Best Disney Sequel

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.

Which do you think is/was the best Disney Sequel released to theatres

Rescuers Down Under (First is always the best)
28
44%
Fantasia 2000 (Great Sequel to a great classic)
26
41%
Peter Pan: Return to Neverland
6
10%
Jungle Book 2 (They have finally worked out all the bugs to making a good sequel)
3
5%
 
Total votes: 63

TheSequelOfDisney
Signature Collection
Posts: 5263
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Ohio, United States of America

Post by TheSequelOfDisney »

Just to point this out, but Fantasia 2000 isn't a sequel. It is a continuation of the original. Not to gripe, but it's a fact. The other three are sequels, though, and I think that best of them are The Rescuers Down Under. The other two, however a good pleasure to watch, don't really relate to the story. Well they do, because they are sequels, but they don't have the same "feel" as TRDU does.
The Divulgations of One Desmond Leica: http://desmondleica.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Escapay
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 12562
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by Escapay »

TheSequelofDisney wrote:Just to point this out, but Fantasia 2000 isn't a sequel. It is a continuation of the original. Not to gripe, but it's a fact.
Odd...I always thought continuation = sequel. Afer all, Back to the Future II and III are continuations of the first...

Either way, it doesn't matter to me as I consider Fantasia 2000 to be a *companion* to Fantasia, not a sequel/continuation.

Escapay
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion? :p

WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
TheSequelOfDisney
Signature Collection
Posts: 5263
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Ohio, United States of America

Post by TheSequelOfDisney »

Escapay wrote:
TheSequelofDisney wrote:Just to point this out, but Fantasia 2000 isn't a sequel. It is a continuation of the original. Not to gripe, but it's a fact.
Odd...I always thought continuation = sequel. Afer all, Back to the Future II and III are continuations of the first...

Either way, it doesn't matter to me as I consider Fantasia 2000 to be a *companion* to Fantasia, not a sequel/continuation.

Escapay
I probably should have picked a better word :P

I agree it is a wonderful companion to the original. I think I said it was a continuation because I was think of the original and how Walt wanted "Fantasia" to continue. But whatever.
The Divulgations of One Desmond Leica: http://desmondleica.wordpress.com/
User avatar
humphreybear
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:08 pm

Post by humphreybear »

to me, the whole point of the ending of the jungle book is that mowgli followed the girl to the man village. He was making a choice to leave the jungle, and the world he knew there and the friends and family he had, to be a human and live with people. If he could just come and go back and forth between the man village and the jungle then there really wasn't much of a point to the original jungle book. Bagheera wanted to take him to live in the man village to keep him safe from shere kahn. Mowgli didn't want to go. And he defeated Shere Kahn anyway. So there wasn't a necessity for him to go, but then his human nature was realized when he saw the girl getting water. That choice - of following the girl or not - was sort of the climax of the film. It was a one-way decision. The jungle book 2 really was not necessary in any way shape or form, imho. Just my opinion.
User avatar
UmbrellaFish
Signature Collection
Posts: 5717
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:09 pm
Gender: Male (He/Him)

Post by UmbrellaFish »

I really don't care for most of the sequels up there. I voted Peter Pan: Return to Neverland, though.
User avatar
slave2moonlight
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4427
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: TX
Contact:

Post by slave2moonlight »

humphreybear wrote:to me, the whole point of the ending of the jungle book is that mowgli followed the girl to the man village. He was making a choice to leave the jungle, and the world he knew there and the friends and family he had, to be a human and live with people. If he could just come and go back and forth between the man village and the jungle then there really wasn't much of a point to the original jungle book. Bagheera wanted to take him to live in the man village to keep him safe from shere kahn. Mowgli didn't want to go. And he defeated Shere Kahn anyway. So there wasn't a necessity for him to go, but then his human nature was realized when he saw the girl getting water. That choice - of following the girl or not - was sort of the climax of the film. It was a one-way decision. The jungle book 2 really was not necessary in any way shape or form, imho. Just my opinion.
You had me until those last two sentences. There are plenty of reasons to continue with Mowgli's story. Think of the old film with Sabu, which is all about Mowgli's struggle to live within the man village. He is not welcomed there by everyone. He is seen as wild and dangerous, and has to prove himself to them and figure out where he stands in both worlds. I can't say the Jungle Book 2 satisfied that need for the audience to see how Mowgli handled the extreme lifestyle change, but it did touch upon it. The film fails for me in that regard, though it is still entertaining as a further Mowgli adventure for the little ones, but they could have made a very good film that answered important questions.
User avatar
rs_milo_whatever
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:56 pm
Contact:

Post by rs_milo_whatever »

i had forgotten, about down under, it was the first movie in my disney collection!!!!! it's REALLY cool!!! but bambi II wasn't listed, then again thats a DTV.
Image
Post Reply