Mary Poppins Returns

Question: The last act of the movie revolves around the fact that the group has to get to the bank before midnight to avoid foreclosure. Since it's an impossible task, the group rides bikes to the Big Ben where Jack climbs to the top to turn the hands back. First of all, why didn't Mary simply fly the Banks straight to the bank? If she still was tight on time, why did she let Jack climb the clock tower and stare at the ordeal, thus risking his life and putting the Banks' house at risk too? She could've flown to the Big Ben herself and solve the task in a few seconds.

Sacha Premium member

Answer: This is a movie where Mary Poppins flies in on an umbrella, and takes children on other-worldly adventures in a bathtub and a ceramic bowl, but you're questioning why she did something that makes no sense to you? The simplest in-universe answer is a quote from her from the first movie, there's no explanation: "First of all, I would like to make one thing quite clear... I never explain anything." Or from this movie: "One thing you should know about Mary Poppins: she never explains anything" You can't ignore the rest of her inexplicable and nonsensical acts and somehow expect sound logic and reasoning for anything she does - she did exactly what was needed for the outcome she wanted. If she knew how it would turn out, no-one (or the house) was at any risk despite appearances to the contrary - don't forget that her goal wasn't to save the house but to save the Banks family - if she'd just swooped in and used her magic to fix things in the first 5 minutes of the movie, she'd have saved the house but not the family.

sfbiker1

Answer: Jack had to turn off the lights in Big Ben first, otherwise Mary Poppins would be seen.

Answer: How do you know if she could have flown Jack to the the top of Big Ben? She may have the ability to fly with her umbrella, but that does not mean she can carry a heavy load.

raywest Premium member

She does fly to fix the clock but she waits til the very last second. The whole part is absurd.

Sacha Premium member

Question: P.L. Travers hated Disney's film adaptation of Mary Poppins so much that she refused to have Disney make any more adaptations of Mary Poppins. How could a sequel be made without the consent of Travers, especially since she died in 1996?

Answer: The short answer is *because* she died. Control then passed to her beneficiaries/estate. She didn't forbid Disney from making a sequel, and she couldn't legally prevent it either. The deal she had with Disney just meant that they had to agree on it as she had creative control, and despite their (and apparently her) best efforts, they could never find a sequel idea everyone was happy with, especially given her dislike of the original film. Her will stated: "Any payments received by my Trustees in respect of or any future commercial production or exploitation in any form whatsoever of any books I have written (including any sequel to the film "Mary Poppins") shall be held by my Trustees upon trust to distribute..." On her death creative control passed to her trustees, in terms of sequels and the stage show, and they managed to agree on a sequel idea.

Jon Sandys Premium member

Answer: Travers was never entirely opposed to having a sequel made. She initially refused Disney's sequel ideas, and attempted to impose her own demands and concept on what any additional film would be. In the 1980s, Travers and a friend wrote their own screenplay. The Disney company, now with different management, considered it but eventually dropped the project amid casting problems and other issues and conflicts that emerged. After Travers' death, Disney could then negotiate directly with Travers' estate.

raywest Premium member

Factual error: Mr. Dawes Jr. states that the tuppence (two pence) invested by Michael grew into enough to pay off the mortgage on the house. Interest rates over that 20 year time period were about 4%, which would have made that 2p grow to all of 4p. Go nuts and assume an impossibly high return of 15% per annum, compound, consistent over the twenty years. Despite the fact that not even Bernie Madoff offered ridiculously high returns like that, after twenty years the original two pence investment would be worth 39p. As an aside, houses of the time cost about £750, far below current London prices, but still considerably more than 39p.

wizard_of_gore Premium member
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: In the movie, Mr Dawes said "We did just that, and thanks to several quite clever investments...that tuppence has grown into quite a sum" - so the investment didn't grow by interest alone. Growing a £0.02 investment to £750 is unlikely, but not impossible, especially if the friendly bank president fudged a little and pulled it off losing investments and only counted winning investments. And of course, Dawes could have been telling a white lie to make up for the way Wilkins treated the Banks family and planned to pay off the loan with his own funds.

sfbiker1

Absolutely. The 2 pence was an investment, not a deposit. It is perfectly in keeping with the whimsical magic theme of the movie that the investment should have grown exponentially. Real world investments have done better. A 5 cent Bitcoin investment (about 2 pence!) grew to about $15,000 in less time! This entry is not a "Factual Error."

More mistakes in Mary Poppins Returns

Anabel Banks: Everything is possible.
Mary Poppins: Even the impossible.

More quotes from Mary Poppins Returns

Trivia: Karen Dotrice, who played Jane Banks in the original film, makes a cameo as the lady who asks for an address to Jack and Jane.

oswal13
More trivia for Mary Poppins Returns

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback. FREE for a limited time!