DTV sequels you would LIKE to see

reyquila · Post by **reyquila** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:54 pm

As a parent I know there is nothing wrong with an incentive if you teach that things are supposed to be done regardless of a bonus. My kids are intelligent enough to respond very well to that scenario. Again, keep talking and talking, discussing and discussing to that pointless boredom you call intelligent posting. I'll read the posts and get the best of them, because certainly there are good ones. But, in the meantime, I'll be watching the movies you dont have but I know you want.
Envy and fear are very good friends. In your case, there is an applicable proverb: Let them hate, as long as they fear.

slave2moonlight · Post by **slave2moonlight** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:04 pm

numba1lostboy wrote: Kay Panabaker is wonderful. I really wish she had gotten a bigger part in the original. I would pay to see a Sky High sequel.

And I was thinking...maybe Mickey, Donald, Goofy, and maybe the rest could be in some version of The Swiss Family Robinson (going along with the classic tale theme that The Three Musketeers started).

Was Kay in Sky High for a bit? If she was, I missed her in it. Her older sister, Danielle, was the plant powered girl, but I don't remember Kay in that film. I haven't seen it in a while though. Still need to buy it. I was just thinking that they should add Kay as well.

Yeah, I would like to see more in the style of Mickey's Three Musketeers, though I also would like to see some modern, original stories, maybe inspired by Mickey Mouse comics, like going up against the Phantom Blot or whatever.

With all the superhero stuff nowadays, maybe they should make a Supergoof movie.

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:09 pm

reyquila wrote:But, in the meantime, I'll be watching the movies you dont have but I know you want.

It's no secret that some of us don't have certain movies. But we don't want them just because you have them. We don't operate under a mentality of "OMG, reyquila has all the Disney DVDs! I want to have all the Disney DVDs so he'll actually respect me as a collector and a person!". We want a movie because we enjoy it, and wouldn't mind having it in our collection. And sometimes...just sometimes, there is a movie we don't own because we don't like it. It could be by our favorite company in the world and have our favorite star in the world, but we may not like it. So why pick it up? Just because it's by our favorite company with our favorite star? It's called personal taste, and just because some of us don't have or don't choose to have a film that you just so happen to have in your collection, it doesn't mean that we're less of a fan of it than you.

reyquila wrote:Envy and fear are very good friends in your case.

I pity you. Really, I do. You feel the only thing to consider in a DVD collection is quantity, that anyone who argues otherwise is jealous, and that your "I'm buying, that's all!" posts are of more substance than the "uesless creativity" or "pointless boredom" that many of us here like to consider an actual discussion. You only feel safe when you justify your collection as "I have it, you don't, nyah nyah, nyah, you must be jealous." Are you truly that insecure in all the money you've spent on DVDs that you need to belittle those who choose not to buy a certain movie, or those who cannot afford to buy a movie they want? Do you really feel superior just because you've got 500 Disney films while someones can only afford to have 10? Do you actually think people will revere you as the TRUE Disney fan just because you own them? No wonder you only post "I'm buying, that's all!" posts. That's all your life is here at UD. Buying a film, announcing it to the world, and hoping they're impressed (here's a hint: they could care less). It's a sad sad thing, and again I truly do pity you.

reyquila wrote:Let them hate, as long as they fear

You want a good proverb/parable?

A rich man once asked another what was the secret to true happiness. The other man said, "Sell most of your possessions, keep only what you need to live. Take most of the money you make and give it to the poor, and lead a very simple life. That, my friend, is true happiness." The rich man went off, confused, and somewhat betrayed. He had a lot of possessions, he could not think to part with any of them. But, he did as he was advised, and sold most of what he had. Though he had to work hard to keep a basic living, he realized that the little things he had now were of greater value to him than the many he had before. He finally understood what the other man meant. It doesn't matter how much or how little you have, it's how you value them that ultimately counts.

numba1lostboy wrote:Kay Panabaker is wonderful. I really wish she had gotten a bigger part in the original. I would pay to see a Sky High sequel.

I take it you mean Danielle Panabaker, lol. Kay's the younger sister who played Debbie Berwick on Phil of the Future.

Escapay

Kram Nebuer · Post by **Kram Nebuer** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:37 pm

I want a sequel based on Charles Perrault's 2nd half of the Sleeping Beauty story.

Sleeping Beauty II: Rath of the Mother-in-Law (bad title, but I'm trying to make a serious sequel and not a joke)
Prologue: An enchantress madly in love with a king uses her magic to make a young King Hubert fall in love with her and marry her. The spell eventually wears off and King Hubert falls out of the trance, but it is too late. He already has had a son with the enchantress. After his birth, the angry king banishes her far far away from the kingdom. He goes on to raise Philip without him knowing much about his mother. (In the original story, the prince's mother is an ogress. I took out that part b/c it would be difficult to explain Philip looking human all the time and even having an ogre character without getting attacked by Shrek fans)

Fast Forward...
In the midst of the presentation of their twin babies, Day and Luna (in the original, the daughter's name is Aurora, but Aurora already took that name in the Disney movie), Prince Philip's mother, who was banished from King Hubert's kingdom, appears for the christening ceremony. Somehow she learned of her son's marriage and the birth of his children. Not knowing about her past evils, Prince Philip welcomes her to his kingdom and learns a made-up story about why she was absent from his life. Without getting a chance to explain, King Hubert is ordered out of the castle. Suddenly, word comes that Prince Philip and his knights are needed in the wars. Prince Philip is overwhelmed with all the news, he orders his mother to live in his castle and take care of his wife and children.

During the months/years Philip is gone, his mother grows extremely jealous of Princess Aurora because she is living the life she wanted. She plots a plan for the removal of her and her grandchildren so she and her son can rule Prince Philip's kingdom. She heard of Maleficient's attempt at the removal of Princess Aurora and tries again to put her into a sleeping death (so the title Sleeping Beauty II actually makes sense). The twins, now young children learn of her plan and get the three good fairies to help them foil her plans. The enchantress's ultimate plan is to throw the sleeping Aurora, Day, and Luna into a pit of venomous vipers, but her plans are spoiled by the fairies who helped the wars come to an unexpected finish and Prince Philip arrives home. He arrives in time to see what she's up to. She has so much guilt that she instead throws herself into the pit. The ending is grim, but the Prince and Princess survive by the end.

I think this would make a terrific sequel. It introduces a new villain and retains some elements of the original and has a new story. The original characters are present while still allowing for their children, who don't need to have a big role. Also, the villain is much different than Maleficent because she has more reason to dislike Aurora. Also, I like that in the end she has too much guilt and love for her son that she ends her own life rather than a hero getting rid of her. Her end is a result of her guilt of her own mistakes. It's a really sad ending. Whoa...I was just thinking...this is probably already a story on Lifetime, lol!! But it would definitely make an interesting sequel.

numba1lostboy · Post by **numba1lostboy** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:55 pm

Escapay wrote:
numba1lostboy wrote:Kay Panabaker is wonderful. I really wish she had gotten a bigger part in the original. I would pay to see a Sky High sequel.
I take it you mean Danielle Panabaker, lol. Kay's the younger sister who played Debbie Berwick on Phil of the Future.

Odang. You're right. Danielle is wonderful. Kay is great, too...but Danielle is wonderful. And gorgeous.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:59 am

slave2moonlight wrote:Teacher's Pet might be a good movie, but I resent the crapanimation from Disney.

Well, I don't agree that it was crapanimation. It was just a very distinctive style. I'll admit it was radically different, but if you look at it as a moving representation of Gary Baseman's work, it does everything it's supposed to do and it does it well. And of course, Baseman is a highly regarded artist and creative talent. Regardless of the animation, the film was clever, witty, modern and entertaining. More please!

slave2moonlight · Post by **slave2moonlight** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:43 am

2099net wrote:
slave2moonlight wrote:Teacher's Pet might be a good movie, but I resent the crapanimation from Disney.
Well, I don't agree that it was crapanimation. It was just a very distinctive style. I'll admit it was radically different, but if you look at it as a moving representation of Gary Baseman's work, it does everything it's supposed to do and it does it well. And of course, Baseman is a highly regarded artist and creative talent. Regardless of the animation, the film was clever, witty, modern and entertaining. More please!

True, but I've always hated his work. It's just a matter of personal taste. I never liked his visuals and they were always an instant turn off for me.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:53 am

I must admit, I don't like Baseman's style. But I can appreciate how it's been brought to life. But I do like is ideas and skewed view of the world that you can see in his pictures.

reyquila · Post by **reyquila** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:02 am

The truth is that everytime I say "I'll buy this ot that" you attack me. Don't mess with me. If I say "I'll buy that" be happy for me and don't reply.. Everytime I say that, you are the only one attacking my posts. Certainly, I've caused a bigger impression in you that the one you've caused in me. I'm not judging others people posting, I question their standing because a lot of times they trash talk a movie or a sequel that they haven't seen. Only because is trendy to have a bad opinions to certain of the "legends in their minds" that navigate this site. I may not write the most lucubrated posts but I have seen all the Disney animated movies, sequels, prequels and midquels. That's a fact. Other things are just subjective BS.

goofystitch · Post by **goofystitch** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:01 pm

reyquila wrote:

The truth is that everytime I say "I'll buy this ot that" you attack me. Don't mess with me. If I say "I'll buy that" be happy for me and don't reply.. Everytime I say that, you are the only one attacking my posts. Certainly, I've caused a bigger impression in you that the one you've caused in me. I'm not judging others people posting, I question their standing because a lot of times they trash talk a movie or a sequel that they haven't seen. Only because is trendy to have a bad opinions to certain of the "legends in their minds" that navigate this site. I may not write the most lucubrated posts but I have seen all the Disney animated movies, sequels, prequels and midquels. That's a fact. Other things are just subjective BS.

The only reason people comment about your "I'm buying it" posts is because you post that fact several times per forum. It's funny to see you pop in and exclaim "I'm buying" and then 4 posts later, reword it. And I'm assuming that your point about people trash talking a movie they haven't seen is in reference to "The Wild," but once again, nobody was trashing the film who hadn't seen it. They were just upset about it being classified as the 46th classic. It had nothing to do with the movie itself. If you don't want negative posts reflected back at you, here are a few easy steps to prevent it:
A.) Keep your "I'm buying" posts to a minimum. They use up bandwith and aren't contributing anything to the discussion.
B.) Keep an open mind to the fact that everyone has their own views and just because someone doesn't agree with you is no reason to insult their economic status.
C.) Just because someone doesn't own a DVD doesn't mean they have any less of a right to comment about it.
D.) Nobody envys you, so get over yourself and stop making those posts. You just look rediculous for saying things like that and it shows how truly egocentric and arrogant you really are.
E.) It is not at all trendy to have negative views on things. Everyone's views are different, however. Accept it, don't reject it.
F.) Most people on here have seen/own all of the classics/pre-quels/midquels/sequels. You act like you are incredibly unique for this. I have all of the classics and all of the sequels from buying them on a blind buy. I don't brag about it and that doesn't give me and my views any higher standing than anybody else on this forum.

To sum it up, we are all here for our love of Disney movies. We all share that in common. As the old saying goes, "If you can't take it, don't dish it out." I'm not trying to offend you with this post (that post is in the topic about the princess dvds). I'm trying to help you because you are obviously tired of having people reply to your posts negatively, but you bring it about yourself and there is an easy solution to ending it, which I have listed above.

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:00 pm

goofystitch wrote: F.) Most people on here have seen/own all of the classics/pre-quels/midquels/sequels. You act like you are incredibly unique for this. I have all of the classics and all of the sequels from buying them on a blind buy. I don't brag about it and that doesn't give me and my views any higher standing than anybody else on this forum.

Yes, but do you have all the various versions of each animated classic, or you just have 45 DVDs that are the animated classics? Cause if it's the latter, reyquila will still consider himself unique and superior. Because while there's 45 animated classics (44 2d and 1 3d), there's an actual 64 different releases (and after TLM: PE, F&H: 25th AE and RH: MWE, it'll be 67), which he has.

Though, and I realized this now...he may not have all of them.

Cause several discs went through its own nobody-really-noticed-unless-thye-knew re-releases...

Dumbo: 60th Anniversary Edition
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - shortly before it went OOP, versions with sidesnaps and non-metallic banners were on the shelves

Saludos Amigos: Gold Collection:
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed.

Three Caballeros
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed.

Make Mine Music
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed.

Fun and Fancy Free
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed.

Melody Time
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed.

The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed.

The Sword in the Stone
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed.

Bedknobs and Broomsticks (not DAC, but GC)
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed.

The Aristocats
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed. "Fun with Music" booklet listing is removed.

Robin Hood
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release (now OOP), now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed. Original technical specs are now listed with the Bonus Features in the upper corner.

Pete's Dragon (not DAC, but GC)
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed.

The Fox and the Hound*
1. First Release - with metallic banner, and listing as 1.33:1 Aspect Ratio, with notice of "This film has been modified from its original version"
2. Second Release - with metallic banner, and listing as 1.33:1 Original Aspect Ratio, without notice of "This film has been modified from its original version", without listing of "Let's Be Friends Booklet", and without cap of the bear fight.
3. Third Release - with non-metallic banner, and listing as 1.33:1 Original Aspect Ratio, without notice of "This film has been modified from its original version", without listing of "Let's Be Friends Booklet", and without cap of the bear fight.
4. Fourth Release - with non-metallic banner, and listing as 1.33:1 Original Theatrical Aspect Ratio, without notice of "This film has been modified from its original version", without listing of "Let's Be Friends Booklet", and without cap of the bear fight, and removal of "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box.

The Black Cauldron
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed. Original technical specs are now listed with the Bonus Features in the upper corner.

The Rescuers Down Under
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed. "Animals of the Outback" booklet listing removed. Original technical specs are now listed with the Bonus Features in the upper corner.

Pocahontas
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - shortly before it went OOP, versions with sidesnaps and non-metallic banners were on the shelves and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed.

Hercules
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed. Original technical specs are now listed with the Bonus Features in the upper corner.

Mickey's Once Upon A Christmas (not DAC, but GC)
1. First Release - with metallic banner
2. Second Release - current release, now has non-metallic banner and the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box is removed.

Anyway, after all that, as far as we know, and likely as far as reyquila knows, reyquila has the 64 variations of Disney Animated Classics, but not the 17 additional variations.

Now, I'm sure he's gonna hunt them down. Because he can.

Escapay

reyquila · Post by **reyquila** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:05 pm

Well, if you have them for sale, I can buy them from you.
OOhh yes. Because I can. That was funny though.... for me to poop on.

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:08 pm

reyquila wrote:Well, if you have them for sale, I can buy them from you.
OOhh yes. Because I can. That was funny though.... for me to poop on.

Hey, you're the one that claims to own every type of Disney DVD release. If you don't own those, you can't claim that. Nothing to poop on, just an honest observation.

Escapay

reyquila · Post by **reyquila** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:35 pm

Escapay the reyquila wannabe wrote:
reyquila wrote:Well, if you have them for sale, I can buy them from you.
OOhh yes. Because I can. That was funny though.... for me to poop on.
Hey, you're the one that claims to own every type of Disney DVD release. If you don't own those, you can't claim that. Nothing to poop on, just an honest observation.

Escapay

If you dont sell them to me, I'll find them.

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:40 pm

reyquila wrote:
Escapay the reyquila wannabe wrote: Hey, you're the one that claims to own every type of Disney DVD release. If you don't own those, you can't claim that. Nothing to poop on, just an honest observation.

Escapay
If you dont sell them to me, I'll find them.

I'm sure you will, shouldn't be too hard since all the latest releases should be in stores anyway. Happy hunting.

Just be glad I didn't talk about the different DVD cases for each (ones with sidesnaps, the variations to the plastic centerpiece that holds the disc in the case...). Your wallet would be hurting (though I doubt that's possible).

Escapay

TheSequelOfDisney · Post by **TheSequelOfDisney** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:27 am

I would have liked to see Fantasia 2006. It would obviously be the-best-non-theatrical-DTV ever, unlike it's Fantasia 2000 counter-part. I wish that F2006 hadn't been scrapped, but hey life goes on. I, personally would like to see a sequel for Alice in Wonderland. I don't know why, but I feel that something more should be told after she woke up. I would really like to see these two DTVs the most.

Disney-Fan · Post by **Disney-Fan** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:16 am

Escapay wrote:Just be glad I didn't talk about the different DVD cases for each (ones with sidesnaps, the variations to the plastic centerpiece that holds the disc in the case...).

It never ends! I guess he'll have to keep buying those damn DVDs forever.

JEANYLASER · Post by **JEANYLASER** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:33 pm

slave2moonlight wrote:
numba1lostboy wrote: Kay Panabaker is wonderful. I really wish she had gotten a bigger part in the original. I would pay to see a Sky High sequel.

And I was thinking...maybe Mickey, Donald, Goofy, and maybe the rest could be in some version of The Swiss Family Robinson (going along with the classic tale theme that The Three Musketeers started).
Was Kay in Sky High for a bit? If she was, I missed her in it. Her older sister, Danielle, was the plant powered girl, but I don't remember Kay in that film. I haven't seen it in a while though. Still need to buy it. I was just thinking that they should add Kay as well.

Yeah, I would like to see more in the style of Mickey's Three Musketeers, though I also would like to see some modern, original stories, maybe inspired by Mickey Mouse comics, like going up against the Phantom Blot or whatever.

With all the superhero stuff nowadays, maybe they should make a Supergoof movie.

i was thinking Mickey,Donald and Goofy is finding the evil phantom blot but then the evil phantom blot captured and tied up Mickey Mouse to his hideout. Donald and Goofy tries to rescue Mickey Mouse from the cluches of the evil phantom blot.

Josh · Post by **Josh** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:42 am

I posted this on another forum, but it's a DTV I'd like to see.

Josh wrote:However there is one sequel I would like to see, and if not, propose to create it. I'd like to see another Lilo & Stitch sequel (I know, another one) in which another Alien comes to earth with the power to reverse time, befriends Lilo and Stitch, even though they are meant to be enemies (just to create a storyline) and reverses time to the day of Lilo's parents car crash, and prevents it, or just lets Nani and Lilo say a proper goodbye.

I was so upset when Lilo pulled out a photo of her family, and simply said, "It was rainy, and they went for a drive"
That is a sequel I would DEFINATELY see ...but will probably never happen.

goofystitch · Post by **goofystitch** » Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:19 am

Josh wrote:

However there is one sequel I would like to see, and if not, propose to create it. I'd like to see another Lilo & Stitch sequel (I know, another one) in which another Alien comes to earth with the power to reverse time, befriends Lilo and Stitch, even though they are meant to be enemies (just to create a storyline) and reverses time to the day of Lilo's parents car crash, and prevents it, or just lets Nani and Lilo say a proper goodbye.

I was so upset when Lilo pulled out a photo of her family, and simply said, "It was rainy, and they went for a drive" Crying or Very sad
That is a sequel I would DEFINATELY see Very Happy ...but will probably never happen. Razz

I think that would be the saddest scene in a Disney film ever! I don't think I could take watching little Lilo say goodbye to her parents. Also, the reversal of time formula is being used in the upcoming "Cinderella 3," so Disney would just be redoing themselves, not that they never do that. I'm all for more "Lilo & Stitch" related films, but by now, the whole "new alien" bit has been played out to death on the series. Plus, going back in time and making it so Stitch and Lilo never become friends and Lilo gets closure over her parents loss defeats the whole purpose of the first film, since Stitch basically filled the void in Lilo's life caused by the loss of her parents.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

DTV sequels you would LIKE to see