DVDizzy Forum

What ever happened to this idea?

There's an "Exclusive look at Dumbo II" on the Dumbo DVD, and I think it was due to be released in 2002. From what was shown on the DVD, they looked to have been quite a bit down the road with the story and the crew were in place, so what gives?

I actually thought it sounded pretty good . For a sequel, at least.

well disney wanted to make their sequels in CGI and they decided to start with Dumbo 2 and Bambi 2. well the CGI tests for Dumbo and Bambi were horrible that they decided not to make the movies. even though Dumbo 2 had a good story plot, it still could have been made in regular animation.

You can find a lot of the concept art for Dumbo 2 on animated-movies.net

Does anyone know what Dumbo II was supposed to be about? i mean it sounds horrible! Haven't they ruined enough disney classics with sequels??? wasn't that the point i was trying to make with this whole thing?

Dont pay attention to this.... it wasn't supposed to be posted here.... sorry!



But... if you're already here... you might as well answer...

Dumbo II thread:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=872

Hello, I was wondering if you all knew the answer to this (I'm sure it's been discussed on this forum before, but...)

On the Dumbo disk from a couple years ago, there was a little documentary on the making of "Dumbo 2" which I assumed to be a made-for dvd release. Well, that was a mighty long time ago and still no Dumbo 2. Was the movie cancelled??

Thank you for your patience, and please buy mass quantities of the upcoming tins!

Yah, the Dumbo 2 movie was scrapped by Disney. Who knows whether they will revive the idea some time in the future since they have a long line up of other sequels to Disney classics coming out soon.

Welcome to the UD forum Owlzindabarn!

Yeah, it was cancelled. I think it was supposed to be about different circu animals getting lost in the big city. Would DUmbo then be able to talk or would the other animals talk and DUmbo still be mute or...I dunno. i wish I could see the documentary you're taling about.

I was wondering though about the status of the Bambi and Snow White sequels. Are these definitely no-go's b/c if they are being produced I'd be very upset.

Kram Nebuer wrote:I was wondering though about the status of the Bambi and Snow White sequels. Are these definitely no-go's b/c if they are being produced I'd be very upset.

And Disney would never be able to survive if you were upset, eh Kram?

yoda_four wrote:

Kram Nebuer wrote:I was wondering though about the status of the Bambi and Snow White sequels. Are these definitely no-go's b/c if they are being produced I'd be very upset.

And Disney would never be able to survive if you were upset, eh Kram?

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.

ETA:

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!"

Escapay

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.

The only sequel I really, really enjoyed was the 101 Dalmations one. That was funny. Most of the others seem like the same story from the original movies, yet strangely reversed. For example, Little Mermaid II, in which a land girl wants to become a mermaid, or Lady & Tramp II, in which a domesticated boy dog meets a street-wise girl dog. The 101 Dalmations one strayed far away from any such nonsense, and just gave us more Cruella, which is what we all wanted.

Dumbo 2 probably had some good potential, and I hate to see it shelved. Snow White 2? Can't imagine what they were thinking on that one! Bambi 2? Well, there is a book sequel to Bambi, called "Bambi's Children," so that movie probably made sense.

As for the rest, well, frankly, Jungle Book 2 put me to sleep and I never was able to get through Hunchback 2. Pocahontas 2? That was pretty good. A good continuation of the first movie. But why do they cancel things like Dumbo 2 when Mulan 2 gets the green light?

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

OK, I know that this is OT but I have to argue with what you say that the Bible is edited.

The Bible is not edited in any way at all since it was written, but it has been translated, and that is why there is a King James edition and many more.

Everybody knows that the Bible was not written in English originaly so you have to translate it. When you do translate a forign language you could make several translations with several diffrent words for the same original word.

There are two ways of translating the Bible, one are translating word by word and the other is translating the meaning and not so word by word.

I guess you have heard about the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found in Israel some time ago? It showed to be biblical scrolls and they contained pages from the Bible. What have amazed the most when reading these scolls is that it is word by word just the same as the Bible today. It was ofcause not in English either, but it matches the original languaged Bible perfect. Nothing has been entered and nothing has been taken out.

People can decide upon if they belive the fact that the Bible is Gods word or not, but you can not decide upon the fact that the Bible has not been edited at all. The Bible remains exactly the same as when it was put together almost 2000 years ago.

... then back to the topic.

Like others have already written the Dumbo sequal has been canseled.

If I am not remembering wrong here I belive that the original artists from Dumbo were going to supervice the new storry. They did not like either the storry or the drawings so it was canseled.

But I guess Eisner is just sitting around and waiting for those artists to die of old age so he can make the movie anyway without any complains from them.

The Bible is not edited in any way at all since it was written, but it has been translated, and that is why there is a King James edition and many more.

Well, translated hundreds of times, which means the original meaning can become lost.

But back on the subject, I thought they were still going ahead with Bambi 2. People were joking that there would be a return of Bambi's Mother (it was just a flesh wound).

I know this thread is about Dumbo 2, but I'd like to offer my input on the Bible issue as well:

mvealf wrote:Well, translated hundreds of times, which means the original meaning can become lost.

While this argument is logical, it is not always true. Bible translations that are done well are not exponential translations of translations, but rather use original sources. Here's a little rundown of sources of popular translations:

King James Version, 1611 - a revision of the Bishop's Bible of 1568. The purpose was not to make a new translation but to make a good one better.

New American Standard Version, 1977 - often considered the most accurate and literal English translation because it used the oldest and best original manuscripts of the Bible, specifically, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.

New International Version, 1978 - a brand new translation; like the New American Standard, it used the best sources available, but tends to paraphrase in order to make it readable in contemporary language.

For more on various Bible translations, see http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/default.htm

That was a good answere snowbot.

If you translate a translation then the meaning could easily get lost in just a couple of generations, but if you always use the original source then you will keep the original word, just with a translation.

There's no DUMBo questions: just goofy answers!