Julie Andrews thinks Emily Blunt playing Mary Poppins is ‘wonderful!’

wenn22956972

I know I’m not supposed to seek approval from others but I do and I would definitely want it from Julie Andrews. Emily Blunt got Julie’s approval on playing Mary Poppins even before it was announced that Emily was cast. And it all happened in the Hamptons, which is not important but that just sounds so wonderfully civilized; Dame Julie graciously passing the proverbial umbrella in the Hamptons. I know my circle of friends is already on board with Emily in this role, but we have all have a collective crush on Emily and nobody cares about our opinion. Now, however, we can add Julie to our ranks and act really snooty about it.

Practically perfect in every way! Julie Andrews has given her blessing for Emily Blunt to play the iconic Mary Poppins in the remake of the 1964 Disney classic.

Blunt, 33, revealed to Entertainment Weekly that Mary Poppins Returns director Rob Marshall had a conversation with the star of the original, now 80, who won the Academy Award for her performance as the magical nanny. “Rob said he was in the Hamptons, and he saw [Andrews], and he said, ‘It’s top secret, but Emily Blunt’s paying Mary Poppins,’” Blunt said. “And she went, ‘Oh, wonderful!’”

“I felt like I wanted to cry,” she continued. “It was lovely to get her stamp of approval. That took the edge off it, for sure.”

[From US Weekly]

I understand why people stepping into famous roles want the approval of their predecessors. However, as we have seen with some recent retellings, it really doesn’t matter what the predecessor thinks as far as the public is concerned. A public that wants to be pissed off about a remake won’t be swayed.

Emily said that theirs will be a slightly different version of Mary Poppins – that Mary isn’t going to be as nice. Apparently – I had no idea – P.L. Travers wrote eight Mary Poppins books. That puts this sequel in a whole new light for me if there is material for a continuation. The children, Jane and Michael Banks, are grown and Mary revisits them after a personal loss. Lin-Manuel Miranda is in talks to play Jack the Lamplighter and Emily will re-team with her Devil Wears Prada and Into the Woods co-star Meryl Streep, who will play Mary’s cousin, Topsy Turvey.

Does Julie Andrews’ approval make you any more excited? I might go out and read the rest of the Travers books to gauge my excitement. I do know that I will miss two things no matter what: Dick Van Dyke’s accent and Julie’s singing. Just for fun: according to Tumblr, if you write “-2 -2 X =” with a pencil on a piece of paper, it sounds similar to the song Chim Chim Cher-ee. I think it does.

wenn29403863

Photo credit: WENN Photos and Getty Images

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

27 Responses to “Julie Andrews thinks Emily Blunt playing Mary Poppins is ‘wonderful!’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Megan says:

    I love Emily Blunt, but I am not on board with this movie. Julie Andrews IS Mary Poppins, there can be no other.

    • Betti says:

      I’ll take Emily over Anne Hathaway as Mary Poppins any day. But Julie IS Mary.

      • Aussie girl says:

        I hope Emily and the whole production convince me that this was needed or a good idea. I just think the whole thing was fine the way it was and really didn’t need a reboot but I could and hope to be wrong.

      • rea says:

        The movie didn’t need a reboot. They will not convince me this was a good idea.

      • susiecue says:

        Yes thank you movie gods for not casting Anne Hathaway. I have mixed feelings about the movie since Mary Poppins is a beloved favorite, but the idea that it’s a different story and not just a rehash adds some appeal for me. I do love Emily.

    • kacy says:

      Is there singing in the movie? There is just no way Emily can be on that level.

  2. Miss Jupitero says:

    Emily is perfect for this, and Mary Poppins needs to be a lot less nice to be true to the books. Disney put a serious sugar coating on that story which did it no justice at all.

    • Betti says:

      They did and Travers hated the movie as it was nothing like her books. She never forgave Disney and the way that she was treated – she had to publicly embarrass the studio to get an invite to the premiere. Disney steamrolled over her but then again it was something he was famous for – they still do.

      I think there is a stipulation about adaptations in her will. When Cameron MacIntosh wanted to make the stage version she agreed on the condition that only English born writers were used and excluded anyone who worked on the movie (inc. the Sherman Brothers).

    • susiecue says:

      Mary Poppins is a biyatch in the books!

  3. rea says:

    I have nothing against Emily, but she is not Mary Poppins.

  4. hnmmom says:

    Julie Andrews is amazing. I adore her. She is encapsulates my childhood: Mary Poppins, Maria, plus she wrote two of my favorite books as a tween: “Mandy” and “The Last of the Really Great Wangdoodles”. When I grew up and was working as a therapist in a residential facility for kids, she touched my life again by paying for each child who had to no home to go to over Christmas to go to Disneyland that day with staff. Her kindness made a difficult day for those kids into something magical. I had the honor to meet her in person 13 years ago and was able to thank her for all of the above. She was lovey and gracious about it all, as you would expect.

    • Megan says:

      Thanks for sharing! This makes me love Julie Andrews even more!

    • Erinn says:

      Gahhh I love that woman. She’s the real deal. She’s talented, and kind, and so gracious sounding.

      Honestly, as corny of a movie as it was, I always watched the Princess Diaries and was so jealous of the main character getting her as a grandmother.

      • hnmmom says:

        What I love about the Princess Diaries is now my daughter gets to be just as in love with Ms. Andrews as I was growing up. 🙂

    • wendy woo says:

      She IS! She is re-creating the original My Fair Lady stage production as director here in Australia and handing over Eliza with grace, aplomb and utter artistry. It’s so lovely knowing that a person one idolises has the heart, humour and class to go with their immense talent.

    • EscapedConvent says:

      What a beautiful, generous thing to do for those kids! It made my eyes glisten.

  5. susanne says:

    Are the books worth a read? We’re big Roald Dahl fans in our family.
    Thanks for the additional backstory!
    I love Emily Blunt, and she’s perfect. I think I just saw her from years ago in an old Poirot episode. Gorgeous, and she’s grown a ton as an actor.

  6. paolanqar says:

    I, on the other side, think it’s a terrible idea.
    Some film should never be re-made and this is one of them along with Dirty Dancing, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Foot lose, Pretty woman, Pretty in pink, The Goonies, Splash, Point break, Frankenstein Junior and probably many many more.

    New ideas people in Hollywood, get new ideas!

    • msd says:

      Yes, even though this is a new adaptation of a book, which isn’t exactly the same thing as a remake of an original film, this still makes me groan. Original content is apparently too risky to bother with nowadays. 🙁

      • vauvert says:

        Guys, they are NOT a remake. Travers wrote seven or eight books (I read them all when I was a kid, so forgot some details) and they were all wonderful. This new movie sounds like an adaptation of the last book in the series with the kids all grown-up.

  7. Myrna says:

    I adore Julie Andrews and am an Emily Blunt fan – she seems lovely and I’m sure will bring her own charm to the roll.

    What always bothers me about the film industry are these remakes of the classics.
    They are PERFECTION.

    Strikes me as a lack of creativity and talent.
    Can’t they come up with their own ideas?

  8. Margred says:

    But will this really be a remake? I thought it was going to be a version closer to the books?

    • Myrna says:

      Either way – why mess with an iconic classic?
      Why 2 versions when the original is already perfection?

  9. Neverwintersand says:

    I’m on board with it! Emily is a good cast for Poppins. You can also check the USSR version of Mary Poppins, where she looked like this: https://www.google.com.ua/search?q=Мэри+поппинс+фильм&safe=active&client=opera&hs=NDn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw_f_K4OvOAhWIPZoKHcZ6BZ0Q_AUICSgC&biw=1093&bih=502#imgrc=1jo1RWP1fbT8PM%3A (Played by Natalya Andrejchenko). It doesn’t follow the book closely, but has great musical numbers.

  10. Mia4S says:

    At least it’s a new story and not a (sacrilege!!!) remake.

    And let’s be honest, I’d watch Lin-Manuel Miranda sit in one place and stare blankly straight ahead. I was in regardless.

  11. Lucy says:

    I’m still in doubt about whether this remake is necessary, but I do think Emily has the talent to pull it off.

  12. Tiny Martian says:

    I hated this movie when I was a kid. I always found the Mary Poppins character to be incredibly creepy! Plus, the movie is looooooooooong, it runs 2 hours and 19 minutes. It was shown at my daughter’s school once as a movie night fundraiser, and most of the kids fell asleep halfway through or were bored. So even though no one will ever replace Julie Andrews as Poppins, I’m all for a remake, especially if it stays truer to the book and is of a reasonable watching length for children. And I think Blunt is perfect casting!