DVDizzy Forum

Well said. The Fox and the Hound 2 trailer isn't the most spectacular thing ever but it's not as bad as people are making it out to be after looking at five small screen grabs.

Heh... the issue will always have its supporters, and it's quite apparent that Loomis and 2099net are the resident, veteran cheerleaders/devil's advocates.

Same ol', same ol'. The record's just getting worn out, that's all. I'm sure more people here will get excited about this project once they see the "pretty" animation. *shrug*

Loomis, If the executives really thinl that way, then they are REALLY dumb and stupid. It is clear that what people want is a tradtionnal animated feature ... BUT NOT A SEQUEL!

Then why did Chicken Little perform so well? I agree that most Disney fans probably want traditional animation to come back, but I think most of the audience Disney is creating their movies for have run along with CGI since Toy Story came out (and believe me, a LOT of people think it's Disney and not Pixar). I'm for traditional animation too, and that's why I like most recent sequels.

Another reason why I like sequels, is because I get to see my favourite characters once again in their form like they were in the original movies (but I hate most Disney animated series based on their traditional movies because the animation always looks horrible and the characters don't act like in the original movie).

That's my story... At least it's one I can defend.

Paka wrote:Heh... the issue will always have its supporters, and it's quite apparent that Loomis and 2099net are the resident, veteran cheerleaders/devil's advocates.

Yes, I suppose it is partly a devil's advocate thing now, but I have legitimately enjoyed the last few sequels. Lilo & Stitch 2 was great, and while I had a few issues with Tarzan 2, I still found it to be quite enjoyable.

Still, I take your point about the "same old same old" worn out arguement. Although, I feel the arguments on both side of the debate are getting worn out. A new sequel is announced, people who haven't seen it react against it, it comes out, sells reasonably well and life goes on.

I think it is always going to come down to this: there will be people who think that a sequel is uneccessary. True. However, there are many people who think that a Disney version of Snow White, Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast or any other classic tale was not needed either. What could Disney bring to the table that other people hadn't? In each case, Disney's version has almost become the definitive version for the last few generations of people.

The same is true of sequels. They are probably not needed - Toy Story 2 or Pirates of the Caribbean 2 probably aren't needed either, but they are both popular/highly anticipated - but what sequel is needed? It doesn't mean we can't still have good stories. Disney has always been good at taking an old story and giving it a fresh spin. Sequels are an extension of that.

If sequels are to be a fact of life, boycotting them makes no sense. It would make more sense to demand a higher quality product, otherwise you are just sending mixed messages to The Company. Fox and the Hound II might be a pile of dog droppings, or it could be a lovely puppy. Either way, I'm going to wait and have a look at it.

what the heck does the grand ol opry have to do with tod and copper

well at least their nor making a real sequel its just a midquel but i still dont like the idea of them making it i want them to stop making these midquels and sequels and start making classics again

The most hilarious thing about a majority of this thread is that up until the screen grabs were released...the entire thread was a major ::groan:: at how terrible Disney is for destroying the beautiful ending of the original by even considering a "2", but once it's become revelead it's a midquel....now all of a sudden it's a major ::groan:: about Disney continuing to do "midquels". Honestly nobody here is ever satisfied and many of you will continue to bash Disney sequels even when the quality continues to get better. Bambi 2 looks like the best one yet, and Fox and the Hound 2 has some nice animation, compared to the likes Jungle Book 2 and Hunchback 2.

Ive been laughing all throughout this thread...thanks for the laughs.

I'm for traditional animation too, and that's why I like most recent sequels.

I love Traditionnal Animation, i Hate cheapquels, i love Myazaki's masterpieces... Everyone has his own taste.. Good or not.
But i'm not one of those who're accepting to watch poor stories just because it uses 2D animation.

What I don't get is why you make a "mid-quel" and put the Roman Numeral II at the end of the title. Why don't they use 1/2? Well they probably thought that was stupid but they did it in the Lion King, but of course Lion King 1/2 wasn't a mid-quel or was it? Why can't they use kick ass title's like Bambi and the Great Prince of the Forest? IT'S TOOOO LONG!!! Waa! Waa! Waa! Give me a f*#&ing break!

My point is that if your going to make a mid-quel it doesn't make sense to use "II" in the title because that would suggest that the movie is during the time after the first movie. Does that make sense to anyone?

maybe they should make some Prequels so we can hate them too. since we already have Midquels and Sequels.

let's see...
Return of Jafar (sequel)
Aladdin and the King of Thieves(sequel)
Beauty and the Beast Christmas (interquel with sequel prologue. though this is more of a Chirstmas special than a movie)
Pocahontas II (sequel)
Lion King II (sequel)
The Little Mermaid II (sequel)
The Pooh sequels(great, maybe they should make Pooh mid or prequels)
Return to Neverland (sequel)
Hunchback of Notre Dame II (sequel)
Cinderella II (messed up:headshake: )
Lady and The Tramp II(sequel)
101 dalmatians II (sequel)
Jungle Book II (really messed up sequel )
The Lion King 1 1/2 or 3 in some countries...(not sure pre/interquel ?)
Mulan II (sequel)
Tarzan II (midquel)
Lilo and Stitch II (sequel)
Rescuers Down Under
Toy story 2

maybe they decided to keep the II since 1 1/2 was too confusing..*shrugs* but if that's the case.. why don't they change Beauty and the Beast Christmas and Aladdin and the King of thieves to II and III? though the first was not really a II.

maybe they should say Bambi:what happened between Mom's death and Adulthoood

Paka wrote:Heh... the issue will always have its supporters, and it's quite apparent that Loomis and 2099net are the resident, veteran cheerleaders/devil's advocates.

Same ol', same ol'. The record's just getting worn out, that's all. I'm sure more people here will get excited about this project once they see the "pretty" animation. *shrug*

Well, looks like I've been dragged into it.

Personally, I think it's daft to critisise anything before it has been viewed. Remember, people critisised Pirates of the Caribbean before it was even being filmed, but most people loved the actual movie, based on a theme park ride or not. (Personally, I'd still critisise it, but that's another issue).

Secondly, I do tend to like the underdog, even when it comes to films. But I still do genuinely love some 'flops' such as The Country Bears and Teacher's Pet as well as some sequels such as Return to Never Land (which I actually think is better than Peter Pan) and to a lesser extent Lilo and Stitch II, 101 Dalmatians II and even Atlantis II (even though it is just episodes from the aborted TV series).

I also don't see what the fuss is over Cinderella II. It's just a series of three segments allowing people to 'revisit' the characters. It's not a movie and never was intended to be a movie, despite what Disney's marketing claims. And that's probably one of the problems with the sequels. Incorrectly marketed.

I know there's people screaming for the Little Mermaid TV series to be released on DVD, but I'd take Cinderella II over that any day. The Little Mermaid TV series did three things:

1 - It totally reduced the impact of Ursula. How can she be taken seriously in the movie, when the TV series shows upteen endless lame-ass attempts which are foiled week after week?

2 - It had no originality what-so-ever. Even the opening was a medley of the 'greatest hits' from the film soundtrack.

3 - It had worse animation than the "universally panned" Cinderella II animation.

Yet, somehow, simply because it was a TV series exploiting the name of a hit movie, nobody seemed to mind. Compare Cinderella II with the Little Mermaid TV series, and you tell me which one has "harmed the name" more? Make a TV series, no one minds (Look what they did to Jungle Book in Talespin). Make a Sequel and all hell breaks loose (was Jungle Book 2 really that bad?)

Finally, Walt Disney was not, and isn't now, some sort of demi-god. He took well known stories and made them into movies. To some extent, it would be hard for a filmmaker to make a total mess of such timeless tales as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Cinderella. So words from some members of this board (that includes you Ms. Paka!) that's its wrong for Disney to make sequels to Walt's films only make me shake my head. He made a substantial part of his career based on other people's ideas and now people think Disney (the company) can't make money out of their "own" ideas and concepts?

In fact, the whole sight-unseen idea of slagging off sequels makes me want to do more than shake my head. It makes me want to scream in frustration. The same people who complain this way and that way about sequels and rumours seem to enjoy stuff like DuckTales, TaleSpin and Rescue Rangers. Can you imagine what whould happen now if Rescue Rangers or Talespin was just about to be made for the first time?


"They want to do what?"

"They wear clothes and save people?"

"Don't you know Chip N Dale are Walt's characters? He'd be turning in his grave if they knew how they wanted to dumb them down!"

"Baloo flies a plane? Shere Khan wears a suit? Are no characters sacred to Disney?"

Question, will "Fox and the Hound" be re-released when "Fox and the Hound 2" gets released?

You are so right 2099net

There are so much projects from Disney that were made in the past that would flop if they were made now... Even some big classics from Walt Disney would have bombed when they were released this time! Walt Disney was a simple man and only listened to what the people wanted in his time. At that time, he created traditionally animated classics that people loved (and still love). What if the people wanted sequels back then? He would have made them. Walt also lived for money, because you can't do anything without it! I'm sure many of you would have embraced sequels that were made in the "Walt days" just because Walt Disney had something to do with it... I'm sure if Walt Disney was alive today he would have long forgotten his well-known sentence that he "would never make a sequel".

Oh well, I just keep on looking at sequels in a neutral way (I won't say this sequel will flop, nor will I say that it will be a great movie).

Nick Bryant wrote:Question, will "Fox and the Hound" be re-released when "Fox and the Hound 2" gets released?

It's rumored to be re-released around the time of the sequel, but nothing's confirmed. I hope the rumors are true, though.

Is it true that Jeff Foxworthy's going to do a voice in this movie!?

starlioness wrote:maybe they should make some Prequels so we can hate them too. since we already have Midquels and Sequels.

let's see...
Return of Jafar (sequel)
Aladdin and the King of Thieves(sequel)
Beauty and the Beast Christmas (interquel with sequel prologue. though this is more of a Chirstmas special than a movie)
Pocahontas II (sequel)
Lion King II (sequel)
The Little Mermaid II (sequel)
The Pooh sequels(great, maybe they should make Pooh mid or prequels)
Return to Neverland (sequel)
Hunchback of Notre Dame II (sequel)
Cinderella II (messed up:headshake: )
Lady and The Tramp II(sequel)
101 dalmatians II (sequel)
Jungle Book II (really messed up sequel )
The Lion King 1 1/2 or 3 in some countries...(not sure pre/interquel ?)
Mulan II (sequel)
Tarzan II (midquel)
Lilo and Stitch II (sequel)
Rescuers Down Under
Toy story 2

maybe they decided to keep the II since 1 1/2 was too confusing..*shrugs* but if that's the case.. why don't they change Beauty and the Beast Christmas and Aladdin and the King of thieves to II and III? though the first was not really a II.

maybe they should say Bambi:what happened between Mom's death and Adulthoood

Now now don't forget:
Buzz lightyear to Star Command (spinoff)
An Extermly Goofy Movie (sequel)
Tarzan and Jane (spin off)
Stitch the Movie (spin off)
Belle's Magical World (sequel)

The only original DTV's:
Mickey's Three Musketeers
Mickey's Once Upon a Christmas, which nevertheless has a sequel
Tom Thumb and Thumbelina

Then why did Chicken Little perform so well?

Actually, chicken little isn't performing that well.

It isn't indeed, but a LOT of people on this forum thought it would bomb because it's CGI... From what I have been heard the box office numbers exceeded Disney's wildest dreams!

The point is that a lot of people here respond negatively towards a movie that they haven't even seen yet!

castleinthesky wrote:The only original DTV's:
Mickey's Three Musketeers
Mickey's Once Upon a Christmas, which nevertheless has a sequel
Tom Thumb and Thumbelina

Actually I must correct you there.

Tom Thumb and Thumbelina was not made by Disney, just distributed by Disney, just like Valiant.

ichabod wrote:

castleinthesky wrote:The only original DTV's:
Mickey's Three Musketeers
Mickey's Once Upon a Christmas, which nevertheless has a sequel
Tom Thumb and Thumbelina

Actually I must correct you there.

Tom Thumb and Thumbelina was not made by Disney, just distributed by Disney, just like Valiant.

Ok, thanks. I thought it was Disney (through either Hollywood or Touchstone branches), but I am mistaken. It's still a cheap DTV though.