I have no problem with the idea of Emily playing Mary Poppins, for example on Broadway, but I think a sequel to such a classic Disney film (Especially so many years after the original) is totally unnecessary. The original story is finished and doesnt need anything adding to it. However, I do prefer the idea of a sequel to a complete remake.
There are three explanations:
1) They’re still on their post-Cinderella roll, before Jungle Book can shut it down,
2) They want to cash in on the Broadway musical, but can’t, since unions won’t allow an actual Broadway movie version until the producers are ready to close it,
and
3) Once they were on their live-action roll (wonder if the new Alice will shut it down instead?), they dug up those old memos from when Eisner first took over–The idea of doing a New sequel to an Old classic was considered crucial propaganda for our accepting the new management, but back in the 80’s, the only open-ended movies they could think of to sequelize were Fantasia, The Rescuers, and Mary Poppins. We got the first two, but what the proposed Poppins sequel went through (Sarah Brightman as Mary? Michael Jackson as Bert?) would itself make an interesting article, before Little Mermaid came along, and they didn’t have to worry about the New studio being “validated” anymore.
Someone just hadn’t thrown away a memo, or just wanted to see what it would look like anyway, for the first two reasons.
Comments for Emily Blunt in talks with Disney to star in new “Mary Poppins” movie
Nat
I have no problem with the idea of Emily playing Mary Poppins, for example on Broadway, but I think a sequel to such a classic Disney film (Especially so many years after the original) is totally unnecessary. The original story is finished and doesnt need anything adding to it. However, I do prefer the idea of a sequel to a complete remake.
EricJ
There are three explanations:
1) They’re still on their post-Cinderella roll, before Jungle Book can shut it down,
2) They want to cash in on the Broadway musical, but can’t, since unions won’t allow an actual Broadway movie version until the producers are ready to close it,
and
3) Once they were on their live-action roll (wonder if the new Alice will shut it down instead?), they dug up those old memos from when Eisner first took over–The idea of doing a New sequel to an Old classic was considered crucial propaganda for our accepting the new management, but back in the 80’s, the only open-ended movies they could think of to sequelize were Fantasia, The Rescuers, and Mary Poppins. We got the first two, but what the proposed Poppins sequel went through (Sarah Brightman as Mary? Michael Jackson as Bert?) would itself make an interesting article, before Little Mermaid came along, and they didn’t have to worry about the New studio being “validated” anymore.
Someone just hadn’t thrown away a memo, or just wanted to see what it would look like anyway, for the first two reasons.
Comments are closed.