h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: 'Mary Poppins' - the Film - A12028402
Author: Galaxy Babe aka Ms Editor - U128652

A resubmission, I have added some padding to the original.

Here is the previous PR thread: F4395529?thread=7779118

GB

I'm glad you mentioned 'The Gnome-Mobile', perhaps you should mention that the credits lists the kids, not just by name, but as “the Mary Poppins Children, Matthew Garber and Karen Dotrice.”

Did you want to mention the theory that the film is all about promoting 1960s drugs culture? ie 'A spoonful of medicine helps the medicine go down', 'Let's Go Fly a Kite' supposedly representing getting high etc?

Oh and surely the amazingly talented Sherman Brothers deserve a bit more of a mention? Perhaps in the 'What they did next' section (including doing the songs for Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. If you hum a Disney song, chances are it's by the Sherman Brothers).

Has Julie Andrews recovered her singing voice? Last I heard, sadly at her concert a couple of years ago, fans walked out in protest that she was unable to sing.

<BB<

Hi GB - you have made a well-rounded entry, but there is so much more to say about the film. As BB says- the songs are absolute classics and each one a perfect example of its genre.

A major aspect is the special effects - some of which were ground-breaking, and all of which were absolutely state-of-the-art at the time.

The little robin she sings "A spoonful of sugar" with is a tiny mechanical model, and the mixture of cartoon and real elements in the "Jolly holiday" sequence was a masterpiece and stands up today - despite one tiny slip-up with the penguins and Dick van Dyke, which might even have been intentional.

I always thought that the thing about "the wind changing" was meant figuratively - although children may not consciously understand that. The wind changing really referred to the Banks family and the parents' attitudes changing.

However, the entry shouldn't be bogged down with too much information.

Anyway, it is the ultimate feel-good film, to watch again and again and then again with your kids and again with your grandchildren.

Updatedexcept for: <> I have never heard of this. Next thing you'll be telling me is that "Puff the Magic Dragon" is about smoking pot and "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" is about LSD!

I have added your quote TC

<BB<
I can only find http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/live-music-reviews/7698262/Review-Dame-Julie-Andrews-at-the-O2-Arena.html which is from 2010. It described her throat operation as "botched" and robbed her of her singing voice. So I doubt she will ever recover it

GB

From the old thread...

>>Doesn't the film start just as Mr Banks is on his way home from work? He mets the first nanny leaving on the doorstep, as he is coming in. He is then told that the nanny lost the children in the park, and is going to give her a good talking too, just before he realises that he just met her leaving. The maid does give the children a bath (when a policeman delivers them to the door) and gets them ready for bed, but she refuses to do any more than that. And then they write their spec for the new nanny.

>>To me, the intro to the story in the entry reads like it starts earlier in the day, rather than the time that Mr Banks is about to walk back in the door.

I realise that this might be too much detail for the entry, but it still reads like the story starts as the Banks parents are going out, but in the film they are just coming in.

I'm not sure about Mary 'unpacking impossible items from her carpet bag.' too. I mean that items themselves aren't really impossible - it's more that they couldn't possibly fit in the bag.

I do wonder whether she might be Gallifreyan, but that's probably a little outside the scope of the entry.


Geggs

Thanks Geggs, I've reworded the first section about the film to show that. I rather liked "impossible items" but I guess you're right, I'll go reword that



Gallifreyan, yes, a bag,

The "tape measure" is a bit impossible.

FS

As is the multi-flavoured medicine

The chimney sweeps dance on the roof is one of my favourite moments.

Thanks both, I've added those

I guess the mirror is too, since Mary's reflection starts singing on it's own. Or maybe that's just because it's Mary.


Geggs

I read this and couldn't help thinking that what's missing from it, is what made the film so good. The entry is certainly complete, and I learned a lot from it, but it just seems to be missing that "spoon full of sugar"

I personally know that GB has a wonderful, bubbling personality that is very much in keeping with the sparkle of the film, but it just doesn't seem to come across in this entry. At times it seems a little like parts might have been rewritten to make the entry more standard, and have lost that pizazz.

"The special effects, some of which were groundbreaking, were absolutely state-of-the-art at the time." Groundbreaking is state of the art, which is what makes me think that it's been written, and then tweaked, and maybe tweaked a bit more.

I think, and this is only my opinion, that if the entry now contains what needs to be in it, then GB should go through it again putting her personality back into it

Thanks everyone. I honestly don't think I've got the heart or the will to rewrite it again Pastey. I only dug it out because I came across it and it was easy to apply the comments from the old PR thread. At the end of the day it's only a film, albeit a memorable one, but it's not really important. I have a list of to-be-writtens as long as my arm and I'd like to get started on them

GB

>>The entry is certainly complete, and I learned a lot from it, but it just seems to be missing that "spoon full of sugar" <<

I thought that, too, Pastey, but then I remembered the guidelines and that each entry should try and present an impartial approach. Strictly speaking, an entry sparkling with jolly quotes and a liberal dose of enthusiastic adjectives might be beyond our remit.

Another kind of entry which could wax lyrical about the joys of the film would have to fall into the category of "film reviews" which is then "opinion" and not part of the "Approved" guide.

The entry is fine as a piece for reference, and, whilst it is rather straight-faced, GB has put work into it and turned out another solid contribution to the Guide. Once the entry is published, no doubt many fans will come and start threads attached to it which will be enjoyable to read and are not bound to impartiality.

Having said that, I would suggest leaving it in peer review for a few more comments to accrue. Perhaps the editor can add them at a later date.

but then I remembered the guidelines and that each entry should try and present an impartial approach.

Where does it say that?

Nothing is beyond our remit!

This is the Guide to Life, the Universe and Everything!

Nothing is beyond our remit!

From the writing guidelines:

What Sort of Style Should I Use?
Write in your own style
Don't try too hard to be funny
Try to make your entry balanced
Avoid writing in the first person

Yes - it was the "balanced" bit I meant. The art of writing entries is to get round that without losing the lightheartedness, and, in this case, enthusiasm.

GB - sorry to derail the thread with these generalisations. I don't know what got into me.

Back to the lovely Mary.

Just dropping by to say that I enjoyed reading this. It brought back some lovely memories of my mother reading the book aloud to us. I haven't seen all of the film though, but I did see part of it. My Dad's favourite scene is the musical in the bank, and when we got a computer for the first time he asked me to find it on youtube.

I wonder about describing some of the memorable scenes?

I like this article.

Perhaps you could mention that the film is set in about 1910?
Incidentally, at this time, Bert and the chimney sweeps would not have been able to vote either.

<BB<

Maybe you could stuff it so full of stuff that it would stop being anything you want to write about and become indistinguishable from a wikipedia entry.

Or perhaps, maybe, someone could write about the film, and here I'm thinking the author of A12028402 - 'Mary Poppins' - the Film, and one or two other researchers could write about the social and economic implications portrayed and misrepresented in the film, and someone else could write about some other aspect, and we could really have something unique in all the Internet. Oh wait, we do. It's a Guide.

Well done, GB! While there is, of course, more that could be said, when isn't that the case? I think this strikes the right balance of information to describe the film, why it is important, and some of the more notable elements. It's certainly made me want to watch it again! I probably haven't seen it in 20 or 25 years.

Another thing to consider: I think this is just about perfect in length. It isn't a brief grazing of the film, but it doesn't go on and on longer than the film it's describing, either. Yes, you could always add more, exhaust the topic, and leave people feeling that they now understand the film well enough that they don't really need to sit through it again. But why? Serves no purpose.

So. Well done!