Mary Poppins Returns - Crowding Lyrics, Weary Watchers

[Skip23]

Posted: 12/20/18 at 7:55pm

As with HAMILTON - what's with so many songs jam-packed with lyrics?  Are lyricists afraid audiences will think they are lazy?  These lyrics fly at you so fast and furiously that, at times, I missed half of them.  And with spotty English accents!  Heavens!

 

 

Updated On: 12/20/18 at 07:55 PM

[JSquared2]

Posted: 12/20/18 at 8:58pm

Skip23 said: "As with HAMILTON - what's with so many songs jam-packed with lyrics? Are lyricists afraid audiences will think they are lazy? These lyrics fly at you so fast and furiously that, at times, I missed half of them. And with spotty English accents! Heavens!



Yeah, good thing they didn’t have either of those things in the  classic original film, like Dick Van Dyke’s accent or Supercalifragilistic”!  Heavens!!

 

[RWPrincess]

Posted: 12/21/18 at 12:11am

I attended a Disney event in Orlando last month with Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman where they gave us a preview of the movie soundtrack.

There are a couple of songs where Lin is rapping so they mentioned that was done for him as its his signature thing. Primarily its the song during the animated portion of the film though. The music is supposed to be complementary to the first film and I think they did a great job with that. I saw the movie tonight and loved all the nods to the first movie, both in the music and the script overall.

[Musical Master]

Posted: 12/21/18 at 12:16am

I saw it opening day and I loved it. A worthy sequel to a great movie with fantastic songs written by the talented duo Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman, who I think deserve to write the score and songs for a Disney animated movie.

[SmoothLover]

Posted: 12/21/18 at 1:22am

The NY Times review lacked some sugar.

[Elfuhbuh]

Posted: 12/21/18 at 10:53pm

I just saw it today, and I thought it was fine. Not terrible, but just alright. Emily Blunt was marvelous, though.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/22/18 at 12:10am

I agree with the Times. It wasn't so much a sequel as a pale imitation of the original.

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Instead of a chalk painting you get a ceramic bowl; instead of tea on the ceiling you get an upside down room; instead of step in time you get dancing lamplighters. Instead let's go fly a kite you get balloons. And the score wasn't even mediocre, it was just plain awful. 

 

[Tom5]

Posted: 12/22/18 at 12:16am

I'll stop at Saving Mr. Banks. It was an original take on the original film, had some clips from it, too and of course had Emma Thompson.

[Skip23]

Posted: 12/22/18 at 12:49am

I have to say that I did love Emily Blunt's more caustic Mary.  And she's such a cutie.

Lin is fine but the role isn't there.

None of the choreography is better or on par with the original.

Songs are too obtuse and long.  6 bars and off!

Meryl's Topsy Turvy song is my fave and she's a camp hoot.  Also like the Music Hall number.  But that chase scene.  Again....goes on too long!

And the lamplighter ballet is a snooze IMHO. 

 

 

 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/22/18 at 1:46am

I thought the music hall scene, chase scene and Meryls scene were just unnecessarry and way too long and just dragged the film down for a good 20 minutes or so.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/22/18 at 6:36am

The indispensable Rob Marshalls direction, Emily Blunts stunning and sublime interpretation of Mary Poppins, her chemistry with Lin, the pitch-perfect casting and performances of every single role, the songs, the choreography (hey, Fosse/CHICAGO homage!), the costumes, the story... pure unadulterated joy for a full 2 hours and 12 minutes. What a treat Rob Marshall has given us.

[Gorlois]

Posted: 12/22/18 at 6:43am

Its a great movie musical in 2018, but it is no patch on the 1964 original.

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 12/22/18 at 9:06am

I loved it. Yea it was about 15min too long but it was a glorious confection. I love the tone of the film, very much in line with the books and the nods to the film were perfect. The story SHOULD feel similar because the books were all similar as well. Mary and the children go out or stay in for the day.. and adventure takes place, and everyone is safe and snug by the end of the chapter. To be honest the films have more cohesion and charter development then the books ever did but the Travers estate will only let things go so far.... 

[JP2]

Posted: 12/22/18 at 9:47pm

I really adored this film.

I think it sticks pretty close to the original both sonically and in overall tone and I think that's why it doesn't seem to be connecting with audiences (70% user rating on RT). It's a generational thing. What worked in 1964 doesn't work today. I remember seeing the original as a kid in the 90s and being bored out of my mind, and I feel that's what most kids are feeling watching this. A shame.

 

[broadfan327]

Posted: 12/23/18 at 1:26am

I just saw this and I agree that what worked in 1964 doesn't necessarily work today.  It was fine, nothing revolutionary.  It was too similar to the original.  I saw the new Spiderman animated movie yesterday, and I was impressed how they revisioned a story told many times through the years to current times.

[theatreguy12]

Posted: 12/24/18 at 11:31am

Why is MS even in this? I thought she loathed Walt Disney. I would think if you were really going to talk the talk and walk the walk, you should be somewhat more consistent in your convictions.

So why is she in anything related to Disney?

Oh, thats right. Shes MS, shes a celebrity, and walking the walk that you talk isnt something they always do all that well. Oh yeah. And $$$.

I guess it isnt any different though than Depp lamenting the state of art in America and all its commercialization. And yet taking part in one of the most commercial endeavors, and working for one of the most Americana of companies, Disney.

Silly celebrities.

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/24/18 at 11:36am

theatreguy12 said: "Why is MS even in this? I thought she loathed Walt Disney. I would think if you were really going to talk the talk and walk the walk, you should be somewhat more consistent in your convictions."

From what I understand, Walt Disney was not involved in the production, which has been the case for about 52 years now. 

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/24/18 at 12:32pm

haterobics said: "theatreguy12 said: "Why is MS even in this? I thought she loathed Walt Disney. I would think if you were really going to talk the talk and walk the walk, you should be somewhat more consistent in your convictions."

From what I understand, Walt Disney was not involved in the production, which has been the case for about 52 years now."

Without getting into the underlying sentiment, Disney is the worldwide distributor of the property, and stands to make more money from it than anyone else.It is definitely "related."

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 12/24/18 at 1:21pm

Tom5 said: "I'll stop at Saving Mr. Banks. It was an original take on the original film, had some clips from it, too and of course had Emma Thompson."

Huh?  Whuh?  How it is an original take on Disney's 1964 MARY POPPINS?  Its solely about the difficulty Walt Disney and the creative team behind the film MARY POPPINS had to endure dealing with the writer of the books P.T. Travers.   It also uses in flashbacks the events in Travers' childhood that inspired the MARY POPPINS character and books.  SAVING MR. BANKS has nothing to do with the 1964 film aside from using its pre-production problems to tell Travers' life story.  

[SmoothLover]

Posted: 12/24/18 at 5:54pm

I read a review in EW that Lin was miscast. I have not seen the movie yet but I had the same feeling just by watching the previews....

[Skip23]

Posted: 12/24/18 at 6:18pm

I dont think Lin is miscast.

Just that the role really isnt much of anything.

In fact this whole movie feels like it was created by the Corporate office to appeal to the biggest possible audience and not offend anyone. The biggest orchestrations, biggest production numbers, biggest sets and cgi. Its positively Trumpian - the biggest everything!

[theatreguy12]

Posted: 12/24/18 at 10:50pm

Obviously.  Doesn’t matter though.

The Disney referenced on top of the credits is his name. And the movie is a sequel to one of his babies. It’s impossible to separate the two. You can’t have this movie while ignoring the first. And that one was all Walt.

I’m just saying if she loathes Disney that much, be consistent and take a pass on this one.

After all, it’s got his name on it. Even if he is no longer with us. If she dislikes the originator of the company that made this movie so much then maybe it’s best not to get involved. 

 

 

haterobics said: "theatreguy12 said: "Why is MS even in this? I thought she loathed Walt Disney. I would think if you were really going to talk the talk and walk the walk, you should be somewhat more consistent in your convictions."

From what I understand, Walt Disney was not involved in the production, which has been the case for about 52 years now.

"

 

[Cyndawg]

Posted: 12/26/18 at 1:34pm

theatreguy12 said: "Why is MS even in this? I thought she loathed Walt Disney. I would think if you were really going to talk the talk and walk the walk, you should be somewhat more consistent in your convictions."

 

She adores Rob Marshall and I'm sure she said yes because of him and not because it was Disney.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/26/18 at 4:46pm

I enjoyed this, but didn't love it.  I thought Lin was relatively boring and 2 dimensional - every line sound exactly like the one before it.   

 

I will take issue with the origianal post - I ddin't fint the score to be fullly of crowded lyrics and in fact, thought there was a nice variety.

 

 

[BroadwayPrincess3]

Posted: 12/26/18 at 10:29pm

I agree with the Lin miscast. Whenever I see him in something, its like he never embodies the character. I just see Lin.
Emily Blunt was amazing though. She sang better than I expected her to.