MovieChat Forums > The Rescuers Down Under (1990) Discussion > The 'ONLY' 'Canon' Sequel?

The 'ONLY' 'Canon' Sequel?

posted 10 years ago by idonnowho
4 replies | jump to latest

Why does TV Tropes say that this is the only sequel in the Disney canon? "Fantasia 2000" and (much as I regret to mention it) "Winnie the Pooh" would beg to differ...

PS It's a pity THIS sequel is praised above them all... Heinously overrated, no Penny, no songs, the original film (which did feature Penny) is generally deemed "boring", blah, blah, blah...

Hell, some direct-to-video sequels of Disney's are more memorable ("Bambi 2", anyone? It even got a theatrical release overseas...)

[–] ZeoRangerFive 9 years ago

Fantasia 2000 isn't really a sequel. Since there's no story line it's not really a sequel, it's just another film along the same lines. It's hard to explain. The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh I never saw as a real film, but a package film along the same lines as those released in the 40s (Melody Time, Fun & Fancy Free, Make Mine Music, etc.) so Winnie the Pooh (2011) in my eyes doesn't really work as a sequel but as the first actual straight up Winnie the Pooh films (not counting the other WtP theatrical films since they are not part of the Disney Classics canon). This is just my opinion.

Dragonzord! Mastodon! Pterodactyl! Triceratops! Saber Toothed Tiger! Tyrannosaurus!

[–] Unvoiced-Apollo 9 years ago

I found Penny to be annoyingly cutesy and boring. And the only song I remember is one playing over the scene as they're flying. The animation also nearly isn't as good as works that came before it.

If you're happy and you know it, go sit in the corner and think about your life.

[–] IMDB_Vits 9 years ago

All Disney sequels are canon.

[–] tavaresmd 8 years ago

I think that, by canon he referred to being a part of The Walt Disney Animation Studios films, not as in being accepted in continuity.

I love classic monsters.