DVDizzy Forum

It's okay,thanks It's from here:
http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/disney ... me=Gallery
It's a Disney Dream Portait of Julianne Moore as Ariel.

They made a new one?
Ariel!!!!

supertalies wrote:They made a new one?
Ariel!!!!

Yeah I hope that they"ll make more (I whould love to see Aurora,Belle and the Beast,Jack Skellington,Giselle,Hercules and Mulan).

Ariel'sprince wrote:Defitnly no about the music box-There's no Little Mermaid canon,if they ignored the series then I"m sure that they"ll ignore Little Mermaid II.

I think you're acting a little ridiculous about there being "no canon". They probably chose just not to include the series, not the first two movies! How pointless would it be if you had a film, a sequel, and a prequel, none of which related to each other? I mean, all the characters are still there, they all mention past experiences, they all make obvious references to each other, why wouldn't they be included?

I could see why they didn't include the series, though. A lot of the episodes were stupid, the animation was really off throughout most of the series, and only about... half of the songs were good. Honestly, the little Ariel in the series looked kinda gross, I'd much rather prefer the one we have now.

Vermin Friends wrote:

Ariel'sprince wrote:Defitnly no about the music box-There's no Little Mermaid canon,if they ignored the series then I"m sure that they"ll ignore Little Mermaid II.

I think you're acting a little ridiculous about there being "no canon". They probably chose just not to include the series, not the first two movies! How pointless would it be if you had a film, a sequel, and a prequel, none of which related to each other? I mean, all the characters are still there, they all mention past experiences, they all make obvious references to each other, why wouldn't they be included?

I could see why they didn't include the series, though. A lot of the episodes were stupid, the animation was really off throughout most of the series, and only about... half of the songs were good. Honestly, the little Ariel in the series looked kinda gross, I'd much rather prefer the one we have now.

Look,NO Disney animated film has a canon,they always ingore everything,The Little Mermaid is the only movie,it's not 2 movies,Little Mermaid II is just a sequel,it's not really a movie,there is no canon.'
You won't Melody or other sequel character in any spin-off,acorrding to Disney Meldoy is not real.
Anyway there is no canon,it's alternate reality,there are no 2 films but just the original Little Mermaid.

Ariel'sprince wrote:

Vermin Friends wrote: I think you're acting a little ridiculous about there being "no canon". They probably chose just not to include the series, not the first two movies! How pointless would it be if you had a film, a sequel, and a prequel, none of which related to each other? I mean, all the characters are still there, they all mention past experiences, they all make obvious references to each other, why wouldn't they be included?

I could see why they didn't include the series, though. A lot of the episodes were stupid, the animation was really off throughout most of the series, and only about... half of the songs were good. Honestly, the little Ariel in the series looked kinda gross, I'd much rather prefer the one we have now.

Look,NO Disney animated film has a canon,they always ingore everything,The Little Mermaid is the only movie,it's not 2 movies,Little Mermaid II is just a sequel,it's not really a movie,there is no canon.'
You won't Melody or other sequel character in any spin-off,acorrding to Disney Meldoy is not real.
Anyway there is no canon,it's alternate reality,there are no 2 films but just the original Little Mermaid.

What on earth do you mean Ariel's Prince ? Of course these movies exist ; there is such thing as a 'canon'. And how do you mean to Disney they arnt real ? Do you mean sequel characters being promoted by Disney? Or evidence of them in the Parks? I'm sorry, I just dont know what do you mean at all.

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:

Ariel'sprince wrote: Look,NO Disney animated film has a canon,they always ingore everything,The Little Mermaid is the only movie,it's not 2 movies,Little Mermaid II is just a sequel,it's not really a movie,there is no canon.'
You won't Melody or other sequel character in any spin-off,acorrding to Disney Meldoy is not real.
Anyway there is no canon,it's alternate reality,there are no 2 films but just the original Little Mermaid.

What on earth do you mean Ariel's Prince ? Of course these movies exist ; there is such thing as a 'canon'. And how do you mean to Disney they arnt real ? Do you mean sequel characters being promoted by Disney? Or evidence of them in the Parks? I'm sorry, I just dont know what do you mean at all.

To Disney they're only altreante realities (like Cinderella III) and Ariel doesn't really have daughter,do you think that what happend in Lion King 1.5 is really what happend in the first film? or that Belle really was in the castle for years like in Belle's Magical World? for Disney it doesn't count,people just ingore it,if Disney ingore why whouldn't we?.

The sequels certainly are canon, ariels'prince. As terrible as the first sequel was, it's canon.

No,even Disney ignore it.

Ariel'sprince wrote:No,even Disney ignore it.

No, sure the characters aren't in the parks and their not on the TV shows like "House of Mouse", but their canon. I have a firm belief that if it was made, and nobody denies it, or if it's not some odd spin-off stuff like comic companies do, it's canon. Why, even Cinderella 2 could fit in with Cinderella 3. And in the BATB sequels, it would fit in with the original movie's timeline very easily. She's not spending years at the castle, just a few months.


Honestly, I don't believe Disney takes the characters created in sequels as seriously as those created in DACs, but I do believe they're canon.

UmbrellaFish wrote:

Ariel'sprince wrote:No,even Disney ignore it.

No, sure the characters aren't in the parks and their not on the TV shows like "House of Mouse", but their canon. I have a firm belief that if it was made, and nobody denies it, or if it's not some odd spin-off stuff like comic companies do, it's canon. Why, even Cinderella 2 could fit in with Cinderella 3. And in the BATB sequels, it would fit in with the original movie's timeline very easily. She's not spending years at the castle, just a few months.


Honestly, I don't believe Disney takes the characters created in sequels as seriously as those created in DACs, but I do believe they're canon.

The films can be re-released but Disney ignore their stories.
First of all Belle was at the castle maybe a month,or 2,or a few weeks,not the entire winter! and acorrding to Belle's Magical World she was there for years,I don't get your point-Do you really think that all the animales were "bowing" to Simba because Pumbaa farted because that what happend in Lion King 1.5? It didn't happend and even Disney ignore it,here's another exmaple-In Lion King books Simba has a son but acorrding to Lion King II he had a daughter.
I don't think that they're in canon.

I agree with Ariel'sprince. The sequels are all "what ifs", alternate realities, or things that could have happened. You can choose to ignore them and Disney often does. Disney does tend to be inconsistent and who knows if there even is a canon as we think of it? One canon Disney holds is the list of Disney Animated Classics, of which only two sequels ("The Rescuers Down Under" and "Fantasia 2000") are a part of. So that canon certainly doesn't acknowledge any of the direct-to-video sequels, or even the sequels released to theaters like "Return to Neverland".

If you want a little more thought, consider what I talked about in another thread. I thought I read a quote where Walt Disney said "Snow White"'s witch didn't really die because she came back in comic strips. But I think he's saying "she didn't really die" in the same way we say "that's the real Cinderella" at Disneyland, if you get what I mean. Consider that Gepetto's cat, Figaro, from "Pinocchio" was owned by Mickey and Minnie later on the shorts. That Figaro stayed the same age and was passed on to two personified mice is inconsitent and unbelievable and even impossible since those shorts were set far after "Pinocchio"'s time. Is it canon? This information could be irrelevent since shorts, and TV episodes, and comic strips, are not the same as films.

Disney Duster wrote:I agree with Ariel'sprince. The sequels are all "what ifs", alternate realities, or things that could have happened. You can choose to ignore them and Disney often does. Disney does tend to be inconsistent and who knows if there even is a canon as we think of it? One canon Disney holds is the list of Disney Animated Classics, of which only two sequels ("The Rescuers Down Under" and "Fantasia 2000") are a part of. So that canon certainly doesn't acknowledge any of the direct-to-video sequels, or even the sequels released to theaters like "Return to Neverland".

If you want a little more thought, consider what I talked about in another thread. I thought I read a quote where Walt Disney said "Snow White"'s witch didn't really die because she came back in comic strips. But I think he's saying "she didn't really die" in the same way we say "that's the real Cinderella" at Disneyland, if you get what I mean. Consider that Gepetto's cat, Figaro, from "Pinocchio" was owned by Mickey and Minnie later on the shorts. That Figaro stayed the same age and was passed on to two personified mice is inconsitent and unbelievable and even impossible since those shorts were set far after "Pinocchio"'s time. Is it canon? This information could be irrelevent since shorts, and TV episodes, and comic strips, are not the same as films.

I think I agree with your last statement Disney Duster; comics, shorts etc are not thought of in the same context as DTV. Do I really think Alice and Ariel hang out in the House of Mouse? No, I don't. But do I think that Belle taught Beast the value of Christmas in The Enchanted Christmas? Yes I do. This could be down to personal preference; sometimes I ignore TLMII, and think of something else that could have happened to Ariel after her wedding day. But then I respect the sequel for what it is. Which, as you all know, wasnt very good. But the point is, its still there.

You both so easily say 'There is no canon', but how can you just erase a whole movie? Think of all the talent that was put into it - animators, directors, song writing teams, voice artists etc. Do you think Disney would really disregard all of that ? For me, so much effort was poured into BATBII, and it came together so beautifully (story, songs etc), its such a waste to ignore it. And I don't think Disney does either; Belle gets such a push at Christmas in both Disney Stores and DisneyLand (Paris). The Enchanted Christmas is always being shown on big screens at Christmas in the Disney Store. That, I feel is Disney acknowledging it.

TLMII has produced a 'stand-in' Princess in the form of Melody; she is often included in Disney Princess DVDs and promotional material. Therefore Disney is using her, and ackowledging the movie.

I myself to regard them as different from DAC, of course I do, but I know they are there, and accept them as the next chapter of the Disney movie. Isnt that why people were so upset when CII turned out to be so dreadful? They could not believe that their beloved classic had such a sucky partner. Hence why Disney gave us such a wonderful pt3, to make up for it.

Would you guys feel it was more 'canon' if the original creative team behind the DAC made the sequel ?

There is a big difference between comic strips, House of Mouse, childrens books, etc and a film billed as "NAME OF DISNEY CLASSIC II". The sequels to these movies are indeed, unlike spinoff series or character appearances on shows, canon. They were commissioned and written as official sequels, not alternate universe realities to the movies.

Is the movie called "The Little Mermaid II" or is it called "The Little Mermaid possible II"? Therefore, it is indeed canon, whereas the show, a spinoff made for tv under a different name "Ariel, The Little Mermaid" was not. Likewise, House of Mouse is a plotless grouping of Disney characters just for the fun of watching them all together in the same room. None of the show is meant to be taken as anything more than that, it is simply a fun spinoff of Disney classics, but like I said, the official film sequels, hired and commissioned to either precede or follow the first, are indeed canon.

Granted, if you don't like them, you can pretend they arent there. For TLM, its no secret that when the first movie was conceived, the writers probably hadnt thought of TLM2, but it still happened, and in the Disney world and universe, that movie is real.

Edit: As for the film's not being canon because the characters don't show up everywhere, let me point out that only few characthers are. The main popular princesses are everywhere, Aladdin, and the latest Disney films are consistently marketed everywhere. A plethora of lesser known protagonists- Basil the Great Mouse Detective, Fox and Hound, etc are hardly ever seen on House of Mouse or in magazines. Just because a character isnt as popular doesnt mean that he/she doesnt exist, like Melody.

There is a big difference between comic strips, House of Mouse, childrens books, etc and a film billed as "NAME OF DISNEY CLASSIC II". The sequels to these movies are indeed, unlike spinoff series or character appearances on shows, canon. They were commissioned and written as official sequels, not alternate universe realities to the movies.

Is the movie called "The Little Mermaid II" or is it called "The Little Mermaid possible II"? Therefore, it is indeed canon, whereas the show, a spinoff made for tv under a different name "Ariel, The Little Mermaid" was not. Likewise, House of Mouse is a plotless grouping of Disney characters just for the fun of watching them all together in the same room. None of the show is meant to be taken as anything more than that, it is simply a fun spinoff of Disney classics, but like I said, the official film sequels, hired and commissioned to either precede or follow the first, are indeed canon.

I really agree with that. It does help to consider the movies canon because it makes it a little more "worthy". As much as I loathe TLM 2, knowing it's canon does make me think of it differently.

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:This could be down to personal preference; sometimes I ignore TLMII, and think of something else that could have happened to Ariel after her wedding day.

Oh aye? [Smutty laugh]

But then I respect the sequel for what it is. Which, as you all know, wasnt very good. But the point is, its still there.

You know, you people really should relax a bit. Try being a comics fan - that's a genre full of canon and non-canon elements. And every single week, each segment grows bigger. And then of course there's the films, tv series, toys, video games... all based on comic book characters. Which is canon and which isn't?

Ultimately, there is no single canon. When there's people arguing about how Disney assigns Chicken Little to an arbitary list of numbered animated classics (which Disney itself doesn't seem to even acknowledge itself anymore) there's no way such an argument can be solved. Best solution: you don't like the sequels then ignore them. Elements from sequels will only appear in other sequels after all.

2099net wrote: Best solution: you don't like the sequels then ignore them. Elements from sequels will only appear in other sequels after all.

Sometimes its harder to ignore the sequels, for example, I just got the Bambi Platinum Edition DVD and found myself being bombarded by references to Bambi 2 on several of the special features. No, Patrick Stewart, I really don't care how glad you are to be involved in the Bambi legacy!

I agree with Disney Duster,those are just what if spin-offs.
atlanticaunderthesea,Umberllafish and lucifer-Who cares if it's saying Little Mermaid III or II or Little Mermaid Series,this isn't Ariel,Ariel is Ariel from original film and the Ariel that was created there,the motherly off-model Ariel from Little Mermaid II is not Ariel,she's just a what if Ariel like Disney Duster said,do you really that the animales were bowing to Simba because Pumbaa farted like Lion King 1.5? then acorrding to you this MUST have been what really happend,the sequels,no wait,the spin-offs are just making errors with the original,prove? in Beauty and the Beast II the hag showed up in Beast's Castle on Christmas night and it was snowing but acorrding to the original movie,she was there when it was RAINING,so I suppose we should denial the original movie? Belle is getting Christmas merchandise becuase her movie is about winter,Melody has a video game just to promote her what if spin-off,I just don't see how can you count those cheap spin-offs .

I don't believe we should be in denial about sequels. They happened, they're canon, they're just not always recognized in merchandise. You can have your own theories about TLK 1/2, and I don't remember it raining in BATB (I'll have to see that again), but it happened unless it's disproved. The only way I would discount them is if the characters said it happened in a dream. Then it wouldn't be real, but it happened.


And 2099net, I did mention that stuff about the comic books before. I've always considered you'd section the canon into the series. There's canon for one comic book series, another comic book series, the movies, the TV shows, whatever. Comics seem to happen in different universes anyway. The companies acknowledge that, but Disney doesn't say TLM 2 happened in a different world.

UmbrellaFish-Maybe it's personal but I denial them and Disney does,have you seen The Lion King 1.5 there is the scene where all the animales goes to see Simba (His baby shower) and Timon and Pumbaa sneak behinds them (They want to go the a cave but the animales are blocking their way) so Pumbaa farts and acorrding to this that's what made them bow in the original movie,speaking of The Lion King,and there's spin-off book (Which also tells about how Scar got his scar and more) with Simba's son (Who looks exactly like him) and in Lion King II we saw that he has a daguhter.
I don't count them and neither Disney.
About Beauty and the Beast,here's a prove:
Beauty and the Beast:
http://magicalscreencaps.com/images/bat ... b_0008.jpg
Spin-off:
http://magicalscreencaps.com/images/bat ... e_0620.jpg
And another one:
http://magicalscreencaps.com/images/bat ... b_0012.jpg
Also notice that they made him different clothes:
http://magicalscreencaps.com/images/bat ... e_0624.jpg