I think that this film should have been about the continuation of Anne-Marie's life. The makers should have hired another young actress to play Anne-Marie. The plot should have been Charlie visting Anne Marie a few years later after going to heaven. Itchy would have been involved. The wallet family would have been part of the story. Also, Anne marie's dreams would have come true: she would have grow up, got married, and became an actress.
shareI agree with you & also we would have known what would have happened to Flo the pups she was taking care of & also what would have happened to all the pups she was taking care of when she died
shareI wish they would have done that, sort of honoring the actor that played Anne Marie. Either that or they should not have made a sequel at all.
sharewhen did flo Die?
signed
David g
thats alright,my dog found the chainsaw
I agree with you 100%. It should have been about Anne-Marie. Charlie should be her guardian angel, not David's. It could have been about Charlie watching over her as she struggles to make human friends because of her unusual gift to talk to animals, do well in school, make the swim team, and get the main part in a school play. The result could even have Charlie visit Anne-Marie as an adult. (After all, he DID tell her at the end of the first that she would see him again because "good-byes aren't forever")
I personally did not care for this sequel particullarly because Anne-Marie was not even mentioned.
My Philosophy: Jerry O'Connell rules and Brad Pitt drools!!!!!
[deleted]
What I don't understand is in the countless Land before Time sequals, they included Ducky (Judith Barsi did her voice in the first movie) but why didn't they even mention Anne-Marie in this crummy sequal?
My Philosophy: Jerry O'Connell rules and Brad Pitt drools!!!!!
I'd guess that if the movie was being worked on near the time of her death they'd probably try not to have her easily replaced since if they did they'd look like they didn't cared that she died. I dunno maybe, though the movie didn't look very well thought out since they left too many plotholes (Itchy lived for 50 years before dying of, not old age, but choking on a chicken bone WTF!?). Plus Charlie went back to earth didn't he? That wrecks the ending of the first film, plus it's kinda depressing.
share[deleted]
Plot hole.
Itchy wouldn't have "just died" if it had been that long. Even if he had died from natural causes instead of a chicken bone caught in his throat, dachshunds only live 17 years at the most. The movie would've taken place at the latest some time in the 40's, which would've made Anne Marie around twenty.
[deleted]
Actually the gangter era took place in the 20s-30s. As for the sequel it took place in the mid 90s.
Shao Kahn-"Don't make me laugh".
Don Bluth and his company didn't even have anything to do with this movie. I doubt they even had a sequel in mind- I mean really, did ADGTH even need a sequel?
I do agree though on the part where if they really thought they had to do this to at least make some real tie in with the old movie, not some "lol let's take them to San Fran and vomit up some kind of stupid plot guys"
This message is for ElysianGolden525;
This movie was not being planned, nor worked on, nor even done by the same group who made the first film at the time of Judith's death. She passed away in 1988, shortly before the original film made it to theatres. This one was made in 1996 - 8 years after the fact. (and judging by quality, probably didn't take much longer than a year or so to complete.) that is no good reason to replace a character as genuine as Ann Marie. I don't know how these film-makers could have messed up what would have been a good sequel if they had simply remembered WHO the main characters were. And they had no reason to go out of their way to make another kid.
Ann Marie was a main character in the first one, and David is just... stupid. What they should do is make the real sequel. And none of this direct to dvd stuff, we could use a genuine traditional animated film in theatres again.
Even better if master Bluth took the brush, and made his first feature sequel.
A fan can dream...
"Stupid Banana-Raincoat-Wearin' B****."
It's funny that I just notice this comment now, about 3 years after you posted it to me, after for the first time in years thinking about this crummy sequel and all. But that aside, I still stand by that the exclusion of Anne-Marie was really for the best in the end. What Anne-Marie had at the end of the first movie seemed to me to represent what her voice actress deserved in a lot of ways since Judith didn't just "pass away" but rather she was abused and murdered. She had a tragic short life but the character she played had a very happy ending and it seemed like it was an almost touching aspect that it never got changed by seeing her have to get written into a terrible sequel. This sequel sucked but at the very least it didn't ruin the ending that Anne-Marie's character got by showing her unhappy or out-of-character. Now everything else in this film on the other hand is a different story.
share