DVDizzy Forum

Lol, everyone seems to be reading the interview now. At least I made you smile.

[quote="]The majority of UD must find me to be the strangest person on earth.[/quote]

Actually, I was looking at a clip from Cinderella II on youtube a couple of days ago, and the animation doesn't look bad at all. I mean, considering it's TV standard, there's a lot of much worse-looking stuff on TV I'm sure we all agree.

Just look at Jetix UK. Anyone here seen "Totally Spies"? Talk about lifeless animation. And don't you dare tell me that that's only because of the small budget! TV animation should look better than that! And then there's all these flash-originating cartoons like "Pucca", which is utter horse shit. I think the only cartoon on Jetix which I think looks just remotely attractive is "Grossology". It's very gross (thematically, I mean) but its visuals are pretty good considering that it's all flash-animated (or something similar) like "Pucca", and unlike the latter, it actually involves rather complex body movements and discernible facial expressions.

What do you guys (and gals) think?

Julian Carter wrote:What do you guys (and gals) think?

What I think is that you, Julian, crack me up! You are a very funny person, and what you wrote about one of the cartoons you mentioned in your last post made me laugh- I could've choked on my cheeseburger.

Julian Carter wrote:Actually, I was looking at a clip from Cinderella II on youtube a couple of days ago, and the animation doesn't look bad at all. I mean, considering it's TV standard, there's a lot of much worse-looking stuff on TV I'm sure we all agree.

What do you guys (and gals) think?

Definitely. I watched clips from all three movies the other night and while the animation quality was admittedly the worst in Cinderella II, it's certainly much better than many things on T.V. today. Keep in mind that I had just recently turned twelve years of age when this was released. Now think about all the animated series targetted to preteens at the time. I once thought Cinderella II was wonderfully drawn stuff, even though I found myself nitpicking the details last night. (Unfortunately, my favorite episode suffered the worst animation. Still, it was all better than say- The Little Mermaid series or the Aladdin series by far. I'll go onto say that it far surpassed Pocahontas II in terms of animation, because it did.)

BTW, Prudence - from the previews/trailers and stuff I've seen for Cindy II, it also seems to have a very high cel count, thus resulting in fluid looking animation.

Lol, if I keep going on this way I'll be saying Cinderella II's animation is theatre-worthy next.

One last thing. Although I know that most of them are crap, I have a burning curiosity to watch the Disney sequels. I think the only sequels I've seen are Lion King II and Lion King III which weren't bad. I've seen Cindy II in Italian (about 5 years ago) and I've forgotten it, like totally. Aaaaaand, when I was like 7 years old, I rented The Return of Jafar from a video rentals shop. I've totally forgotten that too.

Do you guys think I should visit my local DVD rentals store, get a bunch of sequels and watch them? (at least for curiosity's sake)

It has a good animation (unlike the other sequles).

Ariel'sprince wrote:It has a good animation (unlike the other sequles).

Really? "Lion King 2" has some pretty good animation, I felt. As far as sequels go, anyhow. I rank "Cinderella 2" with "Aladdin and the King of Thieves" in animation quality, which is to say it's not dreadful but certainly not very good either.

SpringHeelJack wrote:

Ariel'sprince wrote:It has a good animation (unlike the other sequles).

Really? "Lion King 2" has some pretty good animation, I felt. As far as sequels go, anyhow. I rank "Cinderella 2" with "Aladdin and the King of Thieves" in animation quality, which is to say it's not dreadful but certainly not very good either.

Cinderella II had much better animation then The Lion King II,Aladdin and King of Thieves had a dreadful animation.

In my opinion, "The Return of Jafar" probably has the worst animation of all the sequels. "Aladdin and the King of Thieves", again, in my opinion, has better animation (and is an over-all better movie) than TRoJ. "The Lion King II" has great animation! (IMO)

blackcauldron85 wrote:In my opinion, "The Return of Jafar" probably has the worst animation of all the sequels.

Word. I can'r even watch it because of the animation. Well, that and the lack of Robin Williams, the shoddy story, and because it's generally devoid of any kind of appeal.

SpringHeelJack wrote:

blackcauldron85 wrote:In my opinion, "The Return of Jafar" probably has the worst animation of all the sequels.

Word. I can'r even watch it because of the animation. Well, that and the lack of Robin Williams, the shoddy story, and because it's generally devoid of any kind of appeal.

Agreed,they only reason to watch it is the song Forget About Love.

Cinderella II is where Disney went wrong with me. I had been buying Disney DVD from pretty much the beginning with the Limited Issue and Gold Collection series. I bought every animated release including sequels.

Once Cinderella II came out and I watched it, I stopped blind buying their DVDs. The movie is so dog awful that I have never watched it since. It is the most terrible piece of crap I have ever wasted my time on. The only good thing that came out of it was saving me time and money by not buying their crap that followed such as Atlantis II: Milo's Return and the like. I am much more descriminating now and only buy the things I know I will want.

The director owes me an apology and $20 + interest.

thomashton wrote: The director owes me an apology and $20 + interest.

I'm not sure why, you're the one who was blind buying.

I also have been buying all the sequels blindly, and overall I do enjoy them. If not because I actually like them, then it's to kinda laugh at them to be honest. The worst are definately Cinderella II, Hunchback II, Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World, Pocahontas II, and Atlantis: Milo's Return (Animation speaking, and in my opinion). Story wise I'd say that Tarzan II and The Fox and the Hound 2 are pretty bad, but the animation isn't that bad. The best overall are Cinderella III, Bambi II, Kronk's New Grove, and Mulan II IMO.

"The Return of Jafar" was animated in Australia and Japan (the first half was Aussie (better personality animation) the second Japan (more effects driven).

"Cinderella II " was animated in Japan but by different studios (some Aladdin Episodes made in Japan could have as many as 10 studios contributing !!), and is highly variable.

Most of the sequels suffered from a pieced-together approach. The Australian films ( to name a few; RETURN TO NEVERLAND, LION KING II, BAMBI II, and CINDERELLA III) were generally more consistent.

I will not be buying this at all. Not after all the negative reviews I have heard about it. Plus, I do not like DTVs in case no one has heard.

I think this sequel is okay,it's not like the first but there're worse sequels (like The Little Mermaid II,Pocahontas II,The Lion King II,The Lady and the Tramp II,Aladdin and the King Of Thives and Beauty and the Beast II).
Mulan II is also allright.
Cinderella III is the best sequel.

Well I just decided to give the movie another look. I actually don't think that the animation isn't all that bad. I still think that Hunchback II takes the cake for worst animation. It's the story(ies) that is driving me insane. There just doesn't seem to be much thought put into them at all.

Another thing a little off the wall is the castle design. The castle is COMPLETELY different in CII than in the original and CIII. I mean, you can see some structural similarities but there are some big differences. For example, the color scheme of it is WAY off and there is no clock tower.

singerguy04 wrote: Another thing a little off the wall is the castle design. The castle is COMPLETELY different in CII than in the original and CIII. I mean, you can see some structural similarities but there are some big differences. For example, the color scheme of it is WAY off and there is no clock tower.

So you mean to say I've been waking up long before six in the morning for nothing? ;} You're right- and that is perhaps one of the things often referred to when people speak of C II's different animation. The style of many C II characters, especially certain types of characters, is also just quite different from the other two movies. C II gave every non-original-movie lady very big, colorful eyes. (Pardon my unusual phrasing, as I'm trying to make sense.)

If there was only one thing that was worth watching in Cindy 2: A Nightmare on Mickey Avenue, it would have to be the redemption of Anastasia. At least for me. The rest was just crap. Sheer and utter crap so fecklessly put together that you wonder whose bright idea it was to change "Zuk-zuk" from the original film to "Zug-zug" in the cheapquel. That pissed me off the most.

*sigh*

Still, even if I badmouth the movie as much as everyone else does, it will still sell decently when the re-release hits the shelves, and I know that in a moment of extreme weakness, I'll end up picking the title up at the last minute when I ever get around to getting Cindy 3: You Go, Girl!**.

Julian of the House of Carter wrote:One last thing. Although I know that most of them are crap, I have a burning curiosity to watch the Disney sequels.

There's a word for that: sadomasochism*!

Julian of the House of Carter wrote:Aaaaaand, when I was like 7 years old, I rented The Return of Jafar from a video rentals shop.

I lobsterloved The Return of Jafar when I was younger. Of course, I was 9 when it came out and I loved anything Aladdin related. These days I can only love the movie, and I have some respect for the two sequels, while I only really tolerate the TV series.

[quote="Julian of the House of Carter"Do you guys think I should visit my local DVD rentals store, get a bunch of sequels and watch them? (at least for curiosity's sake)[/quote]
Curiosity killed the cat, and I don't want to have to arrange an online funeral...

Scaps

*sadomasochism is taking pleasure in inflicting pain (sado, as in sadism), and taking pleasure in being inflicted (masochism)

**Yeah, I like C3, so sue me. Some of the music is drab, but how often do you get a still-nameless prince do more than be the object of a Disney Princess's affection? Plus, they did Jaq and Gus right in this one!

Escapay wrote:
**Yeah, I like C3, so sue me. Some of the music is drab, but how often do you get a still-nameless prince do more than be the object of a Disney Princess's affection?

Well, and I'm probably stating the obvious, Cinderella's prince is Prince Charming (it's Snow White's prince who has no name...just Prince), so he kind of has a name...

blackcauldron85 wrote:

Escapay wrote:
**Yeah, I like C3, so sue me. Some of the music is drab, but how often do you get a still-nameless prince do more than be the object of a Disney Princess's affection?

Well, and I'm probably stating the obvious, Cinderella's prince is Prince Charming (it's Snow White's prince who has no name...just Prince), so he kind of has a name...

A friend told me that his name is actually Arthur, because his father yells it in the original film. I haven't heard it, but Arthur is more of a name than Charming.