DVDizzy Forum

I quite liked D2 but I agree that D3 was bad.

Cinderella II was horrid. They should never have put that on dvd.

I didn't see the Shaggy Dog remake with Tim Allen mainlin cause I could see quite plainly that it was a very dumb movie. Definitly a waste of Tim's talents as an actor.

On the side note...I loved The Lion King sequels along with Bambi II.

Oh! And Return to Oz was a good movie as well. Even though it wasn't a sequel to a previous Disney movie...it was a sequel.

Tabbi <3

I don't like the episode format of Cinderella II, Belle's Magical World, Tarzan & Jane, and Atlantis - Milo Returns.

The Great Mouse Detective II

Sorry, could not resist!

I don't think the sequels are terrible; that word is too strong. Some sequels are simply just disappointing. I do have to agree though that Hunchback of Notre Dame II was disappointing in the most aspects in comparison to other Disney sequels.

The only disappointment I found with Pocahontas II was some of the "moon in June" rhyming songs. It was sad to see that follow the brilliant score and soundtrack of the original. Though the song "Where do I go from Here" was actually pretty good and catchy. I find myself humming it randomly since I heard it. I've only seen this twice though.

Now that I think about it, the Shelly Long-Gaby Hoffman Freaky Friday wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either. We taped it off of the Disney Channel and would watch it a lot when we were younger, but I don't think I can stand to watch it again today. It's not as fun as the Jamie Lee Curtis-Linsay Lohan version.

While I actually don't consider them "sequels"(or even movies for that matter) I agree, that the "episode format" or "1 big pilot" ones are what I tend to be the worst off the bunch. Belle's Magical World, Tarzan and Jane, Stitch the Movie and Return of Jafar being dreadfully awful.

As for ones that aren't televisions episodes pasted together or long pilots, I consider "The Jungle Book 2" to be the worst. I think the biggest problem is that movie just DIDN'T need a sequel. And as a result, it was basically a awful retelling of the original story with crappy animation and terrible versions of 2 of my favorite songs. While I don't usually tend to compare these to the originals, I can't help but admit it was an embarrisment to the original, yet somehow, most people consider it one of the "better sequels" all becasue it was released in theaters. Which to me makes no sense. So if Cinderella 2(which I haven't seen) was released in theaters, would people consider it a better movie than it was when released on VHS?

As for remakes, well let's just say I'll completely agree with "That Darn Cat". Nuff said.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:So if Cinderella 2(which I haven't seen) was released in theaters, would people consider it a better movie than it was when released on VHS?

Oh no, that would probably make it worse. Anything released to theaters is going to be expected to be better than something being released direct to video. That's why it's being released directly to video, because it is underserving and would flop horribly in theaters. So, Cinderella would be even more hated than it is now (if that's possible) if it were released in theaters.

lord-of-sith wrote:Oh no, that would probably make it worse. Anything released to theaters is going to be expected to be better than something being released direct to video. That's why it's being released directly to video, because it is underserving and would flop horribly in theaters. So, Cinderella would be even more hated than it is now (if that's possible) if it were released in theaters.

Well I agree.

I used Cinderella 2 as an example to ask the question: Was The Jungle Book 2 really much better than other DTV's?

I didn't mind Bambi II, but hey we psychotics think differently then you regular folks

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:Was The Jungle Book 2 really much better than other DTV's?

I liked it! I'm sure that it is better than Cinderella II: When Dreams Come True, but I haven't seen it. I also liked it better than Peter Pan in Return to Never Land, but I actually liked this movie. Bambi II was a little better than JB2, but they are close to each other.

I just remembered that Return to Neverland was a HORRID sequel to a classic disney film. it was extremely unnecessary and the story was just plain bad.

PixarFan2006 wrote:I just remembered that Return to Neverland was a HORRID sequel to a classic disney film. it was extremely unnecessary and the story was just plain bad.

This is your opinion, and as a matter of fact I LIKE this movie, and I find it entertaining, and a GOOD sequel to Peter Pan!

Disney Princess Ariellen wrote:My pick for worst sequel goes to The Hunchback of Notre Dame II for taking the feel of the original and chucking it out the window in favor of mindless cliched fluff

YES, YES, and YES. I would've mentioned it in my previous post, but I'm a champion at forgetting it exists. I'm much happier that way.

TheSequelofDisney wrote:

PixarFan2006 wrote:I just remembered that Return to Neverland was a HORRID sequel to a classic disney film. it was extremely unnecessary and the story was just plain bad.

This is your opinion, and as a matter of fact I LIKE this movie, and I find it entertaining, and a GOOD sequel to Peter Pan!

I liked it, too. Didn't LOVE it, but I could tolerate the 'original film character's children' format of it because Jane first appeared in Barrie's play and his novelization thereof. The animation was pretty decent (even if Hook's CGI ship stood out like a sore thumb). I didn't like the use of a pop-music-type soundtrack, and thought the squid was a poor replacement for the crocodile. I think it was unnecessary in terms of the fact that it followed the first Peter Pan by around 50 years, but appreciated it maintaining some faithfulness to the source material (Peter meeting Jane, asking the audience to believe in fairies to save Tink...I forget, did they go so far as to say clap your hands, or did I do that on my own? ) and using the WWII backdrop to give it some 'depth' instead of mindless fluff. And the opening sequence showcasing Peter and the Darlings' adventures in the clouds was really cool! It didn't need to be made, but I didn't think it was disgraceful. Peter and Hook's VAs matched Bobby Driscoll and Hans Conried decently enough, too; I wasn't cringing that "THIS is supposed to be Peter?"

Disney Princess Ariellen wrote:I forget, did they go so far as to say clap your hands, or did I do that on my own? )

They didn't, but don't worry *whisper* I clapped too!

I was in this play at my old school, I was John, probably because I wore glasses, anyway, my sister was Tinker Bell, and I can't remember if she died and everyone clapped. I'll have to look because we got it on tape. I was just happy that I wasn't Peter, because if I was, I'd of had to wear tights!

TheSequelofDisney wrote:I was just happy that I wasn't Peter, because if I was, I'd of had to wear tights!

Plus traditionally, on stage, Peter Pan is played by an actress.

Disney Princess Ariellen wrote:I liked it, too. Didn't LOVE it, but I could tolerate the 'original film character's children' format of it because Jane first appeared in Barrie's play and his novelization thereof. The animation was pretty decent (even if Hook's CGI ship stood out like a sore thumb). I didn't like the use of a pop-music-type soundtrack, and thought the squid was a poor replacement for the crocodile. I think it was unnecessary in terms of the fact that it followed the first Peter Pan by around 50 years, but appreciated it maintaining some faithfulness to the source material (Peter meeting Jane, asking the audience to believe in fairies to save Tink...I forget, did they go so far as to say clap your hands, or did I do that on my own? ) and using the WWII backdrop to give it some 'depth' instead of mindless fluff. And the opening sequence showcasing Peter and the Darlings' adventures in the clouds was really cool! It didn't need to be made, but I didn't think it was disgraceful. Peter and Hook's VAs matched Bobby Driscoll and Hans Conried decently enough, too; I wasn't cringing that "THIS is supposed to be Peter?"

This is my favorite Disney sequel! I liked it a lot. The musical style didn't really fit, but it was much more tolerable than the soundtrack for Cinderella II! Egads! Anyhow, yeah the story and settings were really well planned with WWII and all. I liked the voices because they really were close or at least had the same spirit of the original voices. The only thing that bothered me was that they recast Wendy when the original actress is still alive. She may not have been able to get that one liner from young Wendy, but it'd would've been better if they got her to do adult Wendy. Btw, my favorite scene is the very end (too nice to spoil if you haven't seen it): when Wendy sees Peter again for the first time and she flies briefly. It was a touching scene that brought back the magic of the original.

Oh yeah, Kram, the end scene was probably the best! I didn't know that (in white) when you were an adult, that you could still fly, like adult Wendy, but who know's, only J. M. Barrie! Yeah, the whole WWII made the film have more depth, IMO.

Wonderlicious wrote:

TheSequelofDisney wrote:I was just happy that I wasn't Peter, because if I was, I'd of had to wear tights!

Plus traditionally, on stage, Peter Pan is played by an actress.

Yeah, well, not at my school! We had 2 nights, 2 Peter Pans, and the first night, a guy played Peter, and then the second night, a girl played Peter, I don't know why they changed them. Probably because we had a lot of kids in drama.

I really disliked Belle's Magical World and Cinderella II. The episode format just didn't work for either of these films and the dislouge was absolutly cringe worthy.

On the other hand Pochahontas II, Lady and the Tramp II, Lion King 1 1/2, and Beauty and the Beast, The Enchanted Christmas, were decent films. While none held up to the glory of its predessesor, they were all decent films in their own right.

I think Disney Sequels all suffer two major flaws. One is the music. All the Disney Sequels I have seen have had horrible music, not even when your comparing it to the originals. If they put more effort into the songs, which were a major focal point in the original films, they might have a shot. The other, that in many ways cannot be helped is the replacement of the voice actors. Notable exceptions for the Aladdin sequels.

i just remembered another bad sequel; The Brave Little Toaster Goes to Mars. Just thinking about it makes me cringe. I refuse to watch the other sequel.

It's hard to pick just one! I'm really not into Disney animated sequels - I prefer the originals. I always find something I don't like.