Disney and Rob Marshall Developing New Original ‘Mary Poppins’ Film

Mary Poppins National Film Registry

As Disney continues to reboot old animated favorites into live-action features, the studio is now looking to team with its “Into the Woods” helmer for a new take on one of its classic musicals.

Sources confirm to Variety that Disney is developing a new “Mary Poppins” musical with Rob Marshall set to direct.

John DeLuca and Marc Platt, who also worked with Marshall on “Into the Woods,” will serve as producers on the pic.

Insiders confirm the new film will take place in London 20 years after the first film and will take storylines from the P.L. Travers’ children books focusing on the magical nanny’s continued adventures with the Banks family.

The original film starred Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke in the story of a nanny who came to work for a banker’s unhappy family in pre-World War I England. The film was a huge hit, grossing $100 million at the box office, and earned five Oscars including one for Andrews as best actress.

Disney has reaped rewards recently by turning their classic animated pics like “Alice in Wonderland” and “Cinderella” into live action hits, and is now turning its attention to classic live-action films.

When it comes to reteaming with Marshall on the pic, the “Chicago” director has had a knack for taking Broadway hits and turning them into big screen successes. “Into the Woods” not only earned $199 million worldwide but also landed Meryl Streep an Oscar nomination.

Marshall is repped by CAA. The news was first reported by Entertainment Weekly.

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 42

Leave a Reply

42 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. James says:

    Attention non-true Poppins fans: WE DON’T CARE whether it’s a remake OR a sequel. Either way, bad idea. The creative team here will need to tread VERY carefully.

  2. Fern says:

    Films like Mary Poppins are iconic and they should be left alone. This is the worst idea I’ve heard in a long time.

    • toscaskiss32 says:

      I agree that the movie is iconic, and I find it wonderful. BUT, the books are also iconic, and even more wonderful, and if Disney wants to put proper effort into putting on film some of the many stories contained in those books, that were not in the first movie, I’d love to see it. I’d be even more pleased if they choose to be more faithful to the tone and feel of the books, unlike the first movie. If so, it will be quite a different animal, and wonderful in a very different way, so no slur on that earlier film.

  3. Jason says:

    Why can’t they use Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke for the sequel with what they can do with makeup they can make them look younger. I know Julie Andrews can’t sing anymore but it just wouldn’t be Mary Poppins without her.

  4. Dunstan says:

    I never saw the original and have zero interest in this latter-day version. Musicals are tricky at best and I rarely like them. Les Mis was terrific on film even though I didn’t much care for the play; having the cast sing live while shooting made all the difference in the world.

  5. Chris Darling says:

    Wow, fully 90% of the people who have replied here obviously haven’t read the article. This is a sequel, not a remake. I’ll admit that I was somewhat taken back from the headline but then I read the article. It clearly says it’s a sequel. It clearly says it set 20 years later. There’s been all sorts of sequel that have worked. Then I saw that Marc Shaiman and Scott Whitman are writing the music and lyrics and suddenly this became an interesting project. I love their work on Hairspray. Mark Sherman is one of the best composers working on Broadway. Let’s give me a chance and see what they do.

    At least of it is 20 years later, Burt will probably be dead and we won’t have to hear “a chimney sweeps rucky as rucky can be.”

    • toscaskiss32 says:

      Funny that you referred to the composer as “Marc Sherman” (after, of course, getting his name correctly on first mention), given the name of the original movie’s songwriters. I don’t know that Shaiman and Wittman would be my first choice for this score, but they might do a great job, and it’s promising that the plan is to “take storylines from the original book.” Of course, I don’t think any of the books’ stories took place that far in the future from the first, though it’s been a LONG time since I read them, so I might be wrong. Anyway, I hope they might come up with something more true to the books’ tones than was the original movie, as wonderful as it was, in its way. Too bad we can’t have Stephen Sondheim write the songs, as he’d intended all those decades ago.

  6. Charlie Bury says:

    Oh please no, not Mary Poppins!

  7. Ray talbot says:

    ???? New Mary Poppins 20 yrs after original????
    Original made in 1964 51 yrs ago ??

    • Jodi Rose says:

      Um, the story will be set 20 years after the original. The original story took place in the 1930’s and the new film, if they don’t screw it up, will take place in the 1950s.

      • Know it, don't blow it. says:

        The original story took place in 1910.

        “It’s grand to be an Englishman in 1910. King Edward’s on the throne, it’s the age of men.”

  8. They want To take another classic and ruin it? They ruined The Sound of Music. Now they want to ruin Mary Poppins too?!

    I WON’T WATCH IT!

    • toscaskiss32 says:

      By which you mean they ruined the musical THE SOUND OF MUSIC when they made that movie of it, starring Julie Andrews? Because a beautifully produced production of the ORIGINAL script and score of SOUND OF MUSIC so far outshines the movie, there’s just no contest. The movie is, of course, nevertheless, a pretty well done thing, but with numerous gaping flaws, and not nearly as good as it should have been. When I was taken to the movie during its original run (I was a little kid), it was a bitter disappointment to find they’d completely cut out my favorite songs in the show! So many changes were for the worse, and it’s just a shame that so many people have the incorrect impression that the movie is the original. It is not, and unfortunately, over the years, some changes from the movie have been incorporated into stage versions. When I was finally able to see a production that was completely faithful to the original script and score, with full orchestra and excellent cast, production values and direction a couple of years ago, it was evident just how much better it was than any other productions I’d seen, and than the movie was. What the movie writers did with the scene where Rolf discovers the Von Trapps in the cloister, and what he then does, that alone should have had those writers put in prison for awhile. It was a stab wound into the heart of the show, and equivalent to pissing on the grave of Oscar Hammerstein II. People forget that these guys actually REALLY were artists, and knew what they were doing. If only other folks would write their own shows, and stop messing up those of masters from the past.

    • therealeverton says:

      No they wan to make a sequel. Just like the author of the books did. Making the other Narnia books isn’t ruing something, it’s just making the other books into films – same here.

  9. BK Wood says:

    Just to show no creative in Hollywood anymore. Just take an idea from a well loved movie and try to make a “new thing”

  10. Matthew says:

    MARY POPPINS sucks in any medium. The songs are cloying, the story is non-existent and the characters are too awful to live. But what do you expect when the original books were garbage to begin with? And their creator, Helen Lyndon Goff, was a horrible, horrible person. Bringing her and her toxic, anti-life philosophy into the Disney fold was one of the biggest mistakes Walt ever made. He wasted 20 years of his life trying to please that harridan, and the undeserved success of that film was nothing but luck.

    And Rob Marshall is a hack. His version of ANNIE makes John Huston’s look like a masterpiece in comparison, and CHICAGO would have been better served by actors who could actually sing and dance and a director who didn’t have to resort to editing the musical numbers in a cuisinart to disguise their lack of suitability for their respective roles. And before NINE, there was already a musical version of 8 1/2: it was called ALL THAT JAZZ. CHICAGO should be remade to erase the stench of Marshall.

    But the hack writing of Helen Lyndon Goff and the hack direction of Rob Marshall deserve one another. This pretty much guarantees I will never see another Disney film again as long as I live.

  11. i think natalie portman as mary poppins, neil patrick harris as mr bert, johnny depp as mr banks, nicole kidman as mrs winifred and helena bonham carter as helen the maid

    • Infantry says:

      Did you read the article?? It is not a remake, it’s a sequel! With best luck, Mr. Banks is on his deathbed! Not being played by the blasted “Mad Hatter!”

  12. Todd Lowe says:

    There are so many things wrong with this story, I just don’t know. What’s next Hollywood, remakes of The Godfather, Gone with the Wind or The Wizard of Oz? Somewhere Dame Julie Andrews is screaming for no apparent reason.

  13. Nicole says:

    Are they recreating Mary Poppins? Because That is not okay! They can’t not recreate Mary Poppins! There is only one true Mary Poppins!!

  14. cadavra says:

    Walt hated the very idea of sequels (he only permitted them for a couple of the studio’s low-budget comedies, such as “The Monkey’s Uncle”) and was adamant about not making another Poppins picture. Good to see his legacy is being respected.

  15. therealeverton says:

    “Remake” No
    ” confirm the new film will take place in London 20 years after the first film ”

    That’s a sequel NOT a REMAKE. Typically bogus headline.

  16. Ben says:

    Make a new classic. Not an old one.

  17. James says:

    This is such a phenomenally bad idea. How does Disney think they can improve upon practical perfection? They did quite well with the stage play, but this is a very dicey proposition indeed.

  18. Bill B. says:

    Why?!?!?!?

  19. Ro says:

    Yeah, overall, sounds like a bad idea. The original is such a classic, a hard to explain mix of pathos, humor, animation and fantasy that works extremely well. I modernized CG Mary Poppins sounds depleting to the legacy.

  20. Herb Flynn says:

    2 decades would bring it close to WW2 – which Peter Pan:Return to Neverland was set – now Disney is stealing it’s own ideas? What about Travers not wanting Disney to adapt additional stories – even after Walt’s death? Is the estate disregarding her wishes, supposedly stated in her will (Urban myth?)

    Why isn’t Richard Sherman on as a consultant? (Even at 87 he’s better than most composers in hollywood!)

  21. Suz says:

    Unnecessary.

  22. Gabe says:

    I don’t believe it

  23. Jamie says:

    Actually Streep would be perfect for this … Especially since it takes place years after the first film

  24. Dale Q says:

    Please for god sakes don’t let Meryle Streep within a million miles of it.

  25. SteveP says:

    If it takes place 20 years after the original film and has a different storyline then it is a not a remake.

    It still, however, sounds like an awful idea.

    • MrFahrenheit says:

      SteveP
      You took the words right out of my keyboard.

      • Ken says:

        Ditto for me! MARY POPPINS remains, in my estimation, the crown jewel in the Disney canon – possibly the finest original musical ever produced for the screen. I saw it during its original engagement back in ’64 when I was a 7-year-old kid, dazzled by the technology and every freakin’ minute of it. It continues to charm and delight audiences to this day. Why does Disney feel the need to re-boot and/or exploit all of their classics? Not looking forward to this “sequel” at all!

More Film News from Variety

Loading