DVDizzy Forum

First, yes, Walt is dead, and we don't know what he would want.

Which is exactly why all you have to do is not do anything with the characters and films he already created (except the ones in a series like Mickey and all). If you don't do anything to them, you don't have to worry about what he would or would not want.

Next, happily ever after explains everything that happened to them. They lived happily forever after, for the rest of their lives. No explanation needed.

Yes, it still stands, any movie made after the first without knowing how the characters and story would continue, only known by who created them, is a lie.

The III on Cinderella III should be removed, and it was removed in the United Kingdom and other countries. In fact, even though it has the III, it seems to disregard the first sequel, as many have noted, except in the one end credit painting, but it still acts like the first sequel never happened, even if it just didn't happen yet.

Cinderella III is an alternate reality because it erased or changed the whole ending. It is an alternate ending. An alternate reality only created through magic. True, it would've been more perfect if at the stroke of midnight the magic ended and everything was back to the way it originally happened, but it's still alternate reality, however long it goes on for.

Disney Duster wrote:First, yes, Walt is dead, and we don't know what he would want.

Which is exactly why all you have to do is not do anything with the characters and films he already created (except the ones in a series like Mickey and all). If you don't do anything to them, you don't have to worry about what he would or would not want.
.

Or, you could just make the movie and not worry about it anyways *shrugs*

Also, with Cinderella 3, it seems like you constantly defend it because it's Cinderella. I find it interesting since you seem to defend it and try and remove the sequel label from it for whatever reason. No offense or anything, it just seems your coming off as really biased about it.

Disney Duster wrote:Well Goliath you need to know some of the DTV's were animated in Australia, at DisneyToon Studios. They made very good animation, and produced not only the best animated, and also the best storied sequels. Bambi II, I think Lilo and Stitch 2.

But I don't see the need for a sequel to Lilo & Stitch. The film was, in my eyes, a unique project. I had never seen anything like it before. It was a story about a little girl that couldn't adapt socioally and an alien creature who couldn't adapt to earth. This combination worked beautifully and it transformed them both for the better. In the meantime we also got to see a serious, mature family drama like we had never seen before from Disney. Where are all these double layers, these subtle touches, these carefully interwoven storylines in the sequels? Like Rudy Matt said (and I still don't understand why his excellent analysis got trashed): it's just a quick cash-in aimed at only the toddlers.

Goliath, did you notice I don't approve sequels unless they get the originally creator's consent and input? But I have to admit, if Chris Sanders liked the continued adventures of his alien, well then...but I don't think he knew of it?

But I was saying that not all the animation was out-sourced and bad, some by Disney Toon Studios in Australia was so very good and trying to be respectful to the originals, and I forgot to mention Cinderella III was the last one that studio truly did completely. Ariel's Beginning had a lot out-sourced I heard.

Chernabog, I don't defend Cinderella II, and that's Cinderella. But mainly, Cinderella III was an alternate reality, that ignored the first sequel and in some countries removed the III from the title and some animators and official information said it was an alternate reality or a "what if", so there's all this reason for me to say that it is what it is, an alternate reality and not a real sequel!

Also Chernabog, if you made some characters, would you let people make things using them after you were dead? I don't mean fan fiction people know are not real or official and only by mere fans, but some studio or company made it and sold it? Youre characters were running around on a screen in theaters doing things and becoming what you never wanted for them ever? What if someone made a sequel to your book on the seven deadly sins after you were dead, and it wasn't someone you knew who you said could make one and told them how to make it?

This debate is so f*cking hilarious. Duster never fail to make me laugh. Almost as crazy as Ariel's Prince.

I salute to Escapy for even going that far in a debate with Duster.

Disney Duster wrote:If you made some characters, would you let people make things using them after you were dead? I don't mean fan fiction people know are not real or official and only by mere fans, but some studio or company made it and sold it? Youre characters were running around on a screen in theaters doing things and becoming what you never wanted for them ever? What if someone made a sequel to your book on the seven deadly sins after you were dead, and it wasn't someone you knew who you said could make one and told them how to make it?

If some studio or company has the rights to what they made and sold involving your characters after your death, then they are completely in their right to do so. You sold them, you know the terms. Or, if it was sold to said studio / company by your estate after your dead, it's not your problem. Frankly, either way it's not you concern, you're dead. Or perhaps haunting a studio backlot somewhere as a raging vengeful spirit, if that's your thing.

Again, whoever owns the rights to Chernabog's book would be in a prefectly legal position to do whatever they wanted with it. If the rights holders wanted to write a sequel where all the characters were sparkly vampires, they could do so. If they wanted the CEO's nephew to write the book, they would be within their rights to do so.

Disney Duster wrote:

Also Chernabog, if you made some characters, would you let people make things using them after you were dead? I don't mean fan fiction people know are not real or official and only by mere fans, but some studio or company made it and sold it? Youre characters were running around on a screen in theaters doing things and becoming what you never wanted for them ever? What if someone made a sequel to your book on the seven deadly sins after you were dead, and it wasn't someone you knew who you said could make one and told them how to make it?

I'd be dead so I'd have no say in the matter.

However, I highly doubt I'd care too much as long as people were still enjoying my characters or my book. That's what matters most to me, whether or not people are enjoying whatever it is I create.

I wouldn't tell anyone how to make my books sequel. Because then I'd be limiting them as an author, and that would put them in a hard place. Or if I ever do write the different series I want to make I'd make it so that the main storyline started with me and ended with me. That way my original vision was said and done how I wanted, everything else is just icing on the cake and as long as people enjoy them still then yay.

Disney Duster wrote:Okay, making a newly imagined Pinocchio by the same studio that already made the excellent well-made well-loved well-respected film would only be pointless in my opinion...and the opinion of pretty much the whole public. Also, it would be pointless for the studio itself. But no, it may not be pointless for the ones that genuinely want to make it, because they have such a great vision or whatever, but to make it not pointless, they should do it independently, on their own, at their own studio or someone elses studio.

What? What sort of nonsense it this? Does that mean that Tim Burton's new Alice is pointless? Does it mean the Freaky Friday remake was pointless? Does it mean Disney's live-action 101 Dalmatians was pointless?

All (and that I'm assuming Burton's Alice will) managed to bring their own new, personality to the films, make them more contemporary and (in my opinion) improved on the so-called "original"* (Of course, the fact that all were from books originally means Disney's films are too, just "knock-offs" if that's your view of pointless remakes). Let's not forget Disney's own live action Jungle Book is actually faithful to the original, where as, the animated film is not.

And that's the whole point. Most of the films you cite as untouchable are adaptations (sometimes liberally so) of existing works. How can you hold Disney's interpretations above the original works? I just don't understand it.

This is where I'm having huge difficulty with your logic. It's as if you're placing Walt as some all-knowing deity, who's work cannot be criticised in anyway - even though the bulk of Walt's filmwork was based on other people's work - be they named, legally acknowledged copyright holders at the time or "simple" folktales. If Walt was so good, why didn't he make more totally original films?

Now you're even saying, a remake (presumably truer to the original souce) is pointless, because 70 years ago, Walt happened to make a watered-down movie version? We're not even talking about sequels, but making a film of the self-same story Walt used for inspiration.

It's just pure hypocrisy to suggest Walt had free reign to do whatever he wanted to whatever story, character or (in Fantasia's case, music) he wanted, but nobody else can at all.

* Again I'm assuming Burton's Alice will be better, but sorry Disneykid, I can't see it being any worse than Walt's animated Alice.

Disney Duster, I don't really understand why you insist on calling Cinderella III an alternate reality. Alternate reality or not, it's still a follow-up to the original movie. Half of Back to the Future II is an alternate reality, but nobody calls it anything else but a sequel to BTTF.

And I agree with 2099net, I just hate how whenever there's a discussion about the future of Disney, "Walt would have never done it" argument comes up. The company's a living entity, they may hold onto the very principles of what made Disney Disney, but they also have to find new ways of surviving in this challenging economy. And if sequels are the answer, then so be it. Just make sure they're good. Oh, and for the record, Disney made sequels to its classics long before Return of Jafar came along. Remember those Scamp comics or Snow White and Alice in Wonderland storybooks (something we'd call midquels nowadays)? Granted, it was a different medium, but it was still a situation where well-known characters were given new adventures. I don't see why those can't be considered as legitimate as their cousins on film stock.

Back on topic: I don't really mind Disney's (DTV) sequels, I judge them the same way I judge every other movie - some are good, some are bad. Besides, the original movie won't go anywhere if a sequel's made.

Mooky wrote:Disney Duster, I don't really understand why you insist on calling Cinderella III an alternate reality. Alternate reality or not, it's still a follow-up to the original movie. Half of Back to the Future II is an alternate reality, but nobody calls it anything else but a sequel to BTTF.

And I agree with 2099net, I just hate how whenever there's a discussion about the future of Disney, "Walt would have never done it" argument comes up. The company's a living entity, they may hold onto the very principles of what made Disney Disney, but they also have to find new ways of surviving in this challenging economy. And if sequels are the answer, then so be it. Just make sure they're good. Oh, and for the record, Disney made sequels to its classics long before Return of Jafar came along. Remember those Scamp comics or Snow White and Alice in Wonderland storybooks (something we'd call midquels nowadays)? Granted, it was a different medium, but it was still a situation where well-known characters were given new adventures. I don't see why those can't be considered as legitimate as their cousins on film stock.

Got links or scans where I can view them? I'm interested in reading them.

It is fine is the company or studio says, "this is what those Disney characters might do", or "what if this happened?", but not "this is what happened".

For Cinderella III Mooks, I don't remember enough about all the Back to the Futures to know if it constitutes as as an actual whole alternate reality, or if it would fit in with what I think is okay, and it's not considered a "what if" like Cinderella III is. But Cinderella III also shouldn't be a sequel on the account it wasn't made by Walt. So, in any case, it should be only an alternate reality, they should remove the III and all, but it's the only one out of the sequels that can be an alternate reality is the point. I already said some animators who worked on the film viewed it as an alternate "what if" (I gathered it from places online including an animator who uses Deviantart), some official press material and information called it such, and some countries removed the III.

All the Tinker Bell films should only be a dream Wendy has in the nursery, like when she wakes up from sleep in the end of the original and people wonder if Neverland was a dream. The Tinker Bell series could still end with Wendy waking up from all the lies that are the Tinker Bell films.

Well Chernabog say you made a book, and a studio makes it into a movie you approved of. Then they make a sequel to that film after you are dead, and they use the same characters but have them change in ways you never wished.

The people seeing the films, at least a good amount, would think that's how the characters are supposed to be, all changed to something you never wanted them to be.

Yes, you'd be dead, but you'd never want it to happen. And for all we know you would be looking down seeing it all.

I thought people wanted to leave things behind that go on forever, and keeping the same quality and joy they always had, not being mutilated and disliked after a you die.

Netty, I actually wouldn't mind making live-action versions (not remakes, remakes to me sound like replacements for bad films) of my favorite Disney films. I thought 101 Dalmatians was supposed to be just a live-action version of the Disney film?

I already said, or I thought I did, that I wouldn't mind if they made a short, or a film in a different medium of Pinocchio or other Disney characters that were re-imagined and very different from the original. This is what Tim Burton's Alice will be, very different and in a different medium. Though it seems that it wants people to think of Disney's film also, so it will probably have nods to it and have it's audience think it's a re-imagined version of that film, continuing in a sequel... I must admit that project is rather hard to explain or figure out, as Wonderland itself is.

Freaky Friday was a remake and they really didn't need to remake it, and they probably shouldn't have because the first one was good, and in a way I might still call it pointless, but oh well. I didn't say such things were wrong, just kind of pointless, unless the people making it have a really special or really different vision they feel they have to make.

I just think if a studio already did it, they don't need to do it again.

Anyway, I don't know if you were arguing about this, but it doesn't matter that Walt made his classics based on existing stories (as many of the fairy tale writers themselves did). You should never make a sequel to a dead person's established characters, story, whole created world and vision. You see, doing an adaptation or re-imagining of some story is different than doing things to someone else's established world and characters, the whole thing they created.

Unless they were obviously intended to continue there adventures, because they were in a series, or in many different things, not a stand alone film with a completed story, or even a trilogy of films with a completed story.

If you made your own version of some story you love, creating a look and personality for the characters and a whole look and feeling and way of working for their whole world, though it was based on words in some book, you would not want anyone to take your characters and world and do things with them you never approved of.

I mean, I really don't think Walt Disney would approve of Flower farting in Bambi II, so...

Disney Duster wrote:Also Chernabog, if you made some characters, would you let people make things using them after you were dead? I don't mean fan fiction people know are not real or official and only by mere fans, but some studio or company made it and sold it? Youre characters were running around on a screen in theaters doing things and becoming what you never wanted for them ever?

That's why I've always felt it was really smart of comicbook artist Hergé to state in his will that no new adventures of Tintin were allowed to be made after his death. That's really the only way to protect your creations from ever being degraded by new artists; a thing that happened with so many great European comics.

Mooky wrote:The company's a living entity, they may hold onto the very principles of what made Disney Disney, but they also have to find new ways of surviving in this challenging economy. And if sequels are the answer, then so be it.

Well, that can't be an argument, because they don't 'need' the sequels to make 'enough money'. Not now, in this 'challenging economy' and not 10 years ago. The sequels just provided them with *more* money. But it's not as if they would go (near) bankrupt if they had never produced them. Disney is a multibillion dollar conglomerate, which owns amusement parks, hockey teams, cruise lines, tv stations etc. They are involved in *everything*! There's no way they *need* the money. It's just that, sadly, in the times we live in today, nothing is ever enough anymore.

Super Aurora wrote:Got links or scans where I can view them? I'm interested in reading them.

You mean you've never read the classic Scamp newspaper comics?

Well, maybe I'm spoiled with a weekly and monthly Dutch Disney comics magazine and that for the last 20 years.

Comics are a very different medium. I've read hundreds of comic stories with the characters from the Disney Classic films. But still that's different. And I never liked them much anyway. I prefer just the Ducks and the Mouses.

Yea, Walt probably didn't think people would be making sequels to or changing or damaging his works. He probably thought telling everyone in his studio, everyone he talked to, that he didn't approve of sequels and all that was enough. I don't think he ever predicted anything like what we did, he didn't predict home video, either.

Yea that's another thing, if it's done in the comics, or something other than the medium or studio that made the original, it's not part of the same universe, it's seen as seperate. There were those Beauty and the Beast comics that said the ending to the first film was a dream! No one takes those as what really happens.

Well obviously, the movies and TV shows form one continuity but there's the expanded one if you include all the books, comics and video games. There's no reason why those type of mediums shouldn't count... It's sort of like the old Halloween franchise – you can see it as a one big series of movies (parts 1-Resurrection), or you can see it as a Laurie Strode/Michael Myers saga (parts 1, 2, H2O and Resurrection). And it's not uncommon for stories to transcend mediums: Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children (movie) is a sequel to Final Fantasy VII (video game). Buffy: The Vampire Slayer Season 8 (comics) is a sequel to Buffy: The Vampire Slayer (TV show).

I've never read that Beauty and the Beast comic, so I don't really know what's it about, but maybe it was meant to be an official continuation of Beauty and the Beast before it was retconned by The Enchanted Christmas. You know, just like Cinderella II was retconned by Cinderella III (and in that case, it was the same medium).

Super Aurora wrote:Got links or scans where I can view them? I'm interested in reading them.

I had a bunch of these Disney magazines from the '80s where those were published but they're sadly a thing of the past now. Sorry! (If it's of any comfort, they wouldn't be of any use to you unless you speak Croatian ).

Goliath wrote: You mean you've never read the classic Scamp newspaper comics?

No but at the time I was more into superhero and other comics as well as manga and anime(I still love them) So Disney comics weren't much in my radar. I have saw the old Snow white one where it shows Prince escaping the castle. But te one I'm curious read that you mention is the Alice in Wonderland one.

Mooky wrote: I had a bunch of these Disney magazines from the '80s where those were published but they're sadly a thing of the past now. Sorry! (If it's of any comfort, they wouldn't be of any use to you unless you speak Croatian ).

I don't care what language it's in, I just want to view the pictures.

Speaking of, I should scan and show you guys some stuff from last 3 volumes of the Kilala Princess manga.

Actually, it was Mooky who was talking about an Alice in Wonderland storybook. I have seen comics about Alice, but no storybooks, although I'm sure they exist out there...

Here you can see the first page of a comic-adaptation of the film:
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=E+GN+98-04

A much older adaptation:
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=W+OS++331-02

A complete new story:
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=W+OS++341-02

A comic in which Alice meets Daisy Duck:
http://coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=W+USGD++1-04

Escapay wrote:Tony Baxter, as quoted in David Koenig's Mouse Under Glass (page 173):

• "Kids growing up in the Seventies and Eighties don't have great Disney movies,

Methinks Baxter is full of shit. Kids in the 1970's and 1980's grew up on fantastic films like The Rescuers, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver & Company.