Mary Poppins Returns - Official Teaser Trailer...

[AGXStarseed]

I talked about this previously on the "Movies you feel didn't need sequels" thread, where I said I wouldn't write it off just yet in case it actually turned out to be good or at the very least decent; topping or even matching something so iconic is difficult but not impossible.

Well, the teaser trailer for the movie (scheduled for release on December 25th 2018) is now out...and I'm not going to lie, I got serious goosebumps. The amount they've actually tried to recapture the designs of the original film and the little nods to it did put a big smile on my face. Some might have issues with the outfit change, but since this takes place during the 1930s while the original took place in 1910, I'm fine with it; I seriously doubt that as the decades roll by and the fashion changes that even Mary Poppins would stick to one outfit.

Lets see what you guys think; Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, Supercrapwhatthehellweretheythinking or not sure just yet?

 

[Judge]

The singing voice of Julie Andrews. Accept no substitutes.

Lurch thinks it's a bad idea too. Some things never change.

 

[Adora]

While I did like the original Mary Poppins movie growing up the sequel is definitely in the sequel we didn’t really need category,I saw the teaser and it did look visually nice but I’m not really excited about this at all.

 

[Thinx]

I got distracted by the lurch video and it split to show an INTP strand that led to more on INTP video so I ll follow up those. I am INTP . Guess that says all you need to know about my attention span in relation to the question.

 

[pjcnet]

I've never liked Mary Poppins even as a young child and I definitely wouldn't like it now lol! I've also never really liked musicals, I see them as silly and ridiculous when the characters suddenly start singing completely out of context, if I'm forced to watch them I usually end up annoying other people watching it by making comments like "where's the orchestra?" and in Mary Poppins I'd also probably be going on about gravity, air resistance and how impossibly ridiculous her umbrella was lol. In fact I never really liked most movies designed for children and as a young child I much preferred watching adult horror movies as well as Sci-Fi and the few TV programmes about computers or technology in those days, for instance I remember loving The Omen (1976) when it was first shown on TV and I thoroughly enjoyed all the Hammer movies too as well as the classic TV series Hammer House of Horror a little later, this series is still good even today. I was only ever allowed to stay up that late however when I was staying with my late Nan and Grandad who told me never to tell my parents lol! I loved it when we got our first VHS video recorder in 1980 however when I was coming up to 11 because even my parents allowed me to record and later watch late night horror movies. Regarding Sci-Fi I used to enjoy watching Doctor Who (I hate the modern series), Blake's 7, Star Trek (the original series) and more, and for computers or technology I used to watch Tomorrows World from a very early age and later Micro Live. Not exactly Marry Poppins lol!

I am definitely not a fan of Disney itself either, in fact I hated most things Disney even as a child, even Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are boring, give me Looney Tunes any day, but now Disney are far too powerful and influential which definitely isn't good. They're also destroying the Star Wars franchise which is already being saturated so they can make as much money as possible in the shortest possible time, selling to Disney was the worst thing Lucasfilm could have ever done.

Because Disney are so powerful and can easily dominate the media with any movie release, the reboot of Mary Poppins will almost certainly do quite well as will most of their releases no matter how good they really are. People and especially children can be almost convinced that something is good by the media, then if they believe everyone else loves something they don't want to be the odd one out. The media is extremely powerful, more powerful than most people comprehend and even movies themselves like Mary Poppins can have a significant influence on our children.

PS: There's many unpleasant conspiracy theories about the Walt Disney Company as well as about the late Walt Disney (1901-1966) himself, I won't detail or discuss them in detail here because this isn't the appropriate place, I will just say that even though I'm sceptical about most of it, I very much doubt Disney is completely squeaky clean either, because where there's power there is usually corruption.

 

[Mr Allen]

Why? I mean come on, Julie Andrews, who was in the original, is in her 80's now, so with due respect she's a bit old to reprise the role, and anybody else wouldn't do the role justice IMO.

 

[AGXStarseed]

Why? I mean come on, Julie Andrews, who was in the original, is in her 80's now, so with due respect she's a bit old to reprise the role, and anybody else wouldn't do the role justice IMO.

Apparently Julie Andrews declined to cameo in the film but did it for a nice reason; stating ‘This is Emily’s show, and I really want it to be Emily’s show. I don’t want it to be, 'Oh, here comes that Mary Poppins.' I don’t want that. I really want her to take this and run with it, because she will be brilliant.'

According to this, Julie was totally on board with Emily been cast to play Mary Poppins. Furthermore, Dick Van Dyke is appearing in the film but not as Bert. Instead, he'll be playing the son to the original film's villain Mr. Dawes Sr (with Dick actually playing the role of Mr. Dawes Sr in the original film, so a nice little touch there): Julie Andrews turned down a Mary Poppins Returns cameo, but for the very best reason

 

[Judge]

I just think it's tragic that while the film community itself is so prone to emphasizing the value of their art, while the studios are only thinking of revenues in remaking film classics that should- and can stand the test of time.

Simple point. I wouldn't even consider remaking a film like this any more than "Gone With The Wind" or other highly recognized film classics. Let the studios remake some other film, with less notoriety. Better yet, abandon the practice altogether and start dealing with brand new scripts.

Or has film gone the way of music as well, and simply "gone off a cliff" at a certain point in the past?
Where they are so revenue conscience they aren't willing to take chances as they did in the past with most films. Where artists ruled the roost in Hollywood rather than only bean-counters.

 

[AGXStarseed]

I just think it's tragic that while the film community itself is so prone to emphasizing the value of their art, while the studios are only thinking of revenues in remaking film classics that should- and can stand the test of time.

Simple point. I wouldn't even consider remaking a film like this any more than "Gone With The Wind" or other highly recognized film classics. Let the studios remake some other film, with less notoriety. Better yet, abandon the practice altogether and start dealing with brand new scripts.

Or has film gone the way of music as well, and simply "gone off a cliff" at a certain point in the past?
Where they are so revenue conscience they aren't willing to take chances as they did in the past with most films. Where artists ruled the roost in Hollywood rather than only bean-counters.

Reminds me of what Doug Walker says in these videos (see the links below if you want to just read what he says):

Why is Nothing Original Anymore?
When Should Remakes Not Happen?

 

[Judge]

I just don't relate to the demographics of a moviegoing audience only relating to actors of their own generation. Makes no sense to me.

Even being born in the 50s, Errol Flynn IS Robin Hood (1938). Sean Connery IS James Bond. (1962) And Clark Gable will ALWAYS be Rhett Butler. (1939)

And yes, Helen Mirren will ALWAYS be "The Queen" Elizabeth II (2006), and Ralph Fiennes "Schindler's List" Amon Göth (1993) !

"If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it." It's what makes a true classic "timeless".

Y'all think Chris Hemsworth could pull this off? LOL....no chance. None. And forget Russell Crowe.

 

[Mr Allen]

I just don't relate to the demographics of a moviegoing audience only relating to actors of their own generation. Makes no sense to me.

Even being born in the 50s, Errol Flynn IS Robin Hood (1938). Sean Connery IS James Bond. (1962) And Clark Gable will ALWAYS be Rhett Butler. (1939)

And yes, Helen Mirren will ALWAYS be "The Queen" Elizabeth II (2006), and Ralph Fiennes "Schindler's List" Amon Göth (1993) !

"If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it." It's what makes a true classic "timeless".

Y'all think Chris Hemsworth could pull this off? LOL....no chance. None. And forget Russell Crowe.

Indeed, and Christoper Reeve WAS Superman, Adam West WAS Batman.

Arnold Schwarzenneger IS the Terminator (and yes, they are doing another one apparently).

 

[AGXStarseed]

I just don't relate to the demographics of a moviegoing audience only relating to actors of their own generation. Makes no sense to me.

Even being born in the 50s, Errol Flynn IS Robin Hood (1938). Sean Connery IS James Bond. (1962) And Clark Gable will ALWAYS be Rhett Butler. (1939)

And yes, Helen Mirren will ALWAYS be "The Queen" Elizabeth II (2006), and Ralph Fiennes "Schindler's List" Amon Göth (1993) !

"If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it." It's what makes a true classic "timeless".

Y'all think Chris Hemsworth could pull this off? LOL....no chance. None. And forget Russell Crowe.

Indeed, and Christoper Reeve WAS Superman, Adam West WAS Batman.

Arnold Schwarzenneger IS the Terminator (and yes, they are doing another one apparently).

I respectfully disagree. Classic stories will always be retold in a variety of ways, and the original/current most popular telling isn't always going to be the best one for everyone.
To give you a few examples, look at the Charles Dickens' story A Christmas Carol - it's been adapted and remade heaven knows how many times and will almost certainly continue to be remade for the foreseeable future.
The original version with Alastair Simm was a great movie and a true classic, but for me it's not my favorite version; that particular honour has to go the Muppet version which had Michael Caine as Scrooge. For someone else, their favorite version might be the version with George C Scott or the Disney version with Scrooge McDuck to name a few.
Speaking of Robin Hood, I've watched a number of them as has the rest of my family - with the first Robin Hood film being in 1912 and and new film coming out in November this year (with over 20 films based on this character). Out of all of them, the Disney version from 1973 is my favorite, while my mother's favorite version is Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves with Kevin Costner.

Finally, look at the Shakespeare stories - they've had plenty of adaptations and remakes, some of which are set in different time periods and with other changes to the story. I will always prefer the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet over the 1996 version, but I still like the West Side Story version as well. Likewise, I like the Lion King and 10 things I hate about you, which are wildly different versions (pardon the pun) of Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew respectively.
It's like asking people "Who's your favorite Batman?" - you'll get a variety of answers including Adam West, Michael Keaton, Christian Bale, Ben Affleck, Kevin Conroy (my favorite), Val Kilmer, George Clooney or someone else who has played/voiced the character.
At the end of the day, it's all about opinion and personal preference. I've got both the 1980's and 2012 Judge Dredd movies and while the gritty 2012 reboot is my favorite of the two, I still enjoy watching the 1980's version from time to time.
Likewise, I'm fine with the remake of Robocop and with the sequels to Predator (I'll be interested to see how the new Predator movie coming out holds up), but the originals are my favorites.

In regards to this sequel to Mary Poppins, I do think its a bit early to be judging Emily Blunt's performance with Julie Andrews based on a few seconds of a teaser trailer; Emily might match or even exceed Julie's performance or she might not; it's like when people were complaining about Heath Ledger been cast as the Joker in The Dark Knight, and then he surprised everyone with how good his performance was (and he certainly was a better Joker than Jared Leto in my opinion).
Time will tell when the sequel is finally released whether it will be any good and how well Emily Blunt fares in the role. Until then, I'll save my judgement for the final product.

 

[Mr Allen]

I respectfully disagree. Classic stories will always be retold in a variety of ways, and the original/current most popular telling isn't always going to be the best one for everyone.
To give you a few examples, look at the Charles Dickens' story A Christmas Carol - it's been adapted and remade heaven knows how many times and will almost certainly continue to be remade for the foreseeable future.
The original version with Alastair Simm was a great movie and a true classic, but for me it's not my favorite version; that particular honour has to go the Muppet version which had Michael Caine as Scrooge. For someone else, their favorite version might be the version with George C Scott or the Disney version with Scrooge McDuck to name a few.
Speaking of Robin Hood, I've watched a number of them as has the rest of my family - with the first Robin Hood film being in 1912 and and new film coming out in November this year (with over 20 films based on this character). Out of all of them, the Disney version from 1973 is my favorite, while my mother's favorite version is Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves with Kevin Costner.

Finally, look at the Shakespeare stories - they've had plenty of adaptations and remakes, some of which are set in different time periods and with other changes to the story. I will always prefer the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet over the 1996 version, but I still like the West Side Story version as well. Likewise, I like the Lion King and 10 things I hate about you, which are versions of Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew respectively.
It's like asking people "Who's your favorite Batman?" - you'll get a variety of answers including Adam West, Michael Keaton, Christian Bale, Ben Affleck, Kevin Conroy (my favorite), Val Kilmer, George Clooney or someone else who has played/voiced the character.
At the end of the day, it's all about opinion and personal preference. I've got both the 1980's and 2012 Judge Dredd movies and while the gritty 2012 reboot is my favorite of the two, I still enjoy watching the 1980's version from time to time.
Likewise, I'm fine with the remake of Robocop and with the sequels to Predator (I'll be interested to see how the new Predator movie coming out holds up), but the originals are my favorites.

In regards to this sequel to Mary Poppins, I do think its a bit early to be judging Emily Blunt's performance with Julie Andrews based on a few seconds of a teaser trailer; Emily might match or even exceed Julie's performance or she might not; it's like when people were complaining about Heath Ledger been cast as the Joker in The Dark Knight, and then he surprised everyone with how good his performance was (and he certainly was a better Joker than Jared Leto in my opinion).
Time will tell when the sequel is finally released whether it will be any good and how well Emily Blunt fares in the role. Until then, I'll save my judgement for the final product.

The best Joker was either Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson or Mark Hamill IMO.

Although Danny DeVito was a good Penguin, Burgess Meredith was the original.

 

[AGXStarseed]

The best Joker was either Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson or Mark Hamill IMO.

Although Danny DeVito was a good Penguin, Burgess Meredith was the original.

Yeah, I loved Mark Hamill's version of the Joker. I was genuinely shocked when I first found out he did the voice, with my reaction been somewhere along the lines of "What?! the guy who played Luke Skywalker did the Joker's voice?".

On top of that, his version had arguably one of the best Joker deaths ever - maybe even better than The Killing Joke:

Also, props to Burgess Meredith; he was a guy who could be in the most ridiculous movies and he would still give it 110%.

 

[Judge]

Art remains totally subjective.

I guess what frustrates me the most is that copyright laws keep authors from rewriting classic works of literature while film makers are relatively free to remake one classic story after another.

Often with each successive remake being inferior to the last. A process that seems to retard creativity and originality, falling back on existing material usually compelled by profitable box office receipts.