5 Ways Mamma Mia 2 IGNORED Mamma Mia & Why!


Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again brings to life
Donna and the Dynamos’ backstory in gloriously fun fashion, but hidden in that prequel story
are many inconsistencies that contradict plot points and details from the original movie. Yippee-ki-yay, movie lovers, it’s Jan here
and today I’m going to reveal and explain five ways that Mamma Mia 2 completely ignored
what happened in the first film! Obviously, some spoilers ahead if you haven’t
seen the movie! Apparently, resurrection is a thing in the
Mamma Mia universe because in the original movie, it’s heavily implied that Donna’s mother
is already dead. “Somebody up there’s got it in for me. I bet it’s my mother.” “Wasn’t she a ray of sunshine.” However, in the sequel, Donna’s mother Ruby
is still very much alive and kicking and makes a late but show-stopping entrance in the form
of Cher who reunites with her lost love Cienfuegos while belting out Fernando. At the end of the day, Ruby’s revival for
Mamma Mia 2 is basically down to writer-director Ol Parker who wrote the part specifically
for Cher and saw the chance to make the sequel “deeper and moodier” by digging into the strained
mother-daughter relationship briefly mentioned in the first film. As if raising the dead wasn’t enough, Cher
is actually only 3 years older in real life than Meryl Streep who plays her on-screen
daughter! Still, Ol Parker says Cher “exists separate
from time” and we should just enjoy the show and not worry our heads about such things. And I have to say I agree with him as frankly
who doesn’t want to see Cher lend her inimitable style to ABBA classics while dressed in sparkly
tops, white suits, and flowered flares?! In the first movie, Colin Firth’s Harry tells
Sophie that when he was young he bought a guitar for Donna and it cost him £10 and
his Johnny Rotten T-shirt. Now, in the sequel, Young Harry wears a Johnny
Rotten T-shirt during his Parisian adventures with Young Donna, but after he’s bought the
guitar, he’s still wearing that same T-shirt. Also, how did he ever actually give young
Donna that guitar? Because in the sequel, although Hugh Skinner’s
Harry does follow Donna to Greece, he misses the ferry to the island and the last time
we see him he’s walking away from the dock, lamenting his fate. Maybe in this new version of the story, young
Harry decided to leave the guitar for Donna with someone on the island, like Omid Djalli’s
Greek Official; or perhaps there’s a cut scene that explains how it ended up with her. Indeed, there does appear to be a missing
part of the original Mamma Mia timeline in the sequel because in the first film, Donna’s
diary says that “Harry turned up out of the blue” so she said she’d show him the island. Speaking of Donna’s diary, in the first movie,
it said she met and slept with Sam first on July 17th, followed by Bill on August 4th,
and finally Harry on August 11th. However, that’s not quite the way things happen
in the sequel! In Here We Go Again, Donna first meets and
sleeps with a young Harry in Paris, then she meets but doesn’t sleep with a young Bill
in Greece, after which she meets and falls in love with a young Sam, and finally, she
meets up with Bill again and this time sleeps with him. When Lily James was cast in the lead she says
she “was so clear […] that [Young Donna’s sex life] had to be celebrated” but admits
that at first she “was […] worried [the] producers would try and dampen it down”, so
she was very glad when they “embrace[d] it.” For writer-director Ol Parker, although Donna’s
three relationships are relatively short, it was important to make each one meaningful. And I think that’s the key to why he changed
the order of events from Donna’s original diary. The idea being that Harry was a charming vacation
fling, then she fell in love with Sam but he was already engaged and left her, at which
point Bill was there to help her over her broken heart. Another miraculous thing about the Mamma Mia
Universe is how people’s eye colours seem to completely change over the years. So Alexa Davies’s young Rosie has blue eyes
compared to Julie Walters’ brown eyes, Hugh Skinner’s eyes as young Harry are much lighter
than Colin Firth’s brown eyes, and while Meryl Streep’s Donna has blue eyes, Lily James has
brown eyes. Although the filmmakers wanted the younger
characters to really remind audiences of their older counterparts, they were never looking
for a mirror image. When Here We Go Again was casting, Lily James
was actually busy on a publicity tour for Baby Driver, but director Ol Parker insisted
the Mamma Mia team wait till she had time to meet with them. That’s because, as the filmmakers have said,
“Lily transcends whether you think she looks exactly like Meryl. […] She’s a tour-de-force!” and “a natural
storyteller in her singing”. For her part, James has said she tried to
pick “a few characteristics, or expressions, or a physicality that would make [us] hopefully
believe [her] version of Donna would grow into” Meryl Streep’s. And Streep herself has given James her seal
of approval, saying she really did capture Young Donna’s spirit. It’s perhaps a little odd that James or the
other actors didn’t wear coloured contacts to change their eye colour for the film, so
I wonder if maybe one of them couldn’t wear them for some reason, or perhaps the filmmakers
decided it wasn’t a big deal. Either way, their different eye colours totally
pale into insignificance when you consider their great performances, especially Lily
James and the way she brings to life a Young Donna. And let’s not forget what Donna’s three love
interests looked like when they first met her in the original movie compared to how
they look in the sequel! Gone are young Sam’s long locks, headband,
large moustache, and hippie clothes. And young Bill has also had a bit of a haircut
and a change of wardrobe from his more flower-power style too. Young Harry still has a leather jacket, but
gone are his studded leather choker and eyeliner, and his hairstyle’s also less punky. Of course, as Colin Firth, Pierce Brosnan,
and Stellan Skarsgard very briefly played younger versions of themselves in the original
movie, the costume and make-up departments had a bit of fun with how they made those
actors look different from their present-day selves at the time. However, the filmmakers obviously didn’t want
to extend that few-seconds-long joke from the original film into a very lengthy joke
in the sequel, and so when it came to clothes and hairstyles, they went for less exaggerated
looks that would appeal more generally to modern audiences. By the way, Omid Djalli’s Greek official really
did seem very interested in people’s changing hairstyles, perhaps a bit of meta-commentary
and a wink to fans of the franchise. When they made the original Mamma Mia, they
didn’t intend to make a sequel, so their creative decisions didn’t take into account what they
might want to do in a second movie. Ten years later, they didn’t want to be constrained
too much by choices made or throwaway lines in the first film. For me, the differences are interesting as
they give us some insight into the filmmaker’s thought processes. I still really love both the movies, they’re
made to be fun, enjoyable, and entertaining, and they are! So, did any of these changes bother you and
did you spot any other differences between the two movies? Let me know in the comments below! For a chance to win one of these awesome Mamma
Mia 2 merch packs, make sure you subscribe, leave me a comment about the film, and also
tap the Gleam link in the video description below to register your entry. I’ll have a brand new Mamma Mia video for
you shortly, so tap left to watch the next one or tap right for my full Mamma Mia and
musicals playlist. If you enjoyed this, I really appreciate a
thumbs-up! Thanks for watching and see ya next time. Yippee-ki-yay, movie lovers!

100 Comments

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *