MovieChat Forums > Mary Poppins Returns (2018) Discussion > What Threw Me Badly and Bothered Me the ...

What Threw Me Badly and Bothered Me the Most


Was the interior of Number 17 Cherry Tree Lane. The outside looked similar, and the interior would be expected to be run down after twenty years of a World War followed by an economic slump, but how could the rooms have actually shrunk? This went WAY beyond the cliché of returning as an adult to your childhood home and finding it smaller. What happened to the huge entry hall with the massive pillars? The stairs looked similar except for the railing, which strangely enough was more rather than less decorative, and a little of the entryway floor was the same. Was Michael Banks, strapped for cash, supposed to have put walls across half the entryway, taken out the pillars, walled off half the living room, and let out the other half as apartments or something? If so, there would be no exterior windows on the side of the room where the wall was built. I strived to make the whole thing make sense but couldn't relate to it as the same place at all and it was a huge distraction.

Since we can't post pictures here you'll just have to resort to Google images to see what I mean.

reply

Between the time of the original film, 1910, and the sequel set in the 1930s, there had been a bit more than four years of a world war.

reply

There might have been a lot of redecorating during the Roaring Twenties? But yes, having the rooms be visibly smaller is okay by me, as this film is told from an adult's POV while the original was seen from a
child's. And as for everything looking visibly run-down, well, that ought to be subtle, as the Banks family would do their best to keep up appearances. Wallpaper hanging down in shreds, no. Frayed upholstery, yes.

And BTW, it takes a serious level of fandom to notice such differences! Well done!

reply

Thanks--a serious level of fandom and a reasonable level of interest in architecture.

reply