Loomis wrote:Escapay wrote:For comparison's sake, a Disney cheapquel to a classic that doesn't NEED one would be like someone saying "Oh, let's touch up the Bible and add a few more stories!"
Well, actually...
The bible
has been "touched up". Look at the covers of them. St. James version, Good News Edition etc....There is not one bible, but many people have altered/added/subtacted stories.
(I've never been confident enough to say "This is what I think god means...")
So, yeah, sequels ARE ok
Once again, I feel the need to defend The Sequel and point out a few misconceptions.
You speak of tampering with a classic. Well, Disney have already done that. I don't think a single one of the "Classic" animated films (with the exception of their original stories of course) has not been altered from the source text(s) in some way. Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Snow White etc all had alternate endings/theme in the original. Most classic tales ave been "Disneyfied". Thus, if you are arguing that a sequel is tampering with a classic, then you are basically saying Disney can tamper with a classic story, but only as far as you find it acceptable.
Besides which, most myths and fables are allegorical tales which could readily be adapted into new scenario. Disney just does what any other smart business would do and uses their existing properties to re-tell an older story.
The sequels are getting better and better, and I have personally enjoyed Lady & the Tramp 2, Lion King 1.5 and 101 Dalmatians very much. These sequels in no way REPLACE the original they simply supplement them - like a Virtual Safari on a DVD, you can watch them if you enjoy that sort of thing, but you can ignore them if you choose. Either way, the original feature is still there.
Thanks for totally destroying my argument, lol.
Naturally, the Bible has gone through revisions and such over the past few hundred years, along with variations. But I meant in the sense of "Hey, we never said what happened AFTER they found 12-year-old Jesus in the Temple! They just jumped to him about 18 years later! Let's write a story about those in-between years using any information we can find, even if it's not canon to the Bible!" It's like taking any fairy tale (disneyfied or not) and choosing to tell what else happened, even though most people can be fine with a "happily ever after" stuck on at the end.
Some things just seemed very very unnecessary, IMO. Who would really care about Cinderella's insecurity and her trying to please the king with a by-the-book party? I'd rather have her story end with her and the prince happily ever after. Is Melody a reason for me to see Ariel become a neurotic mother? I'll just pretend Ariel and Eric had kids, and that there was no Morgana at all. In the original novel, Quasimodo DIES, all the while, Disney gives a happy ending as a sort of dramatic license. But did we really need a story about that annoying spawn of Phoebus and Esmerelda, and that blonde that Quasi is hanging out with?
Of course, as a stand-alone movie, the sequels are enjoyable, but I have never seen the need for Disney to even TRY to continue any stories to their movies unless there is an
opening for a sequel, like Rescuer's Down Under. I haven't seen Rescuers, or its sequel in years, but from what I remember, in the end of the first, it basically was a "mission accomplished!" feeling, and there definitely was opportunity for them to spawn off another movie with them doing more adventures, which is exactly what Down Under was. Same with Great Mouse Detective. The end even featured another client, ready to present her case to Basil! A sequel should only be made if it can add to the story, not re-tell it with the original character's children, or newbies that don't have time for character development in between the mandatory songs and insipid plots.
Escapay
. For a sequel, at least.
Welcome to the UD forum Owlzindabarn! 
If the whole of Disney customers were to be half as upset as Kram would be (and I know how upset Kram can get! 
), it would spell trouble for the Mouse House.
