More Disney sequel madness

[Anthonynotes]

Read about it here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020219/film_nm/film_disney_dc_1&cid=600

Guess this means more voiceover work for a certain would-be ex-Apocalyptic Harbinger (assuming they actually hire Mr. Murphy back for those sequels, vs. finding someone who sounds like him to pay far less...though do we *really* need "Mulan II" and *3*?!?)...

-B.

[Joe Wagner]

Nope, nope and nope. Somehow I'm not surprised by the fact they are already working on a sequel to Lilo and Stitch, a movie that looks like Disney's version of the Iron Giant, but isn't slated to even be released until sometime this summer. This film might actually lend itself to a sequel but I just wish the original would have been given a shot to prove itself first - this could actually lead to a hurting on the films profits, even though the film does actually look enjoyable (except for the blatant Iron Giant wannabe syndrom - alien crashes to earth, found by an earth child, on the run from something from outerspace - only real difference is it seems that Lilo doesn't know Stitch is an alien and we see Stitch's persuers).

Hopefully Disney will realize that no one wants to see a Jungle Book 2 or Snow White 2 (Why?! Why?! What have I done to deserve such punishment?!) Mulan was good in my book but I don't think it really lends itself to a sequel, then again neither does Cinderella. The only films that actually do this to some degree, IMHO, are Atlantis and Tarzan.

Oh well, I think we all saw this coming and have realized Disney as the great beast that will destroy both its own library and Saban's in an attempt to make a quick buck. At least WB and Fox Animation studios were never this bad!

-Joe!

[RockItShipper]

I don't think a sequel or series to a movie in production is all that bad. There's the chance that the first one could lead into it, in some way. So we won't get things like Ursula's unknown sister or that squid in PP2 coming outta nowhere.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by RockItShipper
I don't think a sequel or series to a movie in production is all that bad. There's the chance that the first one could lead into it, in some way. So we won't get things like Ursula's unknown sister or that squid in PP2 coming outta nowhere.

True, they could set it up to lead into a sequel (which it very well might) it's just the almost lack of respect. I don't know, I just think that they are flooding the market with a lot of worthless stuff right now (come on, Cinderella 2 - like that needed a sequel?!) and the few gems that look to be on the horizon are getting slammed by the sequel bug before they're even being given a chance. And yet we still see no new Gargoyles on the horizon, go figure.

-Joe!

[RockItShipper]

Gargoyles doesn't have any tie to Disney's feature or short departments, though. That said, I think sequels need to come out of something firmly established in the original(i.e. no surprise family members), no more plots revolving around "new character(father/daughter/son/new love interest) manipulated by the villain" arc. In the case of recent films, particularly, a story session with the original's writers while working out the sequel script?

The conflict in Cinderella is arising from a blank slate, and assumption that she would feel trapped by the official royal hostess protocol. It's more likely that she'd be pressured to produce a grandson, from what I recall of the King from the original, but how do you make a kids movie about that?

[Killtacular]

Disney seems to have forgotten that Jungle Book sequels don't do well in theaters. Remember the live-action adaption?

It looks like Disney is no longer going to be making original cartoon films after Treasure Planet. Jesus Christ, what a way to go. This ties with Lucasarts' cease-and-desist system as the all-time highest bastardization of a company name. Soon, I doubt they'll be putting movies in theaters at all. Probably only on video and TV, and only for the sake of being able to put new rides in their exponentially declining theme park.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Matt Wilson
Soon, I doubt they'll be putting movies in theaters at all. Probably only on video and TV, and only for the sake of being able to put new rides in their exponentially declining theme park.

LOL. Disney still does have some stuff on their schedule for new animated features. One that looks like it has the potential to be pretty good is called "Bears". Deals with an indian teen who sees his father killed by a pack of bears. This leads him to hate bears, until he wakes up to find that he is one. Now he must protect himself from his tribe and also learn about nature. Could be good. Another one, tho rumored, is a Three Muskateers that would star Mickey, Donald and Goofy - tho I can't get any confirmation about this project.

Altho, you raise a good point - if I ever get my own animation studio I'll have to look at Disney's business plan for the 2000's and realize this is what a good business doesn't want to do.

As for the Gargoyles thing - it's just a hope that someday they would bring Greg back to continue the story. Altho they are still looking into a live action Gargoyles movie, I never meant to say that they would actually do anything animated - I figure this will be a property that they sit on until someone can pry it away from their execs cold hands.

-Joe!

[DR. BELCH]

RockItShipper:
It's more likely that she'd be pressured to produce a grandson, from what I recall of the King from the original, but how do you make a kids movie about that?
Consider history--Henry VIII needed sons to inherit the throne but his wife produced only a daughter. So he basically engaged in religious chicanery, not to mention a divorce and two beheadings --to insure a male heir on the throne. Here we could see Parliment pressuring the prince to divorce Cindy, who is only producing girls, to remarry. He won't hear of it. (Of course the irony is that a child's sex is dependent on the male.) There's talk of abdication. Some sort of scheme insues to save her marriage and put a boy on the throne--maybe cutting a deal with dark forces. Cindy loses her soul, her Prince, and ends up back in the scullery, her ideal life irreparably shattered.
That I'd pay to see, actually.

[Dee]

Boy, I rented Atlantis and the first half was a million times better than the 2nd half. Thats besides the point im trying to make though. I saw the previews for Cinderella 2 and Tarzan 2 and I'm sorry--- but I do believe Disney is running out of ideas! Rather than suck the life out of a fairy tale that they've already laid claim to--- why don't they make some new ones--- literally--- some new fairy tales. Shrek was awesome, and was in it's own, a fairy tale. Disney can be a little more creative than Peter Pan 2, Cinderella 2, Tarzan 2 and only zotz knows what else. This whole sequel thing (not toy story--- that HAD to keep going hehe) is starting to smell. As for the Aladdin trilogy-- I've not seen 2 or 3 for the sake of saving my sanity.


Anyone remember a cartoon fairy tale show that was on Nickeloden before it became a teenie-bopper channel? They had like Grimms fairy tales or something but it wasn't like grim. So hard to explain! They were decent, and they were entertaining. Dang! I wish I could remember what Im talking about namewise!

[Sango]

I've recently saw a list of upcoming Disney movies that are in the works and I know some people here at TZ said they should start making some of the old fairy tales again. Well, I read on the list that they're supposed to be making a "Rapunzel" movie. It did have a question mark beside it so it's not official I suppose. And all it said was it would be released sometime before 2012. Does anyone else know anything about that? =\ Honestly, I'm not sure how good it would be anyway... :yawn:

[Sango]

Originally posted by Delia97

Anyone remember a cartoon fairy tale show that was on Nickeloden before it became a teenie-bopper channel? They had like Grimms fairy tales or something but it wasn't like grim. So hard to explain! They were decent, and they were entertaining. Dang! I wish I could remember what Im talking about namewise!

Oh, I remember that! I used to watch it all the time. :D Hey, I can't remember the name either so if you go to www.yesterdayland.com they should have the title there.

And I agree with you about the teenie-bopper thing! ^_^

[Dee]

I looked up fairy tales and grimm and all sorts of stuff and all they list is the rocky and bullwinkle show. Boy, now I'm REALLY wondering what it was!

[Anthonynotes]

Originally posted by Delia97
I looked up fairy tales and grimm and all sorts of stuff and all they list is the rocky and bullwinkle show. Boy, now I'm REALLY wondering what it was!

I recall this show....was weekend afternoon time-filler mostly---anime-style fairy tales (don't recall the series' exact name). Recall watching, but hoping it wouldn't run too long so that they could show "Looney Tunes"or something....

-B.

[PeppeRaskell1]

Originally posted by Brainatra
[B]Read about it here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020219/film_nm/film_disney_dc_1&cid=600


I remembered a little while back that Filmation (the real Ed Wood of TV Animation) wanted to do sequels to every Disney cartoon ever made. They started with Pinocchio (remember "Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night?") and Snow White ("Happily Ever After"), then they went out of business.

Now, Disney is making sequels to "Hunchback of Notre Dame," "Cinderella," and even a "Snow White" sequel has been promised or threatened.


The Immortal Chance "T-Bone" Furlong said it best...
Deja-Vu City!"

[Defiant1DS9]

Disney should give making cartoon movies a rest for about 10 years and then allow in that time period to allow for new ideas to flourish then come back with new ideas.

[RockItShipper]

Originally posted by DR. BELCH

Consider history--Henry VIII needed sons to inherit the throne but his wife produced only a daughter. So he basically engaged in religious chicanery, not to mention a divorce and two beheadings --to insure a male heir on the throne. Here we could see Parliment pressuring the prince to divorce Cindy, who is only producing girls, to remarry. He won't hear of it. (Of course the irony is that a child's sex is dependent on the male.) There's talk of abdication. Some sort of scheme insues to save her marriage and put a boy on the throne--maybe cutting a deal with dark forces. Cindy loses her soul, her Prince, and ends up back in the scullery, her ideal life irreparably shattered.
That I'd pay to see, actually.

Hehehe, that's evil. :D But you're missing one thing... Cindy finding out that Royal Bride #2, one of her stepsisters no less, just gave birth to a male heir. One of Cindy's daughters asks if they can visit their stepcousin/half-brother, but Cindy just snaps at her to go back to work.

[Dark Spider]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone remember a cartoon fairy tale show that was on Nickeloden before it became a teenie-bopper channel? They had like Grimms fairy tales or something but it wasn't like grim. So hard to explain! They were decent, and they were entertaining. Dang! I wish I could remember what Im talking about namewise!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Papa Beaver's Sotry Time"
It used to air on Nick Jr. back from the range of either 1994 -1998, I don't know the exact year. It was a lot like Grimm's Fairy Tales where it would showcase a fairly tale that had a moral at the end of it, somewhat like a fable. The stories were narrated by Papa Beaver who would read the story, from a book, to his 3 children (2 boys and a girl who wore pink overalls. I pretty sure one of the boys was named Sam). I think there were 2 or 3 fairly tales per episode. The show lasted a half hour. It was a pretty decent show that was right up there with Grimm.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recall this show....was weekend afternoon time-filler mostly---anime-style fairy tales (don't recall the series' exact name). Recall watching, but hoping it wouldn't run too long so that they could show "Looney Tunes"or something....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Back in the early 90's Nickelodeon used to have a show named "Special Delivery". It aired on Sundays (I believe) for 2 hours. They showed fairy tales and other similar stuff. One of the fairy tales I remembered them showing was one about a Manx cat (a cat without a tail) and how he didn't fit in with others because he didn't have a tail. I always loved that one. Last time I seen "Special Delivery", it was 1993, early 1994. I think it was replaced by either "Weinerville", "What Would You do?" or "Looney Tunes". Anyone remember those show?

I seem to have a good memory when it comes to old shows

[Dub]

.


Back in the early 90's Nickelodeon used to have a show named "Special Delivery". It aired on Sundays (I believe) for 2 hours. They showed fairy tales and other similar stuff. One of the fairy tales I remembered them showing was one about a Manx cat (a cat without a tail) and how he didn't fit in with others because he didn't have a tail. I always loved that one. Last time I seen "Special Delivery", it was 1993, early 1994. I think it was replaced by either "Weinerville", "What Would You do?" or "Looney Tunes". Anyone remember those show?


OMG - I remember Special Delivery.... :D That was when they'd air a variety of different shows/movies/whatever. A hodgepodge mix of sorts ^^

Ahhh the old days of Nick when they were actually good.... anyone remember Turkey TV? ^___^

[Anthonynotes]

Originally posted by Jon "WB" Gray
.


OMG - I remember Special Delivery.... :D That was when they'd air a variety of different shows/movies/whatever. A hodgepodge mix of sorts ^^

Ahhh the old days of Nick when they were actually good.... anyone remember Turkey TV? ^___^

I remember "Special Delivery" as well...recall it was a staple of Nickelodeon back in the 1980's (along with "Pinwheel" airing for hours on end to fill up the daytime...).

-B.

[Lonestarr]

Originally posted by Delia97
Anyone remember a cartoon fairy tale show that was on Nickeloden before it became a teenie-bopper channel? They had like Grimms fairy tales or something but it wasn't like grim. So hard to explain! They were decent, and they were entertaining. Dang! I wish I could remember what Im talking about namewise!

Delia, I think I know what you mean: "Grimm's Fairy Tales" was, at least from the look of the animation, a Japanese-made series that was acquired by, IIRC, Saban. It ran on Nick Jr. in the late '80s/early '90s. It was all right.

[HeyMickey85]

Ok I do agree that some of these Sequels are getting wildly out of hand. But this is not the fault of Walt Disney , who said that he did not want any of the Disney films to have sequels...so while he was alive that worked. Then unfortunately the master genius (pure evil to some, a big kid to others) died, and that darn nephew, Roy Disney , took over and it's been going down hill since. The original attempts at Sequels went straight to video ...and if you ask me the first two were fine. (Rescuers and Aladin ) but then it went crazy. And they got bravier, hence Peter Pan: Return to Neverland being released in theaters.
OK I work at the movies, and by means of my dinner breaks I have seen the majority of Peter Pan two . I'll admit I liked it. If you are a true Peter Pan fan, you'll like it. I think the ending makes the thing worthwhile. I even made a friend watch it, who didn't, and he like it. Trust me, it's not like Pochantas, Lion King, Lady and the Tramp, The Little Mermaid (need I go on) sequels that are pure crap.
I'm not saying that Disney should continue to release sequels...in fact I'm strictly against them in the theaters ...but for the fans I suppose if they can't come up with anything good, they might as well release them to video .
Hey by the way does anyone have the orignal Peter Pan on tape, and realized that in the opening previews it mentions that Rescuers Down Under is they're first sequel ever and they were working very hard to make it worthy as a sequel? Can you image the stress they had making the Peter Pan (a true classic) sequel? Probably a couple of stress heart attacks along the way.

~Mickey
(and not in relation to the mouse, so forget it now)

[Sango]

I actually saw Peter Pan II today because I had to take my little sister and cousin. It wasn't as bad as I thought it would be really, but it wasn't the greatest either of course. There were parts I was disappointed with, but at least my cousin and I got to make fun of it! :D

[Incardine]

I personally think Disney is beign financially smart if not smart in keeping the fandom happy.

Why?

Sequels sell if the original sold, most of the time anyways. However, Sequels tend to annoy fandoms if the original series was closed in an of itself. There *HAVE* been precedents to both of these. A good example is Slayers, where the sequel series were loved as much as the original series.

[Tracer]

"With relatively tiny budgets, the TV animation movies are solid profit centers for Disney, whether they get a theatrical or video premiere. For instance, while sources estimate a budget range from about $8 million-$15 million for each Disney TV production that takes about 2-1/2 years, "The Tigger Movie" generated $46 million in domestic box office receipts and nearly double that worldwide before it even went to video.

By comparison, Disney's full-scale animated films take twice as long to produce and have budgets of $75 million-$100 million or more since characters and background designs are created from scratch. The last two releases, "The Emperor's New Groove" and "Atlantis: The Lost Empire," have generated less than $90 million each at U.S. theaters. "

Sure, I can believe that, but it isn't because of the studio they used. I saw all 3 movies they mentioned and well For lack of a better word, BOTH atlantis and Emperor SUCKED!!. The story was terrible and predictable on both accounts. Yes, they both had their moments, especially "emperor" and the vocal talents were GREAT, but kids don't know who Michael J Fox or David Spade are, They are there for the magic and there was little magic to be found in either of them.

Now Pooh and Tigger have been quite cash cows for the past decade or so (I noticed a Winnie the Pooh ride at disney when I went this summer) and steady sellers even before that. Tigger succeeded cause it was everything you expect from a Winnie the Pooh movie, starring arguably the most favorite character of the bunch. Tigger is one of those characters that you wish had more screen time.

IF anyone from Disney is listening don't blame the box office or the Studio, start with the writers and producers. Also, when you use your Disney TV shop, the animation suffers, Please don't fall into this habit. I am sure I am not the only person who noticed the difference between the original Alladin and Lion King movie to the "Direct Release" sequels. In some cases it was almost line you used less frames per second.

That is just my 2 cents...

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Tracer

Sure, I can believe that, but it isn't because of the studio they used. I saw all 3 movies they mentioned and well For lack of a better word, BOTH atlantis and Emperor SUCKED!!. The story was terrible and predictable on both accounts. Yes, they both had their moments, especially "emperor" and the vocal talents were GREAT, but kids don't know who Michael J Fox or David Spade are, They are there for the magic and there was little magic to be found in either of them.



I disagree - personally I thought Atlantis was one of the best films to be put out in recent memory by Disney and I was glad to finally see a Disney film that got away from the characters singing every 5 seconds. Emperors New Groove was also something different and many people thought it was incredibly funny. I wish that Disney would continue to make movies that actually incorporated more original ideas because then there would be less sequels that all seem to contain the same story line - it's amazing how the same plot can be rehashed numerous times and then substitue different characters into their roles - where is the magic in that?

Atlantis ranks up there on my all time favorite list and I thought it was a fairly well thought out film. This isn't meant to offend anyone, just my two cents on the subject. :D

-Joe!

[Sharklady]

I regard 'The Emperor's New Groove' as the single funniest movie Disney has ever made. It's highly regrettable that the box-office returns were so low- now they probably won't make any more like it. :(

[RockItShipper]

Originally posted by Tracer
"With relatively tiny budgets, the TV animation movies are solid profit centers for Disney, whether they get a theatrical or video premiere. For instance, while sources estimate a budget range from about $8 million-$15 million for each Disney TV production that takes about 2-1/2 years, "The Tigger Movie" generated $46 million in domestic box office receipts and nearly double that worldwide before it even went to video.

By comparison, Disney's full-scale animated films take twice as long to produce and have budgets of $75 million-$100 million or more since characters and background designs are created from scratch. The last two releases, "The Emperor's New Groove" and "Atlantis: The Lost Empire," have generated less than $90 million each at U.S. theaters. "

Sure, I can believe that, but it isn't because of the studio they used.

But the profit margin is what's at issue here. And since the main theatrical division produces the most technically skilled animation, alot of money is at stake. But it's less risky when the development can be used elsewhere. Hunchback wasn't a huge hit, but the investment in it as a film by the "A" animation crew is paying off. A regular show at Disney MGM, the longest running musical in Germany, an upcoming DTV sequel, and before-mentioned musical translated for an upcoming ABC presentation.

Some other things.... Disney magazine's current issue has a quote from one of Cinderella2's producers where he expresses interest in exploring her character further. (And on that note, I'd say any properties that didn't show offspring in a DTV sequel may yet get another installment)

What I'd like to know is if there's a market for the Disney Villains show that kept getting pitched. I was looking around "Ask Greg" couple days back, where he explained studio support for DTV series having new material for video is non-existent. But using Disney Villains from movies would be a different matter, right?

[Misty Warner]

I know this is a useless post, just I just had to say.. all these Disney sequals are bothering me! :p

~Misty~

[Anime Freak]

Well actually I thought Toy Story 2 was an awesome well-done sequel. :yawn:

[robert]

"The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2" will be in video stores March 19'th. Nuff said. What, I can't have witty comebacks all the time.

[Sharklady]

> Well actually I thought Toy Story 2 was an awesome well-done sequel. <

Agreed.

But there is a difference. The 'Toy Story' movies were (I hear) planned to be a series from the start. They didn't make one great classic 'Toy Story', then dig it up decades later & milk it for sequels. That pattern looks disturbingly like an indication of creative bankruptcy.

[Dub]

Originally posted by Sharklady
> Well actually I thought Toy Story 2 was an awesome well-done sequel. <

Agreed.

But there is a difference. The 'Toy Story' movies were (I hear) planned to be a series from the start. They didn't make one great classic 'Toy Story', then dig it up decades later & milk it for sequels. That pattern looks disturbingly like an indication of creative bankruptcy.

Same here.

And yeah - from what I've heard toy Story WAS planned to be a series - so its sequel is justified. I've heard though that Disney is trying to force Pixar into a Toy Story 3 and NOT have it count in thier original five movie deal. THAT I do not like. Fair is fair after all.

Anyways - I cite creative bankruptcy for all these sequels as well. Some sequels if well managed do NOT have to suck. Toy Story 2 being a prime example of what Disney could do if they did it right and took care with it.

I mean come on now, have you seen the reviews for Cinderella 2? @___@ ICK.


Case in point: The latest review courtesy of Reuters -



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entertainment - Reuters/Variety Reviews

Reviews


Disney's bland "Cinderella" video strictly for tykes
Tue Feb 26, 3:46 AM ET
By Joe Leydon

HOUSTON (Variety) - It's not quite a bibbidi-bobbidi-bungle, but "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" definitely is one of Disney's lesser direct-to-video efforts.


Tepid production marks yet another step in the Mouse Factory's campaign to recycle beloved characters from animated classics in bland time-killers aimed at tykes with short attention spans. The target audience is sufficiently large to guarantee huge, though probably not record-setting, sales and rentals.

Billed as a feature-length sequel to Disney's 1950 "Cinderella," the picture actually plays more like a loose-knit collection of three episodes from a TV series spin-off. Wrap-around sequences have the Fairy Godmother (voiced by Russi Taylor) reminiscing with Jaq (Rob Paulsen) and other cheery mice, prompting tales about Cinderella (Jennifer Hale) and her happily-ever-aftering.

In the first segment, Cinderella frets about making preparations for her first royal ball shortly after honeymooning with her beloved Prince (Christopher Daniel Barnes). Think of it as a variation of "The Princess Diaries," with snooty court taskmaster Prudence (Holland Taylor) in Julie Andrews' role.

Other segments involve Jaq's misadventures while briefly in human form, and Cinderella's attempts to play matchmaker for stepsister Anastasia (Tress MacNeille) and a smitten baker (also Rob Paulsen). Each tale hammers home the same moral -- "Be yourself!" -- and each comes equipped with an instantly forgettable tune sung by teen warbler Brooke Allison.

At the very end, Allison also performs a bubble-gummy pop-rock re-arrangement of "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo" that likely will make purists cringe.

The animation, handled mostly by artists employed at Disney's Japanese subsidiary, is at best uneven -- note Cinderella's jerky movements as she bounds up a staircase -- but may be just brightly colorful enough to satisfy undemanding pre-schoolers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


**sigh** -_____- And just think - we still have Dumbo 2, Snow White 2, Hunchback of Notre Dame 2, Mulan 2, Sleeping Beauty 2,.......

JOY AND RAPTURE!!! :P

[J.J.]

The "Hunchback of Notre Dam" is my all-time favorite Disney movie because it is so moving and emotional...not at all kiddy, comericalized or corny.

The idea that they could make a sequel to such a masterpiece really burns me. I mean, the ending of the original was so sombre and dignified, now they're just gonna go- "Oh yah, and some more stuff happened, too! Look at those crazy gargoyles"

Some sequels can work, (Toy Story and the Rescuers) but when a movie, like Hunchback spends two hours leading up to a dramatic conclusion, it just seems cheap to add on more.

I'm sure its just a matter of time before we get "Great Mouse Detective 2" "Black Cauldron 2" and "The Sword in the Stone 2".

[Anthonynotes]

Originally posted by J.J.
The "Hunchback of Notre Dam" is my all-time favorite Disney movie because it is so moving and emotional...not at all kiddy, comericalized or corny.

The idea that they could make a sequel to such a masterpiece really burns me. I mean, the ending of the original was so sombre and dignified, now they're just gonna go- "Oh yah, and some more stuff happened, too! Look at those crazy gargoyles"

Some sequels can work, (Toy Story and the Rescuers) but when a movie, like Hunchback spends two hours leading up to a dramatic conclusion, it just seems cheap to add on more.

I'm sure its just a matter of time before we get "Great Mouse Detective 2" "Black Cauldron 2" and "The Sword in the Stone 2".

"Sword in the Stone 2"?! Gads, I hope not (it being one of my favorite Disney movies...), even if in this case, one could imagine sequels to it (based on the legends of King Arthur).

[RockItShipper]

I think you could get by with more stories on the Great Mouse Detective. Black Cauldron? Never seen it. Sword in the Stone? If the sequels start working towards an adult audience... You know, I'd like to see that... Snow White running off with Grumpy for SW2.

[Sharklady]

> Black Cauldron? Never seen it. <

IMO, you didn't miss much; that's my all-time least-favorite Disney animovie. The plot was virtually incoherent (*something* about a clairvoyant pig, a scullary maid passing herself off as a princess, three witches in the sky, a tempermental magic harp....)

[Sango]

Personally, I didn't think "The Black Cauldron" was that bad...I guess I liked it because I spotted a lot of Celtic mythology stuff in it...=\

Since "The Sword in the Stone" is one of my favorite Disney movies, please don't make me imagine the horror of a sequel! I guess I could also see sequels being made based on Arthurian legends (some of my favorite legends ^_^), but the way Disney has been lately they would be so screwed up I'd rather they didn't make any. ¬_¬

I actually watched "The Great Mouse Detective" the other day when I dug it out of our cabinet and let the kid I babysit watch it. I could see how sequels could be made about it, too, but, once again, I think it's best left alone...I'm still trying to get over being traumatized by those "Cinderella II" commercials with the crappy pop music... :rolleyes:

[Lonestarr]

Originally posted by Brainatra


"Sword in the Stone 2"?! Gads, I hope not (it being one of my favorite Disney movies...), even if in this case, one could imagine sequels to it (based on the legends of King Arthur).

It's one of my favorites, too. I hope to God that Disney leaves at least one of its classics alone...even though this is one of the few Disney animated films that actually lends itself to the sequel treatment, as opposed to most other films that are having sequels forced upon them. But if Disney must (I'm not saying they should) make a sequel, make sure that there are less modern references than there were in the original.

[Anthonynotes]

Originally posted by Lonestarr


It's one of my favorites, too. I hope to God that Disney leaves at least one of its classics alone...even though this is one of the few Disney animated films that actually lends itself to the sequel treatment, as opposed to most other films that are having sequels forced upon them. But if Disney must (I'm not saying they should) make a sequel, make sure that there are less modern references than there were in the original.

I thought the modern references were one of the most amusing things about it (and done in a way that didn't make it dated, a la the Beatles-esque buzzards in "The Jungle Book")....especially Merlin's parting line at the end ("motion picture? It's like television...without commercials.") :-)

[Lonestarr]

Originally posted by Brainatra


I thought the modern references were one of the most amusing things about it (and done in a way that didn't make it dated, a la the Beatles-esque buzzards in "The Jungle Book")....especially Merlin's parting line at the end ("motion picture? It's like television...without commercials.") :-)

I didn't mean it like that; I thought some of them were funny. It's just that I cannot fathom the characters making soon-to-be-arcane references to such things as "Survivor" and "Titanic".

[DR. BELCH]

After the lukewarm Atlantis B.O., The Mouse may be leery of anything new or for older audiences...but if they ever considered my proposal of a faithful adaptation of Dante's Inferno, it has two ready-made sequels--Purgatorio and Paradisio. This could do for Disney what Star Wars did for George Lucas (except unless they adapted La Vida Nuevo too, I can't see prequeling The Divine Comedy.)
I wouldn't even mind an adaptation of Othello, as I've suggested, even if it slyly parodied the O.J. Simpson case, as long as they didn't play it camp and Desdemona and the Moor died in the end, as it's written--and no contrivedly resurrecting them for a lame-donkey sequel!

[The Mad Hatter]

Being somewhat of a detective/Sherlock Holmes fan, I actually wouldn't mind seeing sequels or, dare I say it, a TV series from the Great Mouse Detective. But, since the flick isn't exactly popular, I'm sure it won't happen.

Not to mention that I'd rather not encourage Disney's D2V department, considering their current batting average...

[adoptedBatpuppy]

Why is Disney doing this??? why can't they come up with originals. Like Lilo and Stitch for example.