Home Menu

Menu


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 24th, 2018, 12:35 PM #181
Spoony Spoonerson's Avatar
> Spoony Spoonerson
...like a WRECKING BALL!
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,585
Spoony Spoonerson
...like a WRECKING BALL!
Spoony Spoonerson's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,585



GoldAnyRanger wrote: View Post

Saw it this morning. it was good. Although...

They gave the story a villain. The current chairman of the Bank, the nephew of the younger Mr. Dawes. Mary Poppins doesn't need a villain. The bank board in the original weren't the most likeable, but they weren't actively scheming against anyone.

And Dick Van Dyke isn't the only returning cast member from the original, Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, has a brief cameo, as an "elegant woman" (That's how she's credited) who walks up to Jane and asks where 19 Cherry Tree Lane is. After learning what she needs, she says "Many thanks. Sincerely." (A nod to Jane and Michael's advertisement for a new nanny.)

There are numerous parallels to the original.

Instead of cleaning up the nursery, it's a bath for all three children.

Where the original had them jumping into a chalk drawing, this time it's a Royal Daulton China bowl, which had belonged to the children's late mother. The bank chairman gets an animated counterpart here, an evil wolf.

Again, they go to visit one of Mary Poppins' relatives, and end up on the ceiling. This time, it's her cousin, not her Uncle Albert.

Instead of a bunch of chimney sweeps, it's every lamplighter (called leeries) in London.

And where the first movie wrapped up with flying kites, this time it's balloons.
So, no surprises there. I think we all sort of guessed they'd "Force Awakens" it and play it super-safe. That said, I'm still curious to see it.
Spoony Spoonerson is online now     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2018, 07:02 AM #182
Spoony Spoonerson's Avatar
> Spoony Spoonerson
...like a WRECKING BALL!
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,585
Spoony Spoonerson
...like a WRECKING BALL!
Spoony Spoonerson's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,585



So, finally saw it. On the whole, I feel very mixed about it. A lot of the musical numbers are quite forgettable, but because the best two or three songs are at the very end, it's hard not to leave the screening with joy.

Emily Blunt is delightful, though she definitely comes off as a stern-er Poppins than we saw with Andrews. Singing, dancing, charming, she's solid on all fronts. However, Lin Manuel-Miranda is not suited to the role. In the opening number (about lighting lamps) it's pretty clear his style of singing doesn't suit the high, long notes, and his London accent is atrocious. Maybe it was just hard for him to sing whilst affecting an accent? Look, I know complaining about London accents in Mary Poppins films is about as old as... the first Mary Poppins film, I'm just shocked that they got another American to do a cockney accent, in 2018! He comes off a lot better in the animated theatre song, where he's riffing off lyrics very quickly, but any song in which he's required to hold a note for any length of time, he sounds terrible. Whilst the rest of the cast are not singers, they're not really required to carry the music quite as much, Ben Whishaw can pretty much pass in the few times he's required to sing.

Overall, there's more than a few songs that feel totally unnecessary (Topsy Turvy, for one), but the second half does redeem a rather stale first.

I agree, Colin Firth being a villain did seem a little odd. That said, when I was trying to describe the plot of the first movie to a friend who had never seen it, I realised that not a lot really does happen, it doesn't have any conflict aside from Mr Banks realising what it's like to be a kid again. Adding that layer of a villain does add necessary conflict. I'm also surprised Colin Firth didn't get a villain's song, growing up in the 90s it seemed like villains always used to get the best musical numbers. He was charming as always, but his motivations were very cardboard cutout.

Yeah, fuck Meryl Streep in that weird, totally unnecessary Topsy Turvy song, it added nothing, and the lyrics were so basic ("So up is down and black is white!") I could feel myself getting annoyed.

But okay, who's soul couldn't melt when Dick Van Dyke returned for a musical number. I even knew he was going to be in it by the trailers, but he comes in in such bombastic fashion, it's joyful.

Last edited by Spoony Spoonerson; December 30th, 2018 at 07:23 PM.
Spoony Spoonerson is online now     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old December 30th, 2018, 07:04 PM #183
Alitain's Avatar
> Alitain
God of Benevolence
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,848
Alitain
God of Benevolence
Alitain's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,848



Saw it today cause my mom wanted to see it, so went along why not. I'll say I'm not a huge fan of the original. I mean I dislike it, just not one of the old Disney films I think about much and I've only seen it like twice. Once when I was little, and once more maybe a year ago? Hard to remember, so I don't remember a whole lot about it really. I mean it's enjoyable and all, don't get me wrong. Returns was charming, fun, and enjoyable. Not a lot to write home about, but really I wasn't expecting more than that going in so I guess expectations were met?

The plot is fairly by the books, again no real surprise. Like I said above, I don't remember a lot about the original but I feel like Blunt's Poppins is actually more lively than Andrews. Also, totally was expecting an Andrews cameo that never happened. But anyways, I liked Blunt in the role I thought she did just fine. I agree with Spoony that the Topsy Turvy song was rather pointless other than basically establishing to the kids selling the pot was pointless. But I feel like the idea is that they wanted to get the whole, 'look at things a different way' message. Still, wasn't really sold on that scene. I liked the Cover is not the Book song or whatever it was called, that was fun and probably the most or at least one of the most lively numbers in the film.

I think I'd have to go back and rewatch the original again to sorta compare things. Like mentioned, there was really no conflict in the original or at least rather minor compared to this, even though this one was fairly cliché and truly didn't amount to much cause I feel like no expected things to end any other way than how they did. As usual, comes down to adults need to remember how to be kids again, etc etc. But yeah, overall charming enough.
Alitain is offline     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2019, 03:54 PM #184
AdrenalineRush's Avatar
> AdrenalineRush
Power Ranger
 
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 7,768
AdrenalineRush
Power Ranger
AdrenalineRush's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 7,768



I saw the film on Saturday. I liked it but it did feel like the Force Awakens of the original. Let's be honest, the original will always be the best.
AdrenalineRush is offline     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2019, 05:29 PM #185
ranger_scout's Avatar
> ranger_scout
Power Ranger
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,425
ranger_scout
Power Ranger
ranger_scout's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,425



For those who haven't seen the film yet, here is a little bit of the song "A Cover is the not the Book" courtesy of Disney.

ranger_scout is offline     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 03:10 AM #186
> ⚡TeraMan
Monster Rider Mod
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,716
TeraMan
Monster Rider Mod
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,716



So I finally saw Mary Poppins Returns, and can finally say...



In my eyes, people have officially lost the right to complain about Star Wars: The Force Awakens being a carbon-copy of A New Hope. Because THIS movie, THIS does it WAAAAY worse then TFA. Beat for beat it's the first movie all over again:

  1. We open in our main family, which features and estranged relationship between the paternal figure and the children.
  2. Mary Poppins swoops in at the family's time of need.
  3. The cynical kids get introduced through a world of wonder via twisting a simple maintenance activity.
  4. An encounter with the scrappy, blue character side character that leads to a musical excursion into an animated world.
  5. Broken up by a much more melancholy song.
  6. Visiting a quirky family member that reside in a bizarre home with questionable physics.
  7. A visit to the bank on the behalf of the parental figure where things go from bad to worse, causing the kids to get lost in London.
  8. The blue collar side character returns, to lead the kids back home and to cheer them up with the help of his coworkers.
  9. The paternal has to face the music with the bank people...but things manage to work out in the end.
  10. Movie closes out with the family enjoying a day at the park, and Mary takes her leave.


All of it rolls by, beat for beat, as if someone really did copy and pasted the original's script and changed the details to seem not exactly the same.

And any additions made unique to Returns...makes things even worse.

There's of course the much mentioned villain in the movie...one that the first movie didn't need. It adds an unnecessary conflict the movie didn't need. What is there to gain from making the Banks home getting deliberately taken away through malicious intent for the sake of it, when it could have easily been turned around to be an uncaring act of business bureaucracy?

The romance between Jack and Jane...adds nothing to the plot at all and is just there for inexplicable reasons.

And the climax of trying to "turn back time" for the sake of making things exciting and nothing else.


Songs are also completely forgettable and go out the ears as quickly as they go in.

Only things of note in this movie are the visuals; the film is super pretty to look at. The bright and colorful animated worlds of animation are a delight, and even the darker and grimier world of London is still lavishly detailed. And all the performances are top notch; Emily Blunt in particular as Mary Poppins. I never got a sense that she was just copying what Julie Andrews did. That she really did embody the magical nanny; haughty, witty, confident, but still with a kind heart underneath all of it.

The other exception being Lin-Manuel Miranda as Jack. His Cockney accent is somehow WORSE then Dick van Dyke's. Which is saying something since even as a kid I never minded his take as Bert. With Miranda, every time his character opens his mouth I'm trying to stifle laughter at how ridiculous he sounds.

As for Angela Lansberry's mystery role...

Yeah I get the sense her character was the one that was originally meant for Julie Andrews had accepted making a cameo appearance...and it does feel a little off that she's not here to be in it. Starting to wonder that they had already finalized the script when they asked Andrews...and I GUESS they were too far in to make any changes to accommodate the change. As amusing as it is to interpret this as a tie-in to Bedknobs and Broomsticks...it's not enough.


Overall...just watch the original movie. Don't waste your time with this one.

(And as a reminder, THIS was the movie Disney felt deserved the Holiday 2018 slot more then Solo did. And, amusingly enough, this movie is ALSO not doing so hot at the box office right now.)

Last edited by TeraMan; January 6th, 2019 at 03:17 AM.
TeraMan is offline     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 04:35 AM #187
Spoony Spoonerson's Avatar
> Spoony Spoonerson
...like a WRECKING BALL!
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,585
Spoony Spoonerson
...like a WRECKING BALL!
Spoony Spoonerson's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,585



TeraMan wrote: View Post

In my eyes, people have officially lost the right to complain about Star Wars: The Force Awakens being a carbon-copy of A New Hope. Because THIS movie, THIS does it WAAAAY worse then TFA. Beat for beat it's the first movie all over again:

All of it rolls by, beat for beat, as if someone really did copy and pasted the original's script and changed the details to seem not exactly the same.
I think the difference here is that it's pretty much been common knowledge this was going to follow the beats of the original, they've really not been shy about it. I think that's why I give this a pass, but not Force Awakens, which was billed as being the first "NEW" Star Wars with the old cast.

There's of course the much mentioned villain in the movie...one that the first movie didn't need. It adds an unnecessary conflict the movie didn't need. What is there to gain from making the Banks home getting deliberately taken away through malicious intent for the sake of it, when it could have easily been turned around to be an uncaring act of business bureaucracy?

The romance between Jack and Jane...adds nothing to the plot at all and is just there for inexplicable reasons.

And the climax of trying to "turn back time" for the sake of making things exciting and nothing else.
Yeah, the climax makes no sense when your lead is a magical character that can do everything:

When "Turning Back Time" was mentioned, I was worried, introducing time travel into a movie suddenly would come off as jarring. When they meant Big Ben, I thought that was a neat way to do it. Then we're watching Jack and The Learies climb Big Ben from the OUTSIDE, and then climb in at the top, which made no sense on that level, rather than climbing from the inside. Then it makes no sense because Mary Poppins can fly. Then it REALLY makes no sense, because all the tension comes from Michael not being able to drive to the bank in time, when, once again, Mary Poppins can fly. There's really no reason for anyone to do anything.


Overall...just watch the original movie. Don't waste your time with this one.

(And as a reminder, THIS was the movie Disney felt deserved the Holiday 2018 slot more then Solo did. And, amusingly enough, this movie is ALSO not doing so hot at the box office right now.)
There's a bunch of reasons this took the Christmas spot over Solo.

Firstly, Disney has been really horny for bringing out Star Wars in May, with Last Jedi originally slated for a May release before being pushed back, and the same with IX. Despite making "All Of The Money" with little competition in December, for some reason Disney really want Star Wars to be a summer movie.

Next, it's close to Oscar season. Even if Solo was good, the most it could get nominated for is a technical award. Like it or not, Mary Poppins Returns is the kind of film that could bag a couple of nominations. I'm sure they would like Best Original Song, or maybe Best Actress at a push.

Finally, the original is such deeply ingrained as a Christmas movie, despite having nothing to do with Christmas, it's just a sickly sweet musical that's been in families for generations. There's no reason to release this in Summer.
Spoony Spoonerson is online now     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 12:17 PM #188
ranger_scout's Avatar
> ranger_scout
Power Ranger
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,425
ranger_scout
Power Ranger
ranger_scout's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,425



TeraMan wrote: View Post


(And as a reminder, THIS was the movie Disney felt deserved the Holiday 2018 slot more then Solo did. And, amusingly enough, this movie is ALSO not doing so hot at the box office right now.)
This film was never meant to perform on the same level as the Star Wars movies or Beauty and the Beast. Its North American and worldwide box-office totals have already surpassed Rob Marshall's last December musical film, Into the Woods. Right now it's also outperforming other hit musical movies like Les Miserables and The Greatest Showman.

December Musicals at Box office Mojo
ranger_scout is offline     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 12:59 PM #189
> ⚡TeraMan
Monster Rider Mod
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,716
TeraMan
Monster Rider Mod
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,716



Spoony Spoonerson wrote: View Post

I think the difference here is that it's pretty much been common knowledge this was going to follow the beats of the original, they've really not been shy about it. I think that's why I give this a pass, but not Force Awakens, which was billed as being the first "NEW" Star Wars with the old cast.
...and I completely disagree with the notion that TFA was a beat-for-beat rehash of ANH, since that movie definitely did enough different things in different contexts to make it stand on its own.

This movie does not. And brings into question why it even exists aside from *Gain Money*

There's a bunch of reasons this took the Christmas spot over Solo.

Firstly, Disney has been really horny for bringing out Star Wars in May, with Last Jedi originally slated for a May release before being pushed back, and the same with IX. Despite making "All Of The Money" with little competition in December, for some reason Disney really want Star Wars to be a summer movie.
...which hasn't worked out that well for them when they did decide to stick Solo in the May slot which in hindsight...a very dumb decision.

Next, it's close to Oscar season. Even if Solo was good, the most it could get nominated for is a technical award. Like it or not, Mary Poppins Returns is the kind of film that could bag a couple of nominations. I'm sure they would like Best Original Song, or maybe Best Actress at a push.
Certainly wasn't the thinking of others, where last month we were graced with two different superhero movies and a movie featuring a giant transforming robot...who are pulling in way more money then Mary Poppins Returns.

I don't think releasing a space western movie would have been that much of an issue.

ranger_scout wrote: View Post

This film was never meant to perform on the same level as the Star Wars movies or Beauty and the Beast. Its North American and worldwide box-office totals have already surpassed Rob Marshall's last December musical film, Into the Woods. Right now it's also outperforming other hit musical movies like Les Miserables and The Greatest Showman.
...well, I haven't exactly been impressed with the spate of live action musicals released within the last few years.

Last edited by TeraMan; January 6th, 2019 at 01:05 PM.
TeraMan is offline     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 01:28 PM #190
ranger_scout's Avatar
> ranger_scout
Power Ranger
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,425
ranger_scout
Power Ranger
ranger_scout's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,425



TeraMan wrote: View Post




...well, I haven't exactly been impressed with the spate of live action musicals released within the last few years.
Forbes also made a good point about why it was better to save Mary Poppins Returns for Christmas and experiment Solo as a May release.

Disney Was Right To Keep 'Solo' In Summer And Open 'Mary Poppins' At Christmas
ranger_scout is offline     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2019, 06:07 PM #191
Spoony Spoonerson's Avatar
> Spoony Spoonerson
...like a WRECKING BALL!
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,585
Spoony Spoonerson
...like a WRECKING BALL!
Spoony Spoonerson's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,585



TeraMan wrote: View Post

...and I completely disagree with the notion that TFA was a beat-for-beat rehash of ANH, since that movie definitely did enough different things in different contexts to make it stand on its own.

This movie does not. And brings into question why it even exists aside from *Gain Money*
It's quite hard to say. I mean, sure it's a cash grab, but it's very unlike Disney to spend this much time and money on property unless they can make sequels and TV shows and whore it out in merch. From what we've seen, there's no plans to do this with Mary Poppins, it seems like a vanity project more than anything.

...which hasn't worked out that well for them when they did decide to stick Solo in the May slot which in hindsight...a very dumb decision.
Even before it came out, we all said it was stupid to release it in the midst of so many big Summer movies. Obviously they couldn't have predicted the bad-will from Last Jedi, but Disney must have known that even their own big films would be eating into Solo's box office.

Certainly wasn't the thinking of others, where last month we were graced with two different superhero movies and a movie featuring a giant transforming robot...who are pulling in way more money then Mary Poppins Returns.

I don't think releasing a space western movie would have been that much of an issue.
Why do you think they moved in on December? This is the first Christmas in a few years where there was no giant Star Wars movie to hoover-up the box office dollars, and even Jumanji 2 showed there's money to be had in the market. My point is that other studios generally don't want to compete head to head with Star Wars. Solo still would have been panned, but Aquaman would have been moved to a November release to avoid clashing.


...well, I haven't exactly been impressed with the spate of live action musicals released within the last few years.
...and? Does you personal enjoyment of recent musicals change the fact that this film IS outperforming those other films that did pretty well? I had my issues with this film, and a lot of them were the same as the ones you described, but you can't paint a narrative that it's tanking, when really it's doing very well comparatively, because it's outperforming films you "weren't impressed with".
Spoony Spoonerson is online now     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2019, 12:49 AM #192
> ⚡TeraMan
Monster Rider Mod
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,716
TeraMan
Monster Rider Mod
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,716



Spoony Spoonerson wrote: View Post

It's quite hard to say. I mean, sure it's a cash grab, but it's very unlike Disney to spend this much time and money on property unless they can make sequels and TV shows and whore it out in merch. From what we've seen, there's no plans to do this with Mary Poppins, it seems like a vanity project more than anything.
Or a sentimental piece.

The first movie was a pet project of Walt's to get made. An odd turnabout way of honoring Walt?

Obviously they couldn't have predicted the bad-will from Last Jedi,
...and once again, why I don't discount that being *a* factor, I do not believe there's enough evidence to support the notion that that was The Factor

Even before it came out, we all said it was stupid to release it in the midst of so many big Summer movies.
Why do you think they moved in on December? This is the first Christmas in a few years where there was no giant Star Wars movie to hoover-up the box office dollars, and even Jumanji 2 showed there's money to be had in the market. My point is that other studios generally don't want to compete head to head with Star Wars. Solo still would have been panned, but Aquaman would have been moved to a November release to avoid clashing.
...ok at this point I'm starting to be under the impression that you and I agree about Solo's placement in the scheduling being a terrible idea, but we're approaching that agreement differently.

...and? Does you personal enjoyment of recent musicals change the fact that this film IS outperforming those other films that did pretty well? I had my issues with this film, and a lot of them were the same as the ones you described, but you can't paint a narrative that it's tanking, when really it's doing very well comparatively, because it's outperforming films you "weren't impressed with".
Ok. Let me rephrase that:

It doesn't matter that it's performing better then other December musicals, because the movie in of itself isn't a success.

Movie has an estimated budget of $130 million. As of right now, movie's only made $257.9 million. That means in the two weeks that it's been out, the movie still hasn't broken even. Oh sure, in the next few weeks I'm sure it'll eventually tip over and starts to make a profit...but I imagine not by much. And, if what I hear is true about Chinese audiences not really liking musicals, pretty sure they can't pull a "China will bail us out!" maneuver.

So yeah. The metric that it's doing better then other musicals in December really doesn't matter.
TeraMan is offline     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2019, 05:10 PM #193
Spoony Spoonerson's Avatar
> Spoony Spoonerson
...like a WRECKING BALL!
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,585
Spoony Spoonerson
...like a WRECKING BALL!
Spoony Spoonerson's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,585



TeraMan wrote: View Post

Or a sentimental piece.

The first movie was a pet project of Walt's to get made. An odd turnabout way of honoring Walt?
I believe it's oddly fitting. Getting the first one made was a lot of effort on Walt's part, a lot of convincing P.L. Travers to allow him to do it.. With Returns, it was more a case of: waiting until both Travers and her son had passed away, then getting approval from her estate.

[QUOTE]...and once again, why I don't discount that being *a* factor, I do not believe there's enough evidence to support the notion that that was The Factor{/QUOTE]

I'm not saying it was a big factor, and I enjoyed The Last Jedi, but it did leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, to follow up a few months later with an unnecessary prequel was unfortunate.

...ok at this point I'm starting to be under the impression that you and I agree about Solo's placement in the scheduling being a terrible idea, but we're approaching that agreement differently.
I believe so. I don't even think we're approaching it differently, it was just a plain terrible spot Disney put it in. Even a later October/November release would have been preferable.

Ok. Let me rephrase that:

It doesn't matter that it's performing better then other December musicals, because the movie in of itself isn't a success.

Movie has an estimated budget of $130 million. As of right now, movie's only made $257.9 million. That means in the two weeks that it's been out, the movie still hasn't broken even. Oh sure, in the next few weeks I'm sure it'll eventually tip over and starts to make a profit...but I imagine not by much. And, if what I hear is true about Chinese audiences not really liking musicals, pretty sure they can't pull a "China will bail us out!" maneuver.

So yeah. The metric that it's doing better then other musicals in December really doesn't matter.
So, the film has made twice it's production value in 2 weeks, it's yet to open in quite a few territories, and you're saying it's tanking? With a budget of $130million, and a sizeable, but not "carpet bombing" marketing budget, maybe $100million tops, it's already broken even. I'm not saying it's going to be a very profitable film, but it's far from a flop.

It's opening weekend it performed below expectations, partly because it turns out people actually liked Aquaman, but it performed 20% better on it's second week. Doing a check on recent musicals (Greatest Showman, A Star Is Born, La La Land, Mamma Mia 2, Les Mis 2012), they're averaging about $400 million globally, and they're the biggest hitters. I can't see Mary Poppins Returns doing less than $400million globally, so at the minimum it's on par with the popular ones.

Other musicals (the Pitch Perfects, Annie, The Muppets, Rock Of Ages, Nine) barely did any business, the only wildly successful live-action musicals of the last decade have been Mamma Mia, Beauty And The Beast, and Bohemian Rhapsody. Granted, Mary Poppins has a slightly higher budget (I looked, and couldn't find one with a production budget of $100million), but it's not like Batman V Superman where it needs to make $1billion to break even.
Spoony Spoonerson is online now     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 8th, 2019, 12:29 PM #194
> ⚡TeraMan
Monster Rider Mod
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,716
TeraMan
Monster Rider Mod
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,716



Spoony Spoonerson wrote: View Post

I believe it's oddly fitting. Getting the first one made was a lot of effort on Walt's part, a lot of convincing P.L. Travers to allow him to do it.. With Returns, it was more a case of: waiting until both Travers and her son had passed away, then getting approval from her estate.
Yeah. Not that it's going to against anyone's conscious, since by all accounts Travers was a horrible person...

Tangentially, gawds I can see Universal circling their scripts for a BttF4 or reboot the moment Bob Gale kicks it...

So, the film has made twice it's production value in 2 weeks, it's yet to open in quite a few territories, and you're saying it's tanking?
No. I'm saying that it's not doing that well despite it being Disney's big Holiday 2018 release.

I would think that Disney was expecting this movie to do a lot better then it actually is, if they felt it was worth it to put the movie where it was and not the safe bet of a Star Wars movie.

Well, not much else that can be viewed on that verdict until the movie completes its run. And even then, I don't think Disney had any serious plans to make any sequels off of this movie...
TeraMan is offline     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 10th, 2019, 03:41 PM #195
ranger_scout's Avatar
> ranger_scout
Power Ranger
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,425
ranger_scout
Power Ranger
ranger_scout's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,425



It's very early right now, but Rob Marshall already has plans for another film.

Rob Marshall wrote:
It is early stages but I will say right now that there were eight books, so there's a lot of great material still to mine. That's what we worked from, those incredible eight books of P.L. Travers. So, you know.

If there's a great character and story to tell, why not?
Mary Poppins Returns Director May Be Considering Another Sequel
ranger_scout is offline     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2019, 03:31 AM #196
AdrenalineRush's Avatar
> AdrenalineRush
Power Ranger
 
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 7,768
AdrenalineRush
Power Ranger
AdrenalineRush's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 7,768



TeraMan wrote: View Post

Yeah. Not that it's going to against anyone's conscious, since by all accounts Travers was a horrible person.
Well, it is true that she was critical of the Disney film adaptation and opposed the casting choice of Dick Van Dyke as Bert, which inspired the film Saving Mr. Banks.
AdrenalineRush is offline     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 11th, 2019, 10:35 AM #197
BigMDtheSequel's Avatar
> BigMDtheSequel
Power Ranger
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,824
BigMDtheSequel
Power Ranger
BigMDtheSequel's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,824



ranger_scout wrote: View Post

It's very early right now, but Rob Marshall already has plans for another film.



Mary Poppins Returns Director May Be Considering Another Sequel
I liked Mary Poppins Returns, but part (a very large part) of the appeal is the sentimentality of paying homage to a beloved classic. So many elements of the film were imitations of the first film. They were handled with so much love that it's hard to be mad at the filmmakers, but they still haven't demonstrated that this is a film franchise suitable for a regular release schedule. More of a "once every generation or two" revisiting situation.
BigMDtheSequel is online now     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2019, 11:38 AM #198
ranger_scout's Avatar
> ranger_scout
Power Ranger
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,425
ranger_scout
Power Ranger
ranger_scout's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,425



The film just reached a milestone for live-action musical films at the box-office today.

Shoutout to Disney’s Mary Poppins Returns which becomes the fifth highest live-action musical at the domestic box office with $150.7M to date, beating the lifetime stateside totals of Les Miserables ($148.8M), Mamma Mia! ($144.2M) and will soon pass La La Land ($151.1M). Worldwide, she’s at $287.9M and counting. Through 26 days in releases at the domestic B.O., Poppins is still pacing ahead of Fox’s The Greatest Showman by 58%. There have been various prolific star-studded screenings of the film in this final weekend of phase 1 Oscar nom voting with Sophia Loren here in LA and Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively in NYC. There is also a Mary Poppins Experience complete with sets and a screening occurring today on the Disney lot in Burbank.
https://deadline.com/2019/01/kevin-h...ce-1202533526/
ranger_scout is offline     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2019, 06:01 PM #199
Spoony Spoonerson's Avatar
> Spoony Spoonerson
...like a WRECKING BALL!
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,585
Spoony Spoonerson
...like a WRECKING BALL!
Spoony Spoonerson's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 7,585



ranger_scout wrote: View Post

The film just reached a milestone for live-action musical films at the box-office today.



https://deadline.com/2019/01/kevin-h...ce-1202533526/
Haven't you heard? It's clearly doing badly because TeraMan wasn't impressed with those other films!
Spoony Spoonerson is online now     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2019, 10:36 PM #200
ranger_scout's Avatar
> ranger_scout
Power Ranger
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,425
ranger_scout
Power Ranger
ranger_scout's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,425



Spoony Spoonerson wrote: View Post

Haven't you heard? It's clearly doing badly because TeraMan wasn't impressed with those other films!
TeraMan might not agree with us about the film's box-office total, but Scott Mendelson of Forbes seems to feel the same way we do.

Scott Mendelson wrote:
Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins Returns has received exactly the kind of holiday-infused legs it needed after a slightly underwhelming opening. The Emily Blunt/Lin-Manual Miranda musical fantasy earned another $7.25m (-51%) in its fourth weekend for a $150.65m 26-day total. Once it tops $151m, it’ll be past Mamma Mia ($144m in 2008), Les Misérables ($148m in 2012) and La La Land ($151m). It may just pass Chicago ($170m in 2002/2003) and The Greatest Showman ($175m in 2017/2018) to become the third-biggest live-action musical in unadjusted domestic earnings behind only Grease ($188m counting reissues) and Beauty and the Beast ($504m in 2017). Oh, and the $130m-budgeted sequel has earned $287.5m worldwide thus far. It’s not a blow-out success, but it’s absolutely a solid performer for the Mouse House, and one that has the potential to stick around in post-theatrical.
Box Office: 'Spider-Man' Tops $300M, 'Star Is Born' Passes $400M, 'Mary Poppins' Tops $150M Domestic
ranger_scout is offline     Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Post Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

Connect







 

Design

    RangerBoard designs are exclusive to Members.
    Please login to access all available designs.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® / Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.