Spielberg interested in remaking Mary Poppins for big screen

[Craig]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 9:13am

a movie to broadway and back to movie version.

Well I can see his interest in the property. For one, he's always wanted to do a musical. And second, the storyline features children who have a father who is "absent"

https://www.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=6552

[Fan2]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 9:23am

There's another thread on this called "Mary Poppins Remake??" with other articles about this on the net and other comments.

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?thread=880780&dt=122905065055

[jeremykushnier1fan]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 9:27am

I say he should go for it.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 10:14am

Maybe he should go remake some of his crappy films before he messes with the classics.

[jv92]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 10:15am

Can you fix perfection? I don't think so.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 10:50am

No one can out-do Julie Andrews. Now, if they can give her something to turn back the hands of time and she regains her AMAZING voice, then I say go for it. If not, let it be.

[bschneid76]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:14am

Why remake something that is already terrific! It's time to make something new, or take something from the stage and adapt it to the screen. No more remakes!!! Or remake something that wasn't good in the first place, but then again can something that was terrible to begin with be made well???

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:16am

Maybe give A CHORUS LINE another shot at for musical movie glory.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:20am

No, no, and NO!

This ranks right up there with "Let's remake The Wizard of Oz or Citizen Kane."

They will fail on EVERY conceivable level.

[SorryGrateful]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:20am

I think all this remaking of films is pointless. If a film was already amazing when it was first made, even if it was 40 or 50 years ago (gasp! old things! ew!), then why do it? There's no way to improve on it, usually, and it ends up sullying the memory of the first movie. Go look for new properties, Steve!

Updated On: 12/29/05 at 11:20 AM

[hannahshule]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:21am

I agree, I say leave it.
Besides, it would be weird without Julie Andrews, and she's so widely recognized for this role. If you're going to remake something, do a something that isn't so widely recognized to avoid comparisons, like the A CHORUS LINE suggestion

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:22am

Ugh. I smell another HOOK. Bloated and agenda-pushing.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:35am

People act like because it was made 40 years ago, it's somehow out of people's psyche today.

They need to go into their local video stores. Mary Poppins (1964) was one of the top DVD releases LAST YEAR. It's very much in the public consciousness RIGHT NOW. Anybody who lands on a stage or on the screen holding an umbrella is going to instantly be compared to Julie Andrews and her Oscar-winning film debut. There is NO way around that.

...and good luck.

EDIT: If Speilberg gets his hands on it, the whole movie will be about Jane and Michael Banks losing their dad during the run on the bank, and fighting desperately through many harrowing adventures to be tearfully reunited with him at the end of the uplifting story.

Ugh.

Cut. Print. What happens in the next reel.

Updated On: 12/29/05 at 11:35 AM

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:41am

I don't see any sense in this project. The current Mary Poppins stage musical is almost an exact replica of the film, with perhaps a slightly darker overtone. So basically, what Spielburg has to do is reproduce the old film, only this time without the presence of Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. The Producers cycle of film-musical-film makes sense because between the first two incarnations, there was a massive overhaul and addition of music. But I just dont thikn enough material has been added to the Mary Poppins story with the musical that merits a new film version of it.

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 12:35pm

I agree, I also wouldn't have much interest in the seeing the film version, just not my type of musical. Why doesn't He try making something new - a new musical. Although, to everyone who says remaking classics isn't good, look at what Burton did for Willie Wonka, i thought his version was amazing and very cool to watch and you could tell he knew what he wanted to do with every single shot. I liked it a lot. Itd be interesting to see if Speilberg would keep it all the same way or if he would change stuff around drastically. I don't see the point in remaking a movie if you're just going to do everything the same, might as well take some chances.

[bdwybug55]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 12:54pm

I really don't see any sense in remaking these musicals that were already so perfectly done in the first place. The movie is perfect as is and to try to redo it would be a terrible idea. Come on...it is a classic...Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke!

[angelrock25222]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 1:17pm

NO. the end.

[grizzabella]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 7:44pm

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Mary Poppins ain't broke and has no need of fixing by Spielburg or anyone else. If he wants to do a musical, go make a new one and bring his own vision to it.

[Millie42]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 9:15pm

Well, this strikes me as incredibly stupid.

I don't know a soul who can out-do Julie Andrews or Dick Van Dyke. Move on, Spielberg.

[morosco]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 9:38pm

Another waste of everyone's time. Remember Gus Van Sant's PSYCHO? Tim Burton's CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY?

Why bother??

[morosco]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 9:40pm

And let's not forget Spielberg's lame attempt at WAR OF THE WORLDS.

[ihearttheatre]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 10:08pm

BAD IDEA. The original movie is fantastic, so there is no need for a new version.

I think he should just keep his hands off musicals altogether.

[Plum]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 10:19pm

I think Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had its virtues, but to be honest I never swore by the original. But Mary Poppins? It's a classic; why touch it?

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:20pm

Hm.

I really don't know what to say.

The original is SUCH a classic, and a remake would certainly destroy it's place in hiatory, especially if the remake is good.

Which adds the other half of this dilemma. With Spielberg at the helm, chances are, it WILL rock.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 12/29/05 at 11:43pm

I think all this remaking of films is pointless. If a film was already amazing when it was first made, even if it was 40 or 50 years ago (gasp! old things! ew!), then why do it?

It makes sense if the original is no longer watched outside of film classes, or if the filmmaker is offering a new approach to the dated story. But the popularity of the original MARY POPPINS hasn't died down one bit since its release in 1964, and still remains timeless. So what's the point?