Subsonic Radio

There are 8 Mary Poppins books in total, so how come we never had a sequel to the movie. Does anybody else think we should have a Mary Revival?

No. I just don't think that Disney would do a good job with them.

No thanks!

The first one was good enough. I've seen both the movie and Broadway play versions so that's good enough for me and we know what a classic the first movie is. They should leave the sequels alone.

No, uh-uh, negatory, nyet, and NOOOOOoooooooo

There shouldn't be a Mary Poppins 2 any more than there should be a Casablanca 2 or a Son Of Citizen Kane. No one can replace Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke, or the rest of the cast (although Anne Hathaway did a good Mary Poppins on SNL this year, in a skit based on the idea that Supercalifragilisticexpialadocious is a "disease that only adults can get")

Future Guy wrote:No, uh-uh, negatory, nyet, and NOOOOOoooooooo

There shouldn't be a Mary Poppins 2 any more than there should be a Casablanca 2 or a Son Of Citizen Kane. No one can replace Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke, or the rest of the cast (although Anne Hathaway did a good Mary Poppins on SNL this year, in a skit based on the idea that Supercalifragilisticexpialadocious is a "disease that only adults can get")

very good. I like this description. I concur.

I've read a bit about the author of Mary Poppins and her creative disagreements with Walt Disney (the man himself). I believe it was stipulated in her will that she wouldn't allow Disney to make any further movies of her books because she loathed the film so much.

She did talk to the people who made the musical, though, so I think there's more of her influence in that.

The musical was great since it focused more on the book than the movie although Mary Poppins in the novel was actually more strict than how Disney showed her. I think it was good since a nicer nanny is more suitable for children instead of scarring them.

NO!!! One was good enough. It would probably be something lame that just comes out on DVD and never hits the theatres. I think they should just leave it alone.

elizabethswann wrote:The musical was great since it focused more on the book than the movie although Mary Poppins in the novel was actually more strict than how Disney showed her. I think it was good since a nicer nanny is more suitable for children instead of scarring them.

Yeah the 'softening' was the author's beef with Disney, as far as I understood it. Apparently she didn't want a kindly nanny.

You can't top the original, including all of those great songs.

I didn't know there were more books (duh me). They should stick with just the one movie - sequels are usually not to good. - blue

js3901 wrote:

Future Guy wrote:No, uh-uh, negatory, nyet, and NOOOOOoooooooo

There shouldn't be a Mary Poppins 2 any more than there should be a Casablanca 2 or a Son Of Citizen Kane. No one can replace Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke, or the rest of the cast (although Anne Hathaway did a good Mary Poppins on SNL this year, in a skit based on the idea that Supercalifragilisticexpialadocious is a "disease that only adults can get")

very good. I like this description. I concur.

I third that decision!

I agree leave it alone. Even though I must say they could bring back van dyke and Andrews,maybe have them telling story's of there past or something like that.

As much as 99.9% of the people hope and wish that they will leave it alone... Disney *DOES* have a very bad habit of making what my hubby calls "direct to DVD cheapquils"- sequels to movies that should never has been made in the first place.

I just hope that Mary Poppins avoids this regrettable fate.