Oy... talk about opening a can of worms... O_o
I mean, I
knew what I was getting into when I posted initially, but
damn!! Wasn't expecting fire and brimstone, exactly...
But no, I'm not saying I feel attacked. I think it's kinda funny that sequels are one of the most frequently-disputed topics on this board - and ya got parties firmly planted on both sides. Makes for good debate. ^_^
My biggest problem with cheapquels is the
idea behind them, secondly the motive. The motive is not to enrich the Disney library with more quality stories - it's to take existing successful properties and formulas and spin them again to make a buck. You don't hear execs using the words
film or
story - they most often use vocab like
product and
franchise, as if movies are just another chicken sandwich.
Firstly, though - like I said, I'm not content with the
ideas or
concepts in the first place. Rehashes - which most cheapquels are - are uncreative and insubstantial. What is there to be gained from seeing the same story told again? Same thing with continuations or cute little "adventures" - it's entertaining and is somewhat unique from the original story - but was anything worthwhile pulled out of it in general?
Then you have the recent wave of "riffs" and comedic spoofs in animated films, and this is where
Hakuna Matata falls. In my opinion, if there's one thing young kids don't pick up on, it's irony, or "wink-wink nudge-nudge" kind of humor. Sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek jokes - these all require a knowledge of the way things are
normally, in order to pull a laugh out of the proposed joke. But since young kids barely have a grasp on the "ways of the world" yet in the first place, it flies right over their head. Irony is a very mature type of humor - and it can't be taught. It comes with experience and general gain of "norm" knowledge. Thus the "spoofing" format of HM isn't totally successful for its intended audience.
I do know that this intended audience has seen TLK about a million times, so they know how the scene plays "normally" - thus they can get a laugh out of how the scene is goofily different in HM. But they won't understand the tongue-in-cheek "retelling" of Timon's perspective. We as adults know it's purposely skewed, and thus don't take much of the stoy seriously, but many
kids will take it to heart. Like the CoL sequence - reducing it all to one big fart joke (the animals aren't
bowing - they fainted from Pumbaa's gas! Umm... haha?), is silly to us adults, but
kids will take it into context, and believe that's what really happened at that moment in CoL. Thus (I'm using that damn word too much... O_o), kind of neutering the drama of the original moment.
The whole
idea of goofing on what's supposed to be a semi-dramatic, serious film in the first place doesn't really sit right with me, either. Same thing with
Gnomeo & Juliet - let's take the tragic romance of
Romeo & Juliet (yet another rendition... oy...) with
garden gnomes! And we'll put a hilarious light, comedic spin on the whole thing!! Dur... okay?
Well, let me give an example - what if a
Bambi spinoff was made, only this time the story was retold from Thumper's perspective? Being that Thumper is the cheeky comic-relief type in that story, what kind of - ahem -
hilarious spins could he give? How he had a hand in Bambi and Faline meeting? Or how he purposely taught Bambi to say "I'm stupid" instead of "I'm hungry"? Or - because he was teasing a dog at the campsite, the Men had to chase after them both, leaving the bonfire unattended? HIGH-larious.
My point is, a serious film can't really be made light of without quickly straying into inappropriate territory. Films that are already outrageous or self-important - like
Titanic or
Lord of the Rings - can be spoofed innocently, but I doubt you see spoofs of
Schindler's List or
The Shawshank Redemption all that often. Not that TLK is in the same league with those films, but the same kind of balance it has of dignity without pretension is hard to poke fun at without becoming too adult (which would be funny, but not kid-friendly) or too profane (which is safe and kid-friendly, but not funny for the rest of us).
Whoa - okay... gettin' a bit long here. Anywho - that's the chief reason I don't like this HM concept - it just doesn't fit for the intended audience. My beef is
not whether the artists respect the original film, or whether the animation looks pretty, or whether it's given a fancy treatment on dvd - nor is it about whether Disney Toon Studios does good work or should exist. I don't blame the filmmakers for doing their jobs - to stretch ever penny they're given - I blame the management for putting these conceptual wastes into production in the first place. I wish that the Aussies were given something
original to film, with a slightly more accomodating budget. There's nothing wrong with secondary production lines. Sure, it makes good business sense to make money by milking your past successes - but it sure compromises your artistic integrity. And considering where the company came from in the first place, it's especially tragic. I just wish Disney would treat their films less like "product" and more like art. These films aren't simply bought and forgotten. They make impressions on people - kids, especially. And when you're willing to make bad lasting impressions for the sake of money - well, that's sad.
Gawd - so sorry for getting all long-winded and preachy. Bleah. I know I've probably forgotten a few points I wanted to make or clarify - but oh, well.
Oh, and Jens - I'm a girl. I know I come off as a guy
a lot - probably my writing style - but I be female. ^_^ I should probably start writing in pink text something - even Luke thought I was a guy. O_o
though to be truthful, this doesn't sem like much of a 2 disc set... I think all that stuff could easily have fit on 1 disc, but oh well...
I'll go so far as to rent it, but nothing more. I vow to never have a cheapquel - Disney or otherwise - on dvd. I've already bought enough Disney cheapquels on VHS when I was younger - that was about six too many. *gak*
