DVDizzy Forum

To me, "Enchanted" is an unsequelable (That's right, I just made up a word) movie. It ended well, and it was an excellent movie. It just needs to be left alone.

...you know, if much of the original cast / creative team were to be involved, I could live with this. It does seem inevitable.

MutantEnemy wrote:Thank God people in the '60s didn't have this mentality or we'd be seeing a sequel to Mary Poppins and I'm sure if Julie Andrews could still sing, the idea would still be on the table!

Actually, there were talks of a Mary Poppins sequel back in the 60s.

Yes, there were plans for a 'Mary Poppins' sequel, presumably drawn from one of the several other PL Travers books.

Wasn't there also talk of a 'Poppins' TV series with Geri Halliwell at some stage too (God I hope I'm remembering that all wrong)....

UmbrellaFish wrote:I just might not be surprised to see Amy Adams pass this up, also, and without her (and Dempsey), it could ruin the movie.

a) If she enjoyed the role and would be paid enough, then maybe she'd agree to reprise her role!

b) I've always been confused about the whole Princess Collection/Amy Adams likeness thing, but, especially if the movie were to take place in Andalasia, I can see Disney just using another voice for Giselle, and maybe just showing real-life Giselle in shadow or something, like going down the sewer or something.

c) I think I can see Disney not involving Giselle or Robert. I can see them focusing more on Edward or Nancy or even Morgan, without really focusing on Robert and Giselle. Giselle really made Enchanted what it is, though. Oh, and we can't forget Pip- he can be a focus of the sequel, too!

If it was PG-13 I would NOT see it cause I don't even go to see PG-13 movies very often (HP & POTC being exceptions). Why would a potential sequel have to have drug dealers and other PG-13 elements? Why can't a movie be magical without mature adult situations?

PG-13 the new PG? since when?

jediliz wrote:If it was PG-13 I would NOT see it cause I don't even go to see PG-13 movies very often (HP & POTC being exceptions). Why would a potential sequel have to have drug dealers and other PG-13 elements? Why can't a movie be magical without mature adult situations?

PG-13 the new PG? since when?

Since the MPPAA went bonkers (ya, totally nuts!) and decided sneezing could be deemed offensive. Most PG-13 movies get PG ratings in Canada and I'm sure in other countries such as the UK are not as terrified as everything that moves on planet earth. Also, many PG-13 rated movies like Pirates, Transformers and G.I. Joe are marketed and enjoyed by kids like Batman (1989), Terminator and others before them. As I already stated Tex, a Disney release had dealers and a PG rating in the states. It can be done and it's just a unique twist to give a real world villains some real world danger to contrast Andalasia in which nothing bad happens because Narissa is gone (in my view of the story).

If you're that grossly offended by the suggestion of dealers in a Disney movie, you can just not see it. Don't try and undermine the integrity of the suggestion because your imagination would depict horrific things that would never be in the movie. That in itself would be part of an appeal to older audience and give the film a dark angle which older Disney films had and that new ones sorely lack because they try to be "safe" by persons like your point of view instead of begin juts a good movie (put a girls heart in a box? Doesn't sound like bunnies farting rainbows to me!). Also, since Enchanted had mature elements in it (girl "bonding", the Bear clearly pleased to see Edward, etc.), would it really be such a stretch? Sounds like you'd be scared if a bug landed on your nose and you're not the type to question my idea for a sequel anyway.

Besides the greater the danger he has to face the more Joe (I'll get to fixing his name) becomes the hero. If they were just punk high school kids bulling him there would be no weight to the drama. And as I put in previous posts there would be no depiction of people doing or glamorizing drug use and since there would be no swear words or extreme violence in it (even the first movie has blood during the dragon fight) it would still be appropriate for kids. All the elements that made Enchanted what it is (hand drawn animation, songs, comedy, adventure, NYC etc) are all there so I still don't see why it would be so terrible.

Song Ideas:

1. Opening song where Nancy and Edward sing about how their son is failing to meet their expectations. Gags for sequence include Joe's attempts to avoid listening to their song (including putting a pot over his head and banging it with a large wooden spoon). In the style of "True Love's Kiss" an old fashioned sounding Disney tune.

2. Montage sequence in NYC were Joe actually tries to go through his training with the help of Giselle, Robert and Morgan. More examples of not singing running gag are found as Joe actually sings a few verses himself and more jokes can be found in his continuing failure to get things right. He eventually does however and everyone's happy (sound familiar Hercules fans?). More contemporary (maybe give it an 80s feel to mock the montage sequences frequently found in films of that decade?) and upbeat.

3. A scene on Robert's apartment balcony where Joe sings about his issues. Giselle comes in to remind him about why we sing or enjoy expressing emotion and joins him in a duet.

3. A reprise of the opening song, sung by Joe concluding the movie while mixing styles of music (discovered through Robert and Morgan's CD collection) to make it more appealing to Joe himself.

Climax idea:

Car chase scene where Joe preforms some classical Errol Flynn like moves as he dashes and jumps from car to car, building to building avoiding fist fights and gun shots from the dealers. Alan Menken's score could be very Max Steiner like in it's feel to emulate stuff like The Prisoner of Zedna or The Adventures of Robin Hood.

Name ideas:

I'm sick of Joe, how about?;

Taran (a reference and a joke because unlike Black cauldron Taran Joe has no intention of becoming "a famous warrior")
Krateson
Arkson
Harden
Addson

After watching the movie again on Blu-ray last night, I'm pretty sure that Disney could get away with bringing Queen Narissa back from the "dead" if they had to. I mean, sure the dragon was destroyed, but who's to say what actually happened to Narissa after she vanished into "pixie dust" when she fell from Woolworth Tower.

Joe shouldn't be singing every song, though. And I think it would also make sense if the movie opened on his birth, akin to the opening of TLM2. A new song, or a reprise of True Love's Kiss, or both can be applied there.

Also, the music of the first film sort of evolved from characters singing, to broadway, to on-screen but misc. singer, to post-production pop song. Classic-Contemporary. They might be able to pull off an-almost-reverse, but the way flangy described it made the idea pretty vague.

F-H, I really like those ideas a lot! I like the idea of the music influences from Robert's & Morgan's CD collections, and about Giselle & Joe singing together.

And Cordy, you make a good point. But at the same time, Disney doesn't usually (if ever?) use the same villain in both the original movie and the sequel...Never mind, I just asked Bobby and he said Jafar. I feel sheepish.

I always imagined that if they were to make a sequel for Enchanted, the references should be of Disney's sequels. The classics too, but also/mostly the sequels. Yes, silly idea from a silly person. lol

Read through all of the posts, and I like both Flanger-Hanger & tsom's ideas, some parts more than others. I would like the idea of this "Joe", but to me, this seems too difficult, and I actually think that creating a whole new main character for a sequel is cheap (nevermind how much I enjoy most of Disney's sequel-verse characters).

Like most have already said here, I would LOVE a sequel, but I just pray to God they do it right. That means getting the entire formula down to a tee- Kevin Lima, Alan Menken (Stephen Schwartz?), and the entire cast (including Morgan, Nathaniel and Pip).

I am completely against the idea of making Pip (or even Nathaniel) the focus characters, though. I never really liked Pip, and Nathaniel was never that interesting to me.

One more thing:

Cordy_Biddle wrote:After watching the movie again on Blu-ray last night, I'm pretty sure that Disney could get away with bringing Queen Narissa back from the "dead" if they had to. I mean, sure the dragon was destroyed, but who's to say what actually happened to Narissa after she vanished into "pixie dust" when she fell from Woolworth Tower.

I was thinking that exact thing as I was reading the possible ideas, and I'm more for this than for an invented villain (I still shudder when I think of how the TLM franchise was ruined when they not only created aNOTHER comic relief villain, but didn't even bother relating her to the other two).

But with that in mind, what would it be like if Narissa had a sister? Busted into Andalasia claiming her throne? Hmm...

Yeah, don't like it either. lol

But still, I'm very excited for this. Before it was just "wouldn't it be cool if" and now it's "I think they should", and this kinda talk totally wets my panties!

But with that in mind, what would it be like if Narissa had a sister? Busted into Andalasia claiming her throne? Hmm...

well in the video game world which I would have loved to see as 3 part series in the Aladdin animated series or a sequel by itself..with Jafar's sister

http://www.amazon.com/Disneys-Aladdin-N ... 939&sr=1-3



or in the animated series Legend of Tarzan there was Lady Waltham aka Clayton's Sister

http://www.bcdb.com/cartoon/28145-Tarza ... geanc.html



and then do I even need to mention the villainess in The Lion King II: Simba's Pride...I thought she was a terrific viillain in the lines of DTV disney films...

and then in Cinderella it's always Lady Tremaine....which maybe Nancy could be turn bad in the sequel....

But I could see them doing a villain relative of Narissa...perhaps her brother or cousin.....

I actually thought Morgana in the first "Little Mermaid" sequel was kinda cool...of course it didn't hurt that Pat Carroll was again the voice. Close your eyes and you could pretend it was Ursula, sure, but Morgana was a worthy followup and a great foil for Ariel's family.

I'm sure Disney will do something about expanding Narissa's family tree in the sequel - a wronged Uncle/Warlock or something similar might be interesting. A sister named Melisande? OK...I just love the name...

anyone remember the fiasco that was grease 2?

maybe enchanted sequel doesnt have to revolve around the original characters after all..itll look trite.

The main reason why Grease 2 flopped was because it had an all-new cast of different characters (with the exception of a few minor supporting roles); so you're argument really doesn't make sense to me.

If any sequel to "Enchanted" is to succeed--with the fans if nothing else--they'll need to bring back the key players from the original. They really couldn't do that in "Grease 2", so that's why it flopped.

It seems that everyone's ideas for sequels are based on their love of the characters.

But Enchanted was supposed to be a fairy tale clashing with "the real world" (which, as you know, I disagree with, since Nancy, Robert, and Morgan are as made up characters as Giselle and Edward, so it should only be the past meeting the present, but whatever). After all, Giselle herself is like an embodiment and representation of a type of character and ideal.

Make a sequel to the whole film, not just the characters. Build upon the previous concept, the previous ideas. Disney's Divinity did seem to touch on that, talking about how the film should comment on the way past Disney fairy tale films were as the first one did.

Otherwise what would be the point of calling it a sequel to Enchanted, if it was nothing like Enchanted?

Flanger-Hanger, your idea is not doing this. You explored the idea of doing a sequel that represents a common theme of Disney movies, but Enchanted was specific in representing the fairy tale theme of Disney movies. You can't change themes, the whole concept! Pinocchio and Peter Pan actually are like fairy tales and would follow the theme, and yes, talking animals, and children growing up, are also part of fairy tales, but using Morgan and a new made up kid is not using the characters Enchanted was really about, which was Giselle and Robert. Giselle is still very much like the kid growing up, why change it?

So what would I propose? I like tsom's idea of Robert's ex-wife coming back into the picture. That not only complicates the plot, but it complicate Giselle's view of love an life even more, which was the point of her character, to learn such things.

But I actually wish Enchanted never got a sequel anyway! It said they lived happily ever after, so nothing unhappy can happen to them, especially poor Giselle! Unless this sequel tries to say "well, even happily ever after can be complicated" and change our (and Giselle's) view of what happily ever after is, or say "this is what comes after happily ever after", ahulk. Goodness, that would be why I am so against Enchanted in the first place. Stop messing with our fairy tales and changing our views of them! They're supposed to be idealistic and romantic, and magical, but we are (or were!) supposed to believe they were possible in real life.

Disney made perfect idealistic characters that were still believable, thought possible in real life, if rare. We were supposed to believe that we, too, could fall in love at first sight, and live happily ever after. If Kevin Lima doesn't think we can, he should make his movie at a studio that wasn't built on movies that said the opposite of that!

Since the movie ends with "Happily Ever After", why bother doing a film with only the original cast? Their story has been told and to do anything with them by themselves in a sequel would feel forced and likely end up begin repetitive.

At least with a new character and thematic approach, you can have something to work with while still using the original characters to develop the plot along with visual/storytelling touches found in the first movie (hand drawn animation, songs etc).

Something to consider: Halloween 3 tried to use the concept without the original characters, and it did not fare so well. There are very few "anthology" series out there in today's marketplace. Even ones with loose continuity and recasting, such as James Bond, still rely on the same basic main character remaining intact.

BrandonH wrote:Something to consider: Halloween 3 tried to use the concept without the original characters, and it did not fare so well.

Did I ever mention my idea wouldn't?