Talk:Mary Poppins Returns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How did the wife die?[edit]

Please respond? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:77B4:EBD0:3919:3162:8BD2:6101 (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been revealed. They might reveal it when the movie is closer to coming out or during the film or they might never reveal it because they don't consider how she died to be important. JDDJS (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information on the possible existence of the film[edit]

Is there any information on how Walt Disney Pictures managed to secure the rights to producing the sequel? After the original author's disappointment with the original Mary Poppins film, P.L. Travers supposedly wrote on her last will that never again will any American production studio is ever going to adapt any of her books.(http://www.theqandapodcast.com/2013/12/saving-mr-banks-q.html) So, how in the world is Disney making a sequel now? Hope(N Forever) (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information at all. That's the same question I was wondering about too.
Either they will reveal what happened at D23 Expo (11 days from now in Anaheim), or they will save it for the usual round of publicity interviews right before the film's premiere (when some journalist is likely to ask that question). --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animation[edit]

There are no animated parts produced / planned for the sequel? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, I have not seen any references mentioning any animation. If you find any reliable sources saying that there will be animation in it, you can add it to the article. JDDJS (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There probably won't be any, but as they were a big, eye-catching part of both the original film, and its spiritual sequel Bedknobs and Broomsticks, it would have been an interesting throwback. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The new September trailer confirms there is in fact a new traditional animation segment in the film! Hope(N Forever) (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Release date[edit]

Hold on! Wasn't Mary Poppins Returns' actual date December 25th? INB4EDITS (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back to the 25th, to match the source cited. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but, "Wasn't Mary Poppins Returns' actual date December 25th" is what i'm asking. INB4EDITS (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was, but it changed to December 19.[1] Sandrobost (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ D'Alessandro, Anthony (10 July 2018). "'Indiana Jones 5' Shifts To 2021, 'Mary Poppins Returns' Moves Up A Week & More Disney Release-Date Moves". Deadline. Retrieved 2018-11-25.

Plot[edit]

The plot seems rather incomplete and it looks as thouhg it was written in a messy way. Could someone fix it?

Ending Plot (spoilers of course)[edit]

So the resolution in the bank written in the plot isn't true "Dawes tells Michael that he knew his father and agreed that he made some good investments, so the shares will be enough to pay off the loan"

Basically Michael had originally put his tupons from the first movie in the bank all those years ago, and over the years the money has garnered enough interest to pay off the loan, meaning Michael kept the shares for his family (so the shares were never used in the first place to pay off the loan) Kranitoko (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Age[edit]

The original film was set in 1910, so MP should be in her 50s when this is set in the mid-1930s. Is staying youthful a magic power of hers? Jim Michael (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok so that means she was in her 30s in the OG but in that film Ber sings about Marry visting him as a kid so i gusee she can not age. Fanoflionking

Dolby Theatre[edit]

The Dolby Theatre is not a cinema. Is this correct venue for the premiere, or do we mean the Chinese Theatre next door where premieres are traditionally hosted? 50.66.121.20 (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Canceled sequel" vs "Potential sequel" or "Possible sequel"[edit]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Poppins_Returns&diff=937448064&oldid=937447868 I just reverted an edit that changed the heading discussing a possible future sequel from "Possible sequel" to "Canceled sequel." After that, I looked at the recent page history and saw that the wording has gone back and forth a few times this past month.

As I noted in my edit summary, I prefer the terms "potential" or "possible" when describing this topic because using the term "canceled" implies that the sequel had been previously confirmed or greenlit, and that the studio subsequently canceled its development, which does not seem to be the case here. If one of the other users that prefers the term "canceled" would like to explain why they prefer that term, please do so here. Thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary Poppins Returns/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 23:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
  • Talk page and history look stable enough
  • Fair use movie poster in infobox, 3 commons images in article
  • Infobox seems fine - do Van Dyke and Lansbury have big enough roles to be mentioned in it, i.e. are they on the movie poster's credit block (at the bottom)?
  • Copyvio check:
    • from here (same content here): Cherry Tree Lane, Topsy’s Fix-It Shop, Big Ben, the interiors of the Banks home, and the enormous abandoned park and Scenes requiring green and blue screens for visual effects were first filmed on J and K Stages with physical set pieces for the cast to interact with, which were then replaced with animation in post-production need to be originally worded
Took out most of the mentioned locations to make it more of a "for example, these sets" type sentence, and reworded the second sentence. Rusted AutoParts 19:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that all of "full of personality and humor, and reverential" without being slavish in their adherence to the musical patterns of the first film is a quote from THR, not just the part in quotation marks
Moved the quotation down to the end. Rusted AutoParts 19:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources all look suitable, inline refs all seem good
  • lead a good length
  • The description in the lead that the film sees Mary Poppins, the former nanny of Jane and Michael Banks, returning one year after a family tragedy seems like a promotional line, and doesn't actually say what happens in the film.
Reworded. Rusted AutoParts 19:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot and Cast sections good Kingsif (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some more colloquial phrasings in That idea was also shot down, however, because Travers proved impossible to deal with since she imposed her own rules, including barring Poppins' clothing from being red could be reworded; I suggest was also shot down be changed to "also did not come to fruition", and the second clause (everything between the commas with ...impossible to deal with...) be changed to "because Travers would not go ahead without certain caveats that the company would not concede"
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a good friend of her whom - probably is intended as "of hers", but these two words are still unnecessary
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a sequel entitled Mary Poppins Comes Back - just "titled"
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make and it was tricky to find an actor to play Bert's brother though an executive suggested that singer Michael Jackson was right for the part its own sentence: "It was also tricky..." (and add a comma after "brother")
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The planned sequel eventually was cancelled upon the casting problems and the fact that new executives were now running the company - the phrasing is a little unusual, using verbs that don't match the action. How about "The planned sequel was eventually cancelled because of a combination of issues: the casting problems and the fact that new executives took over the company"
 Done
    • If there is a date/year for when the new execs came in, this would be helpful
  • A few more words needed in On the 2004 release of the 40th Anniversary DVD of the original film, the trivia track stated in regards to a possible sequel "One... – "The 2004 release of the 40th Anniversary DVD of the original film contained a trivia track that stated, in regards to a possible sequel, "One..."
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blunt and Miranda had been cast in the lead roles - unnecessary repetition?
I believe I have fixed this. Rusted AutoParts 21:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the grownup Michael/Jane Banks - "adult" perhaps?
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine the first two paragraphs of Casting into one
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd link the parts about Streep's casting together, which also allows Michael and Jane's castings to be together - a mix of topical and chronological structure
Did a bit of restructuring through the paragraph, hope that works. Rusted AutoParts 21:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ex-Pixar veteran Jim Capobianco. Ex-Disney animator, Ken Duncan, - were they former employees at the time, because that seems strange?
Just took the ex-X bits out. Rusted AutoParts 21:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely there's more to say about Music than just 'soundtrack exists', since it's a musical. It got nominated for an Oscar for original composition...
Found some stuff about Shaiman being the one to approach the production to be involved. Rusted AutoParts 21:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • of December 25, 2018 - unnecessary repetition
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • , with the release date of December 25 - still don't need to restate in the next sentence, either
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and announced December 19 as the new release date for the film - ditto
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marketing section is entirely short sentences saying "on X date, Disney released Y": some rewriting would introduce variation and make it easier/less numbing to read
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's nothing more to say about home release, just combine it with the theatrical release sentences.
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • of $349.5 million, against - don't need the comma
 Done Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the apostrophes used in the quote Mary Poppins’s return shows that sometimes it pays to wait. Half a century on, her allure hasn’t are text and not html - could they be fixed?
@Kingsif: I'm not sure I understand this point. Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusted AutoParts: the apostrophes will have been copied from a source and they look like ’ when they should be ' - you can copy the first example to search them in the article, then replace by just deleting and typing an apostrophe anew. Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first Glieberman sentence should use a semi-colon list because of the multiple clauses in each point. I.e. Change to: "...deemed the film as a "rapturous piece of nostalgia"; lauded Blunt's take on Mary Poppins and described her casting as "practically perfect"; and gave his praise..."
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar fix for the next sentence: He also drew comparisons of the film's quality and tone to the 1960s musicals as well the nostalgia to Star Wars: The Force Awakens to "He compared the film's quality and tone to that of 1960s musicals, and its nostalgia to Star Wars: The Force Awakens"
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we find a way to remove the repetition of "performance" in ...leading performance (whose performance he labelled... - perhaps "(which he labelled...", since it's already about the performance
Shaved the use of the word from 8 to 3. Rusted AutoParts 00:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • More grammar woes at [Truitt] described the film as a "comforting nostalgia-fest" and "satisfaction in spit-spot fashion" as well as commended the performances of Blunt and Miranda (whom he referred to as "endlessly charming") as well Marshall's knack on musical numbers and Shaiman's "swinging delight" original score. - this one might be harder to fix and need re-writing completely
I did what I could with it. Rusted AutoParts 00:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Run-on sentence (and phrasing repetition) to be fixed: He also found Blunt's version of Mary Poppins as "excellent" and described it as "a little chillier and more austere" while referring to it as "truer to the spirit of the heroine of P. L. Travers’s books".
Reworked. Rusted AutoParts 00:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it should be that he found Blunt's Poppins to be "excellent"
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The critical response section is structured as "this review says X, this review says Y, this review says Z" - could it be connected more thematically? This stops the same points being made paragraph after paragraph and can get more information on the response across in less words. Given its rampant grammatical errors, rewriting this section seems a necessity.
Might be tricky to do. Alot of the more mixed reviews tend to give props to individual aspects, so I feel that would be hard to divy it up to fit. I did merge most of the paragraphs. Rusted AutoParts 00:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another painful run-on: [Travers] rated the film with three out of five stars, praising Blunt's unique portrayal of the title character while describing the film as an "industrial-strength sugarplum" and felt that the sequel didn't live up to the 1964 original, but nevertheless praised the film, remarking, "Mary Poppins Returns shows it has the power to leave you deliriously happy".
 Done Rusted AutoParts 00:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

  • on hold Prose needs tightening, but besides the response section it's close. Kingsif (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I believe I've addressed all the points. Rusted AutoParts 00:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made one edit, but the responses seems much better and you've addressed all the other points. Happy to pass. Kingsif (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American vs. American-British (in introductory sentence)[edit]

I changed American to American-British in the opening sentence, because the source material is British, as is the setting, the filming location, and most of the cast.

My edit was reversed twice (the second time when I provided IMDb as a source).

The reason I'm putting this out here is that I simply believe American-British is much more appropriate than American.

If there is a rule that the movie is always given the nationality of the production company—and this nationality only—unless a good source is provided that says to the contrary, perhaps someone who agrees with me could find a good source. Otherwise, perhaps some of the people active on this article could consider the merits of my argument.

Note that the 'nationality' (or 'country of origin') of a movie is very often 'unclear' and requires a judgement to be made on a case by case basis. Over-relying on the country in which the production company is based is going to lead to misleading or incomplete entries. lukeuser (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Poppins_Returns&oldid=1208847834"