The Cheapquels were also trying to fix the mistakes of their predecessors, not only the Remakes

[DisneyFan09]

As we all know, if there`s one staple that the Disney Live Action remakes have been stuck with (at least by us fanboys and nerds), is how they`re meant to fix the criticisms lobbed at their originals. While it`s not true in all cases, it`s certainly true in the cases of Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Peter Pan, Dumbo and The Jungle Book. But since this boom of remakes have been frequently compared to the Cheapquel phase (for being cash-in properties made for cynical reasons to their originals), the truth is that if you think about it, some of the cheapquels were also trying to fix the mistakes of the originals (and for the record, these are not my critcisms of the stories, but criticism that has always surrounded them).

Just think about it: Cinderella III A Twist in Time just serves as being an alternative retelling of the story. For having the leads work to earn their happy endings. The Hunchback of Notre Dame II just serves to give Quasimodo a love interest. Bambi II was essentially a midquel who served to expand his relationship with his dad. Pocahontas II A Journey To a New World (despite how it was semi-based on the continuation of Pocahontas` actual story) had a similar function, as it gave Pocahontas a new love interest and served to show what happened afterwards with both John Smith and the conflict.
The Little Mermaid III Ariel`s Beginning was essentially justifying Triton`s hatred for humans. The Jungle Book 2 was scrutinizing Mowgli`s dilemma between his two worlds more than the original. The Lion King II Simba`s Pride at least catered to some scrutinies lobbed at it`s predecessor: How the love interest couldn`t be half-siblings, which was the reason for why Kovu was never made into Scar`s son. And showed how Simba was still haunted by his trauma.

Perhaps I`m just overanalayzing and feel free to disagree. But it`s been one of my thoughts lately.

[Farerb]

I've always felt that was the case with Cinderella III A Twist in Time, which is why I never cared for it.

[Disney Duster]

I think you are right, DisneyFan09! Smart, good job! I recently watched Lion King 2 for that ranking the big four thread, and I thought "Why the hell isn't Kovu Scar's son? He looks just like him, and it would connect to the original!" but, yeah, now I see why it was the best thing to make him unrelated.

[DisneyFan09]

I think you are right, DisneyFan09! Smart, good job! I recently watched Lion King 2 for that ranking the big four thread, and I thought "Why the hell isn't Kovu Scar's son? He looks just like him, and it would connect to the original!" but, yeah, now I see why it was the best thing to make him unrelated.

Aaaw, thank you for your kind praise Well, the choice of Kovu not being Scar`s son was a deliberate choice from Michael Eisner, for the aforementioned reasons. But there has been some scrutiny of Simba and Nala being related and it`s surprising that the remake did nothing to fix that

[Disney Duster]

You're welcome! And I didn't know that about Eisner! And the sibling thing not being fixed in the remake is indeed surprising!

[twihard]

As we all know, if there`s one staple that the Disney Live Action remakes have been stuck with (at least by us fanboys and nerds), is how they`re meant to fix the criticisms lobbed at their originals. While it`s not true in all cases, it`s certainly true in the cases of Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, Peter Pan, Dumbo and The Jungle Book. But since this boom of remakes have been frequently compared to the Cheapquel phase (for being cash-in properties made for cynical reasons to their originals), the truth is that if you think about it, some of the cheapquels were also trying to fix the mistakes of the originals (and for the record, these are not my critcisms of the stories, but criticism that has always surrounded them).

Just think about it: Cinderella III A Twist in Time just serves as being an alternative retelling of the story. For having the leads work to earn their happy endings. The Hunchback of Notre Dame II just serves to give Quasimodo a love interest. Bambi II was essentially a midquel who served to expand his relationship with his dad. Pocahontas II A Journey To a New World (despite how it was semi-based on the continuation of Pocahontas` actual story) had a similar function, as it gave Pocahontas a new love interest and served to show what happened afterwards with both John Smith and the conflict.
The Little Mermaid III Ariel`s Beginning was essentially justifying Triton`s hatred for humans. The Jungle Book 2 was scrutinizing Mowgli`s dilemma between his two worlds more than the original. The Lion King II Simba`s Pride at least catered to some scrutinies lobbed at it`s predecessor: How the love interest couldn`t be half-siblings, which was the reason for why Kovu was never made into Scar`s son. And showed how Simba was still haunted by his trauma.

Perhaps I`m just overanalayzing and feel free to disagree. But it`s been one of my thoughts lately.

I'm sorry but I don't agree. I've never been offended by the sequels the way I've been offended by basically all the remakes including the ones I've never watched!

Hunchback 2 was created to give Quasimodo a love interest but I never saw that as due to criticism. I saw that as Disney wanting to show that anybody can find love, not because parents complained that little Susie or Joey was upset that their newest Disney character didn't get a happy ending. Also in terms of Hunchback, how many more ways can the story go to make a sequel??? seems only logical to introduce a love interest for a new story.

Cinderella 3 was actually based off a cruise ship show for Cinderella. Called Twice Charmed I think. Stepmother gets an evil fairy godmother who grants her wish to rob Cinderella of her happy ending.

Little Mermaid 3 was to make Ariel's sisters into a franchise but that merch didn't sell I think. That movie actually makes Triton look worse from what little I remember.

Bambi 2 was also supposed to make Thumper and his bunny sisters into a franchise. Keep the characters relevant and seen by kiddies. And this one had Andreas Deja who was giving it respectability so no one could be unhappy that a classic 1942 movie is getting #2.

Jungle Book has 2 books and in book 2, Mowgli lives in the village but still has adventures. Lots of non-Disney Jungle Book movies with him in the village too like with Sabu. I have never heard anybody complain that the original is a bad movie because Mowgli doesn't spend enough time in the village and Disney felt they had to make a sequel to explain this. It's a popular movie and of course if you make a sequel, it'll start where the first one ended in the village. Didnt Jungle Book 2 almost get made in the 60s????

I don't get your Lion King 2 theory at all. Out of all Disney movies, Lion King is most likely to get a sequel cuz its the biggest hit. I think it even came in theaters in some places. Nobody decided that Lion King has to get a sequel, not cuz it made millions of dollars but cuz 1 person might be worried that Simba and Nala are siblings so to make that go away we need to address it.

Pocahontas 2 is the only one that I think was made because of criticms about historical accuracy but it only makes sense that for a popular film, if you make a sequel, it needs to continue the story somehow and they've already done America so Pocahontas would follow the real life history and go to England. ALso wasn't Tarzan in production at the same time??? Tarzan also was supposed to have him go to England so it sounds like they took it out of his movie and realized they'd give it to Pocahontas for her sequel. I'm more surprised Tarzan didn't get Tarzan 2 with him going to England.

If sequels were made to stop criticism then they wouldnt make Beauty and the beast sequels which only made the Beast look worse and more abusive like locking Belle in a dungeon in the Christmas movie. And they'd make Snow White and Sleeping beauty sequels to make them action heriones.

[DisneyFan09]

I'm sorry but I don't agree. I've never been offended by the sequels the way I've been offended by basically all the remakes including the ones I've never watched!

Fair enough.

Pocahontas 2 is the only one that I think was made because of criticms about historical accuracy but it only makes sense that for a popular film, if you make a sequel, it needs to continue the story somehow and they've already done America so Pocahontas would follow the real life history and go to England. ALso wasn't Tarzan in production at the same time??? Tarzan also was supposed to have him go to England so it sounds like they took it out of his movie and realized they'd give it to Pocahontas for her sequel. I'm more surprised Tarzan didn't get Tarzan 2 with him going to England.

Tarzan was in production, but was released almost a year afterwards. Tab Murphy, the screenwriter, wanted to tell the story of him going to England, but the directors were keen to have the him stay in the Jungle. Due to how they felt the story would loose it`s steam by leaving the Jungle. Sure, both Pocahontas and Tarzan deals with a similar premise (two worlds colliding), but it is surprising that they never made a sequel of Tarzan actually going to England.

[PatchofBlue]

And they'd make Snow White and Sleeping beauty sequels to make them action heriones.

I can only imagine ... (Well, with the way the Snow White remake is going, maybe I won't have to.)

Anyways, I get the opposite idea from Cinderella 3. Tremaine's whole plot is centered on the idea that Cinderella and Charming's happy ending was entirely based on circumstance and could have been erased if she just swapped a couple of variables, but the fact that they do find each other again in this weird time warp proves that their love was true and would survive any alternate universe.

Every Universe Cinderella.jpg (120.28 KiB) Viewed 488 times

The one I actually feel was a reaction against criticism was Little Mermaid 2. That one feels like an apology to all the grandmas who hate Ariel for disobeying her parent. Like, Ariel getting a daughter that's every bit as reckless as she is and Ariel suddenly having to fulfill the exact function of her father in the first movies feels like the ultimate "I turned into the very parent I swore I'd never become" move.

All around, I don't feel like the cheapquels built themselves on criticisms of their animated predecessors the way the remakes have, at least not with the same vigor.

[Vlad]

Hi DisneyFan09, I agree with you about some what. Cinderella III did give her more screen time and a more active role in the story, and Return to Never Land managed to go through the story without mentioning the Native Americans. The other cheapquels didn't try to fix any mistakes per se, only to expand their stories further. At least, that's what I think, in this case.

[twihard]

I'm sorry but I don't agree. I've never been offended by the sequels the way I've been offended by basically all the remakes including the ones I've never watched!

Fair enough.

Pocahontas 2 is the only one that I think was made because of criticms about historical accuracy but it only makes sense that for a popular film, if you make a sequel, it needs to continue the story somehow and they've already done America so Pocahontas would follow the real life history and go to England. ALso wasn't Tarzan in production at the same time??? Tarzan also was supposed to have him go to England so it sounds like they took it out of his movie and realized they'd give it to Pocahontas for her sequel. I'm more surprised Tarzan didn't get Tarzan 2 with him going to England.

Tarzan was in production, but was released almost a year afterwards. Tab Murphy, the screenwriter, wanted to tell the story of him going to England, but the directors were keen to have the him stay in the Jungle. Due to how they felt the story would loose it`s steam by leaving the Jungle. Sure, both Pocahontas and Tarzan deals with a similar premise (two worlds colliding), but it is surprising that they never made a sequel of Tarzan actually going to England.

Glad to see that really was the case. I think the Tarzan movie would need to be much longer for him to go to England. Like it needs at least two parts so I wonder why they didn't make a sequel with him going to England. Maybe they felt they were copying Pocahontas 2 but a lot of their sequels copied plotlines. Instead they had England come to Tarzan with those three lady friends of Jane visit. I think also they felt that Tarzan in England wouldnt sell merchandise cuz he loses his setting and friends. You can bring Meeko and Flit and Percy to England but not really Terk and especially no Tantor. No fight scenes with deadly animals or jungle swinging and surfing.

And they'd make Snow White and Sleeping beauty sequels to make them action heriones.

I can only imagine ... (Well, with the way the Snow White remake is going, maybe I won't have to.)

Anyways, I get the opposite idea from Cinderella 3. Tremaine's whole plot is centered on the idea that Cinderella and Charming's happy ending was entirely based on circumstance and could have been erased if she just swapped a couple of variables, but the fact that they do find each other again in this weird time warp proves that their love was true and would survive any alternate universe.


Every Universe Cinderella.jpg


The one I actually feel was a reaction against criticism was Little Mermaid 2. That one feels like an apology to all the grandmas who hate Ariel for disobeying her parent. Like, Ariel getting a daughter that's every bit as reckless as she is and Ariel suddenly having to fulfill the exact function of her father in the first movies feels like the ultimate "I turned into the very parent I swore I'd never become" move.

All around, I don't feel like the cheapquels built themselves on criticisms of their animated predecessors the way the remakes have, at least not with the same vigor.

I read here that the Cinderella movie almost also became an action heroine movie where she would end up a warrior so if that almost 10 years ago, I can't imagine what they'd do now with Snow White.

Good point about Cinderella 3! It does show that their love was always meant to be!! I wonder if the twisted tale stories took inspiration from this idea of changing one little thing but I feel Cinderella 3 is a lot more respectful and well done than the twisted tales. Everytime I hear the summary of one I shudder. It's like an old fanfic I read of what happens after Sleeping Beauty where Phillip turns out to be abusive to Aurora and Maleficent comes back and she and Aurora fall in love.

I think the Little Mermaid 2 wasn't about criticism so much as using the same formula for a lot of their sequels: protagonist has a child who repeats the protagonist's story but flipped. So Ariel has a daughter just like her except she wants to be a mermaid instead of a human. Tramp has a son who wants to be a street dog and leave home. Simba has a daughter who falls in love with the enemy. Disney kept using that plotline for their movies so I think it was just what worked for them. And I remember a lot of ppl felt Ariel was out of character in Mermaid 2 with the wall and all and never telling Melody the truth.

[The Disneynerd]

Cinderella 3 was actually based off a cruise ship show for Cinderella. Called Twice Charmed I think. Stepmother gets an evil fairy godmother who grants her wish to rob Cinderella of her happy ending.

Ugh thats cool!

Didnt Jungle Book 2 almost get made in the 60s????

Where did u read that? Thats really Interesting. Just the thought of a Walt era sequel

Anyways, I get the opposite idea from Cinderella 3. Tremaine's whole plot is centered on the idea that Cinderella and Charming's happy ending was entirely based on circumstance and could have been erased if she just swapped a couple of variables, but the fact that they do find each other again in this weird time warp proves that their love was true and would survive any alternate universe.

i agree with that point. Also
I like the "true love" theme throughout the movie, with the King and his Queen and Cinderella with Charming, that there is that "magic touch" where you know that its the love of your life.

Also, love ur gifs PatchofBlue lol

[twihard]

Didnt Jungle Book 2 almost get made in the 60s????

Where did u read that? Thats really Interesting. Just the thought of a Walt era sequel

I think I read it while browsing posts and threads on here. After Jungle Book was a huge success, Disney thought about making a sequel. Especially after Walt died and they didn't know what to do. Disney released a record with new Jungle book songs to see if there was public interest but the record flopped and Disney figured from that that there was no interest.
https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/More_Jun ... and_Mowgli

[Disney Duster]

Cinderella 3 was actually based off a cruise ship show for Cinderella. Called Twice Charmed I think. Stepmother gets an evil fairy godmother who grants her wish to rob Cinderella of her happy ending.

This is actually untrue. The filmmakers of Cinderella III made a similar story to Twice Charmed, but it was pure coincidence. They told a similar story as Tremaine's wicked Fairy Godfather turning back time and using magic, and even had the same song writers, and even put a Twice Charmed bonus feature on the DVD. But no, they did not base Cinderella III on Twice Charmed. A lot of people who worked on it didn't even know about that show when they made the movie.

Anyways, I get the opposite idea from Cinderella 3. Tremaine's whole plot is centered on the idea that Cinderella and Charming's happy ending was entirely based on circumstance and could have been erased if she just swapped a couple of variables, but the fact that they do find each other again in this weird time warp proves that their love was true and would survive any alternate universe.

That's awesome! I love that!

[twihard]

Cinderella 3 was actually based off a cruise ship show for Cinderella. Called Twice Charmed I think. Stepmother gets an evil fairy godmother who grants her wish to rob Cinderella of her happy ending.

This is actually untrue. The filmmakers of Cinderella III made a similar story to Twice Charmed, but it was pure coincidence. They told a similar story as Tremaine's wicked Fairy Godfather turning back time and using magic, and even had the same song writers, and even put a Twice Charmed bonus feature on the DVD. But no, they did not base Cinderella III on Twice Charmed. A lot of people who worked on it didn't even know about that show when they made the movie.

that to me seems very odd. Two disney projects with the exact same story? It's not a common story not for Disney anyway and definitely not a fairy tale so both projects coming around the same time happened to feature a fairy godmother wand turning back time? And you said they used the same song writers so even if the people who came up with the idea for the movie didn't know about the show, it doesn't make sense that the same song writers didn't know about the show when they worked on it. Even if the movie wasn't conceived with being based on the show, at some point in development, like when the song writers came on, there had to have been overlap if they're including the show bonus feature on the DVD.

[DisneyFan09]

Hi DisneyFan09, I agree with you about some what. Cinderella III did give her more screen time and a more active role in the story, and Return to Never Land managed to go through the story without mentioning the Native Americans. The other cheapquels didn't try to fix any mistakes per se, only to expand their stories further. At least, that's what I think, in this case.

Thanks. Oh, that`s true! I`ve never thought about that! Despite that I`ve read that suggestion before.

Glad to see that really was the case. I think the Tarzan movie would need to be much longer for him to go to England. Like it needs at least two parts so I wonder why they didn't make a sequel with him going to England. Maybe they felt they were copying Pocahontas 2 but a lot of their sequels copied plotlines. Instead they had England come to Tarzan with those three lady friends of Jane visit. I think also they felt that Tarzan in England wouldnt sell merchandise cuz he loses his setting and friends. You can bring Meeko and Flit and Percy to England but not really Terk and especially no Tantor. No fight scenes with deadly animals or jungle swinging and surfing.

To be honest, since I was growing up in the 90`s, I remember wanting the movie to take Tarzan to England. And frankly, I was a little disappointed that it didn`t happen. For some reason I wanted the movie to show the contrast between the two worlds, since Pocahontas at least did it (at least very briefly in the beginning and the Mine, Mine Mine sequence). But it was a reason for why the lantern in Strangers Like Me was invented by Glen Keane. Sure Tarzan needed to be longer to have him in England, but also at least been divided between his time in the Jungle and the human world.
But regarding copying plotlines, Disney has always been accused of being derivative. More so than any other company! But the cheapquels were essentially copying plotlines from either their predecessors or other Disney movies. Heck, even Simba`s Pride was copying Pocahontas, for it`s Romeo and Juliet-esque love story (only that Simba`s Pride had a happy ending). And no, you`re right, both Terk and Tantor couldn`t really go to England with Tarzan, lol

Jungle Book has 2 books and in book 2, Mowgli lives in the village but still has adventures. Lots of non-Disney Jungle Book movies with him in the village too like with Sabu. I have never heard anybody complain that the original is a bad movie because Mowgli doesn't spend enough time in the village and Disney felt they had to make a sequel to explain this. It's a popular movie and of course if you make a sequel, it'll start where the first one ended in the village. Didnt Jungle Book 2 almost get made in the 60s????

True, but The Jungle Book was criticized (at least after Walt`s death) for it`s story. Many felt that the screenplay was rather loose and scattered and didn`t have enough structure to have a cohesive narrative. It could be implied as a criticism to the sequel, who does manage to give Mowgli somewhat of a turmoil between his two worlds.

[twihard]

Glad to see that really was the case. I think the Tarzan movie would need to be much longer for him to go to England. Like it needs at least two parts so I wonder why they didn't make a sequel with him going to England. Maybe they felt they were copying Pocahontas 2 but a lot of their sequels copied plotlines. Instead they had England come to Tarzan with those three lady friends of Jane visit. I think also they felt that Tarzan in England wouldnt sell merchandise cuz he loses his setting and friends. You can bring Meeko and Flit and Percy to England but not really Terk and especially no Tantor. No fight scenes with deadly animals or jungle swinging and surfing.

To be honest, since I was growing up in the 90`s, I remember wanting the movie to take Tarzan to England. And frankly, I was a little disappointed that it didn`t happen. For some reason I wanted the movie to show the contrast between the two worlds, since Pocahontas at least did it (at least very briefly in the beginning and the Mine, Mine Mine sequence). But it was a reason for why the lantern in Strangers Like Me was invented by Glen Keane. Sure Tarzan needed to be longer to have him in England, but also at least been divided between his time in the Jungle and the human world.
But regarding copying plotlines, Disney has always been accused of being derivative. More so than any other company! But the cheapquels were essentially copying plotlines from either their predecessors or other Disney movies. Heck, even Simba`s Pride was copying Pocahontas, for it`s Romeo and Juliet-esque love story (only that Simba`s Pride had a happy ending). And no, you`re right, both Terk and Tantor couldn`t really go to England with Tarzan, lol

Jungle Book has 2 books and in book 2, Mowgli lives in the village but still has adventures. Lots of non-Disney Jungle Book movies with him in the village too like with Sabu. I have never heard anybody complain that the original is a bad movie because Mowgli doesn't spend enough time in the village and Disney felt they had to make a sequel to explain this. It's a popular movie and of course if you make a sequel, it'll start where the first one ended in the village. Didnt Jungle Book 2 almost get made in the 60s????

True, but The Jungle Book was criticized (at least after Walt`s death) for it`s story. Many felt that the screenplay was rather loose and scattered and didn`t have enough structure to have a cohesive narrative. It could be implied as a criticism to the sequel, who does manage to give Mowgli somewhat of a turmoil between his two worlds.

I never thought about the show having Tarzan go to England. But I think something like that would need to be a multiepisode arc and maybe they didnt want to devote all that time to a new setting. Most ppl watching the show would be little boys who want to see the jungle fights and stuff. I would have liked to have seen it though.

I didn't realize the lantern was used to show Tarzan England cuz he wasn't going there. Smart choice.

And also good point that Lion king 2 was basically Pocahontas. Romeo and Juliet storyline done again.

But Jungle Book was also a huge box office success still one of the most successful animated movies with no inflation. And Gregory Peck was the Academy's president and he wanted to nominate it for best picture but there was too much anti-animation bias. Still is today. If the story is criticized later on, that's true for all Disney movies like ppl who complain about Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Fantasia now for whatever reasons.

[Disney Duster]

that to me seems very odd. Two disney projects with the exact same story? It's not a common story not for Disney anyway and definitely not a fairy tale so both projects coming around the same time happened to feature a fairy godmother wand turning back time? And you said they used the same song writers so even if the people who came up with the idea for the movie didn't know about the show, it doesn't make sense that the same song writers didn't know about the show when they worked on it. Even if the movie wasn't conceived with being based on the show, at some point in development, like when the song writers came on, there had to have been overlap if they're including the show bonus feature on the DVD.

The director of the film said Cinderella III was not based on Twice Charmed. So it sounded to me like he didn't know about the show till later. Maybe even only when the song writers came on board. And it means a lot of people working on the movie must not have known, if he didn't, and if no one told him. And it's not the exact same story, that is a bit of an exaggeration. I have seen the show on YouTube and there are differences.

[twihard]

that to me seems very odd. Two disney projects with the exact same story? It's not a common story not for Disney anyway and definitely not a fairy tale so both projects coming around the same time happened to feature a fairy godmother wand turning back time? And you said they used the same song writers so even if the people who came up with the idea for the movie didn't know about the show, it doesn't make sense that the same song writers didn't know about the show when they worked on it. Even if the movie wasn't conceived with being based on the show, at some point in development, like when the song writers came on, there had to have been overlap if they're including the show bonus feature on the DVD.

The director of the film said Cinderella III was not based on Twice Charmed. So it sounded to me like he didn't know about the show till later. Maybe even only when the song writers came on board. And it means a lot of people working on the movie must not have known, if he didn't, and if no one told him. And it's not the exact same story, that is a bit of an exaggeration. I have seen the show on YouTube and there are differences.

I guess so. I still think it's odd that such a similar story came out twice and only for Cinderella in the same period of time. Yes they are not exact but the overall idea is the same. Like how come Aladdin didn't get this story with Genie or Jafar turning back time? Or Beauty and the Beast with the enchantress? Or Little Mermaid with Morgana or Ursula or the Evil Manta? Or Sleeping Beauty with a fairy? It's only Cinderella that this time travel plot was used for twice which I find weird.
Either way I'm glad both exist.

[The Disneynerd]

The filmmakers of Cinderella III made a similar story to Twice Charmed

The Cinderella twice Charmed play was really entertaining! watched it halfwaythrough so far. Also there was a frozen reference in 14:02! Also I loved how they showed how Charming was affected by Cinderella and was so invested to find her.

[Disney Duster]

Yup twihard, it is weird. I don't see why they would lie about if the movie was based on the show or not, so I will take their word for it. I wish I knew for sure though, lol.

Disneynerd, I liked.how Charming felt about Cinderella as well. I wish I had a home video release of the show!