DVDizzy Forum

I see Flangy, so maybe we could have the original characters live happily, while new characters go through drama? Well, unfortunately we see happy endings for every character in the film 'that lives", including even the troll! And so when the narrator says, "And they all lived happily ever after..."

Yea. So really, only Joe could be unhappy! His parents, Edward and Nancy, couldn't know his misfortune or worry about him!

Of course, there could be some evil spell from some character or even just a magical object (the ancient well? I wish in the well by a jealous new character who doesn't like everyone being so happy?) that takes away happily ever after. A wish or spell to take away happily ever after...could that work at all?

On this note, this is why Cinderella II may have been okay if Cinderella didn't cry over not being good at being a princess. Other characters could cry, because it only specified she and her prince lived happily. And in Cinderella III, I guess Lady Tremaine casts a spell that takes away happily ever after, but that's by going back in time, not the same thing.

EDIT: I just realized, that some people have pointed out "happily ever after" could just mean the characters don't go through the same bad, or the same level of bad, that they originally went through. Of course a person will still cry over sad things after they get married. It could also just mean they always had a happy marriage, but other sad things happened like relatives dying. So...yea! And the film could even explain it. Morgan says she thought they would live happily ever after, but Giselle explains you can have an overall happy life but sad things will still always happen, or something, kind of like how she explained "that's because Red tells it a little differently" regarding one fairy tale.

Well, I'm pretty gosh darn excited about this...... which is no surprise. I'd say I'm as excited for this as I am for Princess and the Frog and Rapunzel (since it'll follow them anyway).

Most of you guys have pretty good ideas, I don't really have any story ideas... but I do think that most of the of the film should be animated, by Disney feature animation this time around. I would hope that it would start in the real world and most of the story take place in Andalasia (oppisite of the firt movie). I really, really, really... REALLY want Nancy and Edward to sing in this one. Hmmm maybe there's a reason they're song was left off the DVD... saved for this sequel?

Both Amy Adams and Idina Menzel have said they would loved to do a sequel... I don't know about Patrick, but I don't care if he's replaced.....

Poody wrote:but I do think that most of the of the film should be animated, by Disney feature animation this time around. I would hope that it would start in the real world and most of the story take place in Andalasia (oppisite of the firt movie).

Yes!!! I, too, would love this!!!

I like the idea of showing Giselle, Robert, and Morgan happy in the real world, and then Giselle (and Robert!) having to go to Adalasia to see Edward and Nancy (and Pip!).

I think the story should go something like this....

Giselle, Robert and Morgan are living happily ever after in the real world when a sorcerer takes over Andalasia. Somehow the sorcerer learns of Giselle and her beauty and wants her for himself so he enters the real world and goes to kidnap her. Only Morgan, who has now grown into a beautiful teenager is the one who has been captured. Giselle and Robert must get back to Andalasia and save Morgan before the sorcerer discovers she is not Giselle.

OR

you could have this.

Giselle, Robert and Morgan are living happily ever after in the real world when a sorcerer takes over Andalasia. When the sorcerer comes into possession of a magic mirror and asks the mirror to find the fairest of them all it could tell him Giselle so now he goes to the real world and kidnaps Giselle (or Morgan, or in fact Morgan could be the one who is fairest of them all) either way Robert and someone else would accompany him to save the captured damsel and save Andalasia.

nomad2010 wrote:I think the story should go something like this....

Giselle, Robert and Morgan are living happily ever after in the real world when a sorcerer takes over Andalasia. Somehow the sorcerer learns of Giselle and her beauty and wants her for himself so he enters the real world and goes to kidnap her. Only Morgan, who has now grown into a beautiful teenager is the one who has been captured. Giselle and Robert must get back to Andalasia and save Morgan before the sorcerer discovers she is not Giselle.

I like this story because I would most definitely be auditioning for Morgan if this ever happened.

I searched and didn't see a thread for this...
But looks like there will be a sequel coming soon !

Enchanted Sequel Moving Forward

Source: Variety
February 4, 2010

Walt Disney Pictures is moving forward with a sequel to Enchanted that will be written by Jessie Nelson and directed by Anne Fletcher (The Proposal, 27 Dresses). Barry Josephson and Barry Sonnenfeld will again produce.

The original, made for about $85 million, earned an impressive $340.5 million worldwide. $127.8 million of that came from North America and $212.7 million from overseas. Kevin Lima directed the movie from a script by Bill Kelly. It starred Amy Adams, Patrick Dempsey, James Marsden, Timothy Spall, Idina Menzel, Rachel Covey and Susan Sarandon.

The studio may be looking at a 2011 release.

I'm torn. I don't think the first needs a sequel at all, it feels too much like cheap cash in. On the other hand I cant turn down seeing more of Amy Adams...

Iam not really quite sure what else can be done with this story, to warrant a sequal, But iam game as long as its done with 2D hand drawn animation.
the only thing i can think of would be if they decided to have the main human characters get drawn into the animated world.

it will be intresting to see what they come up with, as long as we get 2D hand drawn animation and Alan menken back to score.

it would be interesting if they reversed it, and had more animation than live action this time around...hmm.

BackgroundActorman1976 wrote:It will be intresting to see what they come up with, as long as we get 2D hand drawn animation and Alan menken back to score.

Ditto.

The animation in the first film was produced at James Baxter Animation. I'm assuming the animation for the second film will be done in-house at WDAS. Am I right?

Julian Carter wrote:The animation in the first film was produced at James Baxter Animation. I'm assuming the animation for the second film will be done in-house at WDAS. Am I right?

yeah, I don't see why they'd outsource it now that they have everyone back.

and as long as Amy Adams and Alan Menken are back, I'm actually kind of curious to see what they come up with.

I agree. If the entire creative team is back, and the movie is well-done, (and if Jools gets a role as the Narrator again, well, then make the movie even if if you have to cast Angelina Jolie as Giselle), a sequel wouldn't bother me. That said, just by the ending of "Enchanted", I never really thought it needed a sequel, but I'm open to it.

I love Enchanted, so I'm pretty excited for this. I just hope that it's at least as good as the original.

I, too, am wondering if they'll do the animation in-house. I mean, it makes sense to now, but maybe Disney will say, "Oh, we outsourced the original's animation and it was such a big hit anyway, we might as well outsource it again to save money and no one will notice!" I'd rather it be done in-house, but if it goes to James Baxter's company, I'll be less sad than if they outsourced it elsewhere, since at least he used to work for Disney...I just feel better!

I, also, don't think that the original *needs* a sequel, but I would like to see more of Giselle...

And, FYI, there's already a thread for this:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... 494#457494

It made money, therefore it needs a sequel.

Let's just hope it's good.

I'd like to see them make fun of the fact that they're making a Princess sequel in the actually storyline of the movie (I mean considering that it's Disney and all...)

That's the only way I'd see this actually work.

Well, as long as they do it right- good story, same cast, songs by Alan Menken and 2D animation involved-, then I'll be happy. ^_^

I'm kinda upset by this. I understand that it's a marketing/financial decision - the first one made money, a sequel is almost guaranteed to bring in money.

But why does E V E R Y T H I N G need a sequel? Why can't we let good old-fashioned originality and creativity survive on its own without capitalizing on it?

I feel similarly about Night at the Museum. I enjoyed the original. I thought it was creative and has repeat-watchability. I liked it. Did it need a sequel? No. And now it's gonna have two. Where does it end?

If it's going to be done, I hope it's well done and stays true to the original.

kbehm29 wrote:why does E V E R Y T H I N G need a sequel? Why can't we let good old-fashioned originality and creativity survive on its own without capitalizing on it?

I think you answered your own question:

kbehm29 wrote:I understand that it's a marketing/financial decision - the first one made money, a sequel is almost guaranteed to bring in money.

I don't understand why they couldn't bring back Kevin Lina to direct. It worked for the original and he has plenty of experience with both animated and live-action films.