DVDizzy Forum

from http://www.animated-news.com(its a awsome site go!!!!)

Fox and the Hound sequel in the works?
An insider who has seen the storyboards in progress has let us know that a Fox and the Hound midquel is currently in development at Disney. We're told the story features some sort of circus that looks similar to the backgrounds from the apparently dead in the water Dumbo 2. There is also a new 50-something character with a "big moustache and a nice smile" who runs the circus. The man has a bunch of dogs that "look like the dogs from Balto".

why disney why

Like the idea,but the circus has nothing to do with "The Fox And The Hound".

To quote a great American:
"Oh good grief!"

I think it is a great idea I really loved the original and would love to see a sequal for it. ay Disne keep bringing on the sequals! I would really love to see them make a sequal to Robin Hood too!

Choco Bear wrote:from http://www.animated-news.com(its a awsome site go!!!!)

Fox and the Hound sequel in the works?
An insider who has seen the storyboards in progress has let us know that a Fox and the Hound midquel is currently in development at Disney. We're told the story features some sort of circus that looks similar to the backgrounds from the apparently dead in the water Dumbo 2. There is also a new 50-something character with a "big moustache and a nice smile" who runs the circus. The man has a bunch of dogs that "look like the dogs from Balto".

Change of thought train . . .

What has "officially" happened to Dumbo 2 afterall. We got that long preview for it on the Dumbo 60th Anniversary DVD and now nothing. It should have been out long ago. Is it officially not to be?

Who knows.Rumor has it,Dumbo II was going to be CGI,but test screenings were so bad,the project got shelved completely.Who knows when it will be finished.

at this time, nothing surprises me...any sequel, prequel or midquel is possible.

and don't forget the Triquel( the three stories in one movie:p)

I'm thinking that story is a rumor.. or something is seriously wrong..

Papa Bear wrote:I really loved the original and would love to see a sequal for it.

So if the original movie is great, the sequel is automaticly good too?
Please... We've seen enough examples that prove otherwise.

It's perfectly simple - you don't like the idea of a sequel, you don't buy or watch it. Could it be any simpler?

Did everybody moan when Lewis Carroll announced "Alice Through The Looking Glass"? Did people complain when Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote each additional "Tarzan" tale (getting more and more bizzare each time)? What about Eve Titus' "Basil of Bakerstreet" books? Every sequel deserves a chance. And yes, I've choosen sequels with a Disney film on purpose.

I was just chatting to Loomis the other day and we were discussing Disney's reluctance to sequel their 'lesser' films, so I'm glad this is happening. And hopefully, being a 'lesser' film, there won't be so many knee-jerk reactions. But that theory seems to have been shot

I am somewhat disturbed by this trend for Mid-Quels. I understand why, young children want to see the 'puppy' Fox and the Hound as they're cuter.

Hopefully, this will mean that Disney will make more sequels to their less popular films, the majority of which can actually support sequels (or Mid-Quels) - like The Great Mouse Detective, Robin Hood, Sword In The Stone, Mr Toad (Wind in the Willows) and Alice In Wonderland.

2099net - Usually I agree with your posts but not this time... Sure there are many great sequels in literature (although when it comes to books I think of them as a series, not sequels...it's kinda different)

But how many movie sequels are as well-thought-out as books in a series can be? The only sequels I ever liked almost as much as the original are the Back to the Future movies.

When it comes to Disney... well, look at their track record... most of their sequels/prequels are atrocious. The only Disney sequel that doesn't nauseate me is The Rescuers Down Under. And that's probably because I wasn't very impressed with the original Rescuers. I think Down Under surpasses it, both in story and animation. Oh, and I don't have a problem with Fantasia 2000 because it's not really a traditional sequel and each of the segments displays great originality.

If Disney always did as good a job as THAT, then I wouldn't have a problem with their sequels. But they don't. And many of their movies simply don't need to be continued because the story is OVER. There's nothing left to say. (Cinderella II, I'm lookin' at you).

So when the only reason for making a sequel is to make money ... without being creative or original at all... just cashing in on beloved, familiar characters, nevermind if you've got an interesting story to tell or not... well how can anyone expect us to be open to this? Bring on the knee-jerk reactions, I say. Disney sequels are 99.9 % of the time absolute CRAP. When they're consistently inferior to the first movies... well there's only so much disappointment a person can take before they give up in disgust.

The Fox and the Hound is the very first movie I remember seeing in theatres. It's got a special place in my heart and I have no intention of giving a sequel a chance. I seriously doubt it would be even half as good as the original.

And hey are we all forgetting (obviously the Disney company has forgotten) that Walt himself was against sequels? He always wanted to do something new and exciting, not rest on his laurels and repeat his past successes. Always innovating. Always taking chances.

He'd be so disappointed if he could see what Disney's doing today. That alone is reason enough for me to avoid the sequels.

chrisrose wrote:2099net - Usually I agree with your posts but not this time... Sure there are many great sequels in literature (although when it comes to books I think of them as a series, not sequels...it's kinda different)

But how many movie sequels are as well-thought-out as books in a series can be? The only sequels I ever liked almost as much as the original are the Back to the Future movies.

Of course, not all books are written to be series, and even those that are are have been resurrected after they were definitively closed (Sherlock Holmes for example). As for films, some of the sequels I think are better than the originals are Bride of Frankenstien, Scream 2, Gremlins II, Ghostbusters II and Return to Neverland.

chrisrose wrote:When it comes to Disney... well, look at their track record... most of their sequels/prequels are atrocious. The only Disney sequel that doesn't nauseate me is The Rescuers Down Under. And that's probably because I wasn't very impressed with the original Rescuers. I think Down Under surpasses it, both in story and animation. Oh, and I don't have a problem with Fantasia 2000 because it's not really a traditional sequel and each of the segments displays great originality.

If Disney always did as good a job as THAT, then I wouldn't have a problem with their sequels. But they don't. And many of their movies simply don't need to be continued because the story is OVER. There's nothing left to say. (Cinderella II, I'm lookin' at you).

Well I agree that some have been appaling. But on the whole they're getting better. Cinderella II was never meant to knock anyone's socks off - it was just a way for children to "spend more time" with their favorite characters. Some (I suspect those of us with families) will be happy with that, others won't. But they always have the choice not to watch.

chrisrose wrote:So when the only reason for making a sequel is to make money ... without being creative or original at all... just cashing in on beloved, familiar characters, nevermind if you've got an interesting story to tell or not... well how can anyone expect us to be open to this? Bring on the knee-jerk reactions, I say. Disney sequels are 99.9 % of the time absolute CRAP. When they're consistently inferior to the first movies... well there's only so much disappointment a person can take before they give up in disgust.

The Fox and the Hound is the very first movie I remember seeing in theatres. It's got a special place in my heart and I have no intention of giving a sequel a chance. I seriously doubt it would be even half as good as the original.

Disney do have some standards. They stopped their Dumbo sequel for a start, and their Bambi mid-quel has seemingly had a lot of stop and starts. I think this may be down to Disney finally realising that poor quality releases still damage their reputation, but at least they do seem to be making more effort now.

However, I don't pretend all the sequels are good. Of the recent ones I was most disappointed with The Jungle Book 2 - it could have done so much more (think Shere Kahn and his thirst for revenge) and seemed content to be nothing more than average.

chrisrose wrote:And hey are we all forgetting (obviously the Disney company has forgotten) that Walt himself was against sequels? He always wanted to do something new and exciting, not rest on his laurels and repeat his past successes. Always innovating. Always taking chances.

He'd be so disappointed if he could see what Disney's doing today. That alone is reason enough for me to avoid the sequels.

Well, Walt was against Television (like most studio heads were when it was first introduced) and said that "Disney would never make programmes for television" (or words to that effect) but he still did - but only because he needed ABC's money to fund his Disneyland project. (Sort of ironic considering who owns ABC now). Nobody knows that Walt would do, because Walt's not here.

I think Walt would do some sequels. But I think he would be more careful as to which films he would sequel (as I said before, some films are more suitable than others) and if a sequel was made, more time would be spent on the story. Because when it comes down to it, its the initial concept that lets most of the Disney sequels down.

You never know, Dumbo 2 may come out. It seemed like 3 years after 101 Dalmations 2 was advertised on movies before it came out.

Ghostbusters 2
Oh hell no

2099net wrote:As for films, some of the sequels I think are better than the originals are Bride of Frankenstien, Scream 2, Gremlins II, Ghostbusters II and Return to Neverland.

Excuse me? I haven't seen Return to Neverland, it just didn't seem like something I'm willing to waste my time with, so I'm extremely interested in hearing why and in what way do you prefer it over Peter Pan?

chrisrose wrote:2099net - Usually I agree with your posts but not this time...

Neither do I.

Billy Moon wrote:

2099net wrote:As for films, some of the sequels I think are better than the originals are Bride of Frankenstien, Scream 2, Gremlins II, Ghostbusters II and Return to Neverland.

Excuse me? I haven't seen Return to Neverland, it just didn't seem like something I'm willing to waste my time with, so I'm extremely interested in hearing why and in what way do you prefer it over Peter Pan?

This is, of course, only my opinion but I never actually saw what Peter Pan was actually about. It's nothing more than a sequence of barely related events. This is not a critique of the Disney movie, but a critique of the actual stage play as well.

My biggest problem is that the moral or point to the story seems to be confused. It would appear that the whole film is celebrating childhood - after all, all of Peter's jolly japes are nothing but adventure games to him, but at the end Wendy does, in effect 'grow up' by announcing that she is ready to leave the nursary. Something she didn't want to do at the start of the film. So what is the film actually saying? Is the film for growing up or against growing up?

When discussing the success of Pixar films and the lack of success for other recent Disney animated films, I always see the point "The Story is all that matters" and to me, Peter Pan has a weak story. Peter Pan's introduction is nothing but a contrivance, Wendy's and the children's motivations throughout are weak, and apart from Hook most of the characters are bland and interchangable. What do the extended Darling family actually add to the plot? What is the whole point of the Tiger-Lilly kidnapping other than filler?

Return to Neverland has a wonderful opening set in London during WW2, which unlike the opening of Peter Pan actually adds to the story. We see how a girl like Jane grew up the way she did.

We get a much better reason for going to Neverland with Hook's kidnapping of Jane, and thanks to the darkness of war torn London, Neverland seems much more magical.

We get a main character (Jane) who has clear motivation throughout the film.

We get a meaner Hook who actually succeeds in tricking Jane and does finally accomplish his goal.

We get a nod to the "believe in fairies" part of the stageplay, which was for some reason dropped from the original Disney film.

And most important of all, we get a proper ending with a proper meaning - it's important to remain a child at heart, even when grown up.

This Peter Pan story has a proper Beginning, Middle and End.

It's not perfect - the Octopus is pointless and they may as well have used the crocodile again (or nothing at all). But in my opinion the story and script are head and shoulders above the original.

And the animation, while not up to the standard of the original, is far from being bad (and is actually fantastic given it was animated on a budget of 1/7th of Treasure Planet's). But quality of animation isn't everything is it? Or else you'd be so narrow minded that you'd never have watched the Simpsons, or (the original) Scooby Doo, or Duck Tales, or any other worthwhile and entertaining television programme or film that doesn't have a Disney Feature budget.

Oh, and thomashton, Ghostbusters II is much better than one, because it has a much stronger villain. And the stronger the villain, the stronger the heroes. (although the Statue of Liberty section apes the Marshmallow Man section too much).

If Disney's going to release a sequel to this very underrated classic (which I LOVED as a kid!), than we can expect a 2-disc set, as well as sequels to every other classic.

Oh, and Tangela: finally saw the first half of the Rescuers (I'm up to the part where Penny finally brought up the diamond), and I was really surprised! I cried so hard with Penny's scenes with Rufus!

How come Emperor's New Groove got a 2-disc set and this didn't?

Well I would love to see a The Fox and the Hound sequel were Tod goes back to Widow Tweed together with vixey so that W. Tweed will be happy as she deserves to be.

:) :) :)

Ghostbusters II is as good as Ghostbusters, I think...and I love 'em both. Gremlins 2 is a cool movie, but I like the whole Christmas element of the first one. It's also kind of less self-parody, too.

Back to the Future Part II is an awesome sequel. It actually used the first film, and brilliantly so! So many sequels don't stay true to the original film...Back to the Future Part III for instance is a bummer, though it's Netty's favorite.

Return to Never Land better than Peter Pan? Well, Peter Pan hasn't aged so well (how can it, he never grows up? )...but still, RTN is a stinker, I think.