DVDizzy Forum

freddy kreuger is only as strong as the kids can remember him. mike meyers will chop you up whether you believe in him or not! tell me you saw nightmare on elm street 6.....dream child............possibly the worst piece of trash ever put on film.....second only to Halloween III!

This looks like a new poor Disney Sequel!

DisneyFella - they made six - didnt know that. I only saw the first three or there about.

Kreuger is way scarier - he is in your dream and you cant control it. You could stop Mike Meyers - he is real and tangible.

disneyfella wrote:i really enjoy your avatar Loomis. i am a huge fan of the Halloween series (number one is by far my all time favorite!...i'm saving up for the 25th anniversary edition). it didn't hit me until like a week ago that "Dr. Loomis" may have been your inspiration for the alias. Kudos to you for such a cool name! which one is your favorite.....i hope it was NOT Halloween III!!!!!!

Thanks dude...Loomis is mainly a Halloween reference (my first horror film "love"), but there are also Loomis' in Psycho and Scream (all paying tribute to each other).

Now, some might accuse me of being off topic here, but this is a thread about "sequels" and Halloween 6-8 werereleased through Dimension (:)) so it technically counts! The rest are released through Anchor Bay, who also release Disney films There - my justification

Nothing beat the first one for me, but of the sequels, IV was good (the return of Loomis!) and the recent Resurrection was actually a lot of fun. III was ok for what it was, but had no business being in the Halloween series.

disneyfella wrote:freddy kreuger is only as strong as the kids can remember him. mike meyers will chop you up whether you believe in him or not! tell me you saw nightmare on elm street 6.....dream child............possibly the worst piece of trash ever put on film.....second only to Halloween III!

Hey, I own the Nightmare boxset, so they are all gems to me. Nightmare 3 is easily the best sequel, and "New Nightmare" easily the best "non continuity film" (kind of a pre-Scream test run). Personally, I have to say Freddy is one of the few "fun" killers, mainly because he has a voice. Michael Myers is the one king to rule them all, as far as I'm concerned though.

Grunches wrote:The only reason I don't like sequels (cheapquels) 1 they make it just for a fast buck and don't put good effort into the movie. If they made it like the Lion King 1 1/2 it could be good. 2 it ruins the orignal idea that Walt made.

Ok, finally back "on topic" (althogh I maintain the above was on topic!).
I still don't see how a sequel can ruin the original for you. The original will always be there for you to enjoy (unless of course they add new bits to it, and 'remaster it' ), and nothign can take that away.

I think generally speaking the sequels have gotten better. The last few have almost been theatrical quality, so there is nothing "cheap" about them anymore. Give them a few more years, and I think we will see some even more amazing work coming out of Sydney (on 1/8 the budget).

As for the voices being different, well that can't be helped. In many cases, the original voice actors are dead. Nobody complains about Winnie the Pooh, but Jim Cummings has been doing a great job for years. Someone though, Pooh is cosidered to be 'different' and outside the 'all sequels suck' rule. Maybe because there is just so damn much of him

To me, I think Lady & the Tramp II, LK 1.5 and Stitch! The Movie show just how far the sequels have come, and how they have every right to not only compete in the animation market, but how they are no longer 'cheapquels' but legitimate 'sequels'.

Are you people still gonna defend these cheapquels when all Disney movies are accompanied by a number in the title?

It doesn’t matter if some are less bad than others… this is not the Disney Walt would want, this is not the Disney I want.

I think they should do a new live action/animated cross-over that features Mowgli meeting Mary Poppins in the jungle.

Loomis, I agree that sequels have become 2D's last stand... but apparently, 3D sequels to 2D films is now acceptable, so that may not be true much longer.

-Aaron

Joe Carioca wrote:Are you people still gonna defend these cheapquels when all Disney movies are accompanied by a number in the title?

It doesn’t matter if some are less bad than others… this is not the Disney Walt would want, this is not the Disney I want.

I'm not sure I know what you man by "when all Disney movies are accompanied by a number in the title". Do you mean when they all have sequels? If that is the case, well, they all pretty much do now, or will in the futrue. I still don't see the problem.

As for what Walt would want, it is hard to say. He is dead. Not coming back. Every company must go on. This company is making sequels. I would object if that was ALL they were doing, but they have also gone on to make quite a few brilliant animated films, as well as live action films. They just do this other thing as well - you can buy or you can ignore it. 'Nuff said.

Look, in the end I don't think it matters that there are sequels. I for one don't like Beauty and the Beast LESS because it has a terrible follow up, but I do appreciate the original all the more. Sequels don't ruin originals, any more than the Lord of the Rings films destroyed the original text. Both are still in existence if you want to go and watch them, and you can ignore one or the other if you wish.

As I said, it does not matter if every Disney movie has 17 sequels each, because Disney have not solely dedicate themselves to rehashing old stories. Yes, they have done a lot of remakes and sequels (both theatrically and DTV; live action and animated), but they are still churning out gems like Pirates of the Caribbean; Brother Bear; Lilo and Stitch etc - while doing sequels AT THE SAME TIME.

Really, I don't see how you can object to a good money earning scheme, that doesn't effect the quality of OTHER films. I mean, isn't that what EVERY company wants? Something cheap and quick, while they work on their big, expensive (and potentially money losing) ventures.

Walt did TV simply because he needed money for his larger visions. Current Disney are doing DTV for the same reasons. After all - be it Walt, Roy or Eisner - Disney has and always will be a company. And the primary function of a company is to make money for the people who invest in it.

I've read your posts. You're fond of analogies.
That said you can't really compare how Walt Disney used television to Disney the company making DTV sequels. The difference is that Walt Disney's shows were of the HIGHEST quality (like being filmed in color before they were broadcast in color) unlike the DTV which are "almost theatrical quality" or "getting better" i.e: have room for improvement. DTV's cost 11-30 million dollars to produce. Animated Features cost at least 90 million. That's why they're called cheapquels friend. Walt used the televison programs to promote new parks, attractions, and movies. So a more favorable comparison would be when ABC shows the Lion King the Saturday before "Lion King 33 1/3: News from the underground" comes out with a "sneak peek" or whatever.

FilmMkr wrote:I've read your posts. You're fond of analogies.

I like to use analogies the same way a painter uses a...hee hee hee. You would've seen that joke a mile off.

That said you can't really compare how Walt Disney used television to Disney the company making DTV sequels. The difference is that Walt Disney's shows were of the HIGHEST quality (like being filmed in color before they were broadcast in color) unlike the DTV which are "almost theatrical quality" or "getting better" i.e: have room for improvement. DTV's cost 11-30 million dollars to produce.

Yes they are, and that's my point. Most of the people here believe that a sequel is evil because it destroys the quality of the original. That is why I used the analogy - I was simply trying to point out that they are money makers for the studio so they COULD spent 90 million on a feature film. They are made cheapER, not cheap (I dream of the day when someone would give me 11-30 million to make a film).

I was drawing the comparison more between their function, not their quality, though. In both cases, they were being used to prop up another venture. Every company needs to release the "cheaper" film so that they can afford to make the "blockbuster" that has a chance of failure.

However, you are right in saying I shouldn't compare the two. Walt lived in a very different era, when he did not have to compete with any other animation coming out, nor did he have to compete with the internet, cable, X-boxes and independent filmmakers. Who is to say HOW Walt would have dealt with all the competition.

I would hazard to say that even the 'great' Walt may have considered the DTV venture. Perhaps there would have been more quality control, I don't know. Perhaps there would not have been as many of them. But I still stand by the fact that the sequels ARE of a high quality compared to other DTVs out there. And I also maintain that given time they will be even better.

My primary argument, though, is that it is unfair to be pleased with the demise of sequels simply because they are sequels. They serve a function, whether one likes it or not. Disney - despite the attachment people feel to it - is just a company, and one that needs to make money. Not every venture can be a potential $90 million flop. Even Walt knew that. The sequels and DTV are essential to the survival of Disney as a MODERN company, but whether one chooses to watch them or not is their business. Hopefully, many people will buy them and watch them so Disney will continue to turn a profit.

Joe Carioca wrote:Are you people still gonna defend these cheapquels when all Disney movies are accompanied by a number in the title?

It doesn’t matter if some are less bad than others… this is not the Disney Walt would want, this is not the Disney I want.

No, because that will never happen.

A common complaint against the sequels is that Disney is not investing in new films anymore. But let's just review what's we know is coming to theaters from Disney -

Rapunzel Unbraided
Chicken Little
Gnomeo and Juliet (perhaps - seems to be on-off-on)
Valliant
A Day with Wilbur Robinson
Cars
Disney's co-production with Core - I forget the title (Wild Life?)
Disney's co-production with ShadedBox (about the hamster - again I forget the title)

When has Disney ever had so many feature animations "in the works" at one time? Is any single one of them a sequel? True, they're all CGI, but that's another issue.

To misquote from Chicken Little "The Sky is not falling!"

awallaceunc wrote:Loomis, I agree that sequels have become 2D's last stand... but apparently, 3D sequels to 2D films is now acceptable, so that may not be true much longer.

-Aaron

What tells you this? Mickey's Twice Upon A Christmas? It's not really a sequel. Bambi II? Nobody has seen a screenshot from the movie yet, and Disney haven't announced the animation method.

We know Disney were experimenting with 3D Bambi, and we also know it was shelved because the results were not up to the standard Disney required. For all we know, Bambi II could have gone back to traditional animation.

Disney's aim for Bambi II and Dumbo II (which was also canned) were to duplicate the original 2D design and style as much as possible (like the recent Spider-Man TV series dabbles in a cell-animation style - but obviously Disney were much more ambitious). Don't doubt that Disney will do this at some stage - CGI has come on in leaps and bounds in a small space of time (when was T2 released? 1991?) because all efforts before and after their cinematic debut were to duplicate reality. Now that that aim is almost complete, developers are starting to experiment with CGI more and more and creating different rendering algorhythms and filters.

So in the long run, if Disney do achieve their aim of making 3D look almost indistinguishable from 2D, what does it matter. The only thing that matters are the final results on screen.

Loomis wrote:Yes they are, and that's my point. Most of the people here believe that a sequel is evil because it destroys the quality of the original.
That is why I used the analogy - I was simply trying to point out that they are money makers for the studio so they COULD spent 90 million on a feature film.

Well, I for one don't believe that a sequel destroys the quality of the original. Here's what I believe: The company fools people into thinking that the sequels are of the same quality as the original. For example: The Beauty and the Beast box you could send away for. Tell me on what plane of existence should Belle's Magical World be sitting next Beauty and the Beast in a box? OH it's the final chapter in a saga...if you dont have it the story isn't complete. Oh ok, the company shows no regards into the quality of the sequels. To them Belle's Magical World is just as deserving a classic status as the sequels that actually had some thought put into them like The Lion King's or Toy Story 2's.

Imagine a day when you can only buy Beauty and the Beast "the trilogy" as a 3 disc set with one disc of extras. It's coming. Like Star wars and Indidana Jones. There is no reason the company wouldn't go this route, because every movie is a "chapter" of the story and just as important as the first to them.

Loomis wrote: They are made cheapER, not cheap (I dream of the day when someone would give me 11-30 million to make a film).

I'm going to assume something here. I am going to assume that you are not a global conglomeration. I am going to assume that you don't own themeparks, cable stations, a catalog of tv, movie and short films, and I'm going to assume that you don't currently produce live action and animated films that go up for Academy Awards. Everything is in context Loomis. 11-30 million is alot for YOU not "the most trusted brand in family entertainment." I bet you'd love it if someone gave you a hundred dollars to make a film. I know I would!

They recently had an information session for the College Program at my school. One of the things the recruiter said was "Say you work at the French Fry stand and all you do is sell french fries. Is that what you put on your resume? NO! You say that I was responsible for operating a kiosk that generated over a million dollars in profits a year." A million dollars a year for selling french fries at ONE kiosk. Say there are 4 kiosks in every park in WDW. Magic Kingdom, Mgm, Epcot, Animal Kingdom. 16 million dollars was just made. On french fries available at kiosks at one park. Now factor in the french fries at Disneyland. Euro Disney....Disney has plenty of money to make quality films.

Comparitive to the financial means of the company and the legacy they are striving to maintain the dtv sequels are cheap.

Loomis wrote: I was drawing the comparison more between their function, not their quality, though. In both cases, they were being used to prop up another venture.

DTV Sequels are not needed to prop up anything. Although some of the really terrible ones could be used to level patio furniture I guess.

Loomis wrote: Walt lived in a very different era, when he did not have to compete with any other animation coming out, nor did he have to compete with the internet, cable, X-boxes and independent filmmakers. Who is to say HOW Walt would have dealt with all the competition.

I'm pretty sure I read that Walt wanted to get the rights to Peter Pan so that "Fleisher couldn't ruin them." There were other animated movies, I know there were Flintstones, Yogi Bear, Looney tunes movies, I didn't imdb.com the dates but I know they exist. The public doesn't know because they weren't QUALITY movies and they haven't stood the test of time like Disney's animated films. And walt didn't just make animated movies either.

You're absolutely right, Walt didn't have to compete with the internet, XBOX, what have you. Because he's from a different time, which is so hard for us youth to understand. He had to compete with, Television, Radio, Bicycles, skipping rocks on a lake, playing cowboys and indians, coloring, chores, Jump rope, sports, going outside. Those were the XBOX's and internets of his day. When it's all people know, it's all people do. Imagine your whole family and your neighbors coming to your house to listen to the radio. It's hard to do isn't it? It's easy to say that people had nothing to do but wait for WAlt to bless them with a movie, but that couldn't be any farther from the truth. To belittle the activities of our parents and grandparents does a service to no one.

Loomis wrote: I would hazard to say that even the 'great' Walt may have considered the DTV venture. Perhaps there would have been more quality control, I don't know.

Yeah, and no one else knows either because he's dead and has been for a long time. So you can only speculate on a persons future actions from their previous ones. Everyone knows about walt's no sequel rule to his animated films, as to why that would change is anyone's guess.

Loomis wrote: Perhaps there would not have been as many of them. But I still stand by the fact that the sequels ARE of a high quality compared to other DTVs out there. And I also maintain that given time they will be even better.

Why does it have to be a DTV? Toy Story 2 did well. Shrek 2 is going to do well. Why not put the care in the release and earn a 200 million dollar profit instead of a 20 million dollar profit? I can hear you guys now, TS2 started out as a DTV, but was CHANGED into a theatrical early in production. Compare it to the Jungle Book 2 which was in a similar situation with any terms you can think of and tell me which one comes out on top.

Loomis wrote: My primary argument, though, is that it is unfair to be pleased with the demise of sequels simply because they are sequels. They serve a function, whether one likes it or not. Disney - despite the attachment people feel to it - is just a company, and one that needs to make money. .

I know this is mainly directed at others on the board but I think you should know that I don't have a problem with sequels at all, not even DTV ones. Simba's Pride and King of theives are two of my favorite movies. It's just that for every good sequel, there are some that are just to make money and it shows. The public can only be burned so many times with shoddy product. I'm still recovering from 4th degrees thanks to Hunchback of Notre Dame II and Belle's Magical World. Disney isn't distinguishing their products for the consumer and that is the danger. How do I know that Tarzan and Jane isn't a sequel to Tarzan and that Tarzan 2 is in the works, or Lilo and Stitch for that matter? How do I know the difference between the Jungle Book 2 and Brother Bear? They're both Disney, they're both at the theatre. Their company model makes no sense to the consumer, even the well informed ones. It's no coincidence that Disney movies (not PiXAR) are taking in less and less. DTV's help boost the quarter shares which is what the company is concerned with.

The Lion King was released the same month as The First DTV release. Every year more and more DTV releases come out. Watch the steady decline of Animated feature grosses. Coincidence? But Lilo and Stitch was a hit....and it's already been diluted into 3 different permutations sent right into peoples homes. When Lilo and Stitch 2 doesn't make Finding Nemo grosses it will be because he was in 2D. Not because the market was oversaturated from the glutton of product. Not because it was done on the cheap. You're right. Disney is just a company. That wouldn't be a problem if it didn't used to be so much more.

FilmMkr wrote:

Loomis wrote: Walt lived in a very different era, when he did not have to compete with any other animation coming out, nor did he have to compete with the internet, cable, X-boxes and independent filmmakers. Who is to say HOW Walt would have dealt with all the competition.

I'm pretty sure I read that Walt wanted to get the rights to Peter Pan so that "Fleisher couldn't ruin them." There were other animated movies, I know there were Flintstones, Yogi Bear, Looney tunes movies, I didn't imdb.com the dates but I know they exist. The public doesn't know because they weren't QUALITY movies and they haven't stood the test of time like Disney's animated films. And walt didn't just make animated movies either.

You're absolutely right, Walt didn't have to compete with the internet, XBOX, what have you. Because he's from a different time, which is so hard for us youth to understand. He had to compete with, Television, Radio, Bicycles, skipping rocks on a lake, playing cowboys and indians, coloring, chores, Jump rope, sports, going outside. Those were the XBOX's and internets of his day. When it's all people know, it's all people do. It's easy to say that people had nothing to do but wait for WAlt to bless them with a movie, but that couldn't be any farther from the truth. To belittle the activities of our parents and grandparents does a service to no one.

Loomis wrote: I would hazard to say that even the 'great' Walt may have considered the DTV venture. Perhaps there would have been more quality control, I don't know.

Yeah, and no one else knows either because he's dead and has been for a long time. So you can only speculate on a persons future actions from their previous ones. Everyone knows about walt's no sequel rule to his animated films, as to why that would change is anyone's guess.

When Disney was making full-length features, there never was much competition. The Looney Tunes movies were TV movies. Yogi Bear etc was limited television animation. Looney Tunes and theatrical shorts themselves were on a slow decline due to the influence of television.

That's right the competition from cheap Hanna-Barbera cartoons and reruns of older theatrical shorts on television resulted in the death of original quality theatrical shorts. Already when Walt was alive the media was changing and having effect on theatrical releases and release patterns.

I don't think anybody is belittling older pass times. But there's more synergy between computer games and movies than their is between bicycling and movies. Like it or not, computer games, 24 hour cartoon stations, DTVs and films are all competing for the same money, and have close artistic and stylistic ties.

TV cartoons now are of reasonable quality. I was watching What's New Scooby Doo? last night. It doesn't compare to a Disney movie, but the quality is much better than the Scooby Doo cartoons of the 70's. And to most people that's all that matters. They won't go to see a theatrical animation because they have cartoons on tap 24 hours a day. Plus, they know it will be on DVD later, and after that shown on television repeatedly.

You are however correct. Nobody can say if Walt would have or wouldn't have made sequels. But he initially said (like most studio heads when Television was invented) he wouldn't make anything for television. Soon changed his mind when he needed the money for Disneyland didn't he? Then he said OK, he would, but he would never let his animated films be shown on television. Time changes. The business changes and decisions change.

As for as sequels goes, the most often quote to illustrate the point is "You can't top pigs with pigs." Am I missing something here, or did he or did he not make a series of sequels to The Three Little Pigs?

FilmMkr wrote: Why does it have to be a DTV? Toy Story 2 did well. Shrek 2 is going to do well. Why not put the care in the release and earn a 200 million dollar profit instead of a 20 million dollar profit? I can hear you guys now, TS2 started out as a DTV, but was CHANGED into a theatrical early in production. Compare it to the Jungle Book 2 which was in a similar situation with any terms you can think of and tell me which one comes out on top.

Yes. But Jungle Book 2 has still made more money than Atlantis or Treasure Planet. Brother Bear has made $200m world wide. But that's only in ticket sales. It's made just over half of it's production budget in the US, so based on the accepted formula its managed to make a small profit on it's US release. Nothing like $200m though. Then lets look at the worldwide sales. I know it made just over £5m in the UK - but again that's ticket sales. How much of that £5m went to the cinema owners? How much of that £5m went on advertising?

Very few films make money at the theater. Many actually loose money. They need home video sales and television sales to finally turn profit. Again, the situation is different from when Walt was alive and most films did make a profit from their initial theatrical release.

I wouldn't be surprised if Lion King 1 1/2 makes more money over all than Brother Bear once everything is tallied up, theatrical release or not.

FilmMkr wrote:I know this is mainly directed at others on the board but I think you should know that I don't have a problem with sequels at all, not even DTV ones. Simba's Pride and King of theives are two of my favorite movies. It's just that for every good sequel, there are some that are just to make money and it shows. The public can only be burned so many times with shoddy product. I'm still recovering from 4th degrees thanks to Hunchback of Notre Dame II and Belle's Magical World. Disney isn't distinguishing their products for the consumer and that is the danger. How do I know that Tarzan and Jane isn't a sequel to Tarzan and that Tarzan 2 is in the works, or Lilo and Stitch for that matter? How do I know the difference between the Jungle Book 2 and Brother Bear? They're both Disney, they're both at the theatre. Their company model makes no sense to the consumer, even the well informed ones. It's no coincidence that Disney movies (not PiXAR) are taking in less and less. DTV's help boost the quarter shares which is what the company is concerned with.

Well, I cannot understand how anyone can like Aladdin and the King of Thieves. Surely this is a poster for what people hate about the sequels? The animation is poor, the songs forgetful and the story pointless. Yet, I notice a lot of people who do hate the sequels like it. I'm not really that bothered - we're all different, but I do find it odd.

As for Disney's labelling of their DTV's I agree 100%. Belle's Magical World keeps coming up, but BMW is not (as far as I'm concerned) a sequel - its a compilation. As is Cinderella 2, Atlantis: Milo's Return and Jaffar's Return to name some more. It's wrong to call these sequels.

FilmMkr wrote:The Lion King was released the same month as The First DTV release. Every year more and more DTV releases come out. Watch the steady decline of Animated feature grosses. Coincidence? But Lilo and Stitch was a hit....and it's already been diluted into 3 different permutations sent right into peoples homes. When Lilo and Stitch 2 doesn't make Finding Nemo grosses it will be because he was in 2D. Not because the market was oversaturated from the glutton of product. Not because it was done on the cheap. You're right. Disney is just a company. That wouldn't be a problem if it didn't used to be so much more.must own

I think the importance of the DTVs into the equation is vastly overstated. Even now there's only a small number of DTVs. And yes there is a glut on animation. But also, after the Lion King lots of studios jumped on the animation bandwagon wanting to get their own slice of the Lion King's box office. This lead to a glut of theatrical releases which wasn't made by Disney and Disney had no control over. So is it a coincidence that at this time the first DTV came out. Probably.

You're right there is a glut (but it's odd, noone has ever accused there being a glut of thriller movies, or a glut of comedies etc). As for your example of Lilo and Stitch - well, a syndicated TV series always on the air (and most likely will be for years to come) is doing way more damage than a single DTV release is or ever will (even if the DTV is a compilation of episodes from said series).

There's going to be a glut of CGI movies soon, and there will be winners and loosers. Just like there was after The Lion King. Disney is not guarenteed to win, but it's not guarenteed to loose either. The whole thing will result in similar indifference to CGI as there is now to traditional animation. Then Disney will be free to make 2D and 3D animated films.

in keeping with Loomis' ON TOPIC remarks (i just had to converse with Loomis on this).....

Nightmare 3 is by far the best....i might even put that one over the original. i didn't care so much for the "New Nightmare", but respected its intentions.

Halloween is, i think the best in that series, but 4 was decent as well. i also enjoyed 'H2O' more than 'Ressurrection' even though i did think 'Ressurrection' was entertaining.

by the way since i'm on the topic of horror flicks and through Loomis' long explanation of why this is On Topic....i finally finished all the Friday the 13th films! whew now i'm done with that one. you know what....i'm just going to head on over to the Off Topic Forum to continue this discussion because i already know where I'm heading........hope to see you guys there.