Dumbo II Discussion Thread

[yoda_four]

While were on the subtopic of cheapquels....

As I remeber, back when Disney first did Snow White, Pinocchio, Dumbo, and Fantasia; most of those movies didn't make back all the money they cost (in the initial runs). The only way Walt & co ever continued with feature films was that he could always rely on the steay cash flow from the animated shorts. Now I've been thinking a bit, and don't the DTV sequels of today remind you of the shorts of the 50s. They provide steady cash flow for Disney to continue making movies which recently haven't really provided much money profits. Although the cash isn't going into making extraordinary, state of the art, groundbreaking films like Snow White; I think it still provides enough money for Eisner to at least accept projects to be done. (Not to count the theme parks, tv, etc. money). So, if you think of it this way, if you like watching only original films and not sequels, then so be it; but that's kinda just like only seeing feature length films instead of animated shorts.

What I'm trying to say is Disney's reaching it's Black Cauldron/WWII point of renewal again. So, if you prefer original movies to sequels that's fine; just don't go saying how bad it's going to be before you see it cause they can surprise you (Empire Strikes Back, Lion King 1.5, Jurassic Park 2) or you could be right on the stake (Little Mermaid 2, Star Wars: Episode 1, Jurassic Park 3). You never know!

[Kram Nebuer]

The only sequel I really, really enjoyed was the 101 Dalmations one. That was funny. The 101 Dalmations one strayed far away from any such nonsense, and just gave us more Cruella, which is what we all wanted.

I liked this one too. It managed to try to keep the same art style and created a whole new story. I also liked the British accents.

Dumbo 2 probably had some good potential, and I hate to see it shelved. Snow White 2? Can't imagine what they were thinking on that one! Bambi 2? Well, there is a book sequel to Bambi, called "Bambi's Children," so that movie probably made sense.

I read that Bambi 2 was about Bambi still as a child and coping the loss of his mother and growing up with his father the Great Prince. So it's more like an in-between-quel.

At the old site Animated-Movies.com they mentioned that the plan sequel for Snow White involved her 13 year old daughter Rose who helps to rescue the dwarfnapped seven dwarfs. Can you imagine such a thing? Making a sequel to Walt Disney's FIRST classic film and a sequel to one of the ultimate happily ever after stories?

[karlsen]

As I remeber, back when Disney first did Snow White, Pinocchio, Dumbo, and Fantasia; most of those movies didn't make back all the money they cost (in the initial runs). The only way Walt & co ever continued with feature films was that he could always rely on the steay cash flow from the animated shorts.

This is not true at all. If Snow White had not made the money they spent on it Walt Disney would have been broke and you would not have any more films from him.

I know that later movies like Fantasia was a big disapointment to Walt and he therefore stoped making inovating and groundbraking movies and started making "copyes" of his first storyes.

Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty was movies like that, they were only made because everybody loved the princess story in Snow White.

[Loomis]

OK, I know that this is OT but I have to argue with what you say that the Bible is edited.

The Bible is not edited in any way at all since it was written, but it has been translated, and that is why there is a King James edition and many more.
[...]
The Bible remains exactly the same as when it was put together almost 2000 years ago.

No, I'm sorry I have to argue even more. (This is way off topic, so feel free to move, Luke. Rest assured, I do get back on topic by the end of the rant ).

How can you argue that the Bible has been translated, yet it is exactly the same?

If you have ever learned a foreign language, you will know that a word for word translation is impossible in most cases. You have to attempt to give meaning to the translated text in a way that audience might understand. After 2000 years of various translations, are you telling me we have EXACTLY what was written way back when? I think not.

The "divinity" of Jesus is altered in some modern versions. (1). There are some who believe this even extends to the whole "virgin birth", with some people arguing that the word "virgin" could have just as easily been translated as "young woman".

However, this is ALL BESIDE THE POINT. The point I think I was trying to make was that nothing is really beyond revision or a follow up. All myths and fables and sacred texts - including everything from the bible to Snow White - have been "tampered with" along the way. Everything, every movie, every book every magazine article is SOMEONE'S reinterpretation of that original story.

A sequel, remake or follow up is just an extension of this. It is a modern way of perpetuating older stories and moral tales. The Passion of the Christ is one man's version of the bible, which some agree with, some do not. Likewise, a sequel to Dumbo (or any Disney movie) would just be a modern retelling of a story many are already familiar with.

More to the point, as I originally tried to say - Disney is just keeping their investments current. And can you blame them? I stand by my original analogy: "These sequels in no way REPLACE the original they simply supplement them - like a Virtual Safari on a DVD, you can watch them if you enjoy that sort of thing, but you can ignore them if you choose. Either way, the original feature is still there.".

[karlsen]

I don't agree, because there are a big diffrence between the Bible and Snow White and the seven dwarfs.

Snow White can be remade and changed as pleased, but the Bible is most often translated by people that think that this is s sacret text and they do most everything to make it true to the original text (because that is Gods word, not a fairytale by the Grim Brothers).

There has always been people desputing what things means, and that is because there are a lot of people out there that has to make a name for themselves by saying something that people will notice.

Trying to say that the virgin birth was not true is just one of those things that will asure you with world wide coverage.

Ofcause there are Bibles that has been altered, like the one that Jehovas Witneses has made. They just needed a new Bible that was more in line with what they were teaching.

But the big ones out there, like King James, they are as true to the original as you can come.

It is a translation, so it is like you say not a perfect word by word. But nothing has been lost over the years like earlier stated.

[2099net]

I don't want to talk about the Bible* But I will defend the concept of sequels to any story, "happily ever after" or not.

I hear some people say "Sequels are okay, but just don't make any sequels to Walt's films - show some respect" and I honestly cannot understand this statement.

To pick up on Loomis' statement - What respect did Walt show to Kipling when making the Jungle Book (for example)? In fact, he even instructed his animators and story people to ignore the story and "have some fun" with the characters from the book. It's just hypocrisy to support Walt's right to "have fun" with other people's creations, and then to put his creations onto a pedestal so high that they become untouchable. Where's the justice in that? Changes were also made to stories like Pinocchio, Snow White, Cinderella and 101 Dalmatians.

Even after Walt's death, Disney has prospered by taking other people's stories and altering them. The Little Mermaid, Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Rescuers, Tarzan, Basil... Some people insist that the Disney films have a better ending - for example the "happy" ending to The Little Mermaid - but really they've just got different endings. Different endings more suited to the presentation and the expectations of the audience at the time. It's arrogant to simply state that Disney can "improve" stories, some of which have been tried and tested for years. And yet "we" let Disney do it, with little of no complaints.

There is nothing wrong, in theory, to a sequel to any work. Stories have changed to better reflect the culture of the times for generation upon generation. Stories can be refilmed, reimagined or even sequeled. I for one think that Return to Neverland is much more enjoyable, relevant and coherent to modern children than Disney's Peter Pan will ever be.

Sadly, the real issue is that when Disney have made a sequel, it's not been very good. That's the only real reason for this non-ending sequel bashing. And I does upset me, because every fluffed sequel and every lame cartoon shorts strung together as movies compilation weakens my argument. But a number of poor quality sequels don't mean the concept is wrong. A music chart full of poor quality singles doesn't mean the idea of singles are wrong. A summer season of braindead blockbuster films doesn't mean the concept of films are wrong. There are good sequels available from Disney if you just get over your prejudice. Don't constantly look to the past and titles like Belle's Magical World or Hunchback II - look to the future and keep an open mind.

* But is is a fact that King James "influenced" the text of the translations of "his" Bible to suit his own agendas and views.

[karlsen]

* But is is a fact that King James "influenced" the text of the translations of "his" Bible to suit his own agendas and views.

I honestly don't think that King James had anything to do with the latest "King James" Bible. I don't know it well enough since I use my Norwegian Bible but I can't imagine that the King James version today is exactly the same as the one several hundred years ago.

[catNC]

Of course the Bible is not translated word for word from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts. Like Loomis said, sometimes there just aren't ways to translate a word or phrase from one language into another one. HOWEVER, the important ideas, concepts, and in the Bible's case, theology all remain the same. Many Bibles now come with TONS of footnotes, even separate books describing the translation process, and trying to express what the ORIGINAL texts were trying to say. It's not like the Bible has ended up being the fanciful "story book" about miracles performed by magicians, and this man who died but came back to life. The most important ideas are kept and have been kept as much as possible to the original ancient texts. Ask someone who read Don Quixote in spanish hundreds of years ago and ask someone today who read the book in English to tell you what the book was about, even though there are some instances where absolutely literal translations are impossible, they will tell you it's about the same thing, a man running around on his horse jousting windmills. Just because a word or phrase might not be EXACTLY the meaning the original author was trying to achieve, great care and study is taken into completing these translations and making them as correct as possible.

Now back to the whole sequel thing... I think 2099 touched on a good point. Perhaps the fact that no one likes the sequels is because they've just been really bad. If the same care had been taken with the sequels as it were with the originals (in regards to animation, story, character development, all that good stuff), then maybe the whole sequel issue would be different. Walt himself never had the chance to do a sequel to one of his animated movies, but I would like to think that if he had had the chance to do it, his would've been 10 times better than the ones that have come to us in more recent years.

[Owlzindabarn]

For the sequels...I really had no problem with the animation or anything. I didn't expect top-on-the-line delineation from any of them. They were just made-for-video anyway. (I'll point out that Lion King 1 1/2 held up to most feature films). But anyway the main reason I don't appreciate most of the sequels was because of the stories!

I believe that most of the sequels suffered from too much thinking. Look at the promos for most of them. You see the familiar characters prancing around while the narrator is saying "Where ____ learns the true meaning of FRIENDSHIP! LOVE! and WHOLESOME FAMILY VALUES!" Such jargon is meant to appeal only to parents with loose credit cards. Those films weren't really meant to entertain. They were meant to sell. And they did sell. For awhile. Notice that there are certainly wholesome family values in 101 Dalmations 2 and Lion King 1 1/2, but they weren't marketed that way. Instead, we got friendship and values and fine entertainment. I think it's because as time wore on, Disney looked at their marketing strategies and realized that entertainment really does sell better than preaching. Maybe that's why the other 3 sequels were canned...maybe they were too much of the old-school marketing approach. Dalmations and Lion King kick butt....Jungle Book 2, Little Mermaid 2 and others just had SOOOO many useful family lessons to teach us. I'd rather just be entertained.

[karlsen]

The thing that irritates me the most about all the sequals are not the bad quality and the exploition of great movies but rather the bad use of time and money.

Instead of using money and time on making a new and great movie, Eisner is spending his money on several cheap copyes.

I want new and good movies, and not cheap copyes.

If they were able to do both, then I would not have minded it so much. The trouble is that they can't do both, espesialy now after they fired many of their greatest tallents.

[AwallaceUNC]

Let me quickly address the two-in-one discussion here .

I think that the fact that modern translations were upheld by near-original transcripts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls speaks to the accuracy of what we have today. Of course, there are problems with Hebrew-to-English translations (and I think that NASB and KJV are probably the most accurate... NIV may be the most-read, but it's a transliteration, not a translation), but that's why you just learn to read Hebrew, and then pick up a copy of the Hebrew bible for yourself, like me. But then you'll need a Greek friend for the New Testament.

2099net, you said that the problem isn't with the concept of sequels, but with the fact that Disney's sequels (on the whole) aren't any good. I agree completely. I would love to see sequels to a lot of the movies, if they were actually good!!

Still, I think the fact that they haven't been good warrants criticism, as well as the 'cheapquel' name, if not in terms of finances, than in terms of story.

*Thinks back to which sequel this thread was about...can't remember...but then thread title comes back in mind*

Yeah, Dumbo 2 has been 'paused' but I expect it'll come around someday in the future, to a video store near you.

-Aaron

[MickeyMousePal]

awallaceunc Wrote

Yeah, Dumbo 2 has been 'paused' but I expect it'll come around someday in the future, to a video store near you.

Dumbo 2 is gone awallaceunc it got cancel a long time ago.
They are not going to but it on DVD ever.
The story was weak and had to stop production.
I already know it won't be taken out on DVD.

Bambi 2 and Snow White 2 were also cancel for a while and they should not be made what ever happpen to happy ever after.

This is not happy ever after for cheapsequels!!!

[AwallaceUNC]

No, MMP, you don't know that. I was speculating that they will resume the project later down the road, and I really think they will. I'm well aware of its reasons for initial cancellation, but that doesn't mean the possibility for revival isn't there.

There's no DUMBo questions: just goofy answers!

Bean, I just had to take the time to virtually laugh at that:

-Aaron

[2099net]

Oh yes, I would expect Dumbo 2 to come out at some point. Maybe a slightly reworked copy of the proposed story, or maybe totally different.

Anyone who knows how major motion pictures are made will understand films can be stuck in "development hell" for lots of reasons; including story details; but are still made, sometimes years later.

As far as we know, Bambi 2 is back on again. But we don't even know the animation medium to be used.

[Braveheartdvd]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed or not, but I was wondering if anyone has heard any news about when Dumbo II will be coming out on DVD. It was mentioned on the 60th Anniversary edition of Dumbo in 2001, but I have not heard anything since. Has anyone heard of a release date?

[PatrickvD]

I'm not sure but I think it has been cancelled.

[Luke]

It's definitely been stalled, but I think it's more likely a temporary hiatus. We all know how Disney likes to use work they have, and at least some work went into this film.

I believe problems arose when they tried to do Dumbo in CGI. Or maybe I'm just imagining that. I can't find any source to back it up.

In any event, it doesn't seem to be a currently active project for Disney now.

Welcome to the forum!

[MickeyMousePal]

I'm not sure but I think it's been delayed or canceled.
It could have been delayed to coincide with Dumbo 2 Disc DVD who knows???...

[Ciaobelli]

I'm not sure but I think it's been delayed or canceled.
It could have been delayed to coincide with Dumbo 2 Disc DVD who knows???...

I'll keep my fingers crossed.


For the Dumbo SE obviously.

[deathie mouse]

Maybe Pixar could have helped with the CGI...

Mmmm... if they made Dumbo II as long as Dumbo, they both could fit in a single disc