DVDizzy Forum

Forgive me if this topic has been done before - I imagine it has...

Anyone else find the sequels that Disney has now made standard completely pointless and ridiculous?

First, there's the animation. We all know the TV-Animation department is the one who animates them, but it's almost like a slap in the face to the original beautiful animation contained in the originals.

Second, it destroys some of the magic created by the originals. Bambi 2? Really? Are you serious? Watching the special features on the original, and finding out about the backgrounds, and all the work that went into them, and then seeing some bastardized version for a straight-to-dvd sequel is a bit insulting to the original. How long before we have a Snow White 2?

I don't really see the point in all of them, and I wish Disney would consider moving back towards making really good original movies. To be honest, I haven't seen any of their releases post Tarzan except for Emperor's New Groove & Lilo & Stitch (Two exceptionally good films - though I miss the catchy songs that were apart of the majority of the classics). I have Brother Bear, and just purchased Home on the Range and Treasure Planet as I want to collect ALL the animated classics now, but I don't have high expectations for the films (I never felt the urge to see them in theaters), but I do know they will feature some sparkling animation AT LEAST.

This post mostly is directed at Kronk's Groove. A poor excuse for a sequel. It had it's moments, thanks to Yzma, Emperor Cuzco and the nickname "birdy-poo", but overall was thoroughly disappointed with it.

Down with sequels, up with quality theatrical releases!

What I don't like about the sequels is that the drawings and sometimes the voices are very different from the original ones.

mikemgmve wrote:First, there's the animation. We all know the TV-Animation department is the one who animates them, but it's almost like a slap in the face to the original beautiful animation contained in the originals.

Have you looked at the recent sequels? Bambi II has beautiful animation (but then, how can it not with Andreas Deja working on it?). They've improved a great deal since The Return of Jafar. They're not nearly as low-budget.

mikemgmve wrote:Second, it destroys some of the magic created by the originals. Bambi 2? Really? Are you serious? Watching the special features on the original, and finding out about the backgrounds, and all the work that went into them, and then seeing some bastardized version for a straight-to-dvd sequel is a bit insulting to the original. How long before we have a Snow White 2?

I can see where you're coming from, but they're not all bad, and I can only think of a few that are a complete "bastardization".

mikemgmve wrote:I have Brother Bear, and just purchased Home on the Range and Treasure Planet as I want to collect ALL the animated classics now, but I don't have high expectations for the films

Give Treasure Planet a chance. It's a beautuful movie at the very LEAST.

yeah, you have to admit that Bambi II is way better than the others sequels, just look the pictures it´s really almost-like the original artwork

Pasta67 wrote:Have you looked at the recent sequels? Bambi II has beautiful animation (but then, how can it not with Andreas Deja working on it?). They've improved a great deal since The Return of Jafar. They're not nearly as low-budget.

Well, I just watched Kronks New Groove, and wasn't all that impressed. Sure it may have looked better than Return of Jafar, BUT it still had a poor story, and animation that still left something to be desired, and was defintely a step down from the original.

True Bambi looks better from the minute clips I've seen, but there's still a vast difference in the movement and overall look. The backgrounds still don't look up to par with the original, and I think a big majority of this is the leap to everything being done on computers, as opposed to the original animation.

Pasta67 wrote:Give Treasure Planet a chance. It's a beautuful movie at the very LEAST.

Oh, I intend to (I have to wait till I get it of course. And as I said, I have no doubt that at the very least it's a beautifully filmed, animated movie. I hope Brother Bear and Home on the Range will be just as entertaining too!

mikemgmve wrote:Second, it destroys some of the magic created by the originals.

A secondrate sequel doesn't make the original any less of a movie. Sure, we could have definitely lived without Cinderella II, The Lion King 1 1/2 (I actually enjoyed 2 over the original), and some other clunkers like Little Mermaid II and Tarzan II. But just because they're basically rehashes, anthology films, or role reversal, it doesn't mean that the original is no longer a wonderful movie. If anything, a bad sequel should make the viewer appreciate the original even more.

mikemgmve wrote:How long before we have a Snow White 2?

Thankfully, there was enough uproar that Disney decided to cancel it.

mikemgmve wrote:I don't really see the point in all of them

Money, many would say.

Escapay

mikemgmve wrote:Second, it destroys some of the magic created by the originals.

A secondrate sequel doesn't make the original any less of a movie. Sure, we could have definitely lived without Cinderella II, The Lion King 1 1/2 (I actually enjoyed 2 over the original), and some other clunkers like Little Mermaid II and Tarzan II. But just because they're basically rehashes, anthology films, or role reversal, it doesn't mean that the original is no longer a wonderful movie. If anything, a bad sequel should make the viewer appreciate the original even more.

mikemgmve wrote:How long before we have a Snow White 2?

Thankfully, there was enough uproar that Disney decided to cancel it.

mikemgmve wrote:I don't really see the point in all of them

Money, many would say.

Escapay

mikemgmve wrote:True Bambi looks better from the minute clips I've seen, but there's still a vast difference in the movement and overall look. The backgrounds still don't look up to par with the original, and I think a big majority of this is the leap to everything being done on computers, as opposed to the original animation.

Pasta67 wrote:Give Treasure Planet a chance. It's a beautuful movie at the very LEAST.

Oh, I intend to (I have to wait till I get it of course. And as I said, I have no doubt that at the very least it's a beautifully filmed, animated movie. I hope Brother Bear and Home on the Range will be just as entertaining too!

Exactly. There's more than 60 years between Bambi and Bambi II. After all the time and changes with Disney animation, of course Bambi II would not be in any way the same as its predecessor. From the previews I've seen, I think Disney TV animation has come a long way with this project and many of the artists are rightly proud of it. The only thing that bothers me is the title change. Bambi II implies it comes after Bambi I, but Bambi and the Great Prince of The Forest sounds a lot more like its own movie (the story between winter fawn and spring adult) and not the continuing story of adult Bambi.

You'll like Brother Bear . It has very beautiful animation and a very beautiful story. I don't know why some people didn't like it because it was a very worthy addition to the Disney library of animated films. I liked it a lot and I'm sure you will too. Though I suggest watching Home on the Range first before Brother Bear so the former doesn't seem more of a disappointment. Home on the Range was a cute movie with great music, but...it's not Disney's best...nor is it the worst.

Oh, and welcome to the UD Forums!

Kram Nebuer wrote:You'll like Brother Bear . It has very beautiful animation and a very beautiful story. I don't know why some people didn't like it because it was a very worthy addition to the Disney library of animated films. I liked it a lot and I'm sure you will too. Though I suggest watching Home on the Range first before Brother Bear so the former doesn't seem more of a disappointment. Home on the Range was a cute movie with great music, but...it's not Disney's best...nor is it the worst.

Oh, and welcome to the UD Forums!

Thanks for the welcome, I'm not totally new, been reading this site for awhile now, only recently started posting.

I only recently started collecting, so I have tons of questions on what I should wait on, and ways to get some of the missing collectors dvds without paying a fortune (tarzan, emperor's new groove, and atlantis.)

Back to this topic though, generally speaking, my point of view on the sequels is I can live without them, and I probably won't buy another. I was tempted with the Stitch sequels, as he's one of my favorite newer characters, but I don't really care to watch extended versions of the television cartoon. And no matter how far the tv animation department may come, I still tend to believe they fall short of the feature length animated department.

I also am worried at the state of that department though. I was pleasantly surprised with Chicken Little, and enjoyed it quite often. I don't know about Rapunzel though... time will tell!

I hope[....] Home on the Range will be just as entertaining too!

eeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, in a word:


NO!

<i>Moderator's note: Please don't write words greater than a hundred characters long. It screws up the thread width for everyone. Offense edited.</i>

mikemgmve wrote:True Bambi looks better from the minute clips I've seen, but there's still a vast difference in the movement and overall look. The backgrounds still don't look up to par with the original, and I think a big majority of this is the leap to everything being done on computers, as opposed to the original animation.

But Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, Brother Bear and Lilo and Stitch don't look anything like Bambi, Sleeping Beauty or Snow White.

Although the watercolour backgrounds of Lilo and Stitch were an exception (which even found their way into the Animated Series), the whole method of Disney animation has changed since those days. As you say, everything is being done with computer assistance. But it's not just this which as changed. Techniques and tools for creating backgrounds have altered, with tools like the airbrush becoming much more popular. Different techniques and tools have different looks.

No matter who animates the sequels (or new 'classics'), they will never have the same texture as Disney's earlier films). After all, the Rescuers Down Under (Disney's first CAPS motion picture) made no attempt what-so-ever to capture the visual style of the first Rescuers film, yet most people here prefer it to the original. At least when Disney did a sequel to 101 Dalmatians, they made an effort to keep the original styling (with mixed results).

As for Kronk's New Groove having poorer animation, I would challenge this statement. The original film didn't have complex character designs, nor did it have, in my opinion showy animation. If anything, the only stuff it had over the sequel was more CGI assisted shots, usually for props or environments. As for the sequel, the animation on the cat-like Yzma was a wonderful show of animation technique and acting that surpassed anything in the original Emperor's New Groove.

I was disappointed that the story was basically three stories rather than one, but the first Emperor's New Groove was hardly ever a prize winning story or script.

Well some of the sequels are quite good, as they are made on a cheaper budget and obviously some corners are cut. I really loved the story of the sequel to the Hunchback of Notre Dame, this was great storytelling and really helped give a final ending to the original movie. The gargoyles were not as well animated but this is only a small criticism. The music in the sequel was excellent.

The final Aladdin sequel with the wedding of Jamine and Aladdin is also excellent. The music and the storyline simply superb. I actually won a competition here in Melbourne (along with about 600 others) and the prize was a one one cinema screening of this Prince of Thieves. WOW. So was lucky enough to see it on the big screen and the audience loved it.

So not all of the sequels are of the Cinderella II variety. OK sometimes the animation fails in contrast to the original, but the first test should be does it stand up on its own. Is it an ok movie for someone who has not seen the original? If it passes this test, then it is ok to ask how well it stands up in relation to the original.

Just my thoughts

Stitch

Is it generally agreed that Cinderella II is at the bottom of the barrel? I haven't even seen it but heard that one segment in it is pretty good. I've never even seen Pocahontas II or Hunchback II. A lot of the other ones are fine for a rental, a small few are good enough to own.

As a general rule I'm not a big fan of them. There have been a VERY few that have been worth the time and effort...but I tend to agree with other posters lamenting about a generally cheaper animation style and non-original character voices. The effort that goes into the stories, backgrounds, scores, sounds, etc. of the originals obviously isn't carried over into most of these sequels.

I don't like The Hunchback of Notre Dame II because the animation is very bad and the quality of the drawings is very different from the original movie.

that´s why they´re called cheapquels

Yeah, I'm not really into these sequels except Bambi but that's understandable.

Anyways, the only sequel that I've seen is Rescuers Down Under and I think it's the best sequel ever thus far.Well for one they use the original actors, the animation was great and the plot was really good... concise but good.

I always wondered why Disney always were so cheap as to cut costs on production.

They should learn from anime. For people that doesn't know, anime is divided in 3 categories:

movies, OVAS or OAVs and TV series.

The first and the last are obvious so let me explanin the second one: Original Animated Videos or Original Animated Videos. These are movies or episodes that go directly to DVD/VHS. However, there's one huge difference Japanese make regarding these straight to DVD/Video series/movies: they don't cut in production costs, in fact... these range second in animation standards. TV series are standard just because they need to release them on a time basis, and even now they have improved n a huge way.

Examples:

OVA:



TV SERIES: (the picture is too big, so click the link)

http://www.animeboredom.co.uk/Uploads/A ... 323820.jpg

So if in Japan they do it, how come Disney couldn't/can't? Especially since if you take in consideration that there are tons of companies in Japan that produce anime, and it can be obvious that they don't have the money Disney does.

Ok, I'm going to come out and say it but this thread needs to be fixed it's driving me crazy.
I mean it shouldn't bother me but still.

Zoltack wrote:Ok, I'm going to come out and say it but this thread needs to be fixed it's driving me crazy.
I mean it shouldn't bother me but still.

It's bothering me too...