sequels or no sequels

poco · Post by **poco** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 8:24 pm

Okay! We are going to settle it finally...in the nice Disney sort of way!!!

Which do you like better? This applies to Disney Movies!!!!

Sequels??? or

do you just hate em???

(This is for MMB and Da Boom)

Satoshi · Post by **Satoshi** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 8:47 pm

Sequels. I like them.

indianajdp · Post by **indianajdp** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 9:13 pm

In perfect, non-Pixar world...there would be none.

NO SEQUELS FOR YOU.

Choco Bear · Post by **Choco Bear** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 9:16 pm

by sequels do u mean in general cuz i like em

in general but disney i dont mind but it would be better if they didnt poo all over the originals

so yes in general and no in disney

indianajdp · Post by **indianajdp** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 9:21 pm

I took it to mean strictly Disney sequels.

Loomis · Post by **Loomis** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 9:36 pm

Disney sequels, non-Disney sequels, it doesn't matter.

A good film is a good film is a good film.

If you like the individual sequel AS A FILM, then this whole debate is pointless.

I have no opinion on sequels as a mystical genre that is spoken of in terms of it being a disease, but the Disney sequels I have seen I have enjoyed. However...

All these debates do is give certain people an excuse to grandstand and say "in my day, sequels were kept in dark corners where they belonged", and make ridiculous comments on them destroying the legacy of the original, or making small children rape pit bulls. In actual fact, the original films are still out there, and the virtue of (most) pit bulls is safe.

Sequels have always been a fact of cinema, and why should Disney films be held aloft on a really big podiums as 'untouchable'. Disney have made a lot of films that a lot of people like. Like any other sane studio, they are going to capitalise on it. 'Snow White' may be a classic, but that does make it any less special than countless other movie series that have had sequels which have NOT tarnished the view of the original. The fact is, whether you like them or not, sequels and DTV sales are making lots of money for Disney, so we are going to see lots of them.

Get over it.

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 10:52 pm

Loomis wrote:Disney sequels, non-Disney sequels, it doesn't matter.

A good film is a good film is a good film.

This is true, except all the disney sequels suck!

So what is this poll asking???? Disney only or not???

Prince Adam · Post by **Prince Adam** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 5:42 am

I had to vote for sequels because although most of them are terrible, if there were no sequels althogether we wouldn't have gotten the great ones like Rescuers Down Under, Lady and the Tramp 2, Toy Story 2, or Return to NeverLand, either.

poco · Post by **poco** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 7:14 am

I was thinking Disney only sequels

indianajdp · Post by **indianajdp** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 8:51 am

Loomis wrote: Sequels have always been a fact of cinema, and why should Disney films be held aloft on a really big podiums as 'untouchable'.

...

Get over it.

Here's my problem with your point. Sequels are produced with the same production quality as the originals because they will be on the big screen. Disney DTV sequels are a joke because they won't be. The quality drops several notches and the animation is subpar compared to the originals.

My issue is not that Disney films should be "untouchable". My issue is that from a studio capable of such wonderful creations we are given so much Grade B product. But as long as millions of people continue to buy these DTV pieces of garbage then Disney will keep mass producing them...as is evidenced by early release schedules for 2004

I'd be first in line for any of these sequels if they were held to the same standards as the originals. Look no further than Tarzan and Jane for a recent example of the trash I'm talking about.

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 9:12 am

I'd be first in line for any of these sequels if they were held to the same standards as the originals. Look no further than Tarzan and Jane for a recent example of the trash I'm talking about.

I think the DTV sequels have improved a lot since the first few. And I'm sure that they will continue to improve (bar the odd exception every now and then). Hunchback II certainly seemed to be a few steps behind it's contemporary releases.

Picking on Tarzan and Jane isn't really right. It's not a DTV product - it's 3 (unseen?) episodes of the TV series strung together. As such, it's not really in the same class.

I know there is nothing on the packaging to indicate this. I know people picking it up in the shops will assume it's an "all new film". But you can't really complain about Disney releasing episodes from the TV series on DVD - after all I'm desperate for House of Mouse episodes, and others are desperate for Pooh, or Talespin, or Gargoyles, or any other Disney cartoon series.

The complaint with Tarzan and Jane is it was released wrong - wrong marketing and wrong concept. Why they couldn't just release the episodes complete, with opening and closing credits, in a compilation of 6 or so episodes (or better yet in season sets) is beyond me.

Buena Vista's Spider-man, X-Men and Hulk releases are more along those lines, and a closer comparison to Tarzan and Jane than the (later) Disney DTV releases.

indianajdp · Post by **indianajdp** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 9:20 am

2099net wrote:
Picking on Tarzan and Jane isn't really right. It's not a DTV product - it's 3 (unseen?) episodes of the TV series strung together. As such, it's not really in the same class.

Now see, I didn't know that. I would never have purchased the DVD had I knew about that...and yes that does obviously make a difference in the quality of that release.

But my arguement still stands in general

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 9:29 am

I suppose Tarzan II will be the ultimate test indianajdp?!?

I have faith that the animation quality of the proper Tarzan sequel will be close to the original films (just based on my observations that in general the animation of the sequels is getting better and better).

However, I don't expect the "deep canvas" process to be used, which will considerably change the look and feel of the film.

As for sequels - Tarzan is one of the few Disney films where a number of sequels are justified!

(Just start to panic if Disney starts adapting some of the recent Tarzan comics - can you see Disney's Tarzan vs Batman or Disney's Tarzan vs. Predator?)

That said... a Disney's Tarzan and Team Atlantis crossover holds some appeal for me (it's the comicbook geek in me!). Or would that be the ultimate insult to sequel haters?

indianajdp · Post by **indianajdp** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 10:07 am

2099net wrote:I suppose Tarzan II will be the ultimate test indianajdp?!?

I don't think it would be the ultimate test for me, as there have ben plenty before that have failed miserably. Lion King II, while by no means a production masterpiece, at least came close to living up to the aesthetic quality of the original.

That's all I'm asking for...a bit more TLC. If we're going to be charged $15-$20 a pop for a release that's virtually guaranteed to sell-thru a minimm of 1,000,000 units I'd like Disney to invest in the product like they're counting on their audience to.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 10:24 am

Depends on what Disney sequels we're debating.

I don't like the animated sequels (except Return to Neverland, and Jungle Book 2 was okay). I mean, just look at Cinderella II, it's like a Saturday morning cartoon. I'm sure that's the way it will continue with animated sequels.

But I really like old Live Action sequels like Apple Dumpling Gang Rides Again and Shaggy D.A. They went to theaters because the quality was as good as the original. I must admit though, Parent Trap 2, 3 and 4 were terrible and they are "older" (I think, at least the first one was). Now, even George of the Jungle 2 can't get to theaters. What kind of quality is that?

If all sequels were as good or better than the original, then I'd like them all (unless I didn't like the original movie in the first place!)

Hook

maj · Post by **maj** » Sun Jul 13, 2003 7:04 pm

good sequels utilse the familiar elements from the 1st film, but also bring new elements into the mix. As long as they're done right, and aren't just cheapo cash-ins, then I'm all for them

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:43 pm

poco wrote:Okay! We are going to settle it finally...in the nice Disney sort of way!!!

Which do you like better? This applies to Disney Movies!!!!

Sequels??? or

do you just hate em???

(This is for MMB and Da Boom)

Thanks Ms Poco Dearest i feel so honored by your post

<~~~ there's my answer!

Prince Phillip · Post by **Prince Phillip** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:48 pm

MickeyMouseboy wrote:
poco wrote:Okay! We are going to settle it finally...in the nice Disney sort of way!!!

Which do you like better? This applies to Disney Movies!!!!

Sequels??? or

do you just hate em???

(This is for MMB and Da Boom)
Thanks Ms Poco Dearest i feel so honored by your post

<~~~ there's my answer!

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 5:16 pm

Now now MMB, I liked some sequels. Some are okay... especially Return to Neverland. I guess it's easy to tell why I like it though!

poco · Post by **poco** » Sat Sep 06, 2003 7:30 pm

i don't mind sequels either. SOme are worse than others, I'd have to admit, but some are really good!

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

sequels or no sequels

sequels or no sequels

Re: sequels or no sequels

Re: sequels or no sequels