Fidget1234 wrote:2099net wrote:You know, the voice of Mickey Mouse is dead. And Goofy.
My step-father voiced for both Mickey & Goofy for theme-park/radio/ destination tv commercial spots for 17 years (1984-2001). Not too current- but not too old either- he's still very much alive in his 50s & can still do their voice just as perfect. He's just retired.
But your step-father wasn't the first voice for either. So my point still stands. Why is it OK to have a voice change for that, but not for a film sequel? There's talented impressionists about today if Disney decide to go that route for voice casting the sequel, or they may go the
Jungle Book 2 route and decide to cast somebody who captures the spirit of the characters. Both, to me, are acceptable being as the originals are no longer with us.
As for quality - I'm sure
Aristocats 2 won't be that good. Especially as DisneyToon studios won't be making it. As for originality, again, I'm sure it won't be anything more than 'safe'. A safe sequel to a film which was pretty much 'safe' to begin with. Don't expect too much.
And if that's not to your liking, then simply don't buy it. It's not difficult, but its something a lot of people who complain about entertainment these days seem to forget. You don't have to buy anything. A TV set has an off-switch. Nobody makes you buy a ticket for a movie.
As for the whole originality/"dragging Disney's name into the mud" debate there's more than a few 70 minute sequels to consider.
1. Disney is still producing at least 1 all-new, all-original animated "classic" a year, more than any time in its history. Add Pixar to the calculations and you have even more. Clearly, the sequels are
not taking a toll on Disney's desire to make original films.
2. While I can, to some extent, accept that people buying the sequels may end up disappointed (I'll admit most have been average at best), most of these sequels are marketed the same way, and if people haven't caught on to Disney's technique by now, then really, they're too stupid to even care about.
3. What's more harmful to the Disney brand is the constant cartoons [see 4], Power Rangers and Raven shows shown on the various Disney TV channels. As bad as a sequel may end up being, it can never be as bad as
That's So Raven. But the difference here is shows like Raven are constantly forced upon people, in continual re-runs, and Raven is attached to non-connected stuff like DVD supplemental bonus material. A sequel is made, promoted when it is first released and then generally forgotten.
4. Talking of those cartoons, what about those in the 80s and 90s? What do you think potentially harmed the public's perception of
The Little Mermaid more? A 70-odd minute sequel or the animated TV series which did more to devalue and cheapen the characters (especially Ursula) than
The Little Mermaid 2 could dream about? The same question could be posed for the
Aladdin TV series and especially
Talespin (Jungle Book characters... wearing clothes and flying planes? Shere Khan as a business man?)
As I've said many times before, I defend the right of Disney to make sequels. But that doesn't mean I think that they're all great. But if one is a worthy sequel, you'll never appreciate it unless you go in with a (semi)open mind.
BATBFan1 wrote:UMMMMM, have you been paying any attention? Disney hasn't been the same since Mulan! In the "Classic" Animation department! Also, they are messing up the animated classics with the cheapqels as well! Don't get me wrong all aren't bad but MOST are!
and if u are talking about originality, midquels are really easy to write, and copy and pasting three stories together really isn't that hard.
That's a subjective opinion, and not one I agree with. Are you really saying
Brother Bear was worse than
The Sword in the Stone? Or
Lilo and Stitch was worse than
Robin Hood or
Tarzan is worse than
Alice in Wonderland?
And yes, I am talking about originality, because
as well as making the sequels,
they are making at least one all-new, all-original animated movie a year.
