Actually I'm very interested to see what they do with this movie. I think it has great potential.
HILARIOUS!!To get the most bang for their buck, they should plan ahead and simultaneously make a movie about remaking Mary Poppins.
Kate Beckinsale as mary?
Ryan Gosling as Bert?
Mary Poppins though - Gosh it's just such a near perfect movie (OK, it's a little overlong, and then there's Dick Van Dyke's embarrassing accent...) I just don't know how you even try to make a sequel to that. At best it ends up being "well, that wasn't awful, but boy it's no original".) It's like doing a sequel to Wizard of Oz.
Speaking of Wizard of Oz...while they didn't make a sequel, they did make a prequel, and while I find that the movie was good and entertaining, I don't think it could be heralded as an instant classic.
Even the current juggernaut of "Frozen". While it has certainly become the Disney bomb that came out of nowhere...who's to say that in 5-10 years from now, we'll be able to say "it's a classic". There's every reason to believe the kids will have moved on to the next bigger and better thing, and even now...some have started to feel that "Frozen fatigue" that Pete talks about from time to time.
IMO, even if this is complete trash, it won't affect the Poppins brand one bit.
How many people stopped liking "The Little Mermaid" based on the straight-to-DVD sequels? Probably not many. If MP2 is bad, we'll just forget it ever happened.
I think it looks good. CGI has come a long way.Jungle Book trailer leaked:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...live-action-remake-leaks-online-10501277.html
Not sure why the trailer is still held up. Are they doing a limited tease via iTunes/Movies etc first?
I'm having trouble following your logic. The original movie was set at the turn of the twentieth century or at least pre WWI. If the sequel takes place 20 years later, that would place it in the 20s or 30s. Why would this make it less possible for fantasy?
To put another pin in that balloon, I'm pretty sure Harry Potter is pure fantasy, but it was set in modern day England. Worked for me.
But given how beloved the original Mary Poppins is, I can't help but think that the whole project is fraught with minefields. Not the least being the casting of the principal characters and the new songs. Trying to equal, never mind top the original score will be really difficult. And if they fail, they'll be tarred and feathered.
wizard of oz sequel bombed. and this isnt going to be any betterThank goodness it's not actually a remake as opposed to the OP / thread title says. I am not against the remakes/live action sequels though I think Disney is going overboard a bit, but when Cinderella makes half a billion dollars it's going to keep happening. But things like the original Alice In Wonderland and Cinderella's aren't really great movies. (Actually AiW is quite a mess, animated Cinderella is very, very good, and certainly a classic, but not sure I would call it GREAT.)
Mary Poppins though - Gosh it's just such a near perfect movie (OK, it's a little overlong, and then there's Dick Van Dyke's embarrassing accent...) I just don't know how you even try to make a sequel to that. At best it ends up being "well, that wasn't awful, but boy it's no original".) It's like doing a sequel to Wizard of Oz.
IMO, even if this is complete trash, it won't affect the Poppins brand one bit.
How many people stopped liking "The Little Mermaid" based on the straight-to-DVD sequels? Probably not many. If MP2 is bad, we'll just forget it ever happened.