|
Post by dwight on May 11, 2008 8:25:39 GMT -5
The Horror, The Horror !
You probably have noticed it. The last few years Disney has been making some of the dullest, cheapest sequels/ spin-offs to their beloved classics. From the wonderful The Rescuers Down- Under (although it's not really a sequel) to the dullest disney-film ever: Tarzan & Jane. What's your top list?
1. The Rescuers Down Under 4*/5 (Not better than the original, but still better than most Disney -classics.) 2. The Lion King 1½ 3.5* 3. Jungle Book II 3.5* 3. Tarzan II 3* 4. The Return of Jafar 3* 5. Bambi II 3* 6. Mickey's House of Villains 3* 7. Mickey, Donald & Goofy: The Three Musketeers 2.5* 8. A Goofy Movie 2.5* 9. Piglet's Big Movie 2.5* 10. The Fox and The Hound II 2.5* 11. Aladdin & The King of Thieves 2.5* 12. Cinderella II: Dreams Come True 2.5* 13. The Hunchback of The Notre Dame II 2.5* 14. Brother Bear II 2.5* 15. Mulan II 2.5* 16. Kronk's New Groove 2* 17. Lilo & Stitch II: Stitch has a Glitch 2* 18. The Lion King II 2* 19. Peter Pan: Return to Never Land 1.5* 20. Pocahontas: Journey to a New World 1.5* 21. 101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure 1* 22. Atlantis Milo's Return 1* 23. Disney Princess Enchanted Tales: Follow Your Dreams 1* ( i was so embarrassed to rent it at the video-store as a 17-year old boy.) 24. Tarzan & Jane 0.5*/5
|
|
|
Post by John Darling on May 14, 2008 17:20:28 GMT -5
(If this is breaking the rules, please forgive me)
You think that's bad? Look at the Disney Channel. I mean the channel was made to have it built around Disney characters, and that lasted for 13 years (1983-1996). Now they made it a rip-off of Nickelodeon. All the stuff that is on there now is not Disney, except for the following:
The Emperor's New School Lilo and Stitch The Little Mermaid Buzz Lightyear of Star Command Timon and Pumbaa My Friends Tigger & Pooh Mickey Mouse Clubhouse.
|
|
|
Post by Pocahontas on Jun 1, 2008 21:30:51 GMT -5
Oh boy, do I really want to talk about this subject . . . I apologize ahead of time for my longwindedness.
I think most Disney fans feel the same way you do Jiminy. I have a weak stomach for most Disney sequels because they are so different from the originals. What I loved most about Disney films was the animation itself, the crisp, beautiful, stylized images that make us remember these movies. Most of the animation in these sequels isn't fit to grace a television show and they try to pass it off as wonderful. They are not worthy of the name Disney or the original movies they claim to follow.
This is not true in all cases, however. Sequels like Lion King 2 & 1 1/2 benifit from the success of the original film. The legacy they have to live up to is kept better, the animation style and level is actually pretty close to the original. The story lines make sense and actually inhance the scope of the original. Sadly, Lion King II and possibly Bambi II are the ONLY sequels that are worth anything, in my eyes.
Many of the earlier movies that they made sequels of (Jungle Book, Cinderella, Peter Pan, 101 Dalmations, Fox and the Hound, etc.) had a certain roughness to the animation. If you compare them on a visual stance to Lion King or Pocahontas, they seem very innocent and childlike in terms of animation (no offence intended). Because animators have become used to this hightened drawing style, they can't get the same gritty, raw feeling in the animation that the originals had. Therefore, they don't seem connected, a contiuation of the same story and the same characters. The quirks that the original character had, that the animators added, are not in the sequels, making the characters different.
Unfortunately, the current generation is growing up with the CGI and 3-D animated films and these terrible sequels that are a disgrace to the originals. When I saw the sequel to Hunchback of Notre Dame, I cried. The animation was a mostrosity to the beauty and amazing story in the first film. The same can be said for Tarzan, Atlantis, and Brother Bear. Even the newer films (1990's and 2000's) are being sold out for profit and the animation of the first films are now being judged by those of the sequel. If the animation of Brother Bear II is a piece of poop, why should I bother to see the original? I know that would be the thoughts going on in my head if I hadn't seen the original first.
OK, I'm getting off my soapbox now and my opinion is open for discussion. If you got this far, I comend you for your bravery.
|
|
|
Post by transton on Jun 1, 2008 21:57:22 GMT -5
Most Disney sequels are horrible, I agree. They are just a waste of time, but Disney knows that little kids are willing to watch them over and over and think nothing of the quality. They don't care if the story line sucks and the characters just aren't themselves. They'll just be happy to see those so called characters and think nothing of comparison. I know I was like that when I was little with the Little Mermaid II and Cinderella II.
I'm actually looking aforward to The Little Mermaid III. The thought of a prequel is much better than continuing the story. The Little Mermaid II was just terrible in my opinon, but alot better than alot of the Disney sequels.
I am terrified of Pocahontas II and Mulan II, two great movies, prefectly ruined! But it's not a big deal, they can make all the sequels in the world and see if I care, I'll just stick with the original. I heard Cinderella III was a great sequel but it looked odd. The step-sisters did get a bigger role from what I can see.
And Pocahontas, don't be worried about your long posts, I appreciate you willing enough to post something so long, it shows your actually paying attention to the thread. haha.
|
|
|
Post by Pocahontas on Jun 1, 2008 23:08:59 GMT -5
Thanks for your thoughts Ariel. I just think we need to stand up for Walt and his original classics since the current company owners don't want to. I have heard that there is a change in the industry and that this sequel-happy phases is over. My biggest worry is with all the CGI stuff that tradition animation will be tossed out the window.
I saw Cinderella III and its was actually pretty good. The music was terrible but the animation was surprisingly good compared to the other sequels. The voice actors are pretty close to the originals (I doubt any of the originals are still alive) and the characters were close to the originals. Yes, they did increase the screen time of the stepsisters and the Prince Charming character has more personality, but I didn't see it as a negative thing. It was actually a fun movie to watch, especially the bit with the pumpkin at the end, but thats all the spoilers I'll give out.
As a Pocahontas fan, the sequel to that film was good in only one respect: the events and ending are true to history. It was nice to see that accuracy even in a Disney sequel, but that was the only good point.
Walt Disney himself said that he would never cheapen his films with sequels. I agree about that with most films, but if the story warrents some crucial story extention into another film, then a sequel should be done. However, it should be done in the same fashion, and preferably with the same team, as the original. If its a story that only for milking the original and a cheap story line, the originals should be left to itself. That's what fanfic is for, right?
|
|
|
Post by Bambi on Jun 2, 2008 13:44:22 GMT -5
I agree with your thoughts, Pocahontas. There have only been a few Disney sequels I have seen in my lifetime so far (like the Aladdin sequels, Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas, The Lion King 1 1/2, and Bambi II), and some of them I actually kind of liked (Bambi II especially, since I didn't think it totally brought down the spirit of the original), though just about rest of them I figured that they just weren't really worth watching. Why, one time, when I tried watching Pocahontas II with my little cousins, I grew so bored with it (even my cousins), I shut it off during the middle of it (no offense, Pocahontas ). It is difficult to judge a sequel based on the promotional material (like the commercials and trailers), but I think sometimes it's good to have an open mind and give sequels a chance before deciding whether or not to like them. Sometimes you just never know how well they turn out unless you actually sit down to watch the sequel. For example, when I first heard of "Bambi 2," I was, like, "I dunno....," but when I bought it and watched it myself, I found out it was better than I expected. I wouldn't say that it's better than the original, but I will say that it has some good qualities that, IMO, seem a lot better than many of the Disney sequels of the past, such as the nice 2D animation (there were a couple 3D bits that kind of "ruined" the film) and good voices (IMO, Patrick Stewart as the Great Prince really topped all the other voices). There were some moments in the midquel that appear senseless , and they kind of "ruined" the spirit of the original film for me a little bit, but at least with this midquel, we see how Bambi was able to grow in both courage and character after the loss of his mother, we see how the Great Prince was able to raise him during all that time before we see Bambi again as an adult, and we get an "inside look" at Ronno's personality and the explanation of his antagonism towards Bambi (Ronno is the buck who fights Bambi as an adult in the original). If an original film doesn't need a continuation of the story, then I'd say don't bother making a sequel. Take Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinnochio, Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland, The Sword in the Stone, and Robin Hood. These are examples of films that don't really need sequels, since their stories have already been resolved in the end and do not need to be continued with any new additional story material that could really stand out along with the originals. I think the originals need to be left alone. Even Walt Disney had once said that he requested to not have any of his originals to be continued with sequels, but after he passed away, the company ignored him anyway and did the sequels. I'm not sure he would even be all that pleased about the way the company is running today if he were still alive today (maybe for some things like the legacy he has brought to the public all over the world, but not everything). I agree with Pocahontas with the current trend of movies today being more CGI and how the generation today is being exposed to it. CGI today does seem easier for the animators and more visually appealing for audiences, but it doesn't always display the "WOW" factor that traditional animation does. Look at the Disney films of the Golden Age of Animaion (the late 1930's and early 1940's), like Bambi and Fantasia. Animators back then really worked hard to make the "WOW" factor come out in their hand-drawn animation. In my opinion, I don't think it should solely be about the visuals in films that should stand out, but it should also be the story and the true heart of the films's spirit that can help the films themselves stand out. Sadly, though, I sometimes think that people today are more materialistic and are more into visual things instead of other factors that can actually count. All I'm saying is that though I'm not a fan of Disney sequels, some of them I've actually sat down to watch and find out how they're actually good in some ways. It's like the old saying: "Don't judge a book by it's cover." Again, it's just hard to formulate opinions about sequels until you actually gain more information about them. Sequels generally aren't better than the originals (though there are some exceptions in some trilogies, like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future and Lord of the Rings), and I often think they're made simply for the sake of raking in more money from the box office takings, but I don't let that kind of thinking get to me in all sequels unless I find out more about them.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jun 2, 2008 15:17:48 GMT -5
Great posts everyone: I totally agree with you all. How many times has Walt rolled over in his grave? Isn't he dizzy by now? When they say "They lived happily ever after", i want them to live like that. I couldn't believe it when i saw Cinderella II where one of the stepsisters turns to the good side. Further on the quality of animation is just miserable. The Walt Disney Company is known for her beautiful, stunning animation and then they suddenly decide to offend that legacy. I wonder what Ollie Johnston (RIP) thought of all this cheapquels.
|
|
|
Post by Marie on Jun 2, 2008 18:49:59 GMT -5
I fully agree. For certain films, I don’t really understand why they even try to make a sequel 20-some years after the original film’s premier. You took the words out of my mouth, and I don’t think that I could have said it any better.
---------------
Best Sequels (in my opinion ^.^) The Lion King II (Simba’s Pride) The Return Of Jafar The Rescuers Down Under An Extremely Goofy Movie (The warm-hearted feeling that I received from the first movie wasn’t present in the sequel -- However, I did like this movie)
Mediocre: Hunchback of Notre Dame II (because I liked that Quasi finally found someone) Pocahontas II (Pocahontas II was more…erm…historically accurate than the original)
Worst: Brother Bear II (I didn’t like it because the original theme and meaning of the movie was missing/lost. The sequel became a romance…ugh) Lilo & Stitch II: Stitch has a Glitch (as well as the TV show and anything that was made after the original movie) The Little Mermaid II (Don’t hate me -.- I liked the characters, and I thought that Princess Melody was a wonderful addition to the saga. However, I think that this movie was a rushed project. Disney could have done better)
(( Psst… and, just a tiny thing that I notice wrong about TLK 1 ½ -- At the end, during the battle and when Simba roars, the rain doesn’t start until after he has taken his place at the top of the rock. In the original movie, it had been raining the whole time. ))
------------
As far as transitioning completely to computer animation goes, I don’t mind it too much. For one, all the Pixar movies I’ve seen have been amazing. A relative CGI staff is smaller than the staff one would need for a 2-D feature (so, the comunity is tighter and they can communicate ideas to each other more easily). And, any film Disney decided to do could be completed in less time (which would also help the company out financially).
Plus, I was watching ‘The History Of Pixar’ on Starz the other day, and one of the people on there stated that the cool thing about doing CGI animation is that, if right before your movie is about to premier, you notice something wrong with your storyline or your animation, you can easily go into your computer and fix it. Whereas, in hand-drawn animation, fixing the problem is a bit more complex. ^.^
-----
And, WALT IS NOT DEAD!!! He is frozen. So, whenever they find a cure for cancer, they can unfreeze him and bring him back to life. Walt is immortal!!!!! XD
|
|
|
Post by Pocahontas on Jun 2, 2008 19:59:16 GMT -5
I'm sure it must have been difficult for him to see Jungle Book 2. After all the relationship between Mowgli and Baloo was his masterpiece in the original. Also it was a representation of his relationship with Frank Thomas.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE CGI films and think that Pixar is the best around. I'm just concerned that with the economic easy of CGI films that the traditional animation we love so dearly will suffer in the process. I mean look at the animated cartoons on tv right now. That's definately not Disney standard.
|
|
|
Post by smile on Jun 3, 2008 21:19:08 GMT -5
Ah, yes. That's one of the reasons why I'm an anime fan (as all anime is completely hand drawn) Though, if you're interested, this is a neat article to read: mag.awn.com/index.php?article_no=1887--------- Also, a film that I thought was good that I forgot to mention is Toy Story 2. ^.^
|
|
|
Post by Melody on Jun 11, 2008 11:09:37 GMT -5
Here comes my two cents... I complety agree with people here. Most of the sequels I've seen I'm always thinking; 'What's the point in a this sequel? The original finished fine, there was no need to continue it!' The thing that annoys me is, some of the sequles (eg. Cindrella 2 & 3), were made like over 50 years after the original. How can anyone find a similarity to that except the characters and title?! Most of the sequels, when I watch them, don't have the same feeling as the original. The characters are sometimes really out-of-character, the animation style is different, and the voice cast doesn't even try to sound like the originals. The best sequels, in my opinion, are: The Little Mermaid 2 (some of the original voice cast was there, which gave it a familiar feeling, the songs were great etc.) The Rescuers Down Under (like I said, a familar feeling to the original, similar voice cast...) There are a few others aswell, but I can't think of them atm. xD
|
|
|
Post by Jane Porter on Sept 6, 2008 16:18:01 GMT -5
Oh, watch out! Jane's going to rant! Disney sequels have somewhat improved since Hunchback of Notre Dame II - but they're still horrific in my opinion. The kids I babysit hardly even know of the original films, and have been brought up on cheap, hastily made sequels. It's enough to make me cry. Luckily, Walt Disney Animation Studios is retiring the sequel wagon (I believe I heard a collective cry of "YES!" that day). Me, I'm a big Tarzan/ Atlantis fan, and I cannot stand Tarzan & Jane or Milo's Return. Though with that being said, Tarzan II was a huge improvement in animation, and was actually somewhat enjoyable. Here's how I would cast them: The Best:The Lion King II - This is actually a really good-quality movie. This came out when I was still a kid, so I remember buying this when it came out. I think this was the only sequel that Disney really paid attention to. The animation is good, the characters are memorable [and with good voice talent], and the songs show some effort. The Rescuers Down Under - This was actually a theatrical release. I personally like the villain [Percival McLeach] and I find Cody to be a more endearing character than Penny was. Mediocre:The Little Mermaid II - This was alright, at best. Melody is a solid character, but I HATE how different Ariel is. She honestly becomes the worst version of her father, which kills the spirit of the first movie. Tarzan II - I enjoyed this one. Really, it should be on The "Best" list, but it kind of toys with the continuation . Phil Collins and Mark Mancina were back (YES!) to do more music, and the opening stayed faithful to the original in some ways.
So Terrible It Makes Me Want To Jump Off A Cliff:
The Hunchback of Notre Dame II - In the 1990's, there was a small film company known as "Golden Films", which made low-quality versions of Disney's latest masterpieces. Golden Films movies were notorious for their cheap animation. Well with this, it seems that Disney recruited the Golden Films' animation staff to do this film! It is absolutely awful. I'm just going to stop now, before I get into a full-blown rant.
Tarzan & Jane - Basically, this was just a lazy attempt at a sequel, pasting together 3 episodes from the Tarzan tv series into a "film". Jane's voice is awful, her character doesn't look the same at all! And then there's the conga-line scene ... not since Kazaam has there been anything worse than this.
Atlantis: Milo's Return - Done in the same style as Tarzan & Jane, except these were 3 episodes from the abandoned Team Atlantis series. Lets see - from the awful history details (implying that World War I and the Great Depression happened at the same time) and the cheap animation, to the absence of Michael J. Fox ... and the fact that only half the characters appear in every segment. *Goes and dies*.
Sorry if this has been a little long, but I had to get my say
And, an example of the horrific-ness that is Tarzan & Jane: magicalscreencaps.com/images/tarzanandjane/gall/TarzanandJane012.jpg
Does Tarzan even LOOK the same here? They turned him into a Hercules-type leading man instead of his original, contrast face. Ugghhh.
|
|
|
Post by Pocahontas on Sept 6, 2008 18:07:25 GMT -5
Well, you pretty much said it all Jane. Hopefully the future films are much better.
|
|
|
Post by Hades on Sept 7, 2008 9:07:11 GMT -5
my favorite sequel by far was the Lion King 1/2. that was great. Hysterically funny, still kept that 'old' format (if ya know what i mean).
i do wish they'd make a sequel to Hercules, though. Maybe not Hercules though....maybe the sequel could be about Hades/Persephone....I'd LOVE to see that....
but i havent really seen any other sequels that i really really enjoyed....'cept for maybe House of Villains (loved that) and Lion King 2.
|
|
|
Post by rileycrest on Sept 7, 2008 11:43:58 GMT -5
While I agree with you guys on many points, I actually liked the sequels. I don't think of them in terms of the orginal, which is why i suppose I enjoy them. You can't hold them up to what came before. Its like when your favorite book gets turned into a movie but the movie is nothing like the movie. You EXPECT them to be the same but are disappointed when, for mass public option, they turn out different. Like when X-Men got turned into a movie. The movie didn't follow the Comic series out all, and all the marvel/x-men fans were very disappointed. i wasn't because I wasn't expecting them to follow the series. They have to change things to get the public to watch it. Its the same for the disney sequels. They are not targetting teenagers/adults when they make this. They are going for the much younger crowd because they are the ones mostly watching them, supposedly.
Thats just my thoughts on this. Ignore them if you want.
|
|