The Mary Poppins nomenclature is so dumb. How does a lady pulling herself through outer space in zero gravity even remotely reassemble a lady using an umbrella to fly on earth?
I don’t normally post and I don’t have a problem with the Leia in space scene as a story beat, but I can understand the idea of comparing it to Mary Poppins visually as it’s all in the staging of the scene: one arm outstretched, dress/cloak, one foot kind of up - google Mary Poppins and you’ll get a fair few shots that resemble it, although I believe they are mostly advertisements from the stage play not necessarily the movie version, but they still show that ‘image’ as being associated with Mary Poppins in the public consciousness.
Obviously people use it as a ‘hah hah this is bad’ point of comparison, but why does looking like Mary Poppins have to be a bad thing? Maybe it was a deliberate choice to evoke that imagery - it wasn’t that long ago that the image of Mary Poppins defeating Voldermort was used at the London Olympics, and like Leia, she is a powerful, magical woman.
That said, I kind of giggled at it in the cinema as well the first time.
Not sure MP has that level of awareness on both sides of the pond? Disney is probably going to have to remind some people the upcoming new movie is actually a sequel.
I think whoever first coined Leia Poppins was only thinking in terms of Disney owning Star Wars now.
Having said that, if Miss Poppins gets blown out into space in the upcoming sequel, the circle will be complete! 😛