DVDizzy Forum

I never said I hated the sequels. Least never seriously. I buy them for my daughter. I'm not out boycotting them. Disney has a cashcow and they know it. Disney certainly aren't making them for adults. But the least they could do is be a little more original and not copy themselves.

I am sure the creators of these sequels are doing the best.....with the money Disney gives them and what they say they can and cannot do.

Take for instance Peter S. Beagle. Mr. Beagle was hired to write the script for The Little Mermaid's pilot episode Whale of a Tale. Disney had already arranged a storyline to be written. They sent it over to Mr. Beagle and he read it and found all sorts of problems. Mainly to do with the whale's biology. He calls them back with, "Any 4 year old knows killer whales a mammals and breathe air and would not sleep on the bottom of the sea floor.". Disney replies with, "You write the script, we'll worry about the fan mail.", So to much of his aggrivation about that point and others, Spot sleeps on the seafloor.

So I have no doubt the script writers and animators try hard. You can see it in some sequals. Aladdin sequels were afterall meant to be openers for the series anyways. So yeah, animation lacked. But the others aren't too bad animation wise. But story wise, the main Disney network, not Disney TOons and so on, decide what the story will be.

And I still ain't buying Lady and the Tramp 2 and Little Mermaid 2's storylines. For kids or not, kids aren't that stupid to know it is just the same exact story from the first movie. My daughter pointed that out to me and she's just 6. I think Disney could have done better for those stories. Why not instead of Melody wanting to live in the ocean, have her fear it. And Ursula's sister (forget her name), kidnaps her and keeps her in an underwater cave, where Melody has to overcome her fear of the water to help save herself? Weak still, but better then a rehash of the first movie.

Wow, Siren! Thanks for posting up all that about the sequels! I agree with you on the ones I have watched (& own )!

Well. It's just a sequel. I bet a sequel to The Great Mouse Detective might be released in December 2006. If you know what I mean.

For Siren who is bashing Lady and the Tramp II and saying the characters are not true to the originals.

Well, Scamp is actually an established Disney character who has been appearing in comics and storybooks since the 1950's. And Scamp was always - well, a Scamp - mischievious and often ignoring the rules set down by his parents and the house. And yes, Scamp has run away from home several times over his extended "life".

So Lady and the Tramp II is actually one of the better sequels.

As for the "flip-flop" critisism in general. Well, people want to see sequels that are like the originals. It's one of the main reasons sequels are made! Sequels that have departed in tone from their inspirations generally have flopped, either financially or critically. Gremlins II? Too experimental. Back To The Future Pt 3 is often seen as the runt of the litter as there's "Not enough time travel". The Phantom Menace isn't seen as a proper "Star Wars" film by many being too talky and political. Robocop 2 was to campy and childish compared to the first. Alien 3 was actually a pretty good film, and close in style to the first Alien, but suffered by being compared to Aliens.

Making a sequel to a Disney film with didn't echo the original plot to some extent would cause far more complaints from the general public than a spiffy new original story would. At the very least it would be a major gamble for Disney. Original sequels are rare, but can reap big rewards if they click (Aliens is often seen as the template to the Alien movies, rather than the original Alien for example - but even Alien had to have Ripley's presence to fall back on)

My final point: Steven Speilberg is one of the most well regarded filmmakers of today - artistically and financially. But it doesn't stop him from creating to some extent artistically static, crowd pleasing sequels like Jurassic Park 2 or Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Jurassic Park 2 in particular is a terrible film - no amount of money or special effects gloss can hide the fact that it's shallow, filled with plot holes and does thing just because it can. It picks out every thing great from the first film and makes it stupid. But the existance of Jurassic Park 2 doesn't mean Juarssic Park 1 was any less impressive when it opened, or that Steven Spielberg can't also make deep worthy films like Schindlers List or The Color Purple. Just like Disney has more original animated fully-budgeted movies in the works today than at any other time in it's history. The sequels are not destroying Feature Animation and more than Amblin's Jurassic Park, Gremlins, Back to the Future, Flintstones, or Men in Black sequels has harmed Spielberg or his reputation.

right on Jens.

Jens wrote:And that's where I come in...

The problem with you sequel-haters is that you take the sequels WAY, but WAY WAY too serious. To you, the sequels have to be Feature Animation quality. Well here's a news flash: They do NOT try and they NEVER will.

As much as I don't like it, the sequels were made up by the Disney Company to entertain CHILDREN. If the original wasn't, then you will PROBABLY hate the sequel. I'm not saying that all sequels are aimed directly towards children, but they leap way more towards that side than the movies they were based on.

The reason why I defend sequels at this moment is because the DisneyToon Studios spend a lot of work on these sequels this day and they CARE. They care about the characters, they care about the original crew that created the original movie and they just really really CARE.

I have a message to all sequel-haters:

We (people that might give sequels a chance) DON'T CARE about your continuous WHINING of how bad sequels are and all those things. Really, it won't make a difference! The only thing you are doing is making other people narrowminded too and making them not see sequels because you say so! I find that so selfish, it's unbelievable...

I'm sorry if this sounds a little hard, but I can't stand this any longer... Stating your opinion is something different than smearing it into someone's face that sequels are BAD.

wow, seriously, listen to yourself. Now you're the one shoving YOUR opinion down everyone's throats. Here's my newsflash: most of the sequels are considered to be really bad, that is why they have received a following of haters (and before you freak out, I'm not stating my opinion on them here). You have to accept a lot of people hate them and will continue to bring that issue up or you will be copying and pasting this very post for the next 10 years (assuming Disney is gonna keep on sequalizing) Do yourself a favor and ignore the sequel haters and enjoy them the movies. Nothing you can say or do will stop people from bashing them.

Jens (calm down you'll have a heart attack man! That's just a discussion on SEQUELS, relax), the point is that Disney okay is to entertain children, but there were a time when they DID care about the adults that watch the movie with their children... That's how movies such as Rescuers Down Under or Toy Sory 2 are very very enjoyable by a vast majority whereas Cinderella2 and Mulan2 are clearly addressed to the young "Princess merchendise" buyers... that's why I abnd others dare to criticize your idol studios. I love Disney for the most part, but i just hate them when they ruin icons as Cinderella or Mulan for the sake of easy earned money.

First of all, I am not forcing my opinion on anyone. I am the one that is saying that everyone should be a little more open-minded towards sequels. I am not saying that everyone should like them. I AM saying that endless pointing out that sequels are BAD and that they will stay that way FOREVER (although the recent sequels are far from BAD) is just very narrowminded.

When I watch sequels, I adjust my level of "expected quality" to a much lower level than when I watch their originals. That way I'm still having some entertainment, instead of nitpicking on all the bad things in that particular sequel.

I think everyone should at least have a neutral feeling about a sequel BEFORE seeing it. I hate it when people start bashing a sequel when it's not even released yet or they haven't seen it. I haven't seen Lady & the Tramp II yet, and I won't make any comments on it untill I see it.

Jens wrote:When I watch sequels, I adjust my level of "expected quality" to a much lower level than when I watch their originals. That way I'm still having some entertainment, instead of nitpicking on all the bad things in that particular sequel.

That's the difference between the two of us. I refuse to lower my expectations just because Disney has forced me to become used to it! I know they can do better, and my expectations will stay right where they are. But I do agree, people should see every movie open mindedly.

DisneyFan 2000 wrote:

Jens wrote:When I watch sequels, I adjust my level of "expected quality" to a much lower level than when I watch their originals. That way I'm still having some entertainment, instead of nitpicking on all the bad things in that particular sequel.

That's the difference between the two of us. I refuse to lower my expectations just because Disney has forced me to become used to it! I know they can do better, and my expectations will stay right where they are. But I do agree, people should see every movie open mindedly.

So when George Lucas starts his Star Wars tv series, will you be expecting the same spectacle and epic canvas as has been seen in the three prequels? Do you think the Legally Blonde tv series should still star Reece Witherspoon who can demand a multi-million fee for each movie she makes? Or to reverse the question do you think that if they do a Buffy theatrical movie, it should have the same production budget and standards as the TV show?

Different projects have different budgets and expectations depending on what they are aimed at.

A sequel, in my opinion, should be made with the same care, love, resources and budget that went into the original. I think it's a fair request.



Funny how you compare these sequels to TV shows, when Disney claims they are "all-new" feature movies...

There you have it... I especially care about the sequels that are being made these latest years as the DisneyToon Studios just have that same care, love and resources you just said. The budget is another thing, because they can now do a lot more quality for a much lower price than in the original.

Take Tarzan II for example... There were about 3 animators back from the original Tarzan movie, the original music composer was back, the original music performer was back and most of the original voices came back! I mean, what does that mean? That it didn't have the same care, love and resources? I don't think so!

DisneyFan 2000 wrote:A sequel, in my opinion, should be made with the same care, love, resources and budget that went into the original. I think it's a fair request.



Funny how you compare these sequels to TV shows, when Disney claims they are "all-new" feature movies...

Yes. But they also claim that they are "Only available on DVD" (on the whole - we'll ignore JB2 and RtNL for now). Like I said in another topic, Disney are not trying to replace their Feature Animation films with sequels, they still have plenty of big budget animated films lined up for the next few years (more than perhaps any other time in their history) so I don't really see the problem.

As for doing better, of course Disney could do better. I don't dispute that. And of course some sequels have been terrible. But some people like the ones I hate and vice versa. Every film is somebody's favourite (Even BioDome judging by some Amazon.Com reviews). But you know what, I'm one of the few who thought Disney could have done better with the Pirates of the Caribbean script and story.

What I say is MY opinion. If I say, it was a bad sequel. I am saying that in MY opinion. Not that it is bad because of how much it made. But that I found it not be to my expectations.

Some of you take the comments WAY too seriously. Yeah, I really hung myself when I mentioned Cinderalla too. Have a neck brace and all. I was lucky my neck didn't snap when I kicked the chair from under me. See what I mean?

And yeah, I know Scamp was an established character and was well, a scamp, but the STORY was what bothered me. I actually have a few old Scamp books. So yes, I know he's been around. It would be like me thinking Scrooge McDuck was created solely for Ducktales. I know Scamp has existed SINCE Lady and the Tramp. So don't get nit-picky with me.

One of my big problems with the sequels is that Disney has shoved off it's 2D animation for CGI. Personally I miss Disney's handdrawn animation and I am disappointed Disney demoted hand drawn to the Hell known as mediocre sequels made for nothing else but MONEY.

My other beef....Walt Disney himself said he didn't like sequels. People begged him for a Three Little Pigs sequel. He stated frankly that he wouldn't and he didn't like sequels. So besides the extreemly high prices where middle class families can't even afford a Disney trip for 20 year spans, Disney would also be turning in his grave that Disney is becoming one big joke about sequels. That they do it for money alone. Not for quality. I prefer quality over quantity. If they took 4 years to do a sequal and only one sequal came out every few years, maybe they'd be better. Most likely, they would be. Rescurer's Down Under is a good example. The Rescuers were an easy write for a sequel. But then they spent at least 4 years on story and animation, got great voices, it was well written and animated. Why? Because they took their time on it. That's all I ask for in these sequels. Like Return to Neverland. I believe that was a wonderful sequal. They obviously put more thought into that then say, compared to Little Mermaid's "How about Melody wants to be a mermaid?!"

Or to reverse the question do you think that if they do a Buffy theatrical movie, it should have the same production budget and standards as the TV show?

Actually, they did. Years ago, with Luke Perry. It bombed. Why? Because Joss Whedon was NOT allowed to have HIS much better script and story. They bought the rights to do it, rewrote it and chopped it to bits. But then somehow, someway, after that successful failure, Joss was able to convince Warner Brothers to ressurect Buffy as a TV series. Would you after seeing that movie? I wouldn't. Somehow he did it. And the tv show was a home run hit. So Joss did the opposite of Disney, he took crap and turned it into gold. While Disney takes gold and turns it to crap

Hi Siren. I hope I didn't offend you.

Personally, I don't really see a problem with the story for Lady and the Tramp 2. It may be a flip-flop rerun of the original, but so was the vast bulk of Toy Story 2.

And one third of Return of the Jedi was almost an exact copy of A New Hope. But people seem to like that film. (The big climax to the trilogy is... another Death Star and this time it's not even built - how original). And the big climax to The Phantom Menace was... another space battle to destroy a shield, while the Jedi have a lightsaber duel with another Jedi who has turned to the dark side. Again, how original.

Basically there's two types of sequels. Pre-planned and opportunistic. And most opportunistic sequels emulate the structure of the original in some way, because their primary aim is to let the audience experience something new, but with the same atmosphere of the original.

I don't deny that Disney are doing sequels for the money. Ultimately, they're only doing anything for the money and only a fool would think any differently in the 21st Century from any corporation. As for Walt's sequel story, yes he did say that. In a different time. Who knows what he would do today in a multi-channel, multi-choice entertainment world? Like most studio heads he also said he would never make content for television when it was first introduced. And yet he ended up presenting his own television shows!

I think the reason the sequels are still 2D and feature animation is (for now, and perhaps for a long time) all-CGI is because Disney know how to do handdrawn animation.

They've done it for years. They've developed software to make it more efficient. Also, Disney doesn't do all the animation - some animation is done externally. And again, external animation houses know how to do 2D. We can argue about the quality, but on the whole thesedays the animation is pretty good.

Disney doesn't know how to do CGI yet. They are learning. And the technology is constantly improving and changing. It also needs a big(ish) investment if you want to do it right from the start. Not just in terms of equipment (which is actually getting cheaper) but in terms of people's skills and/or time for training.

I'm sure, given the industry's current thinking Disney would love for their sequels to be CGI too - and have reportedly dabbled with this idea for Bambi and Dumbo, not to mention Twice Upon A Christmas (which was actually animated by an external company, not Disney).

Yes, I know a lot of animation 2D and all CGI is done externally. Pixar of course is their most famous. I know Gargoyles was animated in Japan. I don't know all the company names or where they are. Frankly, I don't care. But even their CGI outside of Pixar has done medicore. Due to story, not animation. Dinosaur visual wise was gorgeous. But storywise, once again, a rehash. Too Land Before Time. World is ending, dinosaurs go on a journey for Dinosaur-topia. It's a big valley with lots of green food and long necks.
Visual, as I said, was gorgeous for the most part. The lemurs and small scientific things bothered me. Like the grass. But the animation team didn't have to write the story. Disney arranged that, gave them the voice work and they did the animation. So they aren't at fault for the storyline.
When I first saw the preview, I thought it was going to be more of an adapted Ugly Duckling story I saw in Disney Adventures years ago. A t-rex eggs ends up in an iguanadon's nest. The mother herbivore raises it with it's other "chicks" anyways. But when it grows older and starts to get it's predatory insinct, it is cast off from the herd. Alone, it finds other t-rexes. Befriends them. Years later, they are on the hunt. They are hunting iguanadons, but at the last moment, he recognizes his "mother" and lets her go. The whole comic had littler narrative, and the animals did not speak. I loved that silly comic. I had been hoping Disney adapted that to the movie. But no, it was an iguanadon being raised by lemurs and then joining Cera and Littlefoot's great grandmothers

And ah, no, not offended. Takes more then a debate of Disney's craptacular sequels to offend me

I'm not going to pretend that all the sequels are good. In fact, I'd be more than generous to say half have been average or worse. And some have been awful.

Of course Disney could be better with the stories of all their sequels. Even the ones I have enjoyed to various extents could have been better. Again, I may sound like I'm always making apologies for them, but I do think the stories and scripts for the sequels have been improving, just as their animation has.

Ultimately a sequel is a film Disney has lower ambitions for (but I think their ambitions are rapidly rising - although motivated by money rather than artistic satisfaction). People can take them or leave them, but they should not be compared to Feature Animation films. It's like comparing the Lizzie McGuire Movie to the high-budgeted Pirates of the Caribbean.

People can take them or leave them, but they should not be compared to Feature Animation films. It's like comparing the Lizzie McGuire Movie to the high-budgeted Pirates of the Caribbean.

Actually, one can compare them since they market several with indications of being a Feature Animation. Jungle Book 2 and Return to Neverland got all the bells and whistles of being put into theaters, so one assumes that they should have put all their effort into them. Save for several instances in Return to Neverland, I believe they did. The music was pretty good (Jonatha Brooke's I'll Try wins this one for me), but other aspects (the ocotpus with no explaination of what happened to the croc) bothered me a bit.
While Jungle Book 2's story was mediocre. Better then some, but once again, Disney watered it down and sugared it up.

Comparing those two alone, I would say if Disney put half the effot into Return to Neverland or even Lion King 2 into their other sequels, they would be much better. And they wouldn't have such bad sequels.

I like Disney sequels too.

Jens wrote:There you have it... I especially care about the sequels that are being made these latest years as the DisneyToon Studios just have that same care, love and resources you just said. The budget is another thing, because they can now do a lot more quality for a much lower price than in the original.

I think you know what I mean by care, love and resources. I truely believe each and every animator does its best with the low budget available. I'm not putting them down. I only wish the company would devote that same love and care. No matter what is said, the low quality can still be seen in the animation and script (not as much as before, but still). That's what I'm bashing. I have all the appreciation in the world for the actual creators who put in their best effort.