Is a new Mary Poppins in the works?

Variety and Entertainment weekly are reporting that a new Mary Poppins movie may be in the works.

The new film, is reportedly not a remake of the 1960's classic, but a sequel (being made 50 years later) set 20 years into the future. The film is expected to borrow from other stories in the Mary Poppins collection.

Rob Marshall is slated to direct the new film. Marshall previously directed Into the Woods.

As you  may remember, the original movie took place in 1910,  (in case you forgot this, there's a reminder below.) making the new film set in the 1930s. The original film made reference to the women's  suffrage. I wonder how the sequel will handle The Great Depression? If the Banks can still afford a nanny, they must be financially stable.

While some people on social media are already bashing the sequel, I for one, am interested. The original movie only used a small sample of the Mary Poppins stories for the movie (and changed things quit a bit).I am curious to see what new adventure Mary and the Bank children will be getting into this time around.

I also wonder who they will cast as Mary Poppins? Who will play Burt? Will Mr. Banks still be at the Bank? Is Mrs. Banks still a bit of a flake?

Is there anyway they could get Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke to make a cameo in the film? I know they can't reprise their roles as Mary & Burt, but maybe they could make some appearance in the film as a nod to the original.

Are you excited for the Mary Poppins sequel?

When Did Glamour and Cosmopolitan become Seventeen and YM?

Today, while at the cafe at Barnes and Nobles, my friend B and I got some coffee and flipped through magazines.
"Can you get me the issue of Glamour with Miley Cyrus on the cover?" B asked.
"Sure," I replied rolling my eyes, not at the request but that she was their cover girl. She was 16, why is she on their cover anyway?
When I was growing up, I remember my mother reading women's magazines such as Glamour and Marie Claire etc. I remember that most of the people on the cover of the magazines seemed to be about my mom's age (twenties-thirties). Is my memory failing me or are "Women's" magazine's getting younger?
Perhaps my memory of the magazines my mother read when SHE was my age are foggy and false, but I can't help but feel like Women's magazines have become too teeny bopperish.
All three of these stars gracing the women's magazine covers shown here are DISNEY STARS. Aren't these magazine's for women in their 20s? Granted, I know teens read them, and pretty much always have, but aren't they supposed to be catering to WOMEN and not little girls?
Sorry, I don't care how "grown" she thinks she is, Miley Cyrus is a child! She is not "grown up." Anyone who has ever seen her web videos she posts with her friends that she is clearly a child (not hating, it's good. She should be acting like a kid, she is one).
Worse though is seeing Ashley Tisdale on Cosmopolitan striking a pose and trying to look sexy. I hate to hate on females, but I must say I don't find her that attractive. Plus, since she visited Serendipity (all three girls shown here have, actually).
I know that she is kind of a brat. I don't care how old she is, I can't think of a Disney star as a sex symbol that I want to see on Cosmo.Can the Disney stars please stay in Disney?
I don't get so annoyed by Beyonce and Brittany etc so much, even though teens like them, many of of their fans were kids and teens when they came out and are now in their 20s, so they are crossover celebrities.
The immaturity extends inside to the content as well. Do females really want to read about being Hannah Montana? Am I the only one who feels foolish reading a magazines with articles like "Does he like you?" in it (hello, Teen Magazine circa 1997!).
Maybe I am just in the process of outgrowing these types of magazines?