DVDizzy Forum

Maybe because I'm avidious. If you like a character, one movie just ISN'T enough to cover every topic. You see the movie for the first time. You're excited! Second time:same feelings. Third:you realize how much you like it, but you already know some dialogues by heart. Fourth:"Okay, this part of the movie is boring, press forward!"
Fifth:it's ok. sixth:oh,..well seventh:NO! Not again!!!!

That's why I like sequals. You know the original by heart, you just can't watch it again!!!! The character you like needs some refreshing!
I don't care if a sequal is worse than the original!!! Who cares??? I just want to relax in front of the TV, watching my favourite hero doing simple things, like saving his pet-friend from the impetuosity of the river's water.
I like him singing new songs, even stupid ones-they're NEW anyway!!- and wearing new clothes and going to new places!!! NOT THE SAME ALL THE TIME!!!! IT'S BORRRRRRING!!!!!!
Usually the sequals I don't watch are from original movies which I never cared about.

Why not make all this in an enjoyable way though? In a way the characters could sing GOOD songs, do important and interesting things and you could still relax infront of the TV? Not a bad idea in my opinion!

DisneyFan 2000 wrote:Why not make all this in an enjoyable way though? In a way the characters could sing GOOD songs, do important and interesting things and you could still relax infront of the TV? Not a bad idea in my opinion!

Of course, that would be better!! But I don't care if it's a masterpiece or not. If my favourite hero is in there, I just expect a nice plot and animation that doesn't make the characters look weird.(By the way, I hope that noone of the Disney ToonStudios is reading this!!! That would make them decrease the quality of the sequals even more!!!)

Well, I guess then we see things differently. I as a consumer will not tolerate the company's cheapness and will not settle for anything less than great just because it has my all time favourite characters on it. I'd much rather support studios such as Ghibli or DreamWorks (yes yes) that don't support this kind of effort.

That's my take on the subject...

This is sad....

nedak wrote:Maybe because I'm avidious. If you like a character, one movie just ISN'T enough to cover every topic. You see the movie for the first time. You're excited! Second time:same feelings. Third:you realize how much you like it, but you already know some dialogues by heart. Fourth:"Okay, this part of the movie is boring, press forward!"
Fifth:it's ok. sixth:oh,..well seventh:NO! Not again!!!!

That's why I like sequals. You know the original by heart, you just can't watch it again!!!! The character you like needs some refreshing!
I don't care if a sequal is worse than the original!!! Who cares??? I just want to relax in front of the TV, watching my favourite hero doing simple things, like saving his pet-friend from the impetuosity of the river's water.
I like him singing new songs, even stupid ones-they're NEW anyway!!- and wearing new clothes and going to new places!!! NOT THE SAME ALL THE TIME!!!! IT'S BORRRRRRING!!!!!!
Usually the sequals I don't watch are from original movies which I never cared about.

I can defintley see where you are coming from in wanting to see more there really are some movies that leave you hanging and leave you wanting to see more. But in the back of your mind you know that if you were to see something in the future you hasve certain expectations from of it you expect a completly different plot not something simillar to the original with reversed roles. I guess thats a lot of peoples beef here with sequals and I'll admit that I to am one of the people who can put down a sequal to the movie. Another thing too that sometimes irritates people about sequals is that a lot of them are being done for movies that should not have sequals that should be left better to the imagination.

Some sequals are great and fun to watch never as good as the original but there are some that I just ask Y? I dont know all I hope is that Diseny can eventually one day get the picture. (I know wishful thinking, but hey I can dream right? )

There are some sequels I like and some that I won't watch of being afraid of ruining the original. I've got the Aladdin and The Lion sequels and I like them. I seen Cinderella II and didn't like it. I won't watch The Little Mermaid II for fear of ruining the original and I really like the original The Little Mermaid. It really depends on the plot or storyline of the sequels.

Nala wrote:There are some sequels I like and some that I won't watch of being afraid of ruining the original. I've got the Aladdin and The Lion sequels and I like them. I seen Cinderella II and didn't like it. I won't watch The Little Mermaid II for fear of ruining the original and I really like the original The Little Mermaid. It really depends on the plot or storyline of the sequels.

If you're interested, it's safe to watch The Little Mermaid II. It doesn't change the basics like in Pocahontas (the whole love affair thingy ). It just continues the story... In a poor manner.

Nala wrote:It really depends on the plot or storyline of the sequels.

Same thoughts about sequels...I usually buy sequels. Not all the time though, only when the review is good and the commercial for it looks good too. I like spending money! Ahh, just kidding..that wasn't a wise thing to say.

DisneyFan 2000 wrote:

Nala wrote:There are some sequels I like and some that I won't watch of being afraid of ruining the original. I've got the Aladdin and The Lion sequels and I like them. I seen Cinderella II and didn't like it. I won't watch The Little Mermaid II for fear of ruining the original and I really like the original The Little Mermaid. It really depends on the plot or storyline of the sequels.

If you're interested, it's safe to watch The Little Mermaid II. It doesn't change the basics like in Pocahontas (the whole love affair thingy ). It just continues the story... In a poor manner.

The real Pocahontas didn't remain with John Smith. He was injured and returned to England. She didn't hear from John Smith and met another Englishman whom she married and had a son with. I think Pocahontas had already been married when she saw John Smith again.

Nala wrote: The real Pocahontas didn't remain with John Smith. He was injured and returned to England. She didn't hear from John Smith and met another Englishman whom she married and had a son with. I think Pocahontas had already been married when she saw John Smith again.

Not to mention she was just a child in real life when she met John Smith. History books say she brought him & the soilders food but they werent similar in age.

Nala wrote:There are some sequels I like and some that I won't watch of being afraid of ruining the original. I've got the Aladdin and The Lion sequels and I like them. I seen Cinderella II and didn't like it. I won't watch The Little Mermaid II for fear of ruining the original and I really like the original The Little Mermaid. It really depends on the plot or storyline of the sequels.

You're safe with The Little Mermaid II, it doesn't ruin the original and is quite a good story in itself, involving Ariel and Eric's daughter Melody, and Ursula's vengeful sister Morgana.

Did a little google search on Pocahontas and this is what came up (on just one site, <a href="http://www.apva.org/history/pocahont.html">avpa.org</a>, how historically accurate it is I do not know). I've paraphrased it a bit as it was quite long and you don't want all of it, but if you want to read the whole thing, it's <a href="http://www.apva.org/history/pocahont.html">here</a>.

<b>Pocahontas was born around 1595, and probably met white men and John Smith in 1607</b>(she would have been 12)<b>. In October 1609, John Smith was badly injured by a gunpowder explosion and was forced to return to England. When Pocahontas next came to visit the fort, she was told that her friend Smith was dead. She married an Indian "captain" in 1910, Kocoum. She was kidnapped by a Captain Samuel Argull and not allowed to return to Jamestown until 1913, when she met John Rolfe</b> (she's now 18)<b>, and fell in love with him. Her father gave the "peace-making" marriage his blessing.</b> (One wonders what happened to Kocoum.) <b>Having converted to Christianity and been christened Rebecca, Pocahontas married Rolfe in 1614. She went to England in spring 1616 with Rolfe and their son Thomas, where she met King James I and old friend John Smith, whom she believed dead. Having got over the shock, she apparently addressed him as "father". When he objected she replied:

"Were you not afraid to come into my father's country, and caused fear in him and all of his people and fear you here I should call you father: I tell you I will, and you shall call me child, and so I will be for ever and ever your Countryman."

After seven months, Rolfe decided he and his family should return to Virginia. However, Pocahontas became very ill with pneumonia or possibly tuberculosis, dying when they reached Virginia.

She was 22 years old.

She was buried in a churchyard in Gravesend, England.

So, the films are romanticised versions of the truth, both the original and the seqal. Athough they stick broadly to what happened, there have been changes made.

well done Nedak

I read the book and Pocahontas died from smallpox and I believe she was 21.

Little Mermaid 2 and Lady and the Tramp 2 had to be by far the worst two sequals....Why? Because it was a rehash of the old movie.

Ariel wanted to live on the land
Melody wanted to live in the ocean.

Tramp ended up being a housedog
Scamp wanted to be a stray dog.

Why did Disney even bother? Were they taking the Unimagination Pills that day? That is why I roll my eyes at sequals. For the most part, they aren't that great.

The few that actually TRIED were Lion King 2, Pocohontas 2, and Rescuers Down Under.

IMO, Rescurers Down Under was the best sequel Disney ever made. I actually like it BETTER then the original...much better.

Lion King 2 started off seeming like another rehash. Simba wanted to be king. Kiara doesn't want to be queen. But then instead it became Romeo and Juilet. Being Lion King was Hamlet, it was natural for Disney to go with another Shakespearian play for the series. And it was done nicely. I personally thought the songs were great.

Pocohontas 2 had it's moments. It was the country mouse in the city. I thought the triangle between them was done nicely. Not one of my immense favorites, but not terrible either.

The Aladdin sequels were not much more then just a hour and a half long of the series. Perhaps if Disney aimed to make the animation more up to par with the original, it would have been better. But storywise, it was still all right.

Beauty and the Beast's Enchanted Christmas was mediocre at best. Even Tim Curry couldn't save it for me.

Jungle Book 2 *gags*
101 Dalmations 2 was blah. It actually reminded me more of a Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers episode. With Flash the Wonder Dog. A German Shepherd who has a hit TV show and a cockatoo as a sidekick. Likely Flash was modelled after Thunder from the original movie. But in the series, Flash turns out to be a fakery. He's an actor afterall. But he's afraid to take chances and is in no way super. Fat Cat plots to make people hate Flash by dressing as him and causing all kinds of problems. Flash is thrown out. But instead of making Fat Cat into a super hero has he had planned, they make the cockatoo one. So then Fat Cat kidnaps the cockatoo, but Chip and Dale rescue him in the end. So Patch's London Adventure seemed nothing but a rehash, but the corgi taking place of Fat Cat. And Cruella was no where near as scary and horrible in the first movie. She went from fur to art? Oh, I am frightened of her fashion sense now

Cinderella 2 *hangs herself*

Return to Neverland. This one, surprisingly to myself, I liked. Not a huge fan of the first movie, but something about this was struck me. It was a little more dramatic. Rather then just being, "But I don't want my own room! I wanna live in a nursery for the rest of my life" and said so with a whine. I mean, come on...How far away is her new room going to be? In India? It doesn't mean you are suddenly an adult. Get over it. It was about Daddy's Little Girl, who is forced to be seperated from him. And she is forced to see the horror of war everyday. Jane is forced to grow up because what she sees all around her, no child should ever see. And she loses all reason to believe in magic. One would there. It came out around the same time as the new Iraq war was just getting started, so I think the harsh undertones of reality were there. I think out of all the sequals, this is the one I take most seriously and actually sorta respect. Except that damn octopus. I prefer the crocodile MUCH better.

Hunchback 2 was an excuse to give Quasi a girlfriend, and then they throw in this vain bad guy that is pathetic.



So IMO, if they are going to put oodles of money into a sequel, make it new, make it fresh, and stay true to the characters. Don't rehash a storyline, because they are only insulting children's intelligence. And what a waste of paint and pencils anyways.

Comparing some of Disney's sequels to Land Before Time's sequels (I think they are up to 11), LBT is actually better. I much prefer Chomper over Little Mermaid. The music was even better in that one.

Wow i totally agree with Siren's.. Would you marry me?

LOL...did I just get proposed to?

And that's where I come in...

The problem with you sequel-haters is that you take the sequels WAY, but WAY WAY too serious. To you, the sequels have to be Feature Animation quality. Well here's a news flash: They do NOT try and they NEVER will.

As much as I don't like it, the sequels were made up by the Disney Company to entertain CHILDREN. If the original wasn't, then you will PROBABLY hate the sequel. I'm not saying that all sequels are aimed directly towards children, but they leap way more towards that side than the movies they were based on.

The reason why I defend sequels at this moment is because the DisneyToon Studios spend a lot of work on these sequels this day and they CARE. They care about the characters, they care about the original crew that created the original movie and they just really really CARE.

I have a message to all sequel-haters:

We (people that might give sequels a chance) DON'T CARE about your continuous WHINING of how bad sequels are and all those things. Really, it won't make a difference! The only thing you are doing is making other people narrowminded too and making them not see sequels because you say so! I find that so selfish, it's unbelievable...

I'm sorry if this sounds a little hard, but I can't stand this any longer... Stating your opinion is something different than smearing it into someone's face that sequels are BAD.