Disney Classics and their respective "sequels"

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Scott Weinberg, Oct 11, 2002.

  1. Scott Weinberg

    Scott Weinberg Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    7,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    After seeing the trailer for The Jungle Book 2 it got me to thinking about the generally wretched Disney sequels. Here's what I came up with:
    Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
    --- No sequel, unless you count the 1990 Filmation flick Happily Ever After. (I don't.)
    Pinocchio (1940)
    --- No sequel plans so far, but you know it's just a matter of time.
    Fantasia (1940)
    ---Fantasia 2000 (2000) - OK, obviously this one's an exception to the rule, as it wasn't slapped together for home video or culled together from a handful of weekday cartoons. In many ways, I think it surpasses the original!
    Dumbo (1941)
    ---Dumbo 2 (2003) - LukeB's fantastic Disney on DVD site offered me this info, so I'm apt to believe it's true. A sequel to this movie seems almost sacriligious.
    Bambi (1942)
    ---Bambi 2 (2004) - Same as above. Talk about graverobbing!
    Cinderella (1950)
    ---Cinderella 2: Dreams Come True (2002) - A 60-some minute tri-segment abomination. The original deserves so much better.
    Alice in Wonderland (1951)
    --- No sequel plans. Don't hold your breath.
    Peter Pan (1953)
    ---Return to Never Land (2002) - I haven't seen this one, but word is that it's mildly better than the DTV fare. Given a promotion to Theatrical Release, and its financial success probably ensures more of the same.
    Lady and the Tramp (1955)
    ---Lady and the Tramp 2: Scamp's Adventure (2001) - Not too awful, but still not one-tenth the original.
    Sleeping Beauty (1959)
    --- No sequel plans, and I hope it stays that way. (Coolest dragon EVER!)
    101 Dalmatians (1961)
    ---101 Dalmatians 2: Patch's London Advenutre (2003) - So we got live-action remakes and sequels to the live-action remakes. Now comes an animated sequel to the animated original. Enough with the dalmatians.
    The Sword in the Stone (1963)
    --- [​IMG]
    The Jungle Book (1967)
    ---The Jungle Book 2 (2003) - I'll give it a fair shot, but the trailer doesn't look too promising.
    The Aristocats (1970)
    --- I'm a little surprised that this one hasn't been plundered yet. Maybe in 2005.
    Robin Hood (1973)
    --- Underrated flick. Sequel unlikely.
    The Rescuers (1977)
    ---The Rescuers Down Under (1990) - Like Fantasia 2000, this one's kind of an exception to the rule. Far as I know, this one was always planned as a Theatrical Release. Either way, it's a surprisingly good adventure flick - though the original is so much cooler.
    The Fox and the Hound (1981)
    --- I bet they're saving this one for a sequel. I'd bet on it.
    The Black Cauldron (1985)
    --- Another underrated flick, though a disappointment at the box office. A sequel to Song of the South is more likely than a Black Cauldron 2.
    The Great Mouse Detective (1986)
    --- Seems like perfect pickings for a series of DTV mystery adventures. We'll see.
    Oliver & Company (1988)
    --- Again, book it. There will be a sequel one day.
    The Little Mermaid (1989)
    ---The Little Mermaid 2: Return to the Sea (2000) - Haven't seen the sequel. I refuse to. Haven't heard flattering things.
    Beauty and the Beast (1991)
    ---Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas (1997) and Belle's Magical World (1997) - Uch. Don't get me started.
    Aladdin (1992)
    ---The Return of Jafar (1994) and Aladdin and the King of Thieves (1996) - 'Jafar' was a sad joke, 'Thieves' was passable entertainment. Unfortunately, the original is a classic. (My all-time Disney fave, actually.)
    The Lion King (1994)
    ---The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride (1998) and The Lion King 1 1/2: Hakuna Matata (2003) - This second sequel seems to have an intriguing concept (the tale of the original Lion King as seen through the eyes of Timon & Pumbaa), but Part 2 was basically atrocious.
    Pocahontas (1995)
    ---Pocahontas 2: Journey to a New World (1998) - Didn't care for the original too much, though I'd wager the sequel is about 1,000 times worse.
    The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
    ---The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2 (2002) - The awful sequel made me appreciate the original even more.
    Hercules (1997)
    --- Another modern one that nobody seems to love. I think it's great! No sequels please!
    Mulan (1998)
    ---Mulan 2 (2003) - Can't wait to miss this sequel.
    Tarzan (1999)
    ---Tarzan and Jane (2002) - Another one comprised of leftover TV cartoons. Yuck. The original is a great flick that improves every time I see it.
    The Emperor's New Groove (2000)
    --- Tough call. Weird project. I thought it was very funny, though a sequel's probably not on Disney's front burner.
    Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001)
    ---Atlantis 2: Milo's Return (2003) - Upcoming DTV sequel made up of TV cartoons. I sense a pattern.
    Lilo & Stitch (2002)
    ---Stitch: The Movie (2003) - Weird. I thought the original flick was a "movie"!
    Treasure Planet
    --- Sequel plans pending overall box-office tally.
    So basically my question is this:
    Does it bother you that Disney is backhanding their classics (old-school as well as modern) with these money-grubbing low-quality 'sequels'? Didn't I read somewhere that Walt used to have an edict prohibiting sequels to the classics? Talk about an about-face!
    Sure, sequels are a necessary evil in the world of movies, but is just a little sincere effort too much to ask? Think about the overwhelming entertainment value of movies like Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, and The Lion King and compare that to the quality of their follow-ups. Dropoffs that massive simply don't exist outside of Wile E. Coyote cartoons.
    If you look exclusively at their top-tier animated features, Disney has an astonishingly strong batting average. If you look solely at their sequels to these films, you're looking at a mushroom cloud of marketing garbage.
    OK, I'm done for now. Thoughts?
     
  2. Terrell

    Terrell Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it doesn't bother me for the simple fact that I don't give these sequels or DTV films the time of day. I understand their target market, and I'm not one of them. My little 8 year old niece loves them. That's great. So no, it doesn't bother me.

    Tom me, these sequels no matter how bad I may think they are, don't change the fact that the originals are still great films. But then I've never been one to think poor sequels destroys the originals. Maybe in the eyes of some people, but not me. Once a great film, always a great film. Even if Disney spent the time and money to make worthy sequels, they'd still pale in comparison to the originals, given an exception or two.
     
  3. Jason Seaver

    Jason Seaver Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    9,306
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  4. Terrell

    Terrell Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,217
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  5. DavidBL

    DavidBL Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    It bothers me in the sense that my own small children (all girls) watch the Disney Channel a lot and thus are aware of all of this dreck coming out, and want to buy it. Fortunately, I am able to steer most of them away from the "buy" category to "let's rent first." And then I try my best to balance out every "Cinderella II" with REAL Disney entertainment, like last year's Mickey Mouse and Silly Symphonies sets.
     
  6. Mitty

    Mitty Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 1999
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    5
     
  7. Matthew_Millheiser

    Matthew_Millheiser Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2000
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    0
    The DTV sequels basically range all the way from unmitigated vomit (Hunchback 2, Cinderella 2) to passable, utterly forgettable pieces of 70 minute entertainment (Lady and the Tramp 2). I've never seen one that has actually impressed me in any regard, although I actually enjoyed Pocahontas 2 better than the original, but only because I loathed the original so much.
    Return To Neverland was better than it had any right to be, but while it had slightly higher production values than your average DTV sequel, it lacked anything (story, songs, characters) that was compelling at all. Jungle Book 2, at first glance, looks like it suffers from "more of the same" syndrome. However, the more I think about it, it appears that the production team isolated the most focus-group friendly elements of the original (which is like HEROIN to me, I tell you) and played them up: Balloo's whimsy, Mowgli's neophyte personality, fun/goofy songs that will go over wonderfully on a family road trip, etc..
    The DTV sequels, for the most part, are bland, barely passable entertainment. I don't think they "damage" the originals at all, in that I think they're mostly ignored. Honestly: who's going to remember Cinderlla II: A POS Comes True? Who remembers The Return of Jafar from 1994? Who remembers Jacko from those Energizer commercials?!?!?!
     
  8. Lew Crippen

    Lew Crippen Executive Producer

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    Messages:
    12,060
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  9. BryanZ

    BryanZ Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2000
    Messages:
    1,215
    Likes Received:
    1
    They should only make a sequel if it will live up to the original. Lady and the Tramp 2 was a decent movie that kept with the original. At the same time, it is not one that can stand alone. Return of Jafar and Lion King 2 are sequels that should have never seen the light of day. Toy Story 2 is the exception to the rule. That one is as good if not better than the original. It is tragic studios will not learn to keep sequels at bay. It is better not to make one then to make a bad one.
     
  10. Neil Joseph

    Neil Joseph Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 1998
    Messages:
    8,341
    Likes Received:
    1
    Real Name:
    Neil Joseph
    I hate all of the Disney DTV sequels except for Lion King 2 which I quite liked.
     
  11. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,020
    Likes Received:
    0

    Re: Dumbo
     
  12. Thomas Newton

    Thomas Newton Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 1999
    Messages:
    1,502
    Likes Received:
    25
    After considering that list of horrors, it doesn't seem right that Pixar can't count a top-notch film like "Toy Story 2" against their five-picture commitment.
     
  13. Morgan Jolley

    Morgan Jolley Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    8,510
    Likes Received:
    82
    I don't really like Disney anymore. When I was little, I liked them, but it was either the "trying to act like I'm an adult by hating all things childish" or the fact that they started to make these cash-in sequels that made me not like them anymore.
    Nonetheless, I recently got a game called Kingdom Hearts. The game is made by Squaresoft (the people behind the Final Fantasy games) but has over 100 Disney characters and 9 Disney worlds, so it's sort of a Disney game. The good thing is that it's done extremely well. The game really made me remember some of the great moments in Disney film history, like the badass Dragon from Sleeping Beauty (who you actually fight in the game, it's one TOUGH battle) or just how cool The Nightmare Before Christmas was when I first saw it (there is an entire world based on TNBC in the game that is pretty damn cool).
    My point is that it's sad that it took a videogame for me to realize Disney used to be that good.
     
  14. BarryS

    BarryS Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  15. MichaelAW

    MichaelAW Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  16. Scott Weinberg

    Scott Weinberg Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    7,482
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]
    I wonder if Stoppard would be interested! [​IMG]
     
  17. Dome Vongvises

    Dome Vongvises Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    1
    The only thing I'm upset about is that I'm not making any money off of this. [​IMG]
     
  18. Edwin-S

    Edwin-S Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    5,961
    Likes Received:
    280
    Does it bother you that Disney is backhanding their classics (old-school as well as modern) with these money-grubbing low-quality 'sequels'?
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    It bothers me immensely. Every one of the sequels that Disney has made has been absolute s#$@, except for "Rescuers Down Under". The crap that the "new" Disney corporation has pumped out for sequels demonstrates just how little respect they have for their older animated films. The people in charge there have absolutely no connection to the past history of the company they run and care even less.

    The bean counter mentality present at Disney only sees these characters as junk to be exploited for maximum revenue. What is worse is that they have so little respect for their classic movies, they cannot even be bothered to provide budgets for the high quality animation and writing that any sequel to these films deserves. If they were not willing to spend the money to do the job right then they should have left these films to stand alone. The garbage sequels that were produced sully the original works.
     
  19. MichaelAW

    MichaelAW Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    The real irony of Timon and Pumbaa are Dead, of course, would be that The Lion King is really just a retread of Hamlet. [​IMG]
     
  20. Edwin-S

    Edwin-S Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    5,961
    Likes Received:
    280
    The real irony of Timon and Pumbaa are Dead, of course, would be that The Lion King is really just a retread of Hamlet.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    But isn't it? [​IMG]
     

Share This Page