Mary Poppins Returns (???!!!!)

Most all of Disney children's movies do well on video.

 

On its way! Thanks!!

 

My daughter is reading the 5th and last book now, I started them last week and am halfway through book 3. Neither of us have seen the movie, BUT she's horribly offended that Burton switched some of the characters and powers around. She says she wants to see it just to make fun of it. She takes her books very seriously and hates when the movies deviate. I'm liking the books, kind of a Harry Potter/Mary Poppins/His Dark Materials/Talisman type story.

Not sure how the movie ended since nothing is really resolved at the end of book 1 and book 2 picks up right where it left off.

Cool concept using the found photos and working them into the story. Riggs had never written a novel before and had only done a book about Sherlock Holmes.

 

Have you have you gotten her her own account on this forum yet? Sounds like she would fit in perfectly here.

 

I had not read the books, so I would not have known about movie differences.

When you have a mega successful book series, like Harry Potter, The Twilight Saga and Hunger Games, it is important to consider how the books core fans will react to the movie.

If the movies do not try to follow the books, then the movies are doomed from the beginning.

Noting that it is OK to allow the movie versions to be a bit different due to the format and running times.

Fortunately, those movies retained their core fans and went on to be successful movies.

 

You don't want that...trust me...she's 12.

 

The author is a big Tim Burton fan, so I think he was just happy he was interested. The reviews I've read say that it's visually busy and the script is equally busy, so it's gets complicated...but looks fantastic.

J.K. Rowling had a hand in the screenplays of her stories I believe...

 

Overall, it is a strong film visually speaking and the casting and characters were good.

I took a seven year old to see it, owing to the fact that there were young children in the movie.

I did find that it was not so much of a younger childrens movie, despite the characters.

However, Abbi did enjoy the movie.

Rowling took a more hands off approach to the script development.

She did have script and casting approval. She mainly advised when the script went the wrong way.

This was owing to the books not having been finished in the earlier films. She felt that it was necessary to keep the continuity going for what was to come in the later movies.

Stephanie Meyer, the author of the Twilight Saga series of books, took a more active part in the production of the movies.

Her books have sold more than 100-million copies and had a large fan base. Stephanie had a couple of cameos in the movies and went on to become one of the Producers.

You might want to consider the Twilight series for your 12-year old, as they are popular with young adults.

The boxed hard cover books originally sold for $100 but they can now be found on eBay for around $25.

There are four books in the original set but, like Harry Potter, the final book was made into two movies.

There are also extended sets available which contain a novella about the Bree Tanner character.

 

It's sort of an odd concept in that the kids don't physically age inside their time loops, so while they appear to be young, they are in fact 70-100 years old. Plus they made a few of the movie characters even younger appearing then they are in the book. It's a pretty dark story, especially in the later books (not unlike Harry Potter) therefore more of a tween book than for younger kids.

 

Actually, I bought the first two books and stopped reading half way through. In the books Mary Poppins is such an unlikable character. She's so mean and snobby to the children. Yes, she cares for them as well but it seems like the children can't do anything without getting a mean or cold response. It's interesting to read the first book and see how Disney adapted the stories to fit in the movie but that's about it.

I like both movies but I do agree with the sentiment that the first movie is a tad too long. 2h19m is a a tad too long for such a movie. The movie feels a bit slow too. I'm a big fan of Ed Wynn but I would cut out the Uncle Albert part since it basically doesn't add anything to the movie. Filler so to speak. The movie would be more enjoyable with a slightly faster pace.