DVDizzy Forum

I wonder, are (most) Disney fans against (the majority of) the direct-to-video/home premiere because they weren't particularly good, or just against them because they were sequels?

I mean, many 'classics' had sequels:

The Godfather
Star Wars (original trilogy)
Die Hard
Toy Story
Aliens
Indiana Jones (original trilogy)

...Disney in no way pioneered sequels. However, unlike the above film series, Disney sequels didn't often match up to the quality of their original film.

However, if DisneyToon Studios began to work more creatively, rather than be an executive-led studio, would you be against good sequels?

Some I have thought of:

Cinderella 4 - The script and music is already written. Disney has a musical called "Twice Charmed" that involves Lady Tremaine hiring a fairy godfather to do-in Cinderella. They just need to use the same script and music, but animate it. The show has been highly acclaimed, but is relegated to Disney cruise ships. An animated version would bring the story into homes everywhere.

The Little Mermaid (Prequel 2) - The story of how Ursula went from being Triton's sister to being an evil sea-witch (which was something they wanted to have in the original film, but it ruined the pacing). I wrote my own version of this story, including a song.

Charles Perrault had a 'sequel' for Sleeping Beauty. Here's the Wikipedia sumamary:

Secretly wed by the re-awakened Royal almoner, the Prince John continued to visit the Princess, who bore him two children, L'Aurore (Dawn) and Le Jour (Day), which he kept secret from his mother, who was of an Ogre lineage. Once he had ascended to the throne, he brought his wife and the children to his capital, which he then left in the regency of the Queen Mother, while he went to make war on his neighbor the Emperor Contalabutte, ("Count of The Mount").

The Ogress Queen Mother sent the young Queen and the children to a house secluded in the woods, and directed her cook there to prepare the boy for her dinner, with a sauce Robert. The humane cook substituted a lamb, which satisfied the Queen Mother, who demanded the girl, but was satisfied with a young goat prepared in the same excellent sauce. When the Ogress demanded that he serve up the young Queen, the latter offered her throat to be slit, so that she might join the children she imagined were dead. There was a tearful secret reunion in the cook's little house, while the Queen Mother was satisfied with a hind prepared with sauce Robert. Soon she discovered the trick and prepared a tub in the courtyard filled with vipers and other noxious creatures. The King returned in the nick of time and the Ogress, being discovered, threw herself into the pit she had prepared and was consumed, and everyone else lived happily ever after.

I realize it's a bit grim for Disney, but they could re-work it.

All in all, I think between excised scenes from Disney's original classics and sequels by the original authors, if DisneyToon Studios focused on creativity, they could make good sequels.

Why should they? 1) These sequels made billions of dollars for Disney. It's a smart business move. 2) Even some of the hated sequels delighted fans because they were seeing their favorite heroes and princesses in new stories.

So, all that was a long winded post to ask: were you opposed to the sequels/prequels/midquels just because they were sequels, or because they were bad.

Essentially, if the quality improved, would you be against them coming back?

Kind of a "duh" question. Why would anyone be against movies being made that are good quality? Of course the reason everyone hates the cheapquels is because they are crap. The animation, stories, etc... are total crap. If they were high quality (like a Toy Story 2) who would complain? I'm against BAD movies being made whether they are the first or 4th in a series.

Perhaps it's a 'duh' question, but there are people who believe it's blasphemy to make sequels, however good they may be, to old Disney films. Why? Well, Walt seemed to be against sequels and the original artists are dead. "You can't mess with the original artist's masterpiece!"

So some people are against even 'good' sequels.

One issue that can't really be ignored is the fact that a lot of the films that could have sequels are old and thus much of their original cast and crew are either no longer with us or retired. In all fairness, quite a lot of people believe that a sequel needs its original cast and crew, so that's an issue, and I think that a lot of people were up in arms over people making sequels to Walt's films for this reason (I once heard someone joke Bambi II by saying: "are all the original cast gonna be in it?").

For films where this isn't a problem, then as long as the quality is good, it shouldn't have too much of an issue, although the string of mediocre and blasphemous (to some) films probably has put a strong and irremovable stereotype in everybody's minds that a Disney sequel is bad news.

I am against Disney sequels even if they are really, really good.

Some people thought Cinderella III was better than the original. What is a fan of that film like me supposed to think of that? I think that's terrible to say that about the original film. That's one reason I don't like sequels. They alter how people feel about the original film. Ariel got married...only for her love with Eric to fizzle and have a bratty child? That's not happily ever after!

Next, the originals are to be viewed as perfect classics that are so perfectly done they don't need sequels, especially since Walt Disney didn't make sequels.

The creator didn't make sequels to these films. The creator decided they shouldn't have sequels. No one else can decide otherwise. If the creators of the original films are alive and you ask them and they say yes to a sequel, only then can it be done.

Also, almost all Disney films are based on an original previously existing source. I don't agree with any of the fairy tales getting sequels because Cinderella is supposed to be the Cinderella, and there was no sequel after she lived happily ever after in the original tale. Sleeping Beauty is the only one I would actually be okay with having a sequel.

But here's the twist: I'm okay with Cinderella III and accept and love it. Why? Because it only shows a little bit of what happens after the first film before it completely makes an alternate reality of the first film. So it's like 5 seconds of sequel paired with an alternate reality, which is not a sequel, but an alternate "what if?" (Star Trek did an alternate reality plot for it's recent film!). So I'm fine with it. And it's really good.

I wish none of the sequels had been made except Cinderella III. If Sleeping Beauty was done finishing the story Perrault wrote, but it turned out to be only a dream Aurora had while sleeping, that would be fine too (then it's not a real sequel). Through the Looking Glass would be a perfectly fine Alice in Wonderland sequel, Walt didn't care much for the original, and it's kind of not a sequel because it's more like doing a whole nother book! Making a feature of a whole nother existing story. Just with the same old characters as before. They make new films and shorts using the old Mickey and the gang characters! I think Walt would approve.

Basically Disney sequels that are dreams or alternate reality that never really happened, or another book, and are therfore not really sequels, are ok.

I think people have a problem with the actual word “sequel”. For example, the Tinker bell films aren’t sequels, they’re brand new stories developed around the world of one character. It seems that all the better sequels Disney has made over the years, like Bambi II and Cinderella III: A Twist In Time, were more like prequels than sequels.

I personally like the majority of the sequels, because I get to see and spend time with my favorite characters again. I think it’s important to remember that Disney is a company. Disney has spent billions over the last two decades creating franchises based off of popular characters. Children and families will pay to see the classic characters again and Disney knows this. Disney has made a ton of money over the years with their direct to video films, many of which were sequels.

I understand we’re all about character integrity and maintaining the artistic and creative endeavors of the original films, but it’s important to remember that, at the end of the day, Disney is out to make a profit. Having said this, there is NO EXCUSE for Disney to release complete crap like Cindrella II: Dreams Come True. There has to be a way to balance the character integrity and the artistic and creative endeavors of the original films while at the same tie creating a quality product that will maximize profit. Unfortunately, only now, is Disney moving in that direction. No matter how much I like/detest Lassater, he is making an effort to release quality direct to video films.

If you thought Disney was done creating these direct to video films, you’re dumber than Aurora in Enchanted Tales. Disney will NEVER stop producing these direct to video films- not as long as they continue to sell and make money. I’m very happy that Lasseter will have say in whatever gets produced from now on. He allows for creativity, and he’ll never do anything that would stray away from the original films. He will maintain character integrity and the artistic and creative endeavors of the original films on all future productions.

I have no problems with sequels continuing to be produced, as long as they’re creative, with great stories, interesting situations, and they stay true to the originals in every way possible. I understand why people are upset at not having the original crews working on the sequels, but I believe in Lasseter. Pixar never fails to amaze me. With Lasseter’s creativity and respect on board, I doubt we’ll never have a “cheapquel” again.

And as nice as these Tinkerbell spin-offs are, and as interested as I am in what the TAG Blog said would be a far cry from Tink's films as the next DTV franchise, I still would like to see some more straight sequels.

Walt had a "no sequels" policy on animated films produced during his time. Because of this and the fact that the original filmmakers aren't around to work on it, I am against any sequels to those films, even if they are good. I didn't hate Bambi II and Cinderella III, but they should never have been made in the first place.

However with anything post-Walt, and in particular anything recent, I am not opposed to sequels provided that they are good. It would be nice to have imput from the original filmmakers as well, like Pixar does with their sequels. Walt Disney Animation Studios is currently working on a new Winnie the Pooh film, which I don't think anybody is opposed to perhaps because the original feature was a package feature and because it has already had numerous sequels and TV series' as well.

I am also not against Disney Toon Studios. They have demonstrated that they can make really great films that aren't sequels, such as Mickey, Donald and Goofy in The Three Musketeers and Tinker Bell (not considered a sequel). However, I do feel that sequels to Walt Disney Animation Studios films should be made at the same studio and with the same degree of quality and integrity of the original.

If a sequel is good, then so be it. So far Disney mostly just recycles stories and does switcharoos...Ariel wanted to be a human so of course her daughter wants to be a mermaid....something like that very boring and obviously unoriginal. TLK:SP started like that, Simba wanted to be king, his daughter doesn't want to me queen, but then they evolve it into a Romeo and Juliet story. It was one of the better sequels, but still not the best. Bambi 2 was great, apart from Thumper acting out of character. IMO, Bambi 2 is the best sequel, though technically its a mid-equal. Lilo and Stitch 2 was very good too.

IMO, the best true Disney sequel is Rescuers Down Under. I found that to be a stronger story, character development, and of course animation.

Well, of course TRDU is one of the best sequels, it was made in-house at WDAS.

Besides that, only 3 other films have in-house sequels.

Saludos Amigos...Three Caballeros
Fantasia...Fantasia/2000
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh...Pooh 2011

No surprise why it's better.

It's more of a "Do you hate sequels in general?" question.

Films should be left alone if they need to stand alone. Any film made to follow the film feels very "milkish." I would be okay for planned sequels from the beginning to tell a big picture story, such as Harry Potter. Even if all intentions were good, I would also only like the original cast and crew to work on it. Rowling was smart to state no non-author sequel!

That's my quick two cents on this subject.

Neal wrote:I wonder, are (most) Disney fans against (the majority of) the direct-to-video/home premiere because they weren't particularly good, or just against them because they were sequels?

For me, a sequel has to be good in a few ways:

It's a worthy follow-up to the film it preceded - Essentially, the whole reason a sequel is made is because the studios think an audience would want more to what they've already seen. So immediately, the sequel has the job of either being a repeat of the original with a few changes so it seems new (something most sequels do), or being a wholly new story that has the familiar characters of the first film. It has to try to be just as good (or slightly better) than the first film to justify having a sequel in the first place.

The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions were unnecessary sequels to The Matrix. Yes, they continued the story established in The Matrix, but for me, it wasn't a story I cared to see. Special effects aside, they stand as just two really long footnotes and addendums to the excellence that was already made in The Matrix. It didn't need a sequel, it didn't need a resolution (especially the resolution that they came up with). The way the story and characters ended was perfect as it was.

It's got a strong enough story to stand on its own separate from the film - One of the main problems with most sequels is that it's just a repeat of the previous film, except with a few changes here and there so that to the naked eye it seems to be something new. Thus, when I watch a sequel, I would hope that it can also be something viewed out-of-context of the first film and succeed on its own merits. Hannibal, for example, is a sequel to The Silence of the Lambs, but is still strong enough in story and character development to be a movie on its own had the viewer never seen or heard of The Silence of the Lambs (or its predecessor, Manhunter).

At the other end of the spectrum, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest suffers from relying too much on the viewer to have already seen Curse of the Black Pearl, as there are too many nods and references to it, all the while with a story dependent on the fact that you already know who these characters are and what they did in COTBP. Because of that, viewed as a standalone, it is a mess, and as a result, At World's End is an even bigger mess. Watching all three films together, it's fine (if overtly long), but if one were to watch either of the sequels with no knowledge of the POTC franchise, they'd be totally lost.

It has either the same production team as the first film, or the blessing/approval of the original production team and filmmakers (or their estate) - This is a double-edged sword, really. Because there are cases where the new filmmakers get the blessing/approval, but franchise is taken into an entirely different direction and it ends badly (Batman & Robin anyone?). But really, I'd prefer if a sequel were done by the people who already know how the first film was made, what worked, and what didn't work in their movie. That way they'd know how to handle those challenges in another one. And if a new production team were put into a movie, yes, it can create a new take on the franchise, but I'd hope they'd know when to rein it in. Just look at Thunderbirds, the kiddie-fied 2004 train wreck that just took the classic Gerry Anderson series and sh!t on it. The filmmakers originally brought in Anderson as creative consultant, then let him go as they felt there were already enough people working on the development. What a slap in the face.

Neal wrote:However, if DisneyToon Studios began to work more creatively, rather than be an executive-led studio, would you be against good sequels?

Well, the problem with the question is the assumption that if DisneyToon Studios were to be creatively driven versus financially driven, that the quality of their films would improve. The "good" in "good sequels" is still the judgment of the viewer. I enjoy The Lion King II: Simba's Pride more than I ever do The Lion King, even if it came during the early years of DisneyToon Studios, and consider it a good sequel. Conversely, even though I thought the story was interesting and the characters just as entertaining as the original, I wouldn't go out and say Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure is a good sequel to Lady and the Tramp. Looking at a more recent sequel, I have little love for The Little Mermaid, so I wasn't exactly jumping for joy when either of its sequels were released, and I have yet to see Ariel's Beginning simply because I don't care to. As such, I can't call it a bad sequel, nor can I call it a good one. It's just one that fans of TLM may call good, but I really would not go out of my way to see at all.

Neal wrote:Charles Perrault had a 'sequel' for Sleeping Beauty.

It was more of "Disney only shot the first half of the tale" than an actual sequel written by Perrault.

Neal wrote:So, all that was a long winded post to ask: were you opposed to the sequels/prequels/midquels just because they were sequels, or because they were bad.

I was opposed to most of the sequels because they were just bad. Most have (understandably) sloppy animation, rehashed stories, and personalities that betrayed the original characters. Plus, they mess with continuity half the time. Beauty and the Beast: Enchanted Christmas makes Belle's stay at the castle longer than it likely was, all the while showing that the Beast was already in his older "21 year old" form when he was transformed, The Fox and the Hound 2 goes out and ignores Big Mama, Dinky, etc., while Cinderella III: A Twist in Time seemingly retcons Cinderella II: Dreams Come True out of existence (though most would agree that's a good thing).

Mike wrote:Some people thought Cinderella III was better than the original. What is a fan of that film like me supposed to think of that?

"That's your opinion, but I would have to respectfully disagree" seems to be a good thing to think.

"BLASPHEMER! YOU SHALL BE BURNED AT THE STAKE!!!" would probably not be a good thing to think.

Mike wrote:Next, the originals are to be viewed as perfect classics that are so perfectly done they don't need sequels

But the originals aren't perfect. No film is.

If you mean, "the originals work well enough as standalone films with a satisfying conclusion, so a sequel seems unnecessary," then I'd agree with most films. But there are some that have an open-ended ending that could invite sequels. There are many adventures for Winnie the Pooh to take, further cases for Basil of Baker Street to solve, and loads of children who need the Rescue Aid Society. Plus, we never did learn what happened to the lizard Bill after Alice launched him into the sky from her sneeze. Some say he went on to become one of Ratigan's henchmen, but I wouldn't mind an official sequel explanation.

Mike wrote:especially since Walt Disney didn't make sequels.

"The Big Bad Wolf", "The Practical Pig", "The Three Little Wolves", the package films (somewhat), "Casey Bats Again", Son of Flubber, Savage Sam, The Monkey's Uncle, the "Winnie the Pooh" shorts...

Mike Duster wrote:The creator didn't make sequels to these films. The creator decided they shouldn't have sequels. No one else can decide otherwise.

Disney is not God, and Walt's word is not Gospel. The studio has survived 40+ years without his input, they can survive 40+ more, sequels or not.

Mike Villain wrote:I personally like the majority of the sequels, because I get to see and spend time with my favorite characters again. I think it’s important to remember that Disney is a company. Disney has spent billions over the last two decades creating franchises based off of popular characters. Children and families will pay to see the classic characters again and Disney knows this. Disney has made a ton of money over the years with their direct to video films, many of which were sequels.

I understand we’re all about character integrity and maintaining the artistic and creative endeavors of the original films, but it’s important to remember that, at the end of the day, Disney is out to make a profit. Having said this, there is NO EXCUSE for Disney to release complete crap like Cindrella II: Dreams Come True. There has to be a way to balance the character integrity and the artistic and creative endeavors of the original films while at the same tie creating a quality product that will maximize profit. Unfortunately, only now, is Disney moving in that direction. No matter how much I like/detest Lassater, he is making an effort to release quality direct to video films.

Thank you, Mike. That is definitely and worthy.

goofystitch wrote:I am also not against Disney Toon Studios. They have demonstrated that they can make really great films that aren't sequels, such as Mickey, Donald and Goofy in The Three Musketeers and Tinker Bell (not considered a sequel). However, I do feel that sequels to Walt Disney Animation Studios films should be made at the same studio and with the same degree of quality and integrity of the original.

Agreed.

albert

Yes, for Perrault it was actually the second half which is why I wrote sequel as 'sequel'.

I am not against the sequels as most people know.

I was disappointed to see the Disney DTV films canceled and was interested in some of the upcoming spin-offs/sequels that got canned.

So I realize this question is subjective. I also realize just because the studio would become more 'creatively led' doesn't mean a great change.

Lasseter is now in charge of the studio and watches the films and gives notes, just as he does as WDAS and Pixar.

However, it seems as if we've entered spin-off only territory. I'd prefer more sequels/prequels.

Good. no. There has bee good sequels, but I still cant support them. They have to be great for me to justify them. They have to be what Toy story 2 was to the first toy story. they have to compliment and outdo the original. and it has to feel like its in the same universe, without beeing rehashy at the same time.

another thing for me, and this is kind of superficial, but the movie has to have the same production values as the original. and that just isnt possible usually. instead they resort to cheap ways of creating the illusion of it that dont look right. Im talking about the awful automated shading they do in hand drawn animation. I would honestly rather they be completlly flat colored, thats how animation used to be prior to Caps for for the most part, so go back to that if you have to. it saves time for one thing, and doestn pretend to be something its not.

And lastly, the original producer has to either return or oversee things. if he or she has died, or doesn't feel it should happen, then the studio shouldn't touch it.

Kyle wrote: And lastly, the original producer has to either return or oversee things. if he or she has died, or doesn't feel it should happen, then the studio shouldn't touch it.

That's kinda like saying....if the author dies, it shouldn't be made into a movie. So long as they stick to the original vision, nearly any movie can have a great sequel.

I have always like the Cinderella sequels.

bradhig wrote:I have always like the Cinderella sequels.

even the second one!?

My issue isn't that they are good or not but rather that they are direct-to-video releases. In my experience it's hard to me to give the same respect to a direct-to-video release and a movie that has received a theatrical release. It almost feels like a DTV isn't meant to be as good as a theatrically released movie..

And yet in my opinion, Return to Neverland and The Jungle Book 2 are among the weaker sequels that came from Disney Toon Studios. In terms of good story, appealing characters, and an animation style that is closer to the original, I would say that many of the DTV sequels did a better job than those two.

Kyle wrote:instead they resort to cheap ways of creating the illusion of it that dont look right. Im talking about the awful automated shading they do in hand drawn animation. I would honestly rather they be completlly flat colored, thats how animation used to be prior to Caps for for the most part, so go back to that if you have to. it saves time for one thing, and doestn pretend to be something its not.

Can you or someone else elaborate a bit more on this "automated shading"? It has me interested ...