DVDizzy Forum

musicradio77 wrote:it would do better than the upcoming "Cinderella 3".

From what I've heard of Cinderella III, I personally think it will be pretty good...if handled well.

It's supposed to be about Cinderella's alternate reality...as if the events in the original movie never happened.

I think this idea is way better than the idea they used for the sequel. Stringing together what seems like three TV show episodes was pure crap. I'm kind of angry that they didn't use the CIII idea for CII.

But anyway...

What's the big deal with LMII?? When I first heard they were making a sequel, I immediately knew they were just going to simply switch the roles. And I think they did a nice job. And I LOVED! the animation!!!

I don't care what it's about, but please...NO MORE PREQUELS THAT ARE LABELED AS II OR III!!! LABEL IT AS A FRICKIN PREQUEL IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS!!!!! GAWD!!!

One point Id like to add to the sequel/no sequel debate is this: in the Calvin and Hobbes 10th Anniversary book (one of the greatest comic strips ever, IMO), Bill Watterson discusses why he never agreed to official licensing of his characters similar to the way that other comic stars like Snoopy, Garfield, etc. were: even if done with the best of intentions, each different merchandise shoot-off cheapens the original product to some degree. If the market becomes saturated with spin-offs of something, then there is a strong possibility that the general public will become bored with and sick of the original, and it will lose some of its charm and originality.

Now, of course, with mega-properties like Cinderella, Lion King, etc., there's no way to stop ALL of the marketing spin-offs. People really do want their princess dolls and stuffed Simbas, and I say let'em have them. But DTV "cheapquels" don't really help the matter, and if done poorly can cause a taint on the whole franchise.

Besides, if you REALLY have a story idea that you want to try, why not try it with a whole new set of characters?

numba1lostboy wrote:What's the big deal with LMII?? When I first heard they were making a sequel, I immediately knew they were just going to simply switch the roles. And I think they did a nice job. And I LOVED! the animation!!!

That's probably the reason. That it was simply a role-reversal. Most good sequels are able to take the characters and give them a wholly new story to help develop who they are while at the same time treating the audience to something new and interesting. The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea was, IMO, NOT a good sequel. It was a simple role reversal with conveniently created characters (Morgana, the penguin and walrus whose names escape me, the shark, etc.) to make you think you're getting a new story, when in essence, it's really just The Little Mermaid: The Next Generation done very badly. And the animation, IMO, was like taking two steps backward from what the original had. It hardly captured the vibrance and fun of the original.

If they had wanted to give The Little Mermaid a sequel that would actually work and *not* be role-reversal, they could have easily shown things such as the repercussions and effects of Ariel leaving the sea for the land. How she adapts (well, re-adapts since she was a human before), how they adjust to her being gone in the sea. All the while, while this story of discovery is going on, they could have had a more action-oriented plot/conflict involving perhaps a human villain who is after Prince Eric's kingdom, and planning on destroying all sea life unless he surrenders the kingdom...

Escapay

Escapay wrote: If they had wanted to give The Little Mermaid a sequel that would actually work and *not* be role-reversal, they could have easily shown things such as the repercussions and effects of Ariel leaving the sea for the land. How she adapts (well, re-adapts since she was a human before), how they adjust to her being gone in the sea. All the while, while this story of discovery is going on, they could have had a more action-oriented plot/conflict involving perhaps a human villain who is after Prince Eric's kingdom, and planning on destroying all sea life unless he surrenders the kingdom...

Hmm, sounds all well and good but I think that cheapens the 'happily ever after' even more than a role-reversal.

A RR (as I shall call it from here on in) allows a sequel to tell its own self-contained story without impacting on the continuity of the first film. It was not Ariel's story because we have already seen that. Her daughter's story was an RR, and I think that does more to placate the sequel-hating argument that it "ruins the original". If the film continued ARIEL'S story, then there would be more of a base for that "ruins the original" argument. By doing the RR - as has been done in Lady and the Tramp 2 and so forth - it allows the film to 'do its own thing' in a self-contained bubble, but with an obvious nod to the original.

Plus, RRRRRR makes me sound like a pirate.

I don't agree with that RR, because people are interested in Ariel and not Melody- who cares about an Ariel's clone, only with dark hair and younger? Nothing destroyes the happy end, if the second movie ends well too! As for the animation, I'm glad that the level was better than "The Return of Jafar", I really expected its animation to be much worse. It's nice in the beginning and as the film is going to end the animation becomes cheap and quick. But I except from the third movie's animation to be as good as Tarzan II's animation. And I'm dying to see Ariel as the leading lady again- no more Melody!!!! I don't mind if it's a prequel, but I wouldn't like to watch a whole movie with an 8-year-old Ariel. That's why, instead of the prequel, I prefer a sequel only with some flashbacks to Ariel's past (because we HAVE to know about Ursula's past and Ariel's mom)!!

I thought LM II was the best sequel that Disney has put out straight-to-video. They used the original voices, close to the same animation, and did them close enough together so that the time/style was able to stay the same. I thought they did a great job.

But, I would really REALLY like to see a prequel about Ursula's past, or at least a flashback scene in the movie explaining it.

Hopefully it won't be Ariel as a grandma, Melody having a daughter, and that daughter being obsessed with something else.

Could this possibly be:

35 Little Mermaid Reflections 2006 Fall 2006: Contents to be announced

From the "Upcoming Releases" section of UD.com?!

I totally agree with a prequel!! I REALLY want to know about Ursulas past! I want to know why she was banished, and more about these "feasts" that she had when she lived in the palace.....and also more about Ariels family, particularily her sisters and MOM!!...and about Ariel as a kid! There is so much that they could elaborate on!!

So, does anyone have any idea when this prequel/sequel is coming 2 video?

brotherbear wrote:So, does anyone have any idea when this prequel/sequel is coming 2 video?

We don't know yet, but the LM:PE is coming October 2006 and there will be a sneak-peek for the third movie in it! That means that the 3rd movie is almost ready-at least a big part of it. I can see it coming out about February 2007, considering the releases of the two Bambi films.
In my country Bambi 2 is played in theaters. I would like to see the 3rd Ariel movie in theaters here, too!!

Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:The fact that a third movie will be a reality soon (2007 maybe).

I'm almost sure that it will come until 2008, because it will be like Cinderella III that was announced 2 years before its release on Cinderella's DVD.

I'm buying baby !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope its a prequel too!!!

reyquila wrote:I'm buying baby !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope its a prequel too!!!

me too... I just can't wait to see TLM with the new techniques of animation, because for example the backgrounds on Bambi II are awesome, now just imagine the sea with this new techniques

Tarzan. wrote:me too... I just can't wait to see TLM with the new techniques of animation, because for example the backgrounds on Bambi II are awesome, now just imagine the sea with this new techniques

That's the exact reason why I'm dying to get that movie! Being able to admire Ariel in such an enviroment makes me crazy about it! And maybe the heroine's lines could become better, and her colours more vibrant- The little Mermaid is artistically a great movie, but it doesn't reach the heights of Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin; the picture quality is not so smooth and... illustrated, let's say. I hope they can do it this time!!

MouseHouse55 wrote:I realize my two cents isn't worth much, but I desperately genuinely hoped that both/either Iger or Lasseter would have had at least the slightest inkling to be original and creative, and most importantly not continue making sequels.

Maybe Eisner greenlighted the sequels before he left, or maybe there's something in the contract when Iger and Lasseter signed on, that they would have to do a certain amount of DTV sequels. This is just speculation, who knows why Lasseter and Iger are letting these DTV sequels get made...

After watching the first TLM sequel tarnish the reputation of my favorite Disney animated film, I avoided all the DTV sequels thus far. (This was further enforced when I caught Cinderella 2: Dreams Come True while flipping the channels one night and couldn't stand it.) The two Aladdin sequels were the only decent DTV sequels I've seen. I've taken great pains to avoid Mulan II, Bambi II, and I will be avoiding TLM III.

lord-of-sith wrote:Oh yes, if Disney makes a prequel about Triton, Ursula, Ariel's mom, and baby Ariel, all will be forgiven.

This looks like it could be amazing concept art, but I don't think it is...


The Little Mermaid 3: the story of Triton's sudden burden with single parenting...Most of you probably saw this too, since it was on the website of the guy who designed the Platinum Edition DVD cover. If Disney used this for inspiration, it would make a great story! Young Triton, suddenly becoming a single-parent to his daughters and his new baby. Due to the stresses of running the underwater kingdom, he must hire a Nanny, and unfortunately she's no Mary Poppins: Ursula. Her terrible guardian skills gets her kicked out of the kingdom and thankfully, Ariel is too young to remember the babysitter from the bad place downstairs. Oh and Ariel's sisters are glad shes gone too. You know all the creepy things in Ursula's garden? Yeah, those were unapproved boyfriends...

Lol, what a story that would be! But seriously, if Disney does make TLM3 a prequel, this art would be a great starting point!

Wow Kram, that is a really well thought out story. That's perfect. Having Ursula as a sort of anti-Marry Poppins nanny is the perfect way to connect her to Ariel. Very good job.

i always imagined Ursula was some sort of royal advisor. She had sebastians job and sebation could've been a stable man for sea horses or something, lol.

Isn't Cinderella III supposed to be the last hand drawn animated DTV? with that being the case, does this mean that TLM:III will be coming before Cinderella III or is it not going to be traditionally animated?

i always imagined Ursula was some sort of royal advisor.

So, kind of like Jafar all over again?

To be honest, i've always seen her as something like that too....maybe her well known talents of magic could give us some form of a hint as to what she might have been in the palace...maybe she was supposed to create potions to "heal" people, and she wound up trying to poison Triton or one of his daughters? OR maybe she DID poison Ariels mom!! and that's how she was bannished!!!!

just a thought.

Ursula being the nanny, that's a great idea!

I like the idea of her being in charge of a small clinic at the castle (witch doctor! ). Also like the idea of her being a nanny.