Brother Bear 2, Bambi 2, The Tinker Bell Movie- gone too far

[PatrickvD]

We cannot know what Walt would have done today. That is a fact. But he spend what, 40 years (?) building his company with lots of examples of how he wanted things to be. Animation, parks, television programming, the whole thing. The Disney Company we have today shows no resemblense in ambition whatsoever to the days of Walt Disney himself. The late eighties showed lots of ambition and the results show in both animation and the parks. In my opinion the company has slowly drifted back into the 'safe-zone' like in the seventies... 'just do what they used to do best and make money from their popular characters instead of creating new ones'

I remember reading some interview with a director or writer, don't quit remember, of Beauty and the Beast. He said he spent about 4 years of his life on this film. He did not want to be involved in a sequel, he felt after 4 years it was time to move onto something completely new. That is how Walt Disney felt as well. I can imagine something like that. I'm not saying that makes me against sequels, but since Disney has yet to make a good one (I'm talking about the DTV's here), I will remain sceptical of their sequel policy. Somebody needs to shake this company like a snowglobe and start from scratch, just make it all completely new and fresh. The Disney Company is unque in the filmindustry, why are they suddenly so desperate to be like everybody else? shake it like a snowglobe I say But that is my opinion... apparently lots of people enjoy the DTV's so I guess they're good for something after all remember: to each his own

[IggieKuzco]

We cannot know what Walt would have done today. That is a fact. But he spend what, 40 years (?) building his company with lots of examples of how he wanted things to be. Animation, parks, television programming, the whole thing. The Disney Company we have today shows no resemblense in ambition whatsoever to the days of Walt Disney himself. The late eighties showed lots of ambition and the results show in both animation and the parks. In my opinion the company has slowly drifted back into the 'safe-zone' like in the seventies... 'just do what they used to do best and make money from their popular characters instead of creating new ones'

I remember reading some interview with a director or writer, don't quit remember, of Beauty and the Beast. He said he spent about 4 years of his life on this film. He did not want to be involved in a sequel, he felt after 4 years it was time to move onto something completely new. That is how Walt Disney felt as well. I can imagine something like that. I'm not saying that makes me against sequels, but since Disney has yet to make a good one (I'm talking about the DTV's here), I will remain sceptical of their sequel policy. Somebody needs to shake this company like a snowglobe and start from scratch, just make it all completely new and fresh. The Disney Company is unque in the filmindustry, why are they suddenly so desperate to be like everybody else? shake it like a snowglobe I say But that is my opinion... apparently lots of people enjoy the DTV's so I guess they're good for something after all remember: to each his own

Well Said Patrick!! very well said!

here here!

[Jens]

Yes, to each his own... But in the meanwhile you are making people doubt DTV's while some of them probably haven't seen any or only 1 which is one of the worst. Anyway... You really can't compare the Walt Disney Company from now to the one from Walt Disney's era... The studios has become 1 big shareholder company... What do you need to keep those shareholders happy? Yes, profits... My vision is that Pixar (the oh so creative company) will also turn into this money-making machine as more and more shareholders will jump on them (like they did with the Disney Company). What does Disney do when the profits for the theatrical releases go down? Go pump some money in a division that will certainly make money as that division uses old "material" (like you said, the characters) to please the viewers (=> guaranteed profits!).

I'm not saying this is right! But it's just the world we live in now. I can't seem to name any BIG company that doesn't have some division that is making them money with things people will buy instantly (guaranteed profits). Pixar will have to struggle to get out of that system!

Anyway, I'm not full defending the term SEQUELS (certainly not all), it's the division "The DisneyToon Studios" that I am defending. I don't think they earn this bad name (certainly not the things some people say here). They're great, and you know it

[PatrickvD]

Yes, to each his own... But in the meanwhile you are making people doubt DTV's while some of them probably haven't seen any or only 1 which is one of the worst.

well let me set that right before someone misunderstands something. The way I feel about DTV's is completely my opinion and I wholeheartedly recommed anyone to go and see some of them so they can have their own opinion one them.

Anyway... You really can't compare the Walt Disney Company from now to the one from Walt Disney's era... The studios has become 1 big shareholder company... What do you need to keep those shareholders happy? Yes, profits... My vision is that Pixar (the oh so creative company) will also turn into this money-making machine as more and more shareholders will jump on them (like they did with the Disney Company). What does Disney do when the profits for the theatrical releases go down? Go pump some money in a division that will certainly make money as that division uses old "material" (like you said, the characters) to please the viewers (=> guaranteed profits!).

I never bought the profit thing. Disney can come up with soooo many ways to creat a similair profit and maintain the quality and image of the company. The difference is that it takes time, effort and more money. But I believe quality will eventually equel more money in the long run. The movies made after Lion King for example (pocahontas, Hunchback, Tarzan Hercules)... although dissapointing back then, they are turning a big profit for the company in the long run. these characters now equel Ariel, Cinderella and Simba. Why not put some time and effort into creating new ones, while in the meantime, merchandise from older films can make the company some big bucks? Disney is probaply one of the few filmstudios with the ability to make such huge money from older films. It makes them unique. They really don't have to make these DTV's for a profit... Disney is swimming in profit. (Again, this is my opinion and what the company in my opinion should be doing )

Anyway, I'm not full defending the term SEQUELS (certainly not all), it's the division "The DisneyToon Studios" that I am defending. I don't think they earn all this bad name. They're great, and you know it

uhm not sure if I agree But I think you know that Anyway, I do want you to know I have nothing personal against anyone, since I seem to go on forever and ever on this subject. It's just that I never quit know where to stop. I really do enjoy a good discussion

[reyquila]

Some of you are legends in your own minds !!! You don't like the sequels don't buy them !! But if they make them, I'll buy 'em. I think is a money issue and some of you complain cause you cant buy them all. You want less to buy less !!!

[Ciaobelli]

Some of you are legends in your own minds !!! You don't like the sequels don't buy them !! But if they make them, I'll buy 'em. I think is a money issue and some of you complain cause you cant buy them all. You want less to buy less !!!

no, money is not the reason darnit!!!

Did you ever think that some of us maybe care about the image of the company we love? That when there will be more sequels than classics igorant people will associate Disney to that low quality fair? Its not necessarily that superficial.

[Sunset Girl]

I never bought the profit thing. Disney can come up with soooo many ways to creat a similair profit and maintain the quality and image of the company. The difference is that it takes time, effort and more money. But I believe quality will eventually equel more money in the long run. The movies made after Lion King for example (pocahontas, Hunchback, Tarzan Hercules)... although dissapointing back then, they are turning a big profit for the company in the long run. these characters now equel Ariel, Cinderella and Simba. Why not put some time and effort into creating new ones, while in the meantime, merchandise from older films can make the company some big bucks? Disney is probaply one of the few filmstudios with the ability to make such huge money from older films. It makes them unique. They really don't have to make these DTV's for a profit... Disney is swimming in profit. (Again, this is my opinion and what the company in my opinion should be doing )

You're right about the higher quality equaling more money in the long run, but I'm afraid the studio execs are too short-sighted and impatient to let this happen these days. Disney has turned into a big business, and big businesses can be ruthless. People get fired when they don't produce something that makes immediate profit. Just look at what happened to their 2D studio!

And look what happened to Hannah-Barbera with their Tom and Jerry shorts. MGM realized that the old shorts could be released for a profit with absoultely no production costs, so they let Hanna-Barbera go. Even though the new shorts were making a profit.

You can't win.

[PatrickvD]

Some of you are legends in your own minds !!! You don't like the sequels don't buy them !! But if they make them, I'll buy 'em. I think is a money issue and some of you complain cause you cant buy them all. You want less to buy less !!!

Like another poster above me. This is simply concern over the company we all love so much. But I do agree with you on one thing: Don't like em? Don't buy em! Do like em? Do buy em! Destroying the company's image and good name? Then don't make em!

You're right about the higher quality equaling more money in the long run, but I'm afraid the studio execs are too short-sighted and impatient to let this happen these days. Disney has turned into a big business, and big businesses can be ruthless. People get fired when they don't produce something that makes immediate profit. Just look at what happened to their 2D studio!

Unfortunately you're right. The only people in a stinky business like that, who are allowed to make mistakes are in the board of directors. It's so frustrating...

[reyquila]

Image doesn't put food over the table. Money does. This is all about money. Look at Pixar, they are leaving Disney for money. Don't be naive: money talks, BS walks.

[PatrickvD]

Image doesn't put food over the table. Money does. This is all about money. Look at Pixar, they are leaving Disney for money. Don't be naive: money talks, BS walks.

Pixar may leave Disney behind for money, but they're not leaving their good image behind that's for sure. And it's gotten them where they are today so it obviously puts food on Pixars table. duh.

[Jack]

We cannot know what Walt would have done today.

You hit the nail on the head. Walt was constantly promoting his "franchises" through a number of venues - television, theme parks, merchandise. Yes, he didn't like doing sequels, and he didn't really need to. But who knows if he would've done different today? In fact, I'd even wager a guess that he would do sequels (at least more than he actually did). For every studio in Hollywood, they've changed from hardly doing any sequels at all not more than 35 years ago, to constantly churning them out today. It's just the way it goes in the entertainment industry now.

The problem for most Disney fans, I think, isn't so much the issue of making sequels: its the way Disney is doing them - releasing them straight to DVD/video. I guarantee that if Feature Animation was doing the projects, more Disney-ites would be keen on it. As others have mentioned though, lets not forget that the animation and storytelling is gradually improving on these DTV release. Who knows how much better in quality they will get in the next 5-10 years?

[Jens]

GREAT neutral post Jack, you really summed up my feelings and probably PatrickvD's feelings too

[PatrickvD]

yes, you summed it up well. I especially agree that it is mostly the way Disney is doing these sequels.. not so much the fact that they are making them.

[pinkrenata]

I think people tend to forget that above all things, Walt Disney was a successful businessman. Sure he was good at what he did because he cared, but he was also good at knowing what he could do to make more money for his company. Back in his day, there wasn't such a big demand for sequels. With today's market for them, I don't think it's too far-fetched to say that he would have approved of making them.

[deathie mouse]

Here are more reloads including lengthy exchanges by netty and Iggie. enjoy :


____________________________________

Noriel
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 24
Location: California
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:16 am


I am skeptical when it comes to Disney DTV sequels. But at the same time, I truly enjoyed The Lion King 1.5. If I seem interested in the movie after seeing the trailer, I rent the DVD instead of purchasing it. Then, if I really like the movie, I purchase the sequel. But, I have to say, I am really anxious about Bambi II. The animation looks amazing! I want to see it for mainly that reason (amongst other reasons).

____________________________________

IggieKuzco
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Posts: 761
Location: Wonderland
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:06 am

yes..the animation for bambi 2 does look good... which might indicated that disney put more effort into it then we may have thought... but still i'm very doubtful how the story would work... it just doesnt need to keep on... or explain what happend in the middle...

____________________________________

2099net
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 4014
Location: Little Britain!
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:33 am

yes..the animation for bambi 2 does look good... which might indicated that disney put more effort into it then we may have thought... but still i'm very doubtful how the story would work... it just doesnt need to keep on... or explain what happend in the middle...

Yes. It doesn't need to explain what happened in the middle. But did we need to have explained what happened after the original Matrix (which I don't care what anyone says now, was obviously intended to be one, complete, stand alone film), or do we need to know what happened before Star Wars? Did we need to have explained what happened before The Godfather? Or what happened after Frankenstein? Or did we really need another toy rescue story for Toy Story 2?

The Matrix gave birth to some of the worst sequels in movie history - much worse any Disney DTV (with the possible exception of the kludged together Belle's Magical World) but nobody seems to mind them as much (I suppose they weren't "Cheapquels" but you can't polish a turd, no matter how much you spend trying). And the Star Wars prequels are, when all is said and done, pretty pointless. There's people listing now what should be in Episode III. What's the point when most of the content of the final film is pre-ordained?

All of the other movies I mentioned gave birth to sequels generally regarded as better than the originals, despite there being no need for them.

In fact, being as Snow White, Cinderella, Peter Pan, Beauty and the Beast etc were all live-action films*, some critically well recieved, before Disney made them into Animated Films, did we really need them as films? Or do we need films of Spider-Man or Batman being as there's over 40 years of Spider-Man comics we could read instead (and over 70 years of Batman comics)?

If you judge a movie just by its need to be made, then you can wipe out half the films or more made each year. In fact, only all-new, original stories need to be made as films. Otherwise we can stick to the original novels or plays to get the story.

Films are made to entertain. Hopefully, Bambi II (and the other Disney sequels) will entertain.

* So in effect, without making Sequels, Disney was playing the sequel game by making films with well-known stories and characters to help his initial marketing.

____________________________________

IggieKuzco
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Posts: 761
Location: Wonderland
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:26 pm Post subject: Disney Trilogies


there seems to be a new trend begining in the world of disney movies. the trilogies...
which makes it seem to me disney is running out of movies to sequilize, so they're basically just going around again.
of course... the trilogies have been done in that past (aka aladdin and beauty and the beast), but those didnt seem like they were doing it just for the money, more for the sake of being a series. especially in the cae of aladdin.
it just seems like now with the release of the lion king 1 1/2 and the releases of the upcoming peter pan 3, toy story 3, mulan 3, and if counting dtv's- then lilo and stitch and tarzan too. never mind countless pooh movies, that disney is getting it into their heads that making every movie a trilogy is a good idea. but it looks like they're getting the term "good idea" confused with "good marketing idea", which in that case it is... i mean trilogies can be big big money makers with the help of familiar characters...
new movies... boxed sets... re-releases... etc. basically we know the trilogy franchise means big bucks.
And now that disney sees that they can actually get away with this... good chance we'll be seeing a number of uncalled for sequels over the next few years. some options:
Lady and the tramp 3, 101 dalmations 3, pochahontas 3, cinderella 3, little mermaid 3, hunchback of notre dame 3... hell... maybe even another bambi or stich after the sequels are released. and i shudder to even think of the plots.

wow.. disney do need some new ideas don't they...

____________________________________

2099net
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 4014
Location: Little Britain!
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:49 pm


I've merged Iggie's Trilogy thead to his previous topic, as it covers the same ground (and it's not as if we don't get enough Sequel threads )

____________________________________

IggieKuzco
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Posts: 761
Location: Wonderland
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:09 pm


k good point.... i guess i just thought trilogies was a different idea but it should do fine here

[joplin4]

How many topics have there been of this? I'm going to say what I always say:

Don't judge a movie before you see it, and if you really don't want to see it , stop complaining and don't buy it (just ignore it!). Is it really that hard?

I'm sure there will be a lot of posts following my post about how horrible the sequels are. I don't think it's going to solve ANYTHING, but oh well...

I wanted to reply to this. It's not sequels for the main part that I'm against. I've seen some really good sequels (Lady and the Tramp II, Pocahontas II, The Little Mermaid II, and I'm sure Pirates of the Caribbean II as well) and some really bad ones (Cinderella II, Hunchback II, Zero to Hero, Tarzan and Jane). But what we are fighting for is the dignity of the original films that mean so much to us. We care about these films so much that even a good sequel is unacceptable. Walt's early films are too good to allow sequels, good or bad to them. For example, Snow White is an untouchable film. It cannot be added to. I feel the same about Bambi and I wish they wouldn't release that sequel, no matter how good it may be. And Pinocchio is another untouchable. So is Sleeping Beauty. And I think they proved that Cinderella is, too. The fuss is not that we hate all sequels, although Walt hated doing them. It's the fact that they are tampering with history. A sequel to Walt's first and greatest films is like a sequel to The Declaration of Independence. Or a sequel to Homer's Odyssey. How about a sequel to the works of Shakespeare, Dickens, and Twain. Well, Twain could work. But the point is, sequels wouldn't work for historic works of this magnitude, and whether they are good or not does not matter. You are tampering with history and we don't like it!!

[2099net]

How about a sequel to the works of Shakespeare, Dickens, and Twain. Well, Twain could work. But the point is, sequels wouldn't work for historic works of this magnitude, and whether they are good or not does not matter. You are tampering with history and we don't like it!!

Well, there's been lots of sequels to Shakespeare's and Dickens' works. All unofficial of course. And mainly due to the fact the works are in the Public Domian. And also, while they may not be true sequels, Shakespeare did write thematic sequels, observe:

Henry IV, part 1
Henry IV, part 2
Henry V
Henry VI, part 1
Henry VI, part 2
Henry VI, part 3
Henry VIII

Richard II
Richard III

True some of the links are tenuous, but the fact remains, he was playing on the popularity and knowledge of his former works.

And I'm pretty sure one of the charecters from Twelfth Night appears in another Shakespeare play.



But I disagree that Disney's movies stand alone. After all, they're only one version of popular stories. They're not sacred texts.