MARY POPPINS

However, she was partly involved in the stage adaptation which started in the 1990s on the condition that no one who worked on the film was a part of the creation process, and all of the creators were British. She unfortunately passed away before the 2004 West End opening and the show morphed into an adaption of the film and her books, this time more faithful to the latter. The stage adaption is fine, certainly not the bottom-of-the-barrel of Disney stage shows but no 'The Lion King'. It however was extremely successful and still tours all around the globe to this day.

After the stage version, Disney wouldn't revisit 'Mary Poppins' until 2013's 'Saving Mr Banks'. As mentioned, it of course takes liberties with the story - it's a film made about the Disney company by Disney about one their most iconic films. As a company who rarely gives insight into the creation of their works, it's a great starting point to learn about this film. Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks are truly phenomenal in the film, and while it does change up the story still captures their relationship correctly. At its heart, it boils the behind-the-scenes issues to that of Mr Banks. Walt is projecting his own father onto him while Travers hers, and the only thing they bonded on was that he was the one that needed saving, not the children.

Since the original film's release, a sequel was always in development. Again, it was Travers that halted production time and time again, and it wasn't until the late 1980s when the Disney company was heading into their renaissance that conversations once again began with the idea of an older Mary Poppins still being played by Julie Andrews was brought up. Travers hated this with the exception of Andrews, but it led her to pen a screenplay for 'Mary Poppins Comes Back' which she sent to Disney and the two went back and forth writing a treatment. Walt halted this sequel as Andrews was retiring from acting, and the project was shelved.

It wasn't until 2015 that 'Mary Poppins Returns' was brought up at Disney, where they found Rob Marshall who had just directed 'Into the Woods', and a year later Emily Blunt was cast, replacing Andrews. 'Returns' is set 25 years after the events of the first film and is not based on any specific Travers book but did have approval from her estate. The studio partly kept Travers' British promise; while not all the crew where from cheery old England, the film was completely filmed there. For what could have been a cheap nostalgia bait, 'Returns' was about as good as one could have hoped for a sequel released 54 years later. Blunt is just as loveable as Andrews, and it's another magical adventure with the flying nanny.

We all know how untouchable 'Mary Poppins' is - it's a crowning achievement in every sense of the word. For a film so beloved and such a technical achievement, it's wild to think there was a chance the world could never have gotten to fall in love with her. The tale of Travers and Disney does pose an all-important question about adaption and how it can change the context of your work. Films like 'The Chronicles of Narnia', 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' and 'The Cat in The Hat' are all still widely circulated books, but 'Mary Poppins' is not. To the general public she is a Disney character. I want to compare it to say 'The Wizard of Oz' but even there those books - and the whole Oz world - have more modern recognition than Travers'. The one thing that becomes tough to answer is with 'Mary Poppins' being made, should Travers have had to give up her legacy for another?

'Mary Poppins' is not just quintessential Disney but cinema. It is one of the greatest films of all time - it gave us the gift that is Julie Andrews, unforgettable songs and, of course, all the technological achievements (we can't forget the penguins). For the 60th anniversary, it's simple: "Go grab a kite and send it soaring, up through the atmosphere, up where the air is clear!"