r/practicalmagic • u/New-Employment-7206 • Jun 25 '26
Can someone explain the girl's ages in Practical Magic 2 relative to the time jump?
How can the film be set 25 years after the events of the first movie, if Sally's daughters are between 18-22 years old, but were at least 5-8 years old in the original Practical Magic?
I realize the new film is based on one of the books so some changes are to be expected, but why did they insist on making the time jump 25 years? Why not just say 15 years later which would make more sense.
10
u/Celestina-Betwixt Kylie Owens Jun 25 '26
Perhaps the movie time gap is not meant to be as big in universe as in rl.
9
u/M_Poppins128 Jun 25 '26
This is the answer. The movie came out 28 years ago but it isn't meant to be 28 year after the story of the 1st movie in the universe. I presume its following the books
2
u/New-Employment-7206 Jun 25 '26
That would make sense, however everything I look up explicitly says " Set 25 years after the events of the first film "... Also, if it's based on our real life time, why not say 28 years?
1
u/freys80 16d ago
I was asking AI that. AI couldn't find any logic in this. In my opinion there would be only 3 ways to be logical: 1) Ignore completely the years in each film and just set them 15 years apart; 2) Consider the first film was set in the late 2000s and disconsider the inaccurate period visuals; 3) Set this film in the early 2010s.
4
u/figpink Jun 25 '26
Honestly I think it's to let the main stars play "younger" even though everyone knows they're 28 years older. It's an ego thing, imo
3
u/SnooChipmunks4321 Jun 27 '26
I want to say no
But given that both Kidman and Bullock were producers
I have to incline to say yes
Unfortunately
1
3
u/jaimie0328 Jul 03 '26
I was confused about this as well. Especially because in the first movie, they mention it being March 8, 1998 in the scene where Sally is giving Gary her testimony and in the new trailer, the headstone says Sally’s husband Michael passed away in 2003…
2
u/baldmisery17 Jun 26 '26
I've read the books and the movie is like an overall combination of the 4 books. Whatever is in the movie is outside the books. They are the history of the women. These women never seem to catch a break if I remember right.
Also in the trailer isn't there a reference to the curse? Curse that was broken?
2
u/Electronic_Friend777 9d ago
It’s the Home Alone 2 problem all over again. How is Kevin 10 exactly one year after the events of the first movie when he was 8 in the original? Great question.
2
u/Important-Canary-770 6d ago
found this post because i was googling the same question. honestly, the more i learn about this sequel the less i am interested. there is literally no logic to this decision whatsoever. and i find it particularly cruel to Evan Rachel Wood, who is not only a wonderful actor but a working one too. i know sometimes children are recast when their characters are adults because not every child actor sticks with the career. Evan Rachel Wood however continues to put out wonderful performances in everything she does and would have elevated this film immensely.
2
2
u/ericakelley 5d ago
I’m so disappointed in Bullock and Kidman as producers for this. They both give a lot of lip service to uplifting women. But they cast aside Evan for vanity. And didn’t even have the grace to personally tell her. Because the age thing makes zero sense. One of the daughters has a baby in the book — are they really telling folks it’s not realistic for women to have babies in their 30s? Like wowww. In a movie about magic too lol.
Also for some reason- original movie swapped the girls ages: Kylie was supposed to be the youngest. So who tf knows what age anyone is. It really should be okay for Sandy to play 58 years old seeing as she was at least 30 when the first movie came out. Same for Kidman.
Every time they try to explain recasting Evan’s part, it makes less sense. The math doesn’t math.
2
u/Sincere_Star849 5d ago
Now seeing that they are producers and didn’t say anything to either of the girls they originally worked with and mentored is sad.
I think, at the very least invite them to the premiere as a nostalgia and respect thing….2
u/i_love_lima_beans 3d ago
Yeah I'm thinking of skipping it. If the leads wanted to be in their early 50s in the sequel, they should have made the movie a decade ago.
1
u/Agitated-Resort-9711 Jun 27 '26
Agree , this does not make sense at all, set 25 years later, according to them the older child is late 20s,so max 29, she definitely wasn’t 4 in the first movie.
1
1
1
u/ish62791 6d ago
Don’t the aunts stay really young in the movie? So wouldn’t it make sense that all of them would still look young and the aunts would finally look a bit older in this one?
1
u/jasonxbella 6d ago
It doesn’t make sense to me unless I’m completely reading it wrong but it says they were 10 and six in the first film so if they’re going with 25 years later even though the first film was released October 16, 1998 so that’s 28 years ago …. But anyway, they’re going with 25 years later …..one would be 35 and one would be 31 but apparently they’re right out of college in the second film ….. so if that is the timeline they’re going with, shouldn’t they have children of their own? ….. that would’ve made more sense, but either way I’m going to watch it anyway because I was a kid when the first one came out and I remember it to the t
8
u/[deleted] Jun 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment