First thing’s first: Yes, a Mary Poppins sequel is happening. And no, you shouldn’t be surprised or outraged by it at all, because Disney is clearly on a bender, burning through its vault of old animated films that can be rebooted into live-action features. It only makes sense that they’d now turn to the old live-action flicks and give them 21st-century makeovers, too. It’s the world we live in, folks; swallow a spoonful of sugar and get over it.

As such, the fabled, fantastical nanny Mary Poppins will be flying into theaters on her broken umbrella once more -- and we now know who has the exciting (and daunting) task of filling her shoes.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Emily Blunt is in negotiations to star as the titular character, played by Julie Andrews in the original 1964 film. Blunt’s casting would reunite her with director Rob Marshall, after he directed her in the 2014 movie-musical Into the Woods.

The Mary Poppins sequel will reportedly take place in Depression-era London, 20 years after the events of the original story. It'll focus on a now-grown Michael Banks, who reunites with Mary because he needs help with his own troublesome spawn. Guess he just threw all those childhood lessons she taught him out the attic window?

The original 1964 film was a huge hit, netting $100 million (which is impressive by today’s standards, let alone ’64 standards). It also earned five Oscars, including a Best Actress win for Andrews. The famed actress gave her blessing to a Mary Poppins sequel last year, telling The Today Show, “It’s 50 years since that came out, so I think it’s time.”

Blunt’s casting isn’t quite set in stone yet, though. The actress recently announced she’s pregnant with her and John Krasinski’s second child, which Variety reports will (understandably) play into her decision. As for who else could fill the magical nanny’s shoes, Blunt’s one-time Devil Wears Prada frenemy Anne Hathaway was reportedly in contention for the role once upon a time. But Blunt is British, after all, so that probably helps her case.

The only question left is, who should play the incomparable Bert (originally portrayed by Dick van Dyke) opposite the supercalifragilisticexpialidocious leading lady? Vote in the poll below, or let us know your suggestion in the comments!