr. Banks went through at the end of the first movie. Perhaps Blunt was trying to play Mary Poppins closer to the novel but her character felt charmless at times; there wasn't enough magic in here and not enough unbelievable... I don't think they did a poor job on the casting here but it just feels like too much of her screen time was given to the lamplighter.
I saw this pop up in my suggestions, however waited to see the movie before watching this. Glad I did. Your picking of detail is quite in line with some of the things I've noticed. Particularly the aging factor. My big disappointment was that the children in the new movie weren't measured, even though there is a reference to the tape measure only minutes before the time it would happen. I don't think I had a favorite bit (although Turning Turtle was my favorite song), however i disliked the introduction of an overarching antagonist. The original movie didn't have one as deeply involved. One could say the bank manager was the antagonist in the original, however he is a very soft antagonist by comparison. Keeping with the idea that "adults need to earn the fantasy of being a child" would have been agreat major plot for Michael (and Jane?) rather than a villain. Love the video. Awesome work!
The Clothes and colours are amazing. The Dance scenes are ok. I enjoyed the last 30 minutes of the Movie and loved the Baloon scene. Emily Blunt acts too serious, snooty and too sarcastic. Realy missed the warm smile and voice of Miss Julie Andrews and the sweet Melodies of the Original. The new Soundtrack hasn't got one peace of music that comes close to the iconic songs of Mary Poppins. Mayby they should have hired David Foster as a composer. As a whole the music isn’t as memorable as the original. The BMX didn’t fit. Emily’s short hair cut in the porcelain bowl sequence was to vulgar and erotic. Why does She has to move and look like in a Cabaret Show? I say this as a Choreographer. It's a Kids Movie. The Choreographer must have been out of his mind. Dick van Dike's apearance was absolutely incredible. I'm still wondering why Julie Andrews didn't apear as Mary Poppins.
Dear Georgee, you warmed my heart and pronounced the same words we had exchanged with my already adult son. Thank you! I'd like to add that it's a pity that such a talented actress like E. Blunt couldn't become a Perfect Nanny for kids.
This is the first post (reading from the top) to mention the quality or lack of quality in the music. The best song in the sequel was barely better and probably not as good as the worst song in the original. The music really dropped the ball here and was one of the worst things about the sequel.
Does anyone else remember the line from Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) "for he didn't have a wisdom for numbers, a wisdom for words" in A Cover is Not The Book? I friken' love that line, for certain reasons that other Hamilton fans might know.
I've seen the Original so many times as a kid, it's like others Little Mermaid of today. While I thought they front loaded the movie with cartoon and catch to get kids into it sooner before getting to the back end simple plot and seriousness, I can overlook that as trying to think of the children watching this rather than the nostalgic viewer. It's not as good, but a pure delight to watch and much better than it could have gone when they originally announced it. It's a great film for the pairing and intro to a new generation creating interest for them to want to see the original. That is difficult to do. The good absolutely covers the misses and I'd never think twice about them. Emily Blunt did a fine job!
Three Railway Engines of Time I like both theories, but agreed. It also explains the aging, as the more powerful you are, the slower you age. Mary Poppins would be extremely powerful because she can do complicated, wandless, non-verbal magic with ease.
The Admiral is a bit early since Big Ben was actually wrong in the movie. When they were "turning back time" we hear him say "Big Ben's finally got it right!"
These are just ridiculous. Looking for stuff that is not really even that big. The colour of the parrot changed and it is not voiced by the same actor...like really... I loved every bit of this Mary Poppins!!!!
I absolutely loved the sequel and actually preferred Emily Blunt's version of Mary Poppins! I loved how they put little things referencing to the books while also giving credit to the 1964 movie.
Really couldn't get on board with M. Poppins putting on a burlesque dance for my kids. My young son definitely knew something was up in that scene, and it just seemed so wrong to do that to Mary friggin Poppins for crying out loud.
I like that they used 2d animation bit wish the sequence had been better. To me the first half of the film with Mary fell flat where as the second half felt much more like her.
