DVDizzy Forum

I DONT THINK THEY SHOULD WITH OUT THINKING

I don't think you should without thinking...

jessica rabbit wrote:I DONT THINK THEY SHOULD WITH OUT THINKING

Don't think they should what? Make new threads?

Please put more thought and coherence into future posts. Oh, and hit this: <img src="http://www.ultimatedisney.com/images/a-c/capslock.jpg">

Thanks!

...and "." and "?", please...

They really annoy me! They are made primarily for money and not for the sake of a good film, they should NEVER be made for this purpose.

My opinion is, if you let a sequel ruin the original, you couldn't have had much faith in the original to start with. If a movie is truly a good movie, nothing can take away from it!

Lars Vermundsberget wrote:...and "." and "?", please...

and even sometimes ";"

Well making a sequel that sucks to a movie, dosen't necessarily ruin the oringonal. It's just that the sequel itself sucks.

Uh, what exactly is the question?

Okay I am not quite sure what the question is so I am just going to go with some instinct. I am not going to bacsh sequals becasue there are some thjat I think are really good, howvere I dont think a sequal is necessary for every movie sometimes the idea of the story is runied when a sequal is made. When you see the orignal and it ends with Happily Ever after why bother making a sequal? those are just my thoughts though.

Most sequals don't ruin the origional movies, they continue on with the story, but if you like the way the origional one ended, then dont watch the sequal. Some sequals are good, like the Lion King 2 or Stitch The Movie (that wasnt really a sequal though)

it's a mystery to me how people let a seperate movie ruin a different movie. Just bc Cinderella II sucks, doesn't mean Cinderella sucks and if you let the sequel influence your opinoin of the (in most cases) "masterpiece" original, then you are just silly.

to me it's like if someone popular were to take something awesome and say it sucks... then everyone will say it sucks. But then again i guess in my comparison the sequel would be the popular person and the sequels aren't really popular so i guess i'm saying ignore what i just said and i'm gonna go to class, bye!

Sequels are a huge waste of money! They bear absolutely no resemblance to the original films. The characters have totally different personalities in the sequels. Like, in TLM 2, ariel and eric's daughter's name was melody -- in the original TLM, eric asked ariel if her name was melody (or melanie, which is very similar) in the "Kiss the Girl" scene and she screwed up her face in utter disgust! Now she's named her daughter that?

I´m shure than if you want to say if somthin it´s good or bad you must try it first.

I haven´t seen Cinderella II or even Dinosaur. (I can´t say if those are good or crap.
Does everybody here sticks to their opinion because you have seen them or just because all UD said so?
--and I´m not atacking someone--

Isidour wrote:I´m shure than if you want to say if somthin it´s good or bad you must try it first.

I haven´t seen Cinderella II or even Dinosaur. (I can´t say if those are good or crap.
Does everybody here sticks to their opinion because you have seen them or just because all UD said so?
--and I´m not atacking someone--

Well, it depends...
If i like the original movie, i end up getting the sequels [i.e.: Mulan II, 101 Dalmatians 2, Lion King, and Aladdin! ]

but I always read UD's reviews too to get an opinion too.

Disney should think about making a great sequel not a cheap sequel example Cinderella 2: Dream Come True.

singerguy04 wrote:it's a mystery to me how people let a seperate movie ruin a different movie. Just bc Cinderella II sucks, doesn't mean Cinderella sucks and if you let the sequel influence your opinoin of the (in most cases) "masterpiece" original, then you are just silly.

to me it's like if someone popular were to take something awesome and say it sucks... then everyone will say it sucks. But then again i guess in my comparison the sequel would be the popular person and the sequels aren't really popular so i guess i'm saying ignore what i just said and i'm gonna go to class, bye!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

This is a tune I have been singing for a while, and people seem to insist that a shoddy sequel can somehow taint the original. If the original is any good, this won't be the case. The Matrix sequels, on the other hand, were so bad they made me realize how dependent the first film was on special effects and the "Wow" factor, and that at its heart, it wasn't that philosophical a film (e.g. the "cool" violence which presumably killed a bunch of "unenlightened" people).

Beauty and the Beast is a beautiful film. Belle's Magical World is not. If the original is truly a classic, then you can separate it easily from the sequel and live happily ever after...

I've posted this before on other threads ... the reason they make sequels is because people buy the sequels that have already been released. If you don't like the sequels, don't buy them, because not unlike the Jason and Freddy movies, as long as people keep paying, they will keep pumping out more of the same.

A sequel can't really ruin the original work of art. But most of the sequels look bad because they are in most cases very much inferior to the original and then, as we get more and more of them, it makes the Disney company look sad.

Wheeeee, I'm anxiously awaiting Stitch has a Glitch!
and maybe Brother Bear 2. I'm sure those sequels won't ruin the movie.

http://www.dvdexclusive.com/article.asp?articleID=2039
Thanks for posting the article, Luke!