One month before Three Musketeers and...

[englishboy]

I know I've bashed Around the World, Heart & Soul, and King Arthur before they were released, based on advance reviews, clips, web buzz, plot synopsis, casting decisions, etc. (OK, I'm not just about bashing.) Studio buzz about Three Musketeer seems to indicate that this DTV flick is significantly better than the usual swill of DTV crap. (Sorry, mixing metaphors.) At this point, I believe it'll be:

(1) a reasonably well constructed story, primarely geared for younger audience, but with a few jokes successfully lobbed at adults (In contrast: Lion King 1 1/12th had a few jokes UNsuccessfully lobbed at adults.)
(2) slightly better animation than that which usually shows up on DTV releases, though not nearly as good as the better feature animation efforts in recent years.
(3) an import investment in the core Disney characters, which, for the company, is a much smarter move than investment in Milo's Return, which (in the case of Milo) is an investment in characters that ten years from now most everyone will have forgotten and will not live on in the imaginations of the next generation as actively as Mickey, etc.


In general, I love high quality animation (See Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, and Fantasia, and more recently, the highly stylized work of Herc and Emperor's), but as far as animation goes, the middle of the road fare (see Aladdin sequels) can be enjoyable and profitable if strcutred around a solid story. The problem with most Disney DTV flicks (for examples of problems, see, well, all from the last five years) is that they are both shoddy stories and crappy animation. With Musketeers, it looks like we'll see a noticable improvements on both fronts.

I'll be the first to eat my words. But I've chatted with a few people associated with the Burbank studio who all seem to indicate this DTV release is at least more entertaining--if not quite as well drawn--as Bust a Moo was back in April.

Here's hoping word on the street is accurate.

[SofaKing381222]

Yeah! Ive heard that its suppsoed to be better than any stereotypical Disney DTV and I cant wait for it to come out.

[Loomis]

Yeah! Ive heard that its suppsoed to be better than any stereotypical Disney DTV and I cant wait for it to come out.

Ah! But are the DTVs "stereotypical" crap, or have certain people just stereotyped DTVs!?

[SofaKing381222]

both

[PrinceAli]

Only the cheapquels are crap. Other DTVs are sometimes good, and it's nice to see 2-d once in a while.

[Loomis]

Only the cheapquels are crap. Other DTVs are sometimes good, and it's nice to see 2-d once in a while.

But really, what is the difference?

They are generally made by the same people, for the same market.

The only difference is that the sequels follow an existing "classic", while the others...don't.

I think people just aren't willing to give sequels a chance purely because they are sequels. The animation in Three Musketeers looks about the same as LK 1.5 or other recent DTVs (which have been ignored by large groups of people - who either haven't seen it or bought it and thought it fashionable to trash it).

It seems it is ok for Mickey et al to appear in countless shorts and sequels that rehash old stories, but it is not ok for a new story to be created using existing characters from a classic.

Bit of a double standard I think.

[PrinceAli]

Not a double standard at all. Disney is taking all these classics that are complete in one movie, I don't know one Disney feature without a happily ever after and instead a cliffhanger that is in need of a sequel. Second, the sequels are usually very babyish, just check out Cinderella 2, LM2..etc...think of something new for a change. Peter Pan 2 wasn't quite as babyish but it lacked everything else...it was just flat-out stupid.

I like some DTVs like the winnie the pooh ones cause I am a fan of WtP. I don't have that many DTVs, but the new Mickey and the Musketeer one looks really good. And I only say that because I see more praise about it than boos. That didn't happen for House of Villains or the other one and for a good reason, they weren't very good. You see, there is a difference.

[Avilos]

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Goofy were created to appear in many stories. Originally animated shorts. They are not tied to a specific story. In fact in many of their appearances they are almost treated as actors who take on different roles. Three Musketeers is a perfect example of this. Similar to certain stars who bring their own personality to each part they play.

[karlsen]

I have mentioned before that I already have seen this movie, and I realy do like it.

The only thing that anoyed me at the Norwegian preview of the movie was the Norwegian voices (so I do not know how the original sounds) and ofcause the line at the bottom telling that "this is the property of BVHE" or something like that.

It is a nice story, and the most fun part is that it never tryes to be like the real story "The Three Musketeers" by Dumas. In the begining of the movie you see the original Musketeers, when Mickey, Donald and Goofy are children, so they are a new generation.

I like that about the movie because it never tryes to be the original story, and that is fear because that would never work as great as this did.

I look upon this as something as great as any Mickey, Donald and Goofy movie, and the characters are just as typical as always. The only thing I miss is the famous Donald Duck bad temper. In this movie he is only scared all the time, and I look upon him as a tempered duck and not so much a scared duck.

[Uncle Remus]

Not a double standard at all. Disney is taking all these classics that are complete in one movie, I don't know one Disney feature without a happily ever after and instead a cliffhanger that is in need of a sequel. Second, the sequels are usually very babyish, just check out Cinderella 2, LM2..etc...think of something new for a change. Peter Pan 2 wasn't quite as babyish but it lacked everything else...it was just flat-out stupid.

I have to agree with you there PrinceAli. i have noticed that when Walt Disney made movies, he made them to be enjoyed by both children and adults. now most movies that have been released (mostly DTV sequels) have been very babyish. i think the people at Disney is losing their magical touch that Walt gave before he died.

[reyquila]

Ah! But are the DTVs "stereotypical" crap, or have certain people just stereotyped DTVs!?[/quote]

There is crap and there is nice. The important thing is to wacth them before judging.

[reyquila]

Ah! But are the DTVs "stereotypical" crap, or have certain people just stereotyped DTVs!?[/quote]

As with everything in life, there is crap and there is nice. The important thing is to wacth them before judging.

[yoda_four]

I have to agree with you there PrinceAli. i have noticed that when Walt Disney made movies, he made them to be enjoyed by both children and adults. now most movies that have been released (mostly DTV sequels) have been very babyish. i think the people at Disney is losing their magical touch that Walt gave before he died.

Losing their touch? They lost their touch ever since the Aristocats was released! I really don't think it was ever regained in the company. The group that worked on TLM never thought "we want to make something like Walt made", they wanted to make something they could call their own that had Disney spirit in it. I really think some Disney classics would be much different if Walt were ever involved, and he gave a picture something that can never be embodied in another. Jeff, Roy, Michael, and Frank weren't out to bring back Walt, they wanted to bring back the Disney spirit. That's what I find wrong about Roy's "Save Disney" plan; he's out to bring back the company to be the same it was when Walt was around. I think they shouldn't erase those some 20 years, but experience from them. Now I know I'm gonna be flamed for saying that, and I probably didn't explain that to well, but that's how I feel.

I'm looking forward to Musketeers! It looks like a nice, fun flick, along the lines of TLK 1.5 or Teacher's Pet (which I just saw; very funny, same humour!) with everybody's favourite trio. The animation is great and the studio seems to be backing it up more than it originally was. Too bad the advertising wasn't better.

[Christian]

I think people just aren't willing to give sequels a chance purely because they are sequels. The animation in Three Musketeers looks about the same as LK 1.5 or other recent DTVs (which have been ignored by large groups of people - who either haven't seen it or bought it and thought it fashionable to trash it).

Very true. It's just fashionable to trash them. Even when the quality starts improving. "Look at me. I'm cool. I trash everything."

[Uncle Remus]

I have to agree with you there PrinceAli. i have noticed that when Walt Disney made movies, he made them to be enjoyed by both children and adults. now most movies that have been released (mostly DTV sequels) have been very babyish. i think the people at Disney is losing their magical touch that Walt gave before he died.

Losing their touch? They lost their touch ever since the Aristocats was released! I really don't think it was ever regained in the company. The group that worked on TLM never thought "we want to make something like Walt made", they wanted to make something they could call their own that had Disney spirit in it. I really think some Disney classics would be much different if Walt were ever involved, and he gave a picture something that can never be embodied in another. Jeff, Roy, Michael, and Frank weren't out to bring back Walt, they wanted to bring back the Disney spirit. That's what I find wrong about Roy's "Save Disney" plan; he's out to bring back the company to be the same it was when Walt was around. I think they shouldn't erase those some 20 years, but experience from them. Now I know I'm gonna be flamed for saying that, and I probably didn't explain that to well, but that's how I feel.

well i do amit that they did some great movies a couple years after Disney died. one of the movies l liked was Robin Hood. i thought that movie had true Disney animation and good storytelling. soon when the nine old men were too old and they left. that was when the Disney films started to down fall.

[englishboy]

well i do amit that they did some great movies a couple years after Disney died. one of the movies l liked was Robin Hood. i thought that movie had true Disney animation and good storytelling. soon when the nine old men were too old and they left. that was when the Disney films started to down fall.[/quote]

Yeah, it had TRUE Disney animation because the animators TRACED over a dance sequence from Snow White and inserted it (with new character heads) into Robin Hood.

[Loomis]

Not a double standard at all. Disney is taking all these classics that are complete in one movie, I don't know one Disney feature without a happily ever after and instead a cliffhanger that is in need of a sequel.

Well, you could argue that ALL Disney classics are unnecessary. All of them are reworkings of well established classics, that are simply being put to animation with a "Disney spin". How many versions of Peter Pan, Snow White, Cinderella etc have there been? The Three Musketeers (also made by Disney in 1993 as a live action film) has had at least 18 versions made, in various languages. Was one happily ever after not enough in these cases? Of course not. Stories, at least the good ones, continue to evolve and change, meaning sequels to a happily ever after are not completely unnecessary.

The upcoming Three Musketeers is simply a new version of an old story. I cannot see how it is any different than any other DTV sequel - all that is different is the addition of a Mouse, a Duck and What the Hell Is Goofy Anyway? However, people seem to be treating it as an entirely new category. However, it is made by the same people and designed for the same market. There is no difference.

Second, the sequels are usually very babyish, just check out Cinderella 2, LM2..etc...think of something new for a change. Peter Pan 2 wasn't quite as babyish but it lacked everything else...it was just flat-out stupid.

OK, granted - some of the sequels have just plain sucked. And Cinderella 2 and Belle's Magical World are prime candidates for suckiest DTV ever.

However, to call Peter Pan 2 of all of them "babyish" is a little far-fetched. It has a solid story (which the 'bunch of stuff happens' predecessor did not), and the lead character is one of the most well-developed in a DTV yet. The WW2 setting provided a great opening too.

I like some DTVs like the winnie the pooh ones cause I am a fan of WtP. I don't have that many DTVs, but the new Mickey and the Musketeer one looks really good. And I only say that because I see more praise about it than boos. That didn't happen for House of Villains or the other one and for a good reason, they weren't very good. You see, there is a difference.

I'm the biggest Pooh fan here, but even I would say they are more "babyish" than any other DTV released. They are firmly aimed at a younger market, and they are probably the most repetitive as well.

However, I love them anyway

I have to agree with you there PrinceAli. i have noticed that when Walt Disney made movies, he made them to be enjoyed by both children and adults. now most movies that have been released (mostly DTV sequels) have been very babyish. i think the people at Disney is losing their magical touch that Walt gave before he died.

I wonder, if The Three Musketeers had been made earlier by Walt and this DTV was actually The Three Musketeers II: All for Two, and it was made by the same team with the same quality, would everyone be as enthusiastic? Or would it be dismissed as "just another crap sequel".

Uncle Walt, as has been pointed out, made sequels too, so who knows what he would have done had he not DIED.

If Remus is right (and that would ignore Little Mermaid through Lion King, as well as Lilo and Stitch etc), then Disney may as well stop making films as it would seem "fans" will not be happy until they get the old bugger out of deep freeze and cranking out brilliant ideas again!

[2099net]

Well, I think it's pretty clear that there's 2 standards of DTVs. So what? There's more than one standard of live action movies you know. The Lizzie McGuire movie wasn't in the same league of production as Pirates of the Caribbean.

But the fact the Lizze McGuire was made, doesn't mean other low or mid budget live action films like Miracle shouldn't be made. It doesn't tar them all with the same brush. So the fact Cinderella II was made shouldn't tar all of the DTV and/or sequels. I won't pretend it was great, but like a sequel has no affect on the original, a sequel has no affect on other sequels.

I'm at a loss how the sequels can be called babyish. Because the bulk of them feature children? The Little Mermaid 2 wasn't anywhere near as bad as people make out. The only real weak point was giving Ursula a sister. Return to Neverland is vastly superior to Peter Pan in my opinion, and is no where near as "babyish" as the first film. Jungle Book 2 is a poor film, but it has a better (if nonsensical given the geography) ending - let's face it, while people love the original Jungle Book nothing much of concequence happens, and it ends in the anti-climax of Shere Kharn running away from his own tail.

Which brings me onto my next point (which has been addressed by Loomis) - why can sequels not be made when Walt himself took the original stories and changed them. He had little to do with Jungle Book himself, but he told his animators to "ignore the story and have fun". How much respect does that show for the original works? Why can Walt take well loves stories and change them, but Disney cannot take their own well loved stories and change them?

Loomis' point about most of the Disney animated films being pointless is spot on. If it's wrong to make a sequel because the original had a happy ending, then its wrong to remake the stories in the first place, as films, plays and books already existed with happy endings.

Oh and you don't need a cliffhanger in order to justify a sequel.

[Christian]

I actually liked Return to Neverland. It was worth seeing in the theater. Little Mermaid II was not so bad. It made a decent rental.

By some people's reasonings, The Three Musketeers shouldn't have been made because it uses characters that have already been used before. For some reason some people think that's unoriginal and that's on top of the story have been made into over a dozen movies already.

[2099net]

By some people's reasonings, The Three Musketeers shouldn't have been made because it uses characters that have already been used before. For some reason some people think that's unoriginal and that's on top of the story have been made into over a dozen movies already.

No, were just pointing out that if it's wrong to make a sequel, then, by the same logic, it's wrong to make The Three Musketeers. I support the sequels most of the arguments against them are flawed.

"Its been done before" - so had a lot of Walt's Animated Classics.
"Its wrong to alter a well loved story" - so are lots of Walt's Animated Classics.
"It shows lack of respect for the original" - did did Walt to the original stories.
"They have a happily ever after ending" - so did the original stories, in what ever form they were in before Walt made the films.

There really is no difference between making a 1 hour Three Musketeers film and a Little Mermaid 2. Both are using characters (either the cartoon ones, or ones from the book) which have been filmed before. Both show as much respect for the original as the other (we all know T3M is a comedy only loosely based on the novel) and by extension, using the logic the sequels are un-needed, so is T3M!