DVDizzy Forum

so this is love wrote:I can't wait for cinderella III, I think it will be very dramatic just like Walt would have wanted it.

If the Disney company were doing things the way Walt would have wanted it, then there wouldn't have been any sequels at all. Disney didn't want to make any sequels to his films.

Besides that, i think it will be one of the better ones. If they are going to make sequels to such classics, then they should do them right and i think the company is finally figureing that one out!

by the way, Welcome to the forum so this is love!!!!

singerguy04 wrote:If the Disney company were doing things the way Walt would have wanted it, then there wouldn't have been any sequels at all. Disney didn't want to make any sequels to his films.

The Big Bad Wolf (1934)
Three Little Wolves (1936)
More Kittens (1936)
Tortoise Returns (1936)
The Practical Pig (1939)
Davy Crockett and the River Pirates (1956)
Savage Sam (1963)
The Monkey's Uncle (1965)

What do all the above have in common?

They are all sequels made by Disney.
Hate to burst the bubble but Walt saw that a profit was to be had by reviving popular characters and films and making sequels.

ichabod wrote:

singerguy04 wrote:If the Disney company were doing things the way Walt would have wanted it, then there wouldn't have been any sequels at all. Disney didn't want to make any sequels to his films.

The Big Bad Wolf (1934)
Three Little Wolves (1936)
More Kittens (1936)
Tortoise Returns (1936)
The Practical Pig (1939)
Davy Crockett and the River Pirates (1956)
Savage Sam (1963)
The Monkey's Uncle (1965)

What do all the above have in common?

They are all sequels made by Disney.
Hate to burst the bubble but Walt saw that a profit was to be had by reviving popular characters and films and making sequels.

None of those were his "animated classics", were they? And a sequel makes a little more sence when there isn't a "They lived happily ever after" type ending...

i didn't want to argue, so maybe i should've been more clear and stated that disney didn't want any sequels to the "animated classics". I wish i could remember where i read that so i could have a direct quote. But i think that if Disney would have been in the business for money then we would've seen a Snow White, Bambi, Cinderella, or maybe a Lady and the Tramp sequel back in Walts day. That's just my personal opinion though.

singerguy04 wrote:None of those were his "animated classics", were they? And a sequel makes a little more sence when there isn't a "They lived happily ever after" type ending...

i didn't want to argue, so maybe i should've been more clear and stated that disney didn't want any sequels to the "animated classics". I wish i could remember where i read that so i could have a direct quote. But i think that if Disney would have been in the business for money then we would've seen a Snow White, Bambi, Cinderella, or maybe a Lady and the Tramp sequel back in Walts day. That's just my personal opinion though.

Well, it's also a fact Walt wanted a sequel for Fantasia every few years and make it an on-going series. But when the original flopped, Walt cancelled any possibilities of sequels. However, I see The Three Caballeros as a sequel to Saludos Amigos seeing the point of both films were the exact same(to strengthen the relationship between North America and South America) pretty much the same plot and characters as well. And Melody Time can belong in the same category as Make Mine Music as well.

Back in those days, the fact it was animated got people interested in seeing it(and could argued to be the same today), especially seeing as he was the only one making animated movies at the time. So Walt didn't really need sequels. However, A LOT of different companies including his made shorts, and what did he do when shorts were popular? He made sequels.

I'm a bit surprised people keep saying "Walt would never approve sequels" just because of a remark he made in the 30's. Remember, Walt was also a business man, so if he were living today, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw many sequels. I mean, while some did have happy endings(of course it could be argued that simply a happy ending shouldn't stop a sequel) several of his films had incomplete endings, specifically, Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan.

I believe it was on the Snow White PE DVD where Walt said something to the tune of everybody demanding "more dwarfs." But he learned the hard way that with his hit, "The Three Little Pigs," when everybody demanded "more pigs" and Walt gave them more pigs, he saw that profits weren't as great as new shorts. Silly Symphonies aren't the same as a feature length animated film. For one thing, it cost more than 4 times the budget at the time to make a feature than it did a short. In order for the studio to keep making money, it was uneconomical to make sequels. And the films that were sequelized, you have to look at when they were made. The answer is after 1955, when Disneyland opened. I've seen interviews with some of his 9 old men claiming that Disneyland stole Walt away from them. He spent less time worrying about the movies and more time worrying about the park. He figured that the team he had worked with on the films knew what they were doing by then. Granted, there were a few films that had Walt's close supervision, such as "Mary Poppins," but for the most part he simply gave his ok for a lot of the live action films. So basically, a bunch of filmmakers in his office saying "We want to make another 'Absent Minded Professor'" and people telling him it would make more money was enough for Walt's approval. I firmly believe that Walt wouldn't have sequelized his animated films. And the package features were made during the war with an extremely low budget. "The Three Caballeros" was made because they had a lot of material possibilities that weren't used in "Saludos Amigos" and when Walt talked of "Fantasia," he never said it would have sequels. He said it would be re-released every year with new segments swapping out old ones. Basically, every year you saw "Fantasia," there would be one new scene and one from last year would no longer be there. It wasn't going to be a completely new film, therefore not techniqally a sequel.

I'm not bashing the DTV's. I like a lot of the recent ones, but I didn't like "Cinderella 2" and kind of wish they would just leave Walt's films alone. The only sequel to one of his films I thought was decent was "Bambi 2," but there deffinatly wasn't a need for it.

Hey lighthousemike...

Just wondered if you could post a few caps of Vanessa... Some of her where we first see her (Walking on the beach) and some of the wedding (The pelicans attack and Lobster and Seastars) I hope I'm not asking too much! HeH! Thanks

VanessaFan wrote:Hey lighthousemike...

Just wondered if you could post a few caps of Vanessa... Some of her where we first see her (Walking on the beach) and some of the wedding (The pelicans attack and Lobster and Seastars) I hope I'm not asking too much! HeH! Thanks

LOL I think he's getting tired of our requests but I *AM* getting bored looking at the same screen caps so new ones would do About 14 days to go till my shipment arrives

WOW

Thanks for posting!!!

I'm just in awe looking at all of this!

You know, I think lighthousemike you are now sick of requests, but I was wondering if you could please, please, pretty please, post a screencap of the opening logo of the film. It's just so we can verify whether it's the original white logo, or the powder blue logo. I think everybody wants to see this.

That's a pretty good idea to post a screen cap of. Thanks Julian Carter for suggesting that!!!

Oh, and lighthousemike does the DVD have English subtitles, at least the movie itself?

Does anybody know if the picture quality of the new SE of Peter Pan differs much in comparison to the old R2 SE? Thanks.

KubrickFan wrote:Does anybody know if the picture quality of the new SE of Peter Pan differs much in comparison to the old R2 SE? Thanks.

I would think that the picture quality would definitly be a totally remastered Lowry digital restoration with the highest quality of picture than any other DVD of the movie out there. This is just what I'm guessing though.

TheSequelofDisney wrote:

KubrickFan wrote:Does anybody know if the picture quality of the new SE of Peter Pan differs much in comparison to the old R2 SE? Thanks.

I would think that the picture quality would definitly be a totally remastered Lowry digital restoration with the highest quality of picture than any other DVD of the movie out there. This is just what I'm guessing though.

Yeah, well I was just checking. We also have an SE of Pinocchio here, and that was also remastered by Lowry.

Dear lighthousemike, I have a question for you; is there in your dvd a sneak peek for the "Princess Enchanted Tales"? If yes, could you please post some screencaps from it?

Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:Dear lighthousemike, I have a question for you; is there in your dvd a sneak peek for the "Princess Enchanted Tales"? If yes, could you please post some screencaps from it?

Princess Enchanted Tales Trailer -
http://lighthousenews.biz/p.mpg

Thanks Lighthouse Mike. The Princess Enchanted Tales line sounds like a really good outlet for teaching young girls important life lessons. It's nice that it's all new animation, and cool that Aurora is getting a story of her own. The animation isn't the best DTV we've seen, but it's also not that bad. The style of the backgrounds in the Sleeping Beauty segment seem to be in continuity with the original. The only thing I thought was weird was Flora's(I think) voice and Aurora looked a little younger than she did in the first film to me, even though they show her dancing with a prince. Couldn't tell if it was Phillip, but I'm assuming it was. Anyways, looks like a good line for girls.

Yes, thank you very much for responding to so many of our requests, lighthousemike! You're the best!

goofystitch wrote:Anyways, looks like a good line for girls.

WTF? You think only girls can appreciate seeing some of their favorite characters in new animation? This isn't just "Princess Stories" crap with old recycled animation. It's new animation, and it's not horrible (except for the Beast, yikes!), so I'll be at least renting this, and I think there are other guys like me who wouldn't mind seeing this as well. For instance, TheSequelofDisney is a guy who loves Aurora, and Aladdin from Agrabah is the guy who requested the trailer in the first place.

Disney Duster wrote:

WTF? You think only girls can appreciate seeing some of their favorite characters in new animation? This isn't just "Princess Stories" crap with old recycled animation. It's new animation, and it's not horrible (except for the Beast, yikes!), so I'll be at least renting this, and I think there are other guys like me who wouldn't mind seeing this as well. For instance, TheSequelofDisney is a guy who loves Aurora, and Aladdin from Agrabah is the guy who requested the trailer in the first place.

I suppose I should have ellaborated. I don't mean that this is solely for girls. It is obviously the target audience, but that's not what I meant. I will also be renting it and in my post, I mentioned how I thought it was awesome that Aurora is getting another story. I didn't mean that this is exclusively for girls. But it is obvious that this is geared towards girls ages 3-12. The two new segments seem like they are full of values that we want to instill in all children. I'm just saying that I don't see too many boys in stores tugging their parents sleeves begging for the new Princess DVD. I wasn't trying to bash anyone or say that boys (or men) should not have any interest in this. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Well, goofystitch, you specifically said it was a good line for girls, when you could have easily said "it's looks like it will instill good values and teach good lessons to whoever watches it", or something like that. I just got miffed because you seemed to be excluding anyone who wasn't a girl from being able to like this. The misunderstanding is over. I get what you meant now.