Best Disney Sequel

Prince Phillip · Post by **Prince Phillip** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 10:12 am

I just saw Jungle Book 2 yesterday and must say it is the best sequel I've seen so far, matched only by the rescuers down under , which happened to be a theatrical release, as was Fantasia 2000 . The only complaint that I have, is that, that bird, Lucky, gets it. You know he does. And when that rock falls on Shar Khan, you know it's over for hime, and yet, I guess because it is suppose to be for little kids they are both alive at the end. Oh well, I overlook that part as I'm sure most of the older audience does. It's just like, the movie DOESN'T need that! If little kids are so fragile, that the death of an evil character and an idiot is going to shake them up, them maybe they need to toughen up. It makes me wonder if a scene like in Sleeping Beauty see my quote below) would ever take place in today's society.
Anyway, just wanted to say, really liked the movie, and don't hate me, but I think it was even better than the original. This is definatley one I will own in the future, but I think I will wait for the special edition to come out, that is sure to follow the Platinum release of it's prodeccessor. Next, I will have to see Return to Neverland, and hope this is an improvement over it's prodeccessor as well.

Prince Phillip · Post by **Prince Phillip** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 10:28 am

I just decided to add a post. Just curious and a bit bored. If you have not seen a specific sequel please mention that. As stated before I have not yet seen Neverland, but having seen the others, I can say that these are indeed SEQUELS. Not Cheapquels.

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 11:04 am

i picked rescuers down under, i hate the jungle book 2! they totally changed shanti's character, the original girl from the first has totally taken 100% change

the animation is as cheap as they come, character color has changed and the ugly CGI is noticeable. this is one disc i will not be buying!

Joe Carioca · Post by **Joe Carioca** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 11:10 am

I picked "Fantasia 2000". Not as good as the original, but still a wonderful film (love that ending).
I also love "Rescuers Down Under" though.

As for the others, I woudn't pick anyone of them: I just can't stand this cheapquels anymore! They're destroying Disney's reputation, and taking away the people from seeing the real "classics". It's sad when "Jungle Book 2" happens to be profitable when "Treasure Planet" turns into a flop!

Prince Phillip · Post by **Prince Phillip** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 1:44 pm

I won't quote both of you, as that would take up too much space and would be unneccessary, but I would like to respond to points that each of you made. First of all, I would like to mention that I am totally against Cheapquels (cheaply made sequels), but am fine with sequels, a continuation of a story either after or before the orignal, also known as prequels. Disney obviously needs the money and some people are interested in further development in a story. However, ALL sequels should be done well. And only if a story calls for it. My rule is that if a story ends "...happily ever after", don't make a sequel! The only exception to this rule, in disney's case would be the Little Mermaid, which I think had great potential, but bombed. Animation and story sucked. More emphasis on story, but great idea. This could have been a theatrical release if done right. Now back to response...
Yes Shanti's character was "changed" a little bit, but how much? Her clothes and hair were different and she appeared to be quiet and reserved in the original, but then again we only saw TWO minutes of her! Also, the animation did not suck! It was a million times better than the animation from the 1st. Now that sucked. Yes the colors were brighter, and a major improvement if you asked me. (I don't know if you were Jungle Book Legacy, or whatever it was called, but this was all explained.)
And hey I hate to tell you, but there has been "noticable" CGI ever since The Grewat Mouse Detective. Yes it is a shame that Treasure Planet bombed, because that was a great movie, but it doesn't mean Jungle Book 2 shouldn't succeed. If anything you should be happy it did succeed, maybe that will open disney's eyes, so they say hey it is worth it to make quality sequels instead of crap, because whether or not you like disney is gonna do what they want to do, and they want to make sequels.
I to think, that the cheapquels, sometimes even sequels can take away from the original a bit, but again that is if you let it. How can you say Rescuers Down Under is good, that it qualifies as a sequel, and turn around and say Junglebook 2 is a cheapquel. If Jungle Book 2 had been made a sequel in 1969, as disney was planning to do, do you think you would have liked it any better. I doubt I would have, in fact I'm glad they waited and think they did a good job. I think, when it comes to judging sequels we should let the kids decide, after all they are made for them. I was a kid when Return to Jafar came out and can honestley say that movie dissappionted me. I watched Junglebook 2 through the same eyes and enjoyed it for what it was.
People have to stop being so closed minded, and try to enjoy things for they are sometimes. Even if you didn't care for Jungle Book 2 you have to atlewast agree that it was a major improvement over the horrific Cinderella 2 and some of the other atrocities disney has put out within recent years. It is sad, but I hold high hopes for the future of their sequels and hope they don't let me down. Or I may have to start up another post- Anti-Sequels.

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:31 pm

excuse me dont even compare Great mouse detective CGI with jungle book 2 CGI which 100% cheap especially when shere khan runs and jumps those are very cheap booty CGI! and the W-I-L-D section another proof of cheap CGI and cheap animation. and for you to say jungle book 2 animation is better than jungle book classic, i can tell why disney makes sequels and make money. at least jungle book had a better animation since it was all hand made by REAL ARTISTS! which is erelevant to compare to the CGI trash sequel. and about shanti, 2 seconds tells you what type of girl shanti is during her song. she a kid that has chores and doesnt have time to play plus she's already thinking about finding herself a man and having a daughter. so they should just take the jungle book 2 a burn it and act like it never excited is a waste of fine print, paper, paint and work!

p.s. Cinderella 2 is in the same level as jungle book 2 they use the same cheap CGI

maj · Post by **maj** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:37 pm

toy story 2 if you count the pixar stuff

Doug · Post by **Doug** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:42 pm

Prince Phillip wrote:How can you say Rescuers Down Under is good, that it qualifies as a sequel, and turn around and say Junglebook 2 is a cheapquel.

Ummmm, I don't know......Maybe because it was an animated classic!

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:45 pm

Doug wrote:
Prince Phillip wrote:How can you say Rescuers Down Under is good, that it qualifies as a sequel, and turn around and say Junglebook 2 is a cheapquel.
Ummmm, I don't know......Maybe because it was an animated classic!

duh! they actually did some drawing and actually put effort in rescuers down under.

Disneykid · Post by **Disneykid** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 2:58 pm

Rescuers Down Under was animated by Walt Disney Feature Animation, therefore it has gorgeous animation quality. Other theatrical releases such as The Tigger Movie, Piglet's Big Movie, The Jungle Book 2, and Return to Neverland were either animated by Walt Disney's Television distribution, or a second-hand foreign animation studio owned by Disney. Because of this, I feel it's perfectly fine to call the others "Cheapquels" since they're animated by the same studios that do the DTV sequels.

Oh, and I voted for Fantasia 2000; I absolutely love it, more than the original as controversial as that may sound.

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:02 pm

Walt Disney Tv Animation dept are best known for deforming characters on TV and for destroying storylines and slaughtering the classics! the Disney anti-Walt!

Post by **Luke** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:06 pm

Fantasia 2000 is an awesome production, and while it's an abomination to say this, I like it even better than the original. Such a great mix of music and animation - and each of the vignettes works well (well the Pines of Rome one gets a little boring, but not near the level of Pastoral Symphony in the original).

Rescuers Down Under is a fun movie, too. As good as, and maybe even better than the original Rescuers.

And Return to Never Land - well, if you read my review, you know how I feel. Seemed to lack heart and soul.

Prince Phillip · Post by **Prince Phillip** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:09 pm

Yes, Recuers Down Under, a sequel, was labeled a classic, because when it came out, it was the first sequel. Disney was also still fumbling around for some ideas at the time, and so when they released it in 1990 they said this is the classic for this year. Disney is now throwing out so many movies a year. (2002 brought us 2 animated classics, Lilo and Stitch and Treasure Planet.) Disney sequels are already put down, by so much of the industry that they wouldn't dare call another sequel an animated classic. If Rescuers Down Under was released today, the exact same movie, it would be the same. It would be released in theatres but would not be given the "animated classic" title. I bet you would probably scouff at that too, because whether you want to acknowledge it or not just as much "CGI crap", as you put it, is in that movie. And by the way they still use REAL Artists, to animate most of the cells, but YES, YES they also use some CGI technology!!! DUHHHHH! It's the 21st century, and Walt was a man of the times, if he were alive today, you can bet he'd be encouraging them to incorpurate the CGI thechnology into the modern animated clessics, just like they did with BATB, Aladdin, TLK, and the list goes on. I don't know how many times I have to say I HATE most of their cheapquels but this WAS an improvement over what they have been doing, and apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so, because from what I understand this made quite a bit of money. And yes it was a major improvemnet over the Original, which did look like crap!!!! You compare the animation from any of the real classics like Snow White to Sleeping Beauty, and the animation From the 60's to late 80's was CRAP! It was sketchy, and not as colorful as it could have been. And you know what they did put effort into this movie and it does show. Again it might not appeal to you're big headed, higher tastes, but again this movie was made for KIDS! And I personally think it is deserving of the DISNEY mark. I can't even say that about some of the classics.

Joe Carioca · Post by **Joe Carioca** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:10 pm

This is why I don't like the cheapquels: as I said before, they are ruining Disney's reputation. Up until the release of "Pocahontas" and some other features, Disney films were treated as events - and everybody flocked the theaters to see it. Well, after some time, Disney started releasing low-quality cheapquels... and I think that people started loosing confidence on Disney - after all, if they released such trashy films on video, why woudn't it be the same with their theatrical offerings? Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but that turned out a reality when these cheapo products started being released in theaters (Jungle Book 2, Never Land, Tigger, etc). The public started being saturated by Disney's name - I mean, if they could have a new Disney feature released in theaters every month, why to bother going to watch a film such as "Treasure Planet'"?

The point is: Disney films started being treated just as "kiddy movies". People aren't interested in it as they were before - now, they preffer waiting until it comes out on video, so they can rent it for their kids. For them, it's just another Disney movie... that is sad!
Once a friend told me "Buy cheapquels. Disney is dead".

I know some of you may not agree with me, but I think it is a complete sacrilege to compare the artwork of the original "Jungle Book" to its sequel. If I were one of the Nine Old Men, I would be offended by that!
And I chose "Rescuers Down Under" because it's a high-quality feature - that's not the case with JB2 and Never Land!

Well, that's just my opinion. You have yours and I have mine.

José Carioca!

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:10 pm

well i would get mad at you luke cause fantasia and fantasia 2000 were made by the feature animation so it is a relevant comparison same with recuers and down under. not like cheapquel vs animated feature. there is not way a cheapquel can be better!

Maerj · Post by **Maerj** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:28 pm

The reason for the "Sketchy look" was that they started to use the Xerox process. Sure it was to save money, but it was also a style too. Some people liked it because they transfered the drawings directly to the cels which gave them a certain energy and look that regular cleaned up animation doesn't have. I though tit was okay, I wouldn't want to see every film done that way, but it did have an interesting look.

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:31 pm

like 101 dalmatians, sword in the stone, aristocats, robin hood and jungle book. the fav 5 xerox classics!

Maerj · Post by **Maerj** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:41 pm

Exactly! And they wouldn't have been able to make 101 Dalmations if it wasn't for the Xerox process... there were too many puppies to keep drawing them over and over!

2099net · Post by **2099net** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 4:10 pm

I know anything said of this thread is likely to wind somebody or other up the wrong way but here's my thoughts.

First, I hate the word Cheapquels. It's insulting to the majority of people who work on them. Considering that they don't get a budget anywhere near as big as Disney Feature Animation's films, the creators are doing stunning work on most of the animated sequels - we'll ignore Belle's Magical World and Hunchback II for now - and Walt Disney Animation Australia in particular are producing some fantastic work. Remember the animators don't set the budget or initiate the films in the first place – so let's be a bit more thoughtful who gets criticised when discussing DTV productions.

Second, like them or hate them, they're here to stay. Nothing can put the genie back into the bottle (a sly reference to the first DTV release, Jafar Returns perhaps?) We must accept that and at least take some consolation in that the profits earned should (in theory anyway) help to support future new, original Walt Disney Feature Animation films.

Third I don't think the bulk of the DTV releases do spoil Disney's reputation that much. I'm sure most people know that they are buying a DTV product. Releases like Return to Neverland and Jungle Book 2 do complicate matters however.

As for the films themselves – I have to say that I thought Jungle Book 2 was pretty pointless. I'm not against sequels, but a good sequel must add something to the original. New characters, new situations, new points-of-view or attitudes. Jungle Book did few of these things, and those it did (for example new characters) it did very poorly. When Shere Kharn entered the village I was expecting things to pick up a little, but all we got was a virtual repeat of the first film. And I have to agree about Lucky. He was tiger feed and the fact that he returned at the end was a pure Disney cop-out. Jungle Book 2 falls on a dull, uninteresting and most important of all, pointless "plot".

I thought Return to Neverland succeeded on almost all counts. Jane was a successful new character. The war torn London seen in the first 15 minutes or so was certainly a new situation – not only for Peter Pan but for animated films in general. And as for new points-of-view and attitude, the film followed the normal Disney flip-flop for sequels [*] – instead of being about growing up like the original Peter Pan was (notice how Wendy comes to the decision at the end of the original film that she's now ready to move out of the nursery), it's about staying young.

Which is why I adore it so much – I do feel it does have heart and I do feel it has a worthwhile message. After all, we all continue to watch Disney films because we realise how important it is to remain a child at heart don't we? Plus I like the opening 15 minutes – surprisingly dark for a modern Disney film (see the comment on Lucky above). Seeing it educates children (and perhaps the non-British?) how much Britain had to suffer in the war without preaching – houses being bombed night after night and children being sent away from their parents for safety never knowing if and when they would return, if indeed they had anything left to return to. A terrible time in our nation's history, and one we should never forget.

Is the animation on Return to Neverland as good as the original Peter Pan? No. It never could be even if all the money in the world was spent on it. Production methods have changed so it would never look the same. But does this mean a sequel should never have been made? And considering it's modest budget ($20M according to the IMDB, or to put it another way 1/7th of the budget of Treasure Planet) it looks absolutely phenomenal. Praise and congratulations to all involved! I really think Return to Neverland was a labour of love for all involved.

I stand by my earlier statement in another post – I really do think that overall Return to Neverland is better than the original.

[*] Disney Sequel Filp-Flops

Little Mermaid - Mermaid wants to become human
Little Mermaid II - Humand wants to become mermaid

Lady and the Tramp - Stray Dog become domesticated
Lady and the Tramp II - Domesticated dog becomes stray dog

Pocahontas - English travel to America
Pocahontas II - Native Americans travel to England

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Tue Jun 17, 2003 4:21 pm

i dont agree with you about production methods changing and not been able to repeat past techniques. cause disney achieved watercolor background on lilo & stitch such technique was last applied on bambi. i like return to neverland but the animation is not way near the live like animation of the original Peter pan. and about the people working the australia studios they need to get new stories and stop making this stupid CHEAPQUELS!!! and get a imagination of their own so they can stop making such stupid plots. and maybe enroll in art school so they can be along side feature animation.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Best Disney Sequel

Which do you think is/was the best Disney Sequel released to theatres

Best Disney Sequel