and about the people working the australia studios they need to get new stories and stop making this stupid CHEAPQUELS!!! and get a imagination of their own so they can stop making such stupid plots. and maybe enroll in art school so they can be along side feature animation
But it's not their decision. I'm sure that they would jump at the chance to make a new, original animated film (and work with a bigger budget). But that's down to the Disney execs in Burbank. You're aiming your complaints at the wrong people. And considering what they achive on a fraction of the budget I don't think that they need to enroll in any art school.
excuse me but the execs dont make the story lines nor do the drawings or improve their ugly CGI, nor create their stupid songs. is them! big or small budget if they had better people they could create something better
MickeyMouseboy wrote:excuse me but the execs dont make the story lines nor do the drawings or improve their ugly CGI, nor create their stupid songs. is them! big or small budget if they had better people they could create something better
The Disney executives do dish out the script assignments and music composition, and I'm willing to bet they're all created in America (under the watchful eye of all those executives of course - who for instance would insist that Lucky couldn't really be killed. Not in a Disney film).
Austraila only animate the scripts. They don't even record the dialogue - they're all American actors (even the bit part voices) hired and directed by Disney US.
just shows you how much the cheapquel brands lower the work over at australia studio. the only to redeem themselve is to come with a feature animation.
Actually, I do belive there are talented people working on the Television Animation department (specially in Australia). Yes, I can't stand cheapquels, but I'm not closed minded to say they didn't try to accomplish something in some of the films. For example, "Lion King II" had some good animation and some great songs - but a trashy script. "Lady and the Tramp II" and "Goofy Movie 2" have some cute moments, but they lack the charm (and everything else) from their originals.
"Never Land" actually was pretty surprising - I like some of the songs (but that "Last Boys" one is awful), the art direction is very nice (blue and dark tones in London, refreshing and bright colors in Never Land). Although some of the scenes do have a nice quality (I like the kidnap scene, but the CGI could be A LOT better), others can't hide the real nature of the film (DTV). Most of the story is just a rip-off of the original classic. Unnecessary film, if you ask me.
Disney Television should be working on original projects, not destroing every good thing the studio has created. They started great, with the nice and underrated "Ducktales" and "Goofy Movie". I thought "Tigger Movie" was above-average. But after that, they give us "Cinderella II", "Little Mermaid II" "Piglet's" and on...
Yeah, the sequels are going to stay, but we all know what Walt would think about them ("I can't top pigs with pigs"). They're just driving Disney to the bottom - and I'm really afraid they won't be able to recover this time.
I voted for Rescuers Down Under. It is the only Disney sequel to date to share the quality of the original film.
I don't know what to think of Fantasia 2000. While it is simply gorgeous to look at, it is still a kind of a ripp-off of the original. Guess I'm too much in love with the original Fantasia...
You know - all issues of quality aside - I'm just happy that the sequels are keeping hand-drawn animation alive at Disney, what with Disney having no less than six (all?) of their Feature Animation movies after 'Home on the Range' being CGI!
Remember, when the CGI animation bubble bursts - Disney (and you!) will be happy for the ToonDisney studios - what with all the animation layoffs Disney has been making over the past few years (with 50 more being laid off earlier this month).
Hey MickeyMouseBoy - perhaps ToonDisney will get a chance to do a feature animation in the near future after all - because there'll be nobody else at Disney who can do it!
disney will not stop the tradition of hand drawn animation that's been done in the studios for more than 80 something years. use of CGI doesnt bother me cause Treasure Planet looked awesome with cgi and hand drawn characters! besides how do you think they create characters and stories? hand drawing them and story boards so the technique will never fade!
I won't lie to you, gang. This is a time of extreme unhappiness and upheaval at Disney Feature Animation. When studio execs -- who are positively frantic to return WDFA to its former glory days of maximum profitability -- have once again begun to continually second guess themselves. Where corners are routinely cut to keep costs down.
Of course, the key difference between 1979 and 2003 is the Mouse now has most of its animators tied up with long term contracts. That -- during the infamous animation talent bidding war that broke out between Disney and Dreamworks in the mid-1990s -- that Mickey locked up a lot of talent by signing them to extremely lengthy deals. (Never mind that -- as the box office numbers began to slide for Disney's animated features in the late 1990s -- Mouse House managers renegotiated a number of these deals. Keeping the length of the contracts the same, but significantly scaling back the compensation that Mickey was willing to pay out to his top animators.)
So they value their animators so much they pay them less money than they signed them up for? Doesn't look good does it? But there's more...
That's the thing that many Disney animation vets seem to find so hard to swallow right now. That execs at WDFA just don't seem to want to make traditionally animated films anymore. That the films that the Mouse currently has in its development pipeline -- "The Snow Queen," "Chicken Little," "Rapunzel," "Fraidy Cat" et al -- projects that had initially been envisioned as being a mix of CG and traditional animation ... are now being thought of as strictly computer animated films.
Which means that -- if Disney's veteran animators (I.E. The brightest and the best at the Mouse Factory) expect to keep working for Mickey -- they have to be retrained. Which is why many of these folks are currently suffering through Maya classes. Which -- to hear one highly praised Disney vet explain it -- " ... makes me feel like I'm going from being an artist to becoming a puppeteer."
Artist having to be retrained to use 3D renderers to keep their jobs. Doesn't look good does it?
But perhaps these artists should take some solace in a comment that comes from a conversation I recently had with one of Disney's direct competitors: "Someone could have created the greatest animation studio that ever existed by just standing on the sidewalk outside of WDFA-Burbank and signing up all the artists and animators that Disney has let go over the past 18 months. The talent that those boneheads let walk out the door is just ... stunning."
Oh dear. So much for Disney's commitment to their 80 year old legacy.
MickeyMouseBoy wrote:Besides how do you think they create characters and stories? hand drawing them and story boards so the technique will never fade!
Well, yes. But it's not much use if you can't see their drawings is it? The way things are going at Disney - they won't even put their concept art on DVD anymore as they won't do 2 disc sets for new films.
I guess it is easier to just laugh and convince yourself it is all just hear say, but the sad fact is that this is the direction Disney is going. tsk tsk. But, I think that after several years of this, a new voice of disney will come to power and disney will revert back to their hand drawn ways and a production like Little Mermaid, will make it's way onto the bigscreen and the new rennaissance will begin.
Atleast I hope so
Well, due to my annoying insomnia last night, I stayed up to watch RTN. I must say that it was pretty dissapointing. While there were a few well done parts, it seems the story was almost there, it just wasn't carried out well. Als it seemed to rip off Hook a bit. It's score was almost the same and even some story ideas parelleld those of Hook's. The CGI that MickeyMouseBoy complains about so was so dreadfully obvious, and while I can appreciate it as a new art film, I thought is was unneccessary for the film and made the animaters come off as LAZY in my opinion, Well I will lay off for now, just thought I would let you all know that I finally saw it and what I thought of it, although some of the things I didn't like about it were carried over from the first. It DID have some ok parts though. Well, enough siad.
I have to say, I don't hate Disney sequels. I love the fact that they're continuing the stories, I just hate the fact that they can't do it to entertain a general audience. It's obvious that the sequels are meant for little kids who might have short attention spans-Disney just needs to realize that there are parents out there who grew up with the classics and they need to be able to enjoy the sequels as well.
The sequels themselves should not be called "cheapquels". Yes, they aren't as superior as the originals, but if they weren't sequels, they would most likely do well on their own. Just my opinion.
I would like to add that out of all the sequels, [i]Rescuers Down Under[/i], [i]NeverLand[/i] and [i]Beauty and the Beast: Enchanted Christmas[/i] are my favourites. Rescuers DU because it had all the original voices and the animation surpassed the first (don't believe me? check out one of the first scenes with Cody riding Marahute). I liked NeverLand because the animation matched the original pretty well, and the voices weren't bad. The ending scene with Peter and Wendy reunited earned it extra points. Finally, B&B: Enchanted X'mas was good because it combined two of my favourite things: Christmas and Beauty and the Beast.
I know that this it is REALLY old...not wanting to bump unnecessarily but I ran across this and wanted to say that I voted for Rescuers Down Under. I have not seen Fantasia 2000 yet, but as a kid I loved this more than the original. I love how the eagle is huge and he gets to ride on it. anyway sorry if anyone is mad for bumping this or anything.
The Rescuers Down Under.
But just because I had to choose out of those sequels. If I could choose from all the Disney Sequels, I think I'd choose Aladdin and the King of Thieves or Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas. Or maybe the Upcoming Cinderella III, but I haven't seen it yet so I can't say wether I'm gonna like it or not. But I have a strong feeling I am!
Well, not to keep this bumped, but I've never commented/voted here either. And, having read it again, ha, well, my mouth is still hanging open at the previous discussion. It's also very interesting to think that it was written a few years back.
Well, honestly, I can't imagine anyone over a certain age choosing anything other than either Rescuers Down Under or Fantasia 2000 from among the 4 listed, aside from a real Jungle Book or Peter Pan/TinkerBell fanatic. Though, ha, I'm a TinkerBell fanatic myself, and I still chose "Rescuers Down Under." It's simply a fantastic film, and, to me, far better than the original. I like the original, but it's a bit drab for my tastes, and very dated in style. I guess one could argue that EVERYTHING is dated, but to me, it's not dated in a good way. Anyways, Fantasia 2000 is excellent, as was the first, and I can easily see someone prefering it. In fact, I might even like it better myself. I'd have to watch them both fresh, and back to back.
Now, I'm not trying to throw any hate at Return to Neverland or Jungle Book 2, HOWEVER... they just aren't close to anything from "Disney Feature Animation," and they really shouldn't have been released to theaters. I'm fine with that sort of stuff being released on DVD. To me, that makes it more like "merchandise" rather than anything to take too seriously. With that in mind, I don't feel they hurt the originals at all (though they probably do cut back on folks going to the movies to see Disney stuff, and they obviously hurt Disney's reputation to the conoisseur). And, I'm pretty sure some of the sequels to classics (Fox and the Hound 2) are made to introduce a new and younger audience to the classic characters and keep them alive in the public's mind. You know, so if they want to add the Fox and the Hound to Disneyland somewhere to please adult fans, the kids, where the REAL money comes from, will know who the heck Todd and Copper are. That doesn't justify doing things with lower quality/budget, but at least it's something that does make sense as a reason to make such films. Okay, it's still a money thing, but keeping the characters alive for the younger public sounds better than directly calling it a money thing. If I have kids one day, I'd like them to love the characters I loved too, but the old films just might not do it for them in this faster paced world. More sequels like Bambi 2 would be fine. High quality and true to the classic, but more appealing to modern kids than the more artistic original, yet still enjoyable for adults. And, as I've said many times before, in my opinion, any film can have great sequels or TV shows based on it, as long as they are well done (wouldn't mind them NOT messing with the "happily ever after" ones though; prequels and midquels would be best for them). So, I'm definitely not against sequels, and some of the Disney ones, even the direct to video ones, I have really loved. Personally, I think the Tigger Movie was fantastic, and that one DID seem worthy of the big screen. Also felt that way about Bambi 2, though I wouldn't have used the songs they used, which were the one thing that took away from the feeling that it was happening within the original film. I also loved Lion King 2 and Extremely Goofy Movie, but they still belonged "direct-to-video," which they were here in the U.S.
As for Jungle Book 2 and Return to Neverland 2, well... I'm a huge fan of the originals of both these films. Jungle Book has always been my favorite classic Disney animated feature. However, the sequel, didn't have the "look" of the original by any means. Some of the voices were very good, and, despite what I've seen written before, there was great potential for a sequel here, but it did seem like they crapped out on us when writing it. I don't think it makes much sense to argue that Shanti is out of character. It's hogwash to say that we ever really "got to know" Shanti in the first film. In general, I might have been okay with this movie (not thrilled, but okay) if it HAD been direct to video, but for a theatrical release it was waaaay below par. There are moments I enjoy, there are things about it I like, but there really wasn't enough meat to its underdone potato. In the case of Return to Neverland, this one almost was bigscreen worthy. I didn't love the voice casting for Peter or Jane. They both sounded like adults trying to play kids, and that's probably what the situation was. To me, that's never a good idea. It's one of the things I hated about Polar Express, and using real kids worked out beautifully in Bambi 2. It makes such a difference. Also, the comedy stuff with hook and the octopus seemed rather forced to me the first time I saw it. I liked the visuals fine, for the most part anyway, and LOVED how well they handled TinkerBell. The story, I felt, was fine as a sequel. It didn't seem at all like a rehash of the original. As was pointed out earlier in this forum, the first film was about growing up, Return was more about realizing the importance of not growing up "completely." My only hardcore complaint of Return to Neverland is in the pop songs used. I think it's very rare when a pop song works in a Disney animated film. I don't mean a song like "Circle of Life." I mean something like that "Faith, Trust, and Pixie-Dust" song they kept playing in Return to Neverland. If it didn't have that song, I would have enjoyed the film so much more. Also didn't need "If you Believe in Magic," during the credits either. I guess my issues with pop songs in animated films are more about the sequels to classics, or the period pieces. I didn't like the songs in "Spirit" either. Maybe I'm selective about them too. But, with something like Return to Neverland, well, you didn't have that bubble-gum pop sort of stuff in the original, so it didn't fit in the sequel. Sorta like the (country?) songs in Bambi 2. So, my assessment of those two: Jungle Book 2 needed to be majorly retooled and still sent direct-to-video), and Return to Neverland was ALMOST big-screen worthy, but the pop-songs and adult voice actors were the main mistake. Plus, why not just keep the beloved crocodile? Oh, I guess to make it a LITTLE different?
As for my thoughts on other Disney animated sequels I haven't mentioned (though most I haven't watched in a while):
Lady and the Tramp 2: Scamp's Adventure: Sadly, this looked beautiful, but they made mistakes on it. The worst mistakes: the voice casting for Scamp and the Broadway musical numbers that were unlike the original film. They could have come up with a much better story and still included some scenes of Scamp and Angel retreading their parents first date, too. As a big fan of Disney comics, this film, though not unwatchable, was a big disappointment for me.
Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas: This is a great film, for direct-to-video, as long as you view it as "The Beauty and the Beast Christmas Special," ha. I very much enjoy it as such.
Cinderella 2: This film has a majorly bad rep, but I think it's more about false advertising. It's not bad as a cute little anthology film, but it's no feature film/sequel. Of course, people also hated it for daring to be a sequel to a classic. I haven't seen it in a while, but I think it had Bubblegum pop songs too, which, again, I don't care for in animated films. But, again, since this was just a cute little anthology piece, it was probably more tolerable here. Didn't care for the fact that Cinderella was having such a hard time adapting to palace life though. They should have let her keep her "happily ever after" and stuck with tales of the mice and other characters instead. I still say this film should have been called "Mouse Mouse Tales" instead of Cinderella 2.
Lion King 1 and a half: Still need to give this my full attention. Looks good.
101 Dalmatians 2: I haven't seen this in a dog's age, but I remember finding it quite enjoyable, actually!
Stitch the Movie: Haven't watched it in a long time either, but since this was more of a pilot for the series than anything, it served its purpose and I think I liked it when I saw it. Really need to rewatch it to give it a proper assessment. The show is great though, so if it's even as good as the show, I'm sure I liked it.
Brother Bear 2: Got it, haven't watched it yet.
Return of Jafar: I always called this the worst of Disney's direct to video sequels, even though it was the first, ha. Hunchback 2 is definitely the worst now though. Actually, Return of Jafar isn't THAT bad, now that I've watched it again on DVD. The animation is pretty bad, King of Thieves is better, but the story is entertaining. Now that the series has come and gone though, it does feel like yet another pilot film.
Aladdin and the King of Thieves: This was very good as an end to the series. Of course, it's not on the level of the original, none of these direct to video sequels were (Bambi 2 came close though), but it's very good for direct to video.
Little Mermaid 2: Haven't seen this in FOREVER! I LOVE Ariel as much as I love Tink, but I wish they'd made prequels instead, like the TV series. I don't need to see my dreamgirls married and raising kids, ha. I remember it being okay though, honestly. It seemed to obviously borrow from both Sleeping Beauty and the original Little Mermaid, but I remember it as being decent.
Pocahontas 2: Though the animation was weak, I remember enjoying the story to this one maybe even more than the original film, until they "fixed" the original film by restoring the "If I Never Knew You" duet, which finally made it another Disney Masterpiece, in my opinion.
Hunchback 2: Ugh. The original film was breathtaking; awe-inspiring; a masterpiece! This sequel was just sooooo poorly executed and clearly an attempt to make the characters likeable to little kids so they could be used for merchandising and park attractions. As I said, I accept that as a legitimate reason for making Disney sequels, but not as an excuse to make crappy sequels or sequels adults can't enjoy too.
Piglet's Big Movie: Haven't watched it since I bought it, Piglet is not my favorite character, but I think I remember it being decent. Hard to say. Don't remember this one enough. I know it was nowhere near "The Tigger Movie." Probably didn't deserve the bigscreen release it got (and this one I didn't see on the big screen), but I really don't remember.
Tarzan 2: Bought this one, but haven't given it my full attention yet. (As for the other one, Tarzan and Jane shouldn't count, as it is just TV show episodes like Hercules Zero to Hero and many of the Pooh DVD movies)
Toy Story 2: Outstanding. I might like this one even more than the first!
I'm a Disney animation completist, so good or bad, I still need to get: Mulan 2, Atlantis: Milo's Return (though it's not a TRUE sequel), Belle's Magical World (I have the old VHS), Kronk's New Groove, Lilo and Stitch 2, Leroy and Stitch, Fox and the Hound 2, Pooh's Grand Adventure (have the old VHS, haven't watched it in forever), and The Heffalump Movie.
My vote goes to Fantasia 2000. I liked most of the segments in this version. My favorites were Rhapsody in Blue, the Sorcerers Apprentice, and Beethovens 5th (the opening).
Fantasia 2000, of course. RDU is a great movie, but one thing really bothers me. You never find out what happens to all the animals still locked up in McLeach's hideout. That's too big a plotpoint to be left up in the air... Other than that, it's a very worthy sequel to The Rescuers.
I'll just not comment on the other two...
but i hated jb2 wat a waste of money but i guess im the stupid one for not renting it first before buying 
