DVDizzy Forum

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Marce82 wrote:Well, the genie looks good on that cover cause it is literally lifted off a frame from the movie (when he is about to get his freedom).
Aladdin looks almost grotesque: his eyes are absurdly uneven... and he is hideously off model.

Well, tbh, we know Disney does not care about Aladdin (the character). As long as Genie is prominently featured to cash in on mourning Williams fans' nostalgia and Jasmine looks princess-y enough, they really couldn't care less about the main character. It's just odd to me after the 2000's, where they were trying to heavily pursue boys (following a thought in another thread), that they turn around and sabotage one of the few genuinely popular male protagonists they have in Aladdin. What a shame.

THIS! Aladdin was the commercially most successfull at the box office among all the movies released in 1992, it earned great reviews and Academy Awards. But Disney seems to have neglected this movie entirely after it's original release. It just amazes me how Disney have managed to neglect the continued promotion of successfull 90's movies like Aladdin (and even more so when it comes to Pocahontas, Hunchback, Hercules). Perhaps Disney waited to long after releasing it on VHS in 1993 before they released it again on DVD in 2004? Had to many people forgotten all about it by then? And did the somewhat lackluster sales of the 2004 DVD release convince Disney that people do not care about Aladdin? I wonder if they would have treated the movie with more respect if the princess had been the title character or if it had been a fairytale from the Western World. And yes, the Genie always get's annoyingly much of the attention. As he did upon the original release of the movie, and as he have gotten in the Broadway show.

Prince Edward wrote:THIS! Aladdin was the commercially most successfull at the box office among all the movies released in 1992, it earned great reviews and Academy Awards. But Disney seems to have neglected this movie entirely after it's original release. It just amazes me how Disney have managed to neglect the continued promotion of successfull 90's movies like Aladdin (and even more so when it comes to Pocahontas, Hunchback, Hercules). Perhaps Disney waited to long after releasing it on VHS in 1993 before the released it again on DVD in 2004? Had to many people forgotten all about it by then? And did the somewhat lackluster sales of the 2004 DVD release convince Disney that people do not care about Aladdin? I wonder if they would have treated the movie with more respect if the princess had been the title character or if it had been a fairytale from the Western World. And yes, the Genie always get's annoyingly much of the attention. As he did upon the original release of the movie, and as he have gotten in the Broadway show.

Is "Aladdin" really that neglected? I'm not trying to be condescending, but that's really not my impression. I remember the hype for it during it's release and it's been promoted and praised by Disney afterwards. Remember that it was it only didn't got one, but two sequels (though it started the cheapquel plague) and a tv series. And "Aladdin" has been featured in plenty of Disney merchandise afterwards.

It's just now lately that I've had the notion of it being semi-neglected, but I won't claim that it has been that neglected in comparison to other movies.

For Aladdin purists and Williams fans alike, Disney fans also learned Saturday that the late Oscar-winner’s outtakes will appear on the Diamond Addition Blu-ray of Aladdin, available Oct. 13 (digital HD is out Sept. 29). The special footage, made in tribute to the actor, features incarnations of Genie never seen before, including Genie as a referee and also as a punch drunk fighter, as story boards were shown to the D23 audience.

Source:

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/d23-aladdi ... 17337.html

DisneyFan09 wrote:Remember that it was it only didn't got one, but two sequels (though it started the cheapquel plague) and a tv series. And "Aladdin" has been featured in plenty of Disney merchandise afterwards.

Can we please stop calling them "cheapquels"? I liked the two Aladdin sequels. Even though I knew they didn't top the original, I found them and the TV series just as enjoyable to watch, and Disney's put out cartoons with far cheaper looking 2D animation in more recent times than the animation of their early DTV sequels, such as those crudely drawn new Mickey Mouse shorts. Why not direct our accusations on "cheap animation" to the kind of cartoons that really deserve them?

And to their credit, the animation of the DTV sequels definitely improved a lot during the very end of their lifespan. Lilo & Stitch 2: Stitch Has a Glitch was the closest they ever got to matching the look of the original film perfectly.

With Aladdin being released this fall, and Pinocchio, next spring, do you think next year, in October, we'll see Snow White launching a new collection?

2Disney4Ever wrote:Can we please stop calling them "cheapquels"? I liked the two Aladdin sequels. Even though I knew they didn't top the original, I found them and the TV series just as enjoyable to watch

Okay, sorry then. I wasn't trying to be condescending.

I like them myself. "Return of Jafar" may have a thin story and is somewhat dramatically uneven, but it has it's perks. And "Aladdin & The King of Thieves" is a story with depth and substance and Cassim being a predecessor of Silver.

Disney's put out cartoons with far cheaper looking 2D animation in more recent times than the animation of their early DTV sequels, such as those crudely drawn new Mickey Mouse shorts

Agreed!

And to their credit, the animation of the DTV sequels definitely improved a lot during the very end of their lifespan. Lilo & Stitch 2: Stitch Has a Glitch was the closest they ever got to matching the look of the original film perfectly.

Agreed, though I never liked that one. At least "Simba's Pride" has better animation at times.

Sicoe Vlad wrote:With Aladdin being released this fall, and Pinocchio, next spring, do you think next year, in October, we'll see Snow White launching a new collection?

...and then this madness can start all over again but every time we get a little less excited as releases get worse.

Yeah, it might start again or Disney may scrap it like they have everywhere else and just have one standard release that's available all year round.

2Disney4Ever wrote:And to their credit, the animation of the DTV sequels definitely improved a lot during the very end of their lifespan. Lilo & Stitch 2: Stitch Has a Glitch was the closest they ever got to matching the look of the original film perfectly.

That's because Lilo and Stitch looked like a Saturday morning cartoon to begin with.

Sicoe Vlad wrote:With Aladdin being released this fall, and Pinocchio, next spring, do you think next year, in October, we'll see Snow White launching a new collection?

I would think so. With Ultra HD Blu-rays making their debut this Christmas, my guess is that'll be the new format it's tied into.

DisneyFan09 wrote:

2Disney4Ever wrote:Can we please stop calling them "cheapquels"? I liked the two Aladdin sequels. Even though I knew they didn't top the original, I found them and the TV series just as enjoyable to watch

Okay, sorry then. I wasn't trying to be condescending.

I like them myself. "Return of Jafar" may have a thin story and is somewhat dramatically uneven, but it has it's perks. And "Aladdin & The King of Thieves" is a story with depth and substance and Cassim being a predecessor of Silver.

Don't even worry about it. I just know that Disney's DTV sequels are always a popular target for people to rip apart (so popular that even Family Guy did it), when they've always been a mixed bag for me. Some I still found enjoyable viewing like the sequels for Aladdin, while others just felt weak and uninteresting. Maybe it's true that a lot of them didn't reach the same heights as their original films, but dig deep enough and I'm sure there's some good stuff to be found from some of them.

The_Iceflash wrote:That's because Lilo and Stitch looked like a Saturday morning cartoon to begin with.

Haha! At least the backgrounds.

DisneyFan09 wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote:That's because Lilo and Stitch looked like a Saturday morning cartoon to begin with.

Haha! At least the backgrounds.

Well the whole artistic decision they made in the original film was to bring back those rich, hand-painted watercolor backgrounds of movies like Dumbo.

2Disney4Ever wrote:Can we please stop calling them "cheapquels"?

They're called "cheapquels" for good reason, and why I'm GLAD they're not making them anymore.

Particularly when some were granted a theatrical debut, it created confusion among mainstream audiences between the canon and non-canon movies, which warps the general perception of the characters and their stories, which THEN muddles up the value and authenticity of the canon movies they're based from.

In fact, it seemed back in the early 2000s, these movies had become more of a priority than the movies they were based from. It was a shame when some of Disney's veteran animators from the canon features were reduced to working on these cheapquels, given the obvious scenario.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Marce82 wrote:Well, the genie looks good on that cover cause it is literally lifted off a frame from the movie (when he is about to get his freedom).
Aladdin looks almost grotesque: his eyes are absurdly uneven... and he is hideously off model.

Well, tbh, we know Disney does not care about Aladdin (the character). As long as Genie is prominently featured to cash in on mourning Williams fans' nostalgia and Jasmine looks princess-y enough, they really couldn't care less about the main character. It's just odd to me after the 2000's, where they were trying to heavily pursue boys (following a thought in another thread), that they turn around and sabotage one of the few genuinely popular male protagonists they have in Aladdin. What a shame.

Know whats´s even sadder? That if you were to place the characters in order of how Disney treats/use them would be like (or exactly) like this:

1.Genie
2.Jasmine
3.Jafar
4.Iago



.....5.Aladdin

AND, I may not be surprised if they were to believe that the actual order would be:

1.Genie
2.Jasmine
3.Jafar
4.Iago
5.Carpet
6.Abu
7.Sultan
8.Razoul
9.Gazeem
10.The Cave of Wonders


...11.Aladdin

2Disney4Ever wrote:Well the whole artistic decision they made in the original film was to bring back those rich, hand-painted watercolor backgrounds of movies like Dumbo.

I know, but I personally thought of it as an epic fail. The backgrounds looked like crayons. And the character designs of the humans looked like they could be from Nickelodeon.

DisneyFan09 wrote:

2Disney4Ever wrote:Well the whole artistic decision they made in the original film was to bring back those rich, hand-painted watercolor backgrounds of movies like Dumbo.

I know, but I personally thought of it as an epic fail. The backgrounds looked like crayons. And the character designs of the humans looked like they could be from Nickelodeon.

I never thought of it like that. The character designs were specifically based off of the drawing style of Chris Sanders and how he personally drew his characters and the storyboard art he did for other Disney movies. The 2D animators on Lilo & Stitch like Andreas Deja had to learn how to draw their assigned characters in the style that Chris would draw them.

But, back to Aladdin...

2Disney4Ever wrote:Can we please stop calling them "cheapquels"? I liked the two Aladdin sequels.

You of all people should be calling them cheapquels. They watered down hand drawn animation to the point where Disney's brand had become pretty much worthless. It's also the reason hand drawn, at least for the foreseeable future, cannot make a comeback. Since poorly produced hand drawn animation is the dominant form of hand drawn now, people will continue to associate hand drawn with its now inherent inferiority to CGI.

Example, The Lion Guard, adequately drawn, but soulless and stiff in character movement. That sums up all of Disney's cheapquels. It's fine for TV, but like I said, that is what people now consider hand drawn to be: TV animation. Disney did that all to themselves. We know Pocahontas 2 was animated somewhere in Taiwan or God knows where, but the average Joe doesn't. So it's not all that puzzling why hand drawn has fallen out of favor with audiences.

If you want a real scapegoat, forget Lasseter and go after the real culprit: Shit like Cinderella 2.

I will never stop calling them cheapquels. Their existence still infuriates me to this day. And let me stop all of you right now before replying: no there isn't a single one "that is not that bad". They all suck.

Well that's your opinion, but I just know that I'd be more likely to revisit the sequels to Aladdin than to be caught dead watching a sequel to Frozen.

cant say I cared for the sequels much but not so much for the animation as just that I thought the stories and new characters were uninspiring or boring. I could deal with the 2nd tier quality animation if only the stories were better. The worse were the ones where they just took the plot of the original film and gave it to the main character's kid. Ugh.

PatrickvD wrote:I will never stop calling them cheapquels. Their existence still infuriates me to this day. And let me stop all of you right now before replying: no there isn't a single one "that is not that bad". They all suck.

It always bothers me how when you bring up say The Little Mermaid, you risk having someone mention that Ariel had a daughter.

When such a scenario is created where the topic deviates from the first movie, and people are instead trying to justify the cheapquels' existence, the damage is done.