Mickey's Twice Upon a Christmas: Combined news topic

[Joe Carioca]

Those quotes about The Heffalump Movie and the abominable Bambi and the Great Prince depress me to no end, Joe. Somebody has got to quarantine the sequel-itis that's ravaging the Disney company right now, before it's too late.

Well, I'll say again. Nobody knows what Bambi II will be like. It could be a thrilling and exciting film with an environmental message. It could be a touching and emotional film about getting over the death of a loved one which could actually help lots of children in similar situations. It could just be a celebration of life itself.

But I'll admit, its more likely to be average or below. But please, don't prejudge.

I'll pretend I didn't read it, hehe.

I'm sure Walt always though of doing a sequel to Bambi using plastic figurines! Now, that is exciting!

[Prince Adam]

I think all the Disney films (DTV's included) should be the kind of film Walt would do and be proud of. Not just Bambi II.

[2099net]

I'm sure Walt always though of doing a sequel to Bambi using plastic figurines! Now, that is exciting!

Hold on Joe - lots of people have made successful animations using actual plasic figurines, not just CGI mock-ups!

Seriously, lots of people have. Even the low budget Rankin/Bass tv toons are well liked. I'm not sure Bambi II is going to be CGI now, and even if it is it could still look attractive. The method shouldn't be that important if the animation is good.

Again, I'll admit the result is likely to be disappointing at best, but you're prejudging again!

[Joe Carioca]

Again, I'll admit the result is likely to be disappointing at best, but you're prejudging again!

Yeah, James, you are right that we shouldn't prejudge films or anything, but the reason that this film will only be produced to make money is a BIG reason to hate it from the start.

Besides, it is BAMBI we are talking about!

[Joe Carioca]

Again, I'll admit the result is likely to be disappointing at best, but you're prejudging again!

Yeah, James, you are right that we shouldn't prejudge films or anything, but the reason that this film will only be produced to make money is a BIG reason to hate it from the start. Besides, it is BAMBI we are talking about.

Well, I think we will never agree when it comes to DTV sequels. No feelings hurt!

[2099net]

The more I think about Bambi II, the more I think it has potential.

We know its a mid-quel (Alexander Gould is voicing Bambi) and it really could be a film which addresses big issues. It could be all about overcoming grief. It could be used to help children with similar feelings due to family death or divorce. It can be emotional and/or uplifting. I really do think that, while some people insist sequels are not needed, there could be a place and a reason for this.

That said, there's more chance that Disney could stuff it up, especially as Bambi is such a beloved film. But I can see something good coming out of this if Disney takes the time and effort.

[AwallaceUNC]

I think that Star Wars Episode 3 should be animated.

-Aaron

[Disneykid]

Well, it pretty much will with the exception of the lead actors...

[Paka]

Ever the optimist, aren't we, Netty?

Well, technically it's unfair to prejudge, but even you admitted it yourself... the result is very likely to be a disappointment, to say the least. And I think, given the nasty track record Disney's had with these cheapquels, that I can safely assume that this "interquel" (what, Bambi 1½?) will be quite the dung heap.
Yeesh... least they could do is base it on Salten's own sequel, Bambi's Children. But nope - gotta make Bambi a cute little fawn again. Depict his rambunctious adventures with all of his little forest friends - with the exasperated Great Prince always on Bambi's heels. Dare I say we get another offspring rebellion flick? Sounds downright enthralling.

I'm mostly against the principle of the thing, though. Making a quickie cheapquel to a masterpiece for the sake of a quick buck is beyond disrespectful, imo. It's pissing on Walt's grave, is what it is. It's nearly as bad as a Snow White sequel.
But as always, my optimism concerning this comes not from trying to make the most of it - I've failed to see the redeeming qualities of any given cheapquel - but rather, comes from the virtue of patience, and the passage of time. I believe that, as painful as it is to witness now, these cheap knock-offs will eventually fade into obscurity. After all, remakes and sequels have been made for films like Casablanca and Psycho, but ultimately, the originals still stand out, while the retreads have fallen by the wayside.
So that's what I hope happens to these cheapquels - it's as much as they deserve. With Bambi, and the proposed Pixar sequels, I'm praying to the pagan god Cellulos that Eisner is ousted before any of them are completed - then the (hopefully) smarter and more respectful successor can cancel production before they ever reach store shelves. It's a fairly long shot, but I'm crossing my fingers. The world definitely does not need another quickie hack-job tacked onto one of Disney's finest films. You'd think Eisner would have learned something from Bambi 2002.

[2099net]

Well Paka, given the history of this Bambi it appears to be more than "a quickie" - its been mooted for possibly 3 or 4 years and we know it's gone through animation tests that have made people rethink the project.

Will it be cheap? Of course it will. But there's something wrong when the "proper" animation films come in costing $60m plus. Given the animation quality of DisneyToon's latest projects, I'm sure it will be close to the standard of WDFA. Plus, when comparing films like Spirited Away to Dreamworks Sinbad, money doesn't guarentee better quality. Lots of circumstances conspire to make a good film or a bad film.

It's strange, but I think the latest DTVs (ignoring Jungle Book 2) have benefited from their "cheap" production. I can actually see (or is that just imagine?) the results of less executive interference in them. Return to Never Land opened with a dark wartime setting. Something which may have come under closer scrutiny had Disney decided earlier in the day to push a theatrical release. While not everybodies cup of tea (including my own), The Lion King 1 1/2 takes great delight in poking fun at Disney's most successful film.

The Jungle Book 2 was different. This was always mooted for a theatrical release and (coincidently?) is the only DisneyToon project where I've read complaints about executive interfearence. Shere Kahn was supposedly too frightening and toned down for the final film. The vulture was allowed to live at the end. Disney insisted on reusing the song Bare Necessities more than the initially planned brief reprise. And the story, as you know, is nothing more than a repeat of the original. Even the "flip-flop" sequels attempted to have their own identity apart from the original film. The writers of Jungle Book 2 couldn't even be bothered to come up with a sub-title for their film. So was Jungle Book 2 always supposed to be nothing more than a rehash or is it something the executives insisted upon once the release type was decided?

I'm not going to champion every single sequel. Frankly I can't. Out of the released to date there's only really 3 I can defend with 100% conviction (and I'll also defend Atlantis: Milo's Return, which I don't really class as a sequel given its origins). Some of the releases have been appaling, including Aladdin and the King of Thieves, which for some reason a lot of the people who hate the idea of sequels seem to like? I just thought everything about it was terrible. Hunchback II is another sequel with almost no redeeming features, a shame as Hunchback is my favorite animated film (and despite seeing and owning Hunchback II, it still is my favourite animated film).

Sadly, most of the sequels have just been average - which in some respects is a bigger insult than appaling when discussing movies. An average film just means no attempt was made to make it stand out, either from the original or from other movies in the genre. Average films rarely have "vision".

So will Bambi II (or whatever it ends up being called) mean I'll have 4 sequels I can defend? I don't know. And nobody does. I don't even think a static image for the film has been released yet. The film is almost a total mystery.

I guess you could be right about teenage rebellion being the theme of the film. It certainly follows a pattern. I hope it doesn't because like I said, this film has a lot more story potential than any other sequel. It has a whole list of narrative issues it could address. Time will tell, but if the subject of the movie is rebellion, I guess I just have more integrity than Disney - even though I support (in principle) any upcoming sequel.

[Captain Hook]

I'll admit up front that I enjoyed Return to Neverland, Jungle Book 2, and Pooh's Grand Adventure. The other DTV sequels I at least sat through but did not enjoy. This 3D Mickey Mouse looks like it'll be in the second category, the pictures don't look right to me. The Three Musketeers looks much, much better.

[Prince Adam]

I agree-Musketeers looks much better (plus it's full-length).

And I agree with many who have said this-a sequel to a 2-D movie should be in 2-D.
Just like if they made a 3rd Rescuers film-the first two were features, so the third shouldn't be a DTV.

[disneyfella]

i'll admit these pictures are interesting to look at, but has anyone thought about what these things are going to look like in motion? my guess is they will look like "Rolie Polie Olie" animation (isn't it the ToonDisney's television department that's doing this film anyway?). until i see a clip from the film i will NOT endorse it. however, like Loomis, it is christmas and it is disney so i will buy it.

[Captain Hook]

It DOES look like Rolly Polie Olie or whatever it's called I just think it looks hard on my eyes. I liked Finding Nemo for the fact of how much it did not look "computer made" if you know what I mean. So many of the plants and background fishes looked real, and while the main characters look cartoonish, they didn't look so much like ... plastic.

[Kram Nebuer]

My only comments...

Why do these computer game looking Mickey and friends only come out in the moonlight of the night? Why is it so dark? Even with the Mickey and Pluto and the lighted Christmas tree it looks like the sun has disappeared. Maybe they're just showing night scenes. It looks a lot like the Casper CGI Christmas special. Anyhow, the darkness was the first thing to come to mind.

Also, the CGI versions seemed to have taken away the charm of the 2D characters. The CGI versions look so artificial and like toys putting on a stage show. Also, when I looke at it it seems like I'm literally asleep and I'm dreaming. You know, when you dream its never totally clear as blue as reality, but fakey and obvious but your unconscienceness (sp???) makes you accept it as real. I don't, I just can't believe in a CGI Mickey and friends.

oh, and also...who the heck is standing next to Max?

[Tangela]

I guess I kind of like this 3-D style, like always I'm the minority but I think I won't be skipping this one!