Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Disney Classics and their respective "sequels"


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 of 26 OFFLINE   Scott Weinberg

Scott Weinberg

    Lead Actor



  • 7,482 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2000

Posted October 10 2002 - 10:31 PM

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)
--- Posted Image

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 of 26 OFFLINE   Terrell

Terrell

    Producer



  • 3,217 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001

Posted October 10 2002 - 11:47 PM

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 of 26 OFFLINE   Jason Seaver

Jason Seaver

    Lead Actor



  • 9,306 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969

Posted October 10 2002 - 11:48 PM

[quote] Does it bother you that Disney is backhanding their classics (old-school as well as modern) with these money-grubbing low-quality 'sequels'? [quote] Nope. I mean, sure, I'd rather Disney spent their time and effort on something else, but a bad sequel doesn't actually do any harm to a good movie. You can either ignore it, be pleasantly surprised, or dislike it as soulless crap. But, in the end, they're basically harmless, and the only things about them that could really bother me are the hypothetical better movies not being made because this is how Disney spends its resources.
Jay's Movie Blog - A movie-viewing diary.
Transplanted Life: Sci-fi soap opera about a man placed in a new body, updated two or three times a week.
Trading Post Inn - Another gender-bending soap, with different collaborators writing different points of view.

"What? Since when was this an energy...

#4 of 26 OFFLINE   Terrell

Terrell

    Producer



  • 3,217 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001

Posted October 11 2002 - 12:32 AM

[quote] the only things about them that could really bother me are the hypothetical better movies not being made because this is how Disney spends its resources. [quote]

Agreed! Although I know why they make these films. They're cheap, they can churn them out quickly, and they sell like mad on home video. These DTV films and sequels Disney puts out make tons of money.

#5 of 26 OFFLINE   DavidBL

DavidBL

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 204 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2002

Posted October 11 2002 - 03:14 AM

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 of 26 OFFLINE   Mitty

Mitty

    Supporting Actor



  • 886 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 13 1999

Posted October 11 2002 - 05:03 AM

[quote] Alice in Wonderland (1951)
--- No sequel plans. Don't hold your breath. [quote]
If they planned it as a theatrical release from the get go and gave it full treatment, this could be an excellent movie (I'm particularly fond of the original), especially since Lewis Carroll wrote a sequel, Through the Looking Glass (1871).

That is one sequel that I would welcome.

Alas, psychedelia is not really Disney's forte anymore. Posted Image

Now that I think about it, Rudyard Kipling also wrote a sequel to The Jungle Book, so we'll see if the movie version is indeed based on this. Mind you, if I recall correctly, the original Jungle Book movie is based on selected Mowgli stories from both books (both Jungle Books include a lot of non-Mowgli stories as well).

#7 of 26 OFFLINE   Matthew_Millheiser

Matthew_Millheiser

    Supporting Actor



  • 656 posts
  • Join Date: May 01 2000

Posted October 11 2002 - 05:41 AM

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?!?!?!
Whenever the laws of any state are broken, a duly authorized organization swings into action. It may be the called the State Police, State Troopers, Militia, the Rangers, or the Highway Patrol THE CITIZENS AUXILIARY POLICE!!! These are the stories of the men whose training, skill, and courage,...

#8 of 26 OFFLINE   Lew Crippen

Lew Crippen

    Executive Producer



  • 12,060 posts
  • Join Date: May 19 2002

Posted October 11 2002 - 07:00 AM

[quote] Does it bother you that Disney is backhanding their classics (old-school as well as modern) with these money-grubbing low-quality 'sequels'? [quote]

Yes!

I don’t really mind Disney making money, or even grubbing for money; but, they could at least show a little pride in their product. Especially when some of their ‘product’ would be classed as a ‘National Treasure’ had it been created in some cultures.

True, I don’t have to see what happens to Snow White after she is married any more than I have to listen to a knockoff of Le nozze di Figaro. So perhaps I should be more charitable. But I remain offended for the sake of the artists and their art.
¡Time is not my master!

#9 of 26 OFFLINE   BryanZ

BryanZ

    Screenwriter



  • 1,215 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 18 2000

Posted October 11 2002 - 08:36 AM

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 of 26 OFFLINE   Neil Joseph

Neil Joseph

    Lead Actor



  • 8,341 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 1998
  • Real Name:Neil Joseph

Posted October 11 2002 - 08:39 AM

I hate all of the Disney DTV sequels except for Lion King 2 which I quite liked.
Click and enter " T H E . H O L O D E C K "
---------------------------------------------------------
My Home Theatre "The Holodeck"

 


#11 of 26 OFFLINE   Rain

Rain

    Producer



  • 5,020 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2001

Posted October 11 2002 - 09:29 AM


Re: Dumbo

[quote] sacriligious. [quote]
Ah, that's better. Posted Image

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon

#12 of 26 OFFLINE   Thomas Newton

Thomas Newton

    Screenwriter



  • 1,459 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 16 1999

Posted October 11 2002 - 10:31 AM

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 of 26 OFFLINE   Morgan Jolley

Morgan Jolley

    Lead Actor



  • 8,284 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 16 2000

Posted October 11 2002 - 10:50 AM

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 of 26 OFFLINE   BarryS

BarryS

    Second Unit



  • 424 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 01 2002

Posted October 11 2002 - 08:41 PM

[quote] the only things about them that could really bother me are the hypothetical better movies not being made because this is how Disney spends its resources. [quote]
I wouldn't worry about that. My guess is that these turds are made by saturday morning cartoon animators, not the Beauty and the Beast/Lion King type quality animators. About as much painstaking effort goes into these flicks as a Ren and Stimpy cartoon. No offense to Ren and Stimpy. I love that show.

#15 of 26 OFFLINE   MichaelAW

MichaelAW

    Second Unit



  • 423 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 14 2002

Posted October 12 2002 - 11:14 AM

[quote] 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. [quote] Hmm... Timon and Pumbaa are Dead, anyone? Posted Image

Movies my dog is afraid of

#16 of 26 OFFLINE   Scott Weinberg

Scott Weinberg

    Lead Actor



  • 7,482 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2000

Posted October 12 2002 - 11:41 AM

Posted Image

I wonder if Stoppard would be interested! Posted Image

#17 of 26 OFFLINE   Dome Vongvises

Dome Vongvises

    Lead Actor



  • 8,174 posts
  • Join Date: May 13 2001

Posted October 12 2002 - 02:05 PM

The only thing I'm upset about is that I'm not making any money off of this. Posted Image

#18 of 26 OFFLINE   Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer



  • 5,738 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted October 12 2002 - 09:26 PM

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.
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#19 of 26 OFFLINE   MichaelAW

MichaelAW

    Second Unit



  • 423 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 14 2002

Posted October 12 2002 - 09:44 PM

The real irony of Timon and Pumbaa are Dead, of course, would be that The Lion King is really just a retread of Hamlet. Posted Image
Movies my dog is afraid of

#20 of 26 OFFLINE   Edwin-S

Edwin-S

    Producer



  • 5,738 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted October 12 2002 - 09:58 PM

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? Posted Image
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users