Disney's Mary Poppins Returns

[DarthSkywalker]

The reviews do have me concerned they approached this like The Force Awakens, where it is basically the same exact movie. Only it references the original movie to make it seem different, when it really isn't.

Still incorrect.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Just got back, and movie was good. Story was basic and doesn't do anything that original. But the effects and such are very creative and Emily Blunt was great. So, I give it a solid 3 or 3.5 out of 5 overall.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

 

[Tony Stark]

The reviews do have me concerned they approached this like The Force Awakens, where it is basically the same exact movie. Only it references the original movie to make it seem different, when it really isn't.

Yes it's a sequel that's really more of a remake. The formula is pretty much exactly the same, but the production quality is what saves the film. There are some plot points that really are never dealt with or explored. There's a great song by Wishaw in the beginning where he grieves over his wife's death, but they really don't go off on that plot point. Michael becomes the George Banks of this film. I think this film will suffer a bit because rather than trying to do it's own thing it does stick so closely to the original that it will never live up to. This isn't a bad film and I expect it will do well enough over a crowded Christmas weekend, but I feel it wont be more than a nice bit of nostalgia rather than stand on its own.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Wow, I genuinely thought MPR was the sure bet among all the December offerings this year but it's under-performing big time w.r.t expectations. Mary definitely ain't poppin'.

 

[Mandon Knight]

I thought the original's popularity, reputation and established 'core' would keep this going and I especially thought, here in the UK, (and still will) do well, we may be it's saving grace, I think it's a very 'British' aesthetic of within itself and how 'we' are seen in the old traditional 'Disney' way, I gather, it captures that feel and so that will do it well here. Whether the UK family audience still hanker for that kind of film I'm not certain, children these days raised are not as easily 'swept away' by Bedknobs and Broomsticks level 'fun'.

I think also it was a mistake NOT getting Andrews back on board in some form, I know she's in another Christmas release, but to not have her in, may put some people off, it could have just been a small role but something, or maybe the film makers didn't want to take something from Blunt ?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I thought the original's popularity, reputation and established 'core' would keep this going and I especially thought, here in the UK, (and still will) do well, we may be it's saving grace, I think it's a very 'British' aesthetic of within itself and how 'we' are seen in the old traditional 'Disney' way, I gather, it captures that feel and so that will do it well here. Whether the UK family audience still hanker for that kind of film I'm not certain, children these days raised are not as easily 'swept away' by Bedknobs and Broomsticks level 'fun'.

I have read that MPR is a little too British for the American audience.

It's perhaps the same reason why the Paddington movies (or more recently Christopher Robin) can't seem to breakout at the BO in-spite of massive critical acclaim.

 

[Mandon Knight]

I have read that MPR is a little too British for the American audience.

What ? They had to queue to get in to see it.....

 

[Iceman]

I have read that MPR is a little too British for the American audience.

It's perhaps the same reason why the Paddington movies (or more recently Christopher Robin) can't seem to breakout at the BO in-spite of massive critical acclaim.

Could well be the case.

 

[Frodo]

I have read that MPR is a little too British for the American audience.

It's perhaps the same reason why the Paddington movies (or more recently Christopher Robin) can't seem to breakout at the BO in-spite of massive critical acclaim.

I haven't seen MPR so I can't judge the film, but do you think one of the reasons it may not be taking off as well as they hoped is because the property itself is very much a Baby Boomer and Gen X property as opposed to Millennial and younger ?

I'm a gen X guy who grew up watching Poppins when it was around 20 years old in the 80s. At this point, the original is 50 something going on 60 something years old .

I just don't know if children of today are really into Poppins today.

 

[terry78]

What ? They had to queue to get in to see it.....

See? That **** right there.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I just don't know if children of today are really into Poppins today.

Yeah, kids today are probably not into Mary Poppins. I have read that this movie brought back a lot of creative elements from the previous movie (copying set designs, 2D animation etc) which are possibly a tough sell for a movie in 2018 which is aimed at kids as a prime demographic/target audience.

 

[Mandon Knight]

I just don't know if children of today are really into Poppins today.

They're not. Its that simple, this style of film (and in addition, the older traditional animation style bridging back to the original) are not in vogue with children these days, at all.

 

[terry78]

Ironically our joke ideas of Mary becoming this darker and edgier character before we saw the trailers may have actually made it more palatable.

 

[2kt09]

I haven't seen MPR so I can't judge the film, but do you think one of the reasons it may not be taking off as well as they hoped is because the property itself is very much a Baby Boomer and Gen X property as opposed to Millennial and younger ?

I'm a gen X guy who grew up watching Poppins when it was around 20 years old in the 80s. At this point, the original is 50 something going on 60 something years old .

I just don't know if children of today are really into Poppins today.

At the end of the day, we're talking about a musical during the holiday season and the past 2 consecutive years had massive hits. Even if this was released at the start of December rather than close to these blockbusters, I don't think the marketing was really selling this.

 

[Frodo]

Yeah, kids today are probably not into Mary Poppins. I have read that this movie brought back a lot of creative elements from the previous movie (copying set designs, 2D animation etc) which are possibly a tough sell for a movie in 2018 which is aimed at kids as a prime demographic/target audience.

Yeah. That's something I suspected. The original is a classic to be sure, but its a classic which is really meaningful and beloved with people my generation and my Parents generation, i.e. people from the 1940s through 1980s.

I feel like this was a sequel that was about 50 years too late. Had this film been made in the 70s or early 80s on the outside, when Julie Andrews was still young enough to play the part, and when alot of the original cast was still around, who knows how successful it could of been.

Maybe the reception wouldn't be that much different than now, but it would have been more relevant to the children of that time than the children of today.

 

[Frodo]

At the end of the day, we're talking about a musical during the holiday season and the past 2 consecutive years had massive hits. Even if this was released at the start of December rather than close to these blockbusters, I don't think the marketing was really selling this.

That's a good point.

 

[Lily Adler]

Mary is Queen Bish.

 

[jmc]

It always struck me as odd as to why Disney thought making a MP sequel was a good idea. No matter how good Emily Blunt would have been or how beloved the first film was I just don't think there was any real appetite for the character to make a come back. I do think it's a generational thing too. Everyone and their dog has seen Mary Poppins, but you're really appealing to people who were born 2 generations ago.

 

[sueb1863]

Agree that making a sequel to a 1966 movies that LOOKS like a 1966 movie might not have been the way to go. Kids today aren't wowed by mixing animation with real actors like they were in 1966. To them 2D animation is old fashioned and boring. You'd better have a really great story to go with it.

 

[JP]

I adored this.

The movie sticks VERY closely to what the original established in terms of tone and themes... and I think that's why it has a low 70% user rating on RT. That kind of style doesn't work anymore. But, it worked for me. I was in heaven the entire film.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Its going 'to work' for the parents of little ones in today's society, not the little one's themselves.

 

[Frodo]

It always struck me as odd as to why Disney thought making a MP sequel was a good idea. No matter how good Emily Blunt would have been or how beloved the first film was I just don't think there was any real appetite for the character to make a come back. I do think it's a generational thing too. Everyone and their dog has seen Mary Poppins, but you're really appealing to people who were born 2 generations ago.

Well, if Disney wants to reboot the Shaggy Dog, Flubber, or Herbie the Love Bug for the kids of today, they may want to reconsider.

 

[writer0327]

Personally, I never understood why people believed there would be this mass appeal for a Mary Poppins movie in 2018, but I just filed it under the category of "Stuff I Will Never Get". But as it turns out, I was correct. Don't get me wrong I liked the original Mary Poppins, but it wasn't something I was dying to see in sequel form. I think this idea of remaking/rebooting/re-imagining old Disney movies is going to be hit and miss. I have a feeling Dumbo will stumble too, as will Mulan. JMO, Disney would be far better off sinking their cash into new material.

 

[TheVileOne]

Because the name of the game these days is to only throw the big money into established properties. Mary Poppins is an established brand name and property.