Originally Posted By Dabob2 MP was the first movie I ever saw in a sit-down (as opposed to drive-in) movie theatre, and the first movie I ever saw twice. I've always liked it better than Sound of Music. A sequel rather than a remake wouldn't seem so horrible to me, though obviously the proof would be in the pudding. I would start with the score; if you can get a score on something like the same level of the original, you'd really have something. There are plenty of talented actors out there, and special effects of course are great today (used wisely), but if the score was lackluster, the whole movie would be. Note to Iger: don't start filming till you have a score to be proud of.
Originally Posted By JeffG Reportedly, Marc Shaiman and Scott Whittman (best known for Hairspray) are on-board as composers for the film. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://filmmusicreporter.com/2015/09/14/marc-shaiman-scott-wittman-to-write-songs-and-score-mary-poppins-sequel/">http://filmmusicreporter.com/2...-sequel/</a> -Jeff
Originally Posted By darcy-becker They should get the guys who did the new music for the Broadway musical.
Originally Posted By leemac <<They should get the guys who did the new music for the Broadway musical.>> Disney Theatrical weren't too happy when Cameron Mackintosh forced them to use Drewe & Stiles to expand the existing material and write new songs. I doubt the studio would pick them. I like Shaiman's work for the most part. Obviously Hairspray was the pinnacle of his musical work (Catch Me If You Can wasn't very good though). His movie work really hasn't moved on from the Castle Rock movies he made in the early 90s though. I saw A Few Good Men recently and boy that score grates now. I do think there are better choices for composers but Disney has wanted to be in the Shaiman business again so makes sense. I don't think he has done anything since Sister Act.
Originally Posted By oc_dean It didn't take long to super-impose Emily Blunt's face into a shot of the '64 Mary Poppins film - <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://cdn.smoothfm.com.au/sites/default/files/styles/nova_article_hero/public/article/thumbnail/emily%20blunt%20mary%20poppins%20hero.jpg?itok=qmrIqWTv">http://cdn.smoothfm.com.au/sit...qmrIqWTv</a> Here too - <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www4.evoke.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/mary-poppins-170915-640x457.jpg">http://www4.evoke.ie/wp-conten...x457.jpg</a> My big question: PL Travers has in her will - Banning all American adaptation of her works to any form of media. So what did Disney do? This isn't a remake. Taking place 20 years later ... which, I presume, that it covers adventures that take place in Travers' other Poppins books. So what "magical" spell did Disney put on, to the heirs of Travers' estate???
Originally Posted By oc_dean As for Emily .... Don't know about the rest of you ... but I approve. * She's pretty * She's British! * She can sing * and she can act - She's gotten plenty of accolades for her roles ... and she's only 32. Almost forgot she was in Devil Wears Prada - Miranda's secretary. 22 at the time she did it. And then the world got a chance to see her sing in Into The Woods .... so, while none of any of this is confirmed ... if a second Mary Poppins film is on .. and Blunt is in it ... then this should be exciting. How composers match (or even trump) the Sherman Brother's tunes .... that's a tough one. The songs have to be as memorable, and uplifting. I have high hopes for whoever takes that task on.
Originally Posted By leemac <<So what "magical" spell did Disney put on, to the heirs of Travers' estate???>> I'm not sure how accurate any of these rumours are in relations to her will. Ultimately the trustees are in place to ensure the beneficiaries of the will get both income and capital appreciation. The beneficiaries are her remaining family and the Cherry Tree Foundation.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I should have worded this differently ;-) .... If PL Travers stipulated it is not legal for any movie studio to make any further films from any of her other Mary Poppins books ... How is it that The Walt Disney Co. can make a new Mary Poppins film?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Depending how her will was worded, and which book(s) served as the basis for scenes in the 1964 movie, there may be enough other stories leftover that they could cobble something together And if no movies could be made, how did they get Saving Mr Banks approved? If control of the characters and stories has been given to the estate, I would assume that the can override any rules she made before she died
Originally Posted By oc_dean As a related story ... I don't know how many of you bookmark the "Combined" page for the boards here. I posted a topic in the Gen:Entertainment section - "My PL Travers/Mary Poppins Adventure" ... I don't know who else saw it ... didn't know if anyone had any comments on it: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-131492-P-1.asp?C=1">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms....asp?C=1</a> And thanks for your input Ferret. I'm really curious what exactly happened. Since she put in her will - No more Poppins films, period! So .. either there's a loop hole in the way her will is worded .. Or, Disney convinced ~someone~ to make the approval. As for approval of Saving Mr. Banks ... since that's directly related to the '64 film ... (a film that had already been approved by both parties - As Walt said "That ship has sailed") ... makes me think there was no issue to discussing the '64 film in Saving Mr. Banks ... Approval of a story on her (PL) ... that I wouldn't know. I doubt she put in her will .. No one could make a film about her. I think her focus was all about her Poppins' books. In the ensuing weeks ... I hope it's revealed exactly what was done to get this approved.
