DVDizzy Forum

castleinthesky wrote:

blackcauldron85 wrote:
Personally, I like the sequels. I never liked John Lasseter being in charge of Disney.

I would have to disagree. John Lasseter has salvaged the only good parts left of Disney. He redeemed the feature animation department with Meet the Robinsons after the dreadfully terrible Chicken Little. He got rid of the cheapquel process which not only killed the name of Disney but also killed all creativity the studio had left in it. He also sucessfully helped dub all the Ghibli films in a way Miyazaki is proud of. Lasateer is the best man for the job at Disney.

These days, the most logical sequels for the Disney characters are __games__. Games are not held up to the same standards as Disney Feature animation, and often support totally new stories. Disney Playhouse could get involved with those.

blackcauldron85 wrote:http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... rrill.aspx

DisneyToon Studios will now be making home entertainment for Playhouse Disney properties, and, according to this Jim Hill Media article, the Princess Enchanted Tales line will only have one volume- the one with Jasmine and Aurora. It won't be a series. In my opinion, there's already a Belle featurette, and maybe a second Aurora.

Personally, I like the sequels. I never liked John Lasseter being in charge of Disney.

The sequels were a mixed bag. I'm weary of the people who say they are all horrible garbage, many of them simply being folks with a prejudice against the very concepts of sequels and direct-to-video, but I will agree that they didn't help the company's reputation or the success of their bigscreen releases.

I'll be glad to not see anymore bad Disney sequels or direct to DVD releases (if that truly is the case), but I will be disappointed in not getting anymore of the good ones, as there were some. I won't miss stuff like Hunchback 2, but I will miss the opportunity to see more stories about characters I love, because it was worth viewing the duds to get gems like Bambi 2 and Cinderella 3. 101 Dalmatians 2 was very good as well, if not absolutely perfect, and there were a few other great ones too. Yes, even with those I had my quibbles, but they weren't much more than I had for some of the recent bigscreen releases. In fact, I'd rather watch most of the DTVs over Chicken Little, ha. I can't make excuses for the bad or the very flawed Disney sequels and direct-to-video releases. Some of the problems they had should have been so obvious, but that doesn't mean the ideas were entirely bad. For example, Scamp is a beloved Disney comic character and deserved his own movie. A direct-to-video Scamp movie, if not a bigscreen one, wasn't a bad idea. They just botched it. I'm not sure declaring Disney direct-to-video or Disney sequels in general pure evil makes much sense. There were too many made too quickly, often by people who didn't have enough talent, that's all.

The complaint is often given that the sequels just weren't necessary. The originals didn't call for them. I hate that argument. It's lazy to me. Good characters would surely have more than one story to tell. I remember all the folks saying The Jungle Book didn't call for a sequel, why'd they make one? That sequel was VERY flawed, though it had some good stuff here and there, but that story begged for a sequel. Mowgli's struggle to live in the man-village is a story begging to be told. Only with the happily ever after princess stuff does it seem odd to have more story to tell. Still, it can be done and done well. The real problem is that Disney didn't do it well very often. I think most of their direct to video stuff is watchable, enjoyable, but not up to par. Sometimes, it's obvious they just wanted to cash in on a sequel. Other times, it does seem they wanted to make a good movie, and sometimes they pulled that off.

Now, I certainly would like to see them cut back on the direct to video releases, I just think it's a mistake to rule them out entirely. Sequels aside, that would be a great area to focus on maybe 2 releases a year, or something like that, that were well-made Mickey and the gang stories, or maybe features tapping into Disney's TV history. I'm saying, if it were my choice (clearly and sadly it is not), rather than close up shop on Disney direct-to-video, I'd use the venue for more films like Mickey's Three Musketeers and Mickey's Upon a Christmas films. Those were GREAT, and those are examples of what I'll miss the most from Disney direct-to-video. I'd like to see them carrying with an occasional DVD release like that, really well done rather than half-assed. Maybe one release like that a year, which would sometimes be holiday themed, whether for Halloween or Christmas, or whatever. I also would have one other film released every year or two, or however long it would take to do a quality job, that would be a something like a new Darkwing Duck or DuckTales feature, or a new Buzz Lightyear of Star Command feature, or whatever. Something folks wouldn't be as sensitive about as the feature film characters, and yet it'd keep these Disney classics fresh in the minds of young people, or bring them back. Imagine a Gummi Bears or Gargoyles feature coming out now and then. That, to me, would be good use of the Disney direct-to-video market. And I wouldn't mind one DVD series focusing on animated shorts, well-made animated shorts, in the vein of this Disney Princesses series that is being cancelled. However, I'm thinking much better quality, and not just focused on the princesses. Something like Walt Disney Comics and Stories in animated form. Maybe you get a Peter Pan short cartoon with a Donald Duck and a Scamp, and maybe a Mickey. The following year, another release features a Scrooge McDuck cartoon accompanied by a Disney Faeries cartoon, a Little Mermaid short, and a Pooh short, all of them completely new and high quality. They could hever do a Country Bears or Figment cartoon now and then. I always felt the Country Bears movie could have been good if it had been an animated feature with characters modeled directly off the attraction and a story more fitting with it. That's something else Disney direct-to-video could have done.

At times, the Disney direct-to-video releases were near theatrical quality, like with Bambi 2 (of course, they had their theatrical guys working on that one), but the problem was that most of the time they weren't. Hey, a few notches below theatrical quality would be fine and maybe even better than expected if we were watching a feature-length Darkwing Duck story, the problem was we were watching films that were supposed to be sequels to masterpieces like "The Lion King," "Aladdin," "The Little Mermaid," "Cinderella," "Hunchback of Notre Dame," "The Jungle Book," and "Pocahontas." Yes, I consider "Pocahontas" a masterpiece ever since they restored that cut song to it.

Now, I have been saying lately that, while I'm a huge PIXAR fan, Lasseter will have to prove himself before I will say he's a great change for Disney. In some ways, he's been doing that, as I hear he is partially responsible for bringing Dreamfinder back to Journey Into Imagination for one thing, but I'm still waiting to be impressed by Disney Feature animation again. I liked Meet the Robinsons, but it still wasn't back to Disney quality to me and it wasn't quite PIXAR quality. It was close, but not totally there. Still, I think the Disney-direct-to-video situation could be handled better, smarter. I mean, I think they should just cut back on the number of their releases and raise the quality. I mean, isn't that the real problem rather than the very fact that they're making direct-to-video releases? I think if they adjusted the subject matter, it would have less of a negative impact on the feature releases. Okay, maybe a new Rescue Rangers direct to video feature wouldn't sell like a cheap princess sequel, but I think it'd be worth trying because there's a ton of great characters Disney owns that could be brought back into the limelight, and it might help sell the season sets too, and who doesn't love holiday themed releases? I'm rather sad that the preschoolers will still be able to get their direct-to-video fix. I have hardly any interest in that Playhouse Disney stuff. Only the Mickey and Pooh ones are on my "might want to get" list, and they're so far at the bottom that it might never happen. I AM glad that Lasseter decided to overhaul the Tink movie rather than scrap it. I adore Tink, and while I don't care for them to give her a speaking voice, I am always happy to get more of her, even if it is in... CGI. I feel the same way about Ariel, though I would rather see more of her pre-movie adventures than see her as a mommy.

To add one more thing to what I said above, frankly, I think all movies are heading in the direction of direct-to-video. I hate to say it, but I think the movie-going experience, which is just not as great as it used to be due to high prices and rude people, is on death row. I believe that direct-to-video will eventually be the only way a movie is released. Lasseter will have to start making direct to video stuff then.

Of course, for many the problem is all about the idea of sequels. But I've said how I feel about that. If the story is good and the film isn't made on the cheap, I'm all for new stories about great characters. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't be.

And the little mermaid 3??? Finally will be released?

The complaint is often given that the sequels just weren't necessary. The originals didn't call for them. I hate that argument. It's lazy to me. Good characters would surely have more than one story to tell. I remember all the folks saying The Jungle Book didn't call for a sequel, why'd they make one? That sequel was VERY flawed, though it had some good stuff here and there, but that story begged for a sequel. Mowgli's struggle to live in the man-village is a story begging to be told. Only with the happily ever after princess stuff does it seem odd to have more story to tell. Still, it can be done and done well. The real problem is that Disney didn't do it well very often. I think most of their direct to video stuff is watchable, enjoyable, but not up to par. Sometimes, it's obvious they just wanted to cash in on a sequel. Other times, it does seem they wanted to make a good movie, and sometimes they pulled that off.

I think the question is whether or not a feature film can be compared to an episode of a television series. Some films are appropriate to have sequels, and some aren't. In my opinion, the majority of Disney films aren't.

The reason I thhink this is that the characters serve the story. They are archetypes: the baddie is pure bad, the goodie is pure good (sometimes misguided, but still pure good), and pure evil is vanquished by the end so that good can reign - the films are all 'self-contained'. Because of the way they are conceived I don't think the majority of Disney feature animation characters are designed to be reused in another story. They are designed to best suit a single story, and once they've fulfilled their purpose, there's not much in the way of new possibilities for them - the sequels have proved this; all the characters do is repeat what they've done before. Completely new characters like Lars the artist can provide some entertainment, but the only way for already existing characters to do anything new is if they are reinvented as something else - as was done with Anastasia and Prince Charming in Cinderella III, as well as, to an extent, the Great Prince of the Forest in Bambi II.

There are, of course, exceptions. Some characters are suitable for their own spin-offs. This is the case with Figaro, who was perfect for the shorts he later appeared in. There's also Sebastian, who ended up being the most interesting character in the TLM series and, as a result, often took centre stage in episodes. There are a few others as well.

The only Disney film I can think of off the top of my head where the story serves the characters, rather than the other way round, in my opinion, is The Sword in the Stone. But none of the films need a sequel or were made to have one, and since they are only interesting with new characterisations I really don't see why Disneytoon Studios couldn't just create completely new material from scratch. I loved The Three Musketeers. Why couldn't they have given us more of that?

MagicMirror wrote: I think the question is whether or not a feature film can be compared to an episode of a television series. Some films are appropriate to have sequels, and some aren't. In my opinion, the majority of Disney films aren't.

Well, that is largely what turns me on or off about the direct-to-videos, when they just look like long TV episodes. The trouble is, to hear some folks describe them, they make it sound like they ALL are that low in quality, and that's what annoys me. That's simply not the truth. As for films being appropriate to have sequels, that's that same argument I don't like, because I believe if you have a good story you should tell it, even if it's about characters we've heard tales about before, and even if their previous stories were self-contained. So what, if you've got a new, good story to tell? Now, granted, it's no good if you're just retelling the same tale, but that is never the way it has to be. Granted, it's the way Disney does it sometimes, but it's not the way they HAD to do it. I believe you can make a great sequel to anything, you can make a TV series based on anything, but it's all in the writing. And, of course, you have to be allowed to do it. If the guys paying you just want you to retread old ground, well...

MagicMirror wrote: The reason I thhink this is that the characters serve the story. They are archetypes: the baddie is pure bad, the goodie is pure good (sometimes misguided, but still pure good), and pure evil is vanquished by the end so that good can reign - the films are all 'self-contained'. Because of the way they are conceived I don't think the majority of Disney feature animation characters are designed to be reused in another story. They are designed to best suit a single story, and once they've fulfilled their purpose, there's not much in the way of new possibilities for them - the sequels have proved this; all the characters do is repeat what they've done before. Completely new characters like Lars the artist can provide some entertainment, but the only way for already existing characters to do anything new is if they are reinvented as something else - as was done with Anastasia and Prince Charming in Cinderella III, as well as, to an extent, the Great Prince of the Forest in Bambi II.

I think that is selling the Disney characters short. Sure, the early ones may have been pure good vs. pure evil, the Snow White characters for example, but I think they very quickly evolved into better rounded, more human characters. Especially today, they are like real people who make mistakes. Whether created to serve the story or vice versa, Disney knows they have to be believable as real people so that you can feel for them. As for the ones that weren't as well developed personality-wise, sequels, mid-quels, and other uses of the characters allow for this, and some folks enjoy that. Sometimes this results in reinventing the characters, but it doesn't have to and it shouldn't. I don't feel that was the case with the prince in Cinderella and same with the Great Prince from Bambi. We had barely gotten to know them, so I didn't feel they were "reinvented." I'll agree with you on Anastasia to a certain degree. I mean, it does happen sometimes with these sequels, but that's all in the writing. However, I don't think that seeing a new side to a character is the same thing as the character being reinvented, especially if it's a character we hardly knew to begin with. I also don't think the sequels have proved that there isn't much possibility for new stories for the old characters. Disney was retreading old ground much of the time because it's the lazy, fast way to do a sequel and the execs thought that was what would please people anyway. That's why I feel the problem was more in the quality of the releases than anything else. Too many sequels made too fast, and some of the films that retread old ground still told a good story. "Return to Neverland" had a lot of things about it I didn't care for and they shouldn't have happened. I don't care for pop songs in period animated films (especially sequels to classics), and I don't like adults voicing kids. Some of the humor seemed forced and retreading the original. However, the basic idea, even if it was a reversal from the original, was still a good idea. The first Lost Girl, the character who wants to be seen as a grown up suddenly thrust into Neverland, it was interesting stuff and the film is somewhat enjoyable. If they'd just been MORE original with it, and it was totally possible, it just didn't happen. Then there's Scamp. They didn't really make a Scamp film, they just retread Lady and the Tramp. They COULD have made a Scamp film and it could have been great, just a few nods to the original would have been fine and nice, but they really just wanted to make money by doing a Lady and the Tramp remake. As for 101 Dalmatians 2, I didn't feel that retreaded old ground much because it was more about the Thunderbolt story and Patch gaining some individuality to me than it was about Cruella trying again to get another coat. Even her story didn't retread old ground much until the end. It was fascinating to see how she tried to deal with her problem but just couldn't change. Though the art couldn't recapture the style of the first perfectly, it did reasonably well and was a nice quality for direct to video, and I felt the story was great. Not too much retreading and lots of new stuff that totally worked well as a spin off of the first film. My biggest problem with that one was Roger's voice.

MagicMirror wrote: The only Disney film I can think of off the top of my head where the story serves the characters, rather than the other way round, in my opinion, is The Sword in the Stone. But none of the films need a sequel or were made to have one, and since they are only interesting with new characterisations I really don't see why Disneytoon Studios couldn't just create completely new material from scratch. I loved The Three Musketeers. Why couldn't they have given us more of that?

Well, again, I don't like the "none of the films need a sequel" argument, because I don't feel that matters. However, I totally agree with you that DisneyToon Studios could have kept going with new and original films, fewer and higher quality of course, in the vein of Three Musketeers, Once and Twice Upon a Christmas, and other ideas, even Disney ones, that haven't been tackled in films yet. I still would like to see a GOOD Country Bears movie, preferably in 2D animation.