No sequel!!! :)


I'd just like to take this opportunity to THANK Disney for not making a sequel or prequel to this movie!



Don't say "IMO", we know it's your opinion; you're the one who posted it.

reply

Fortunately, the number of sequels (primarily of the DTV kind) will dwindle drastically now that John Lasseter's in charge. Hooray!

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

reply

[deleted]

How does a sequel ruin the original? Of course they don't! No matter how many sequels they could spew out it would never soil your memory of the first! The first stays the same always, so why care so much?

I love Robin Hood too, it's my favourite Disney next to Aladdin and I would LOVE to see MORE of them!

It doesn't matter if they can't beat the original, it can still be a great and/or an entertaining movie.

Down with sequel-haters! If they hate them - don't watch them!

I at least, want more Robin Hood and Aladdin.

reply

How does a sequel ruin the original? Of course they don't!




Thank you for saying the same thing that I have been trying to tell people on here for ages.

reply

Exactly!!!!

Doesn't matter how awful the Die Hard sequels are, the original will always remain a classic.

Kid on bike "Where you going?"
Charlie Bright "Somewhere".

reply

5 years later, and with Hot Tub Time Machine 2 out.. no doubt you'll want to change your theory.

reply

Add me to the list of people, who don't share this hatred for the sequels. They are mostly quite good, I say, even if they aren't as great as the canon classics. Most of them feel like they're someone's fanfics though, probably because they had to change writers. But I can agree with the person above, who wrote that there is nothing left for Disney to tell about Robin Hood. Then again, they came up with two sequels for "Cinderella", so who knows why nobody made one for this movie.

Intelligence and purity.

reply

Name one good sequel to one of the classics please

reply

Finding Dori might be the first -- if you are young enough to consider Finding Nemo a "classic".

reply

sure-it was the most successful animated movie of all time for quiet a few years so yeah, its a classic :-)

reply

sequels are usually a disappointment. none of the sequels to disney films that i have seen have been much good.

reply

You already got two inferior Aladdin sequels and 65 (30) minute cartoons! They milked that cow dry!
It does diminish the property when they do that. That's why Disney stopped the sequels to the classics. The sequels were truly crap. Bambi 2? Cinderella 2 and 3? Horrible.

reply

I agree most sequels or prequels, no matter how bad, can't ruin the original but it is possible. I also agree people need to stop saying that out of context when they just mean it's not worthy to be part of the franchise. But it is possible.

A good example is the Star Wars prequels, which actually do forever diminish the experience of watching the original for me and a lot of other people, a bigger reason they get so much hate. With really stupid things they added to the mythos which affect how the viewer perceives the original, like (spoilers, although all from the prequels you won't want to watch anyway)
-Anakin building C3PO
-Obi Wan's an idiot for not remembering these two droids he went on loads of adventures with
-Han & Chewbacca are idiots living under rocks for having never seen Jedi
-Chewie having Alzheimer's since he knows every spoiler about the Skywalker family and never spills
-Yoda's an idiot for not using his boss powers from the prequels to stop every single bad situation that was ever going to happen
-Jabba no longer being intimidating due to how the prequels portrayed him
-Making Vader less intimidating and more of a brat having a temper tantrum
-Boba Fett is just a dumb Storm Trooper from cloning
-Confusing the viewer with the fact all the Storm Troopers have different voices even though they're all Boba Fett's clone
-Taking 20 years to build the 1st Death Star but only 1 year to build the second one
-The story is unimpactful because only special people with a certain gene can use the force so they're not accomplishing anything by learning to use it
-The special editions reducing Star Wars to awful, The Empire Strikes Back to good but not great, and Return Of The Jedi to one of the worst movies ever made, disrespectfully undoing the hard work of legions of people with little credit who actually worked to make them great
-And more...

These are all effects of the prequels on the original, forever diminishing how the viewer perceives it while watching it, knowing these stupid things are going on or affecting what's going. So it is possible to diminish the experience of a movie by making a prequel or sequel, it's just very rare. In fact, outside of this I can't think of any other movies that have been actually ruined or diminished for me by a prequel or sequel that sucks


~NW~

reply

John Lasseter should be the CEO of the Walt Disney Company when Greedy McFigurehead retires in 2015.

reply

...but Over the Hedge did get no sequels...

reply

The thing with sequels is that they are never made by the main studio, so, it's like they're a different genre.
haha that's how I see it anyways

reply

I've never understood the common aversion to sequels.

reply

Because they generally suck and are done for a transparent motive: ca$h.

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

reply

Have you all heard about the new sequel to the Aladdin series? Aladdin: Jafar May Need Glasses? Should be very entertaining!

reply

[deleted]

Thats the main problem there. The sequels tend to be lackluster at best and sometimes show negatively on the original if someone sees the sequel first and then dismisses the original thinking it must be the same sort of low grade.

Hence theres various reasons people have a dislike of them, especially Disney, theres also some occasional ire towards sequels to Don Bluth movies for the same reasons.

Of course some of the sequels arent all that bad. And one or two are actually fairly good and mesh with the original. But usually its not so well.

Then theres allways the spin off TV series which suffer the same ups and downs.

reply

[deleted]

The sequels tend to be lackluster at best and sometimes show negatively on the original if someone sees the sequel first and then dismisses the original thinking it must be the same sort of low grade.


I could see how this may be a problem with regular movie sequels, but that wouldn't be a problem with Disney. By the time someone is old enough to see a random sequel and be able to judge it's subpar, they would have seen a dozen good, original Disney movies to know that at direct-to-video sequel isn't the same quality as a theatrical release.

-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.

reply

[deleted]

I agree with you.
Robin Hood does not need a sequel. If it did have one, the sequel would probably not be as good as the first one.

reply

Waht on earth would a sequel be about? There isn't anything left to tell

reply

I definitely agree with you there. And sometimes I wish Disney never made any sequels whatsoever, except Fantasia 2000 and the Toy Story movies.

reply

It needs a sequel.it needs Robin Hood's merry men. John Goodman would make a perfect Little John.

reply

I don't think so. This original Robin Hood follows the immortal legend with a lot of imaginative animal characters.

reply