Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-03-2019, 06:49 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,988
I love Emily Mortimer too, and I think it’s cool that they did this. But you guys aren’t seriously disputing that it is more typical for female actors to be put out to pasture at her age (meaning if they get roles, it is as the mother of a more fecund character) and for male actors to be paired up with love interests played by women decades younger? I mean, at age 37 (a decade younger than Mortimer) Maggie Gyllenhaal was told she was too old to play the love interest of a 55 year old man! Yet the pairing in this movie is nearly thirty years shifted in the other direction. I think that’s notable.
https://www.themarysue.com/age-gap-films/

(I take the point that she was allowed to play younger rather than actually portraying an age difference in the characters, but that too is amazing.)

Last edited by SlackerInc; 01-03-2019 at 06:50 PM.
  #52  
Old 01-03-2019, 07:03 PM
rat avatar's Avatar
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 5,370
In case my post caused confusion, I think the casting was great and Emily Mortimer did her job very well.

I get the industry has problems but the "LFD" (which I am sad I looked up) is more of a incel vibe to me than the typical sexism/ageism of the industry. The industry sexism is far more clinical than that in my experience (worked in the movie industry for a while).

Hopefully casting departments take this as an example to dump that silly idea and focus on finding the right talent despite the numbers.

Last edited by rat avatar; 01-03-2019 at 07:04 PM.
  #53  
Old 01-03-2019, 07:53 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
In case my post caused confusion, I think the casting was great and Emily Mortimer did her job very well.

I get the industry has problems but the "LFD" (which I am sad I looked up) is more of a incel vibe to me than the typical sexism/ageism of the industry. The industry sexism is far more clinical than that in my experience (worked in the movie industry for a while).

Hopefully casting departments take this as an example to dump that silly idea and focus on finding the right talent despite the numbers.
I don’t know how you “looked it up”, but if you had clicked my link you would have known that the LFD sketch was created by feminist comedy writers and acted by a feminist cast. That’s the whole point of it.
  #54  
Old 01-03-2019, 08:33 PM
rat avatar's Avatar
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 5,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I don’t know how you “looked it up”, but if you had clicked my link you would have known that the LFD sketch was created by feminist comedy writers and acted by a feminist cast. That’s the whole point of it.
To avoid a derailment while still answering your question why my search is different than a normal person.

SPOILER:

When I graduated high school I moved to North Idaho on August 18th 1992, Ruby Ridge started on Aug 21, a Friday and my collage roommate sat down and trolled Richard Girnt Butler on that Saturday night at a Denny's and I debated him in public for years. A few years later the Phineas Priesthood bombed a friends workplace and a few years later the Aryan Nations shot at a good friends mom and brother when their car backfired as they drove by.

Thus I have a weird hobby of trying to "rescue" new recruits to white-nationalism and have a weird personalized search history because I browse the sites looking for people to help get out. Convincing them to meet in person and to establish trust to get them to meet I have to know their language and culture, thus spend time on pretty toxic sites.

The dope is my sanity site to hang out in a more positive space, so I am typically searching under the same profile.


But yes don't have cable so haven't seen much of Amy Schumer's work.

Last edited by rat avatar; 01-03-2019 at 08:38 PM.
  #55  
Old 01-03-2019, 10:05 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,998
Guys, this is fascinating but it's turning into a hijack, OK?
  #56  
Old 01-03-2019, 10:25 PM
Andy L Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,924
I liked it. It was nice to hear little bits of songs from the original, though that had me wishing to hear all of those songs. The kids were wonderful.
  #57  
Old 01-06-2019, 10:22 PM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,247
Saw it today. I thought it was very good.

Then again, I thought the original went on too long - not unlike Chitty Chitty Bang Bang - and wasn't great.

The real takeaway for me was the music hall number and the fact that anyone having as much fun as Lin-Manuel Miranda was should be subject to arrest or something. I've rarely seen pure joy in performing in a film as he delivered.

And I admit I was very pleased by Dick van Dyke's appearance and downright touched when I recognized Angela Lansbury's voice. The world's a better place with the two of them in it.
  #58  
Old 01-07-2019, 04:01 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 27,550
You know, it's rather magical in and of itself that Dick Van Dyke is still dancing in his 90's.

Went and saw it with a friend. It was fun, a nice change from what seems to be the grimdark norm these days, and I liked the callbacks to the original. They really capture the feel of the original.
  #59  
Old 01-09-2019, 11:05 AM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 6,979
Saw it with kids. My overall impression is good, but not as good as the original. However, I'm a huge fan of the original, and it's not fair to compare a new one to an old one that's very familiar. I can sing along with all the tunes in the original and should give the new one a chance to grow on me, too. I'll listen to the soundtrack and rewatch it at some point to see how it holds up.

They followed the same formula as the original. This is a good thing, because the original's formula was good and should be reused. Intro piece, nursery fun, whimsical animated romp, touching moments, confrontation in the bank, bizarre shop, exploration of the city, song and dance number in the city, feel-good end piece. Character development well done. They hit all the right notes.

I loved Emily Blunt (Mary Poppins) and Lin-Manuel Miranda (Jack). They performed their parts practically perfectly. Ben Whishaw (Michael Banks) acted admirably well, but I feel was miscast; he doesn't match what I expected. Emily Mortimer (Jane Banks) was great, I liked how she managed to be both assertive and tender. The kids were good. I'm not sure why they needed three instead of two, but it worked.

My main complaints are deviations from the original.

The inclusion of bad guys. The original had antagonists, but they were not malicious; they simply had their own interests that clashed with the protagonists. That said, the connections of "A Cover is Not the Book", the greedy animals, and the corrupt banker were well done. I just wish they hadn't done it that way.

The inclusion of a love interest. The original had some very tame flirting, but the new ramped it up to "the guy gets the girl". At a very G rating, of course, but feels out of place to me. I'd've been much happier for tame flirting between them, without the nudging by other characters.

Disney is pushing the movie for awards, based on the placements they've made on the local NPR stations. (For those not familiar with LA, studios run "considerations" on media here to increase movie awareness to the various awards voters.)
  #60  
Old 01-09-2019, 11:29 AM
Andy L Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
My main complaints are deviations from the original.

The inclusion of bad guys. The original had antagonists, but they were not malicious; they simply had their own interests that clashed with the protagonists. That said, the connections of "A Cover is Not the Book", the greedy animals, and the corrupt banker were well done. I just wish they hadn't done it that way.
Agreed. This was particularly awkward because the villain has no specific motivation other than unreasonable greed (why care so much about one particular house, when other houses are falling into the bank's hands regularly?).

Another deviation from the original that weakens the film - the original George Banks had some real faults that needed correcting, but Michael Banks is just having a bad year. George Banks saw his children at first as part of his property that needed to be in good order because it reflected on him (and on his desire to be the perfectly proper British man of his class), and ignores them except to yell at them. Michael is apparently a perfectly fine father; he yells at the kids a couple of times, but those are clearly mild exceptions to his normal behavior, so the movie is missing the "parents learn to be better" arc that the first movie had.
  #61  
Old 01-12-2019, 08:42 PM
MrKnowItAll's Avatar
MrKnowItAll MrKnowItAll is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,701
I was very surprised how good it was. IMHO, I think it was just as good as the original. They did a lot to appeal to old fans, but with enough fresh material to keep it from being a total retread.
__________________
In this way Mr. K will challenge the world!
  #62  
Old 01-13-2019, 07:39 PM
Yorkshire Pudding Yorkshire Pudding is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Whose fault was it?
He had a pretty useless accent coach. He couldn't hear his own resultant shortcomings, naturally, and everyone else was nice to him and didn't mention it.

That said, the blame isn't what we hear, it's the voice, and the voice was wrong. It's very apparent how wide of the mark he was, whoever may have been to blame.
  #63  
Old 01-18-2019, 09:09 AM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,359
A lot of weird choices made by the producer and director.

Filming in realistic and de-saturated stock as opposed to the original in technicolor. With the exception of the animated sequences. Not only did they do their big 'Steppin-time-like number' in desaturated color....they literally did it in the fog!!

Realistic acting from the leads opposed to theatrical acting. Which makes Poppins a bit jarring and narcissistic (Mary Poppins!! Mary Poppins as I live and breath! Look everyone its Mary Poppins!!) Right before the Bowles-like number I looked at my GF and asked. "IS Mary Poppins going to do a strip-tease? Are they sexualizing Mary Poppins???"

But overall I loved it. I was moved more than once. Just weird choices.
  #64  
Old 01-18-2019, 06:13 PM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 6,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleonast View Post
I'll listen to the soundtrack and rewatch it at some point to see how it holds up.
After some listening to the album while driving the kids about, I'd say the songs hold up. Kids' favorite is "Turning Turtle"; they try to sing along, but too many words. Also, "Can You Imagine That?", "A Cover is Not the Book", and "Trip a Little Light Fantastic" get some sing-alongs, too.
  #65  
Old 01-22-2019, 06:28 PM
MovieMogul MovieMogul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 15,863
Well, POPPINS 2 received four Oscar nominations today--a far cry from the original's 13, but still decent enough for a very polished, reverential throwback to another age of filmmaking.

It's competing in Production Design, Costumes, Score and Song. I think its best chances are in the first of these, but it will be a tough climb in any of them.

More Oscar discussion in this thread.
  #66  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:18 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy L View Post
Another deviation from the original that weakens the film - the original George Banks had some real faults that needed correcting, but Michael Banks is just having a bad year. [...] Michael is apparently a perfectly fine father; he yells at the kids a couple of times, but those are clearly mild exceptions to his normal behavior, so the movie is missing the "parents learn to be better" arc that the first movie had.
Nah, can't agree. Michael's problem isn't pomposity and distant-fathering, admittedly, but he does have a problem: it's grief and despair. He was hit so hard by the loss of his wife that he doesn't really believe that things are going to be truly okay ever again.

He gave up making the art that he loved, and resigned himself to just slogging on and scraping by, with Ellen-the-housekeeper and the kids doing their best to carry their end of the constant stress and worry.

Yes, he loves his kids and isn't demanding or judgemental with them, but children don't just need love. They need happiness and joy, and they need their parents to be capable of feeling and sharing happiness and joy with them. It's not clear if Michael would ever have climbed out of that pit, or at least not for a long time, if it weren't for MP and her booster shots of magic and wonder.
  #67  
Old 01-23-2019, 08:36 AM
Andy L Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Nah, can't agree. Michael's problem isn't pomposity and distant-fathering, admittedly, but he does have a problem: it's grief and despair. He was hit so hard by the loss of his wife that he doesn't really believe that things are going to be truly okay ever again.

He gave up making the art that he loved, and resigned himself to just slogging on and scraping by, with Ellen-the-housekeeper and the kids doing their best to carry their end of the constant stress and worry.

Yes, he loves his kids and isn't demanding or judgemental with them, but children don't just need love. They need happiness and joy, and they need their parents to be capable of feeling and sharing happiness and joy with them. It's not clear if Michael would ever have climbed out of that pit, or at least not for a long time, if it weren't for MP and her booster shots of magic and wonder.
Fair enough - thanks.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017