|
Author
|
Topic: So what do you guys think about Disney's cheapquels?
|
AnimationGirl
IE # 303
Member # 3628
|
posted
So what do you guys think about Disney's sequels? I'm not talking about movies such as Toy Story 2, I'm talking about the sequels they made for their classics. So what's your opinion guys?
Personally, I didn't like any of their sequels and I never supported them. As a kid, I was really thrilled when I got the VHS of The Lion King 2 and Beauty and the Beast 2 as a gift, and I also remember how disappointed I was after I watched them. I guess I went out of my mind when I bought The Little Mermaid 3 DVD in 2008, I wanted to give Disney another shot, I thought this one will be different from all the others but I was so wrong, I was so disappointed.
Here's an interesting article about Disney's sequels, I found it on the net, it pretty much describes how I feel about Disney's sequels --
_______________________________
"Disney Sequels and Prequels
Has the Mouse Run Out of Ideas?
Aug 4, 2009
Why do Disney insist on tarnishing the legacy of such classic tales as 'Cinderella' and 'Lady and the Tramp' by churning out pointless, straight-to-video sequels?
There is a certain school of thought that says one should not mess with perfection. Films like Cinderella, 101 Dalmations and The Jungle Book have been watched and adored by generations of adults and children alike and should arguably be left alone. After all, is it not enough to assume that the protagonists in these magical fairytales "lived happily ever after?"
Damaging Walt Disney's Legacy
Disney fan, "Lilmissdisney" comments on how Walt Disney himself viewed the idea of sequels on the Walt Disney Web Board: "Many years ago he (Walt) produced a sequel to The Three Little Pigs, due to everyone loving the first. The second one did not go off as well and he said he would never do a sequel again."
Walt saw them as "devaluing the animation" of the original and had no interest in producing them just to make money. The great man stayed true to his philosophy and no more sequels were made during his lifetime.
The First Disney Movie Sequel
In 1990, 24 years after "Uncle Walt's" death and 13 years after the first Rescuers, The Rescuers Down Underwas released to generally positive reviews.
Unlike many subsequent sequels, the film was given a cinema release and managed to retain the original voices of the two main characters; in this case, Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor."
______________________________
For more info check this website:
http://animatedfilms.suite101.com/article.cfm/disney_sequels_and_prequels
Cinderella?? 3??? ![[Gary]](graemlins/banghead.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
acme
IE # 51
Member # 1591
|
posted
If I recall correctly you should be able to do a search on this site and find plenty of comments on the cheapquels. No stranger to this forum.
The Majority I have not even bothered to watch. However I can admit I have seen some. I was mostly disappointed. The select few that I thought were ok in the end were stories that did not need to be told. That effort could have been put forward to bring something new.
With that said along with too much time on my hands I think Disney could be marketing them better. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) If you are going to bastardize a movie...go all out. ie I give you Cinderella 3 SE
--------------------
Zane Kohler
IP: Logged
|
|
dermot
IE # 193
Member # 1575
|
posted
nothing wrong with entertaining the kids....but yikes...at least keep a standard......Pocahontas 2 ?........Jiminy ....that one seemed only just a bit above bad 1980's TV stuff in a lot of places.
--------------------
http://zoomfrog.blogspot.com/
IP: Logged
|
|
E. Allen
IE # 301
Member # 3297
|
posted
I noticed some of the material for this topic came from contributors to Suite101.com.
I used to write a lot for Suite 101. If you Google my name and include the keywords "suite 101", you'll come across many of my old articles. Those were the days.
At any rate, eight years ago even I wrote something, denigrating the quality of all the craptastic flotsam churned out (with some even reaching theatrical release), during Eisner's stranglehold over development. As that disintegrated, thankfully so did the frequency of the cheapquel releases.
But boy, the shareholders must've loved them. They added tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars to Disney's bottom line. The most lucrative of them all had to have been Lion King 2: Simba's Pride, although some have said (mistakenly?) Lion King 1 1/2 might have topped it, which I can't quite come to terms with--since any movie featuring Timon and Pumbaa in prominent roles has to be worse than whatever came before it!
Nevertheless, there are less of the "cheapquels" these days, thankfully, and the ones which are released are (I must grudgingly admit) of superior quality, at least when you compare them to their past predecessors. Long as Disney keeps them to a minimum, which they have (I feel), they're in line with what most entertainment companies are doing these days. Standard practice, I guess.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
