Let's face it: Toy Story 2 was the only really successful Disney sequal. Hey, I may be wrong; feel free to add to the list, but I doubt you'll find many.
Now here's the list:
1.) It wastes time and money, taking in less than how much it was worth to make.
2.) They're a disgrace to the originals.
Feel free to add.
I agree. It seems more and more that Disney is losing ground to Pixar in terms of original, groundbreaking children's stories. So now they're just doing remakes or sequels. I loved the original, it had a GREAT ending. Why do they have to ruin these movies with sequels?
shareTO MAKE MONEY, PEOPLE!!! Hollywood has always been and always will be about making money. It is just as much an industry as the pharmaceutical companies, as much as companies that make toilet paper and bathroom cleaners, as much as supermarkets.
This is just a moot argument. Hollywood is like anyone else. You gotta make some profit in order to be in the business the next day and days after that. That's the way it works and indeed the way life works for those people in money-making industries.
By the way aphotika, I'm glad you realized the power of Pixar in also that Toy Story 2 was not a Disney sequel. Pixar did 95% of the work on that project while Disney took the other 5%: marketing and distribution.
Suprise, Suprise! They're making a Toy Story 3. http://imdb.com/title/tt0435761/
shareYeah, that's been known for months now. Since Disney owns all rights to sequels based on Pixar movies, they decided to jump on making a 3rd one themselves. However, they had trouble because no animation director in Hollywood would touch the material, knowing full well how sacred and original Pixar's movies are. That's how they ended up with Bradley Raymond, the director who most recently made "The Lion King 1 1/2".
However, CEO-to-be Robert Iger is slowly trying to put back together the bridge between Disney and Pixar in the hopes they can continue to be business partners. That's the reason this project has slowed down so far because if Pixar gets back with Disney, then perhaps that film can be handed over to Pixar. Because no one makes 'em anymore like Pixar. Then again, the whole project could be scrapped on the basis of that or Disney could still press on, because the rights are theirs, regardless of a new partnership. A lot of things can happen.
Amen to the money thing. If Disney could, they would take a dump in a box and sell it to people as long as they could make money. Virtually any company would. The reason why they have poorer quality is that they feel that making bad movies and just making more of them earns them more money. At the end of the day it's all about the Benjamins. I actually hope that Disney and Pixar stay split apart so that Disney will have to get better to be able to compete with Pixar.
shareI also agree. I recently saw a preview for another Bambi movie - one that supposedly fills in the holes of what happened as Bambi grew up. I don't know about everyone else, but I get kinda upset when the "new" Disney people mess with Walt Disney's original stuff. Don't they have enough talent to think up something original anymore?
shareI agree now with Bambi 2 , Trazan 2, Cinderella 2, the Little Mermaid 2 etc I could go on!
the sequels I love were Aladdin 2&3 because they completed the story. Return to Neverland and Toy Story 2 were okay
But oh well as long as they are wasting their own money and not mine!
Ob-la-di Ob-la-da Life goes on . . .
agreed Disney sequels are a big crock of sh*t but at the same time Emperors New Groove was by far the best thing they did since Lion King and nothing since has been any where near as close - besides i'd rather see a sequel to this than Snow White which depressingly looks increasingly possible
oh and KRONK ROCKS!!!!!! squeak squeaker squeak squeak - you owe me one acorn
A sequel to Snow White doesn't seem all that possible anymore because the major factor that produces direct-to-video sequels, DisneyToon Studios in Australia, is being shut down after production is complete on "Cinderella III". It seems to be a sign that Disney may actually be wanting to focus on newer properties, rather than rehashes of what came before. Plus, they'd never attempt a Snow White sequel in their main animation division. Too costly and too big a risk, where it's better to make entirely new material.
sharethe only "sequels" they should really do ar for Fantasia, since that's what walt really wanted with that film
(Palpatine Holds up a femur bone) Lord Vader...this is Padme.
VADER: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Well, a sequel does work for Tarzan since the character is part of a long running movie franchise
shareits pretty weak 5.8? 1 here 0 but its not available
"Its a Kids Movie Children dont know the difference"
*Maybe the ones from todays lame generation
BHT RISES myspace.com/blackheart60
i agree that the majority of disney sequels suck but... there is an exception being overlooked. The rescuers down under was a sequel to the rescuers and was, in m opinion, much better. My son does love the lion king sequels though and that is what really matters.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Rescuer's Down Under. Better than the original?
"6 am. and already the boy ain't right"
"King of the Hill"
Agreed, the Rescuers Down Under was a great movie...John Candy made it hilarious.
shareWhile I agree that most of Disney's direct-to-video sequels aren't nearly as good as the originals, the fact is, they ARE making money. If they weren't, Disney would have stopped doing it long ago. Parents are buying them for their kids by the truckload.
Personally, I'd rather see them concentrate on more quality fims than just turning out a quickie sequel for an easy buck -- not that I'd object to an occasional sequel if it was actually good -- but as long as these make money, you can bet they'll keep making them.
Yep, the majority of them are terrible.
I liked Lion King 2 as a kid, but I think if I saw it today (as a thirteen year old), I probably wouldn't like it much at all.
But I guess I'm missing the point; as long as kids are enjoying them, who cares?
I'm just glad Disney are still making hand-drawn (to an extent, at least) movies (even if the scripts are shi++y); 3D animation is overrated and boring; you see it everywhere.
And I don't see why you'd make a sequel to the Emporer's New Groove-- I loved it, but there wasn't much to build on? hm.
[deleted]
the reason all disney sequels are well..... you could say not as good because most of the original cast is gone therefore it was low budget so they could not pay the stars of the original
movies like toy story 2 and kronks new groove all have the original cast so they are going to be quality movies
"beware of the groove.the groooooooove"
If what you say is true, then they won the jackpot with this sequel.
THey brought back the entire cast.
I can't believe I haven't heard of this before.
I'm actually considering buying it.
D.s.
I'm 17 and I like Lion King 2. It actually had a cute plot, unlike most other dinsey sequels
shareyeh ur right, 3d animation is seen everywhere, it must be *beep*
since before 3d animation 2d animation was seen everywhere...must have made it boring, good thing 3d came along to make 2d animation cool again.
you probably dont even know how 3d animation works to even have an opinion on it, and how is it overrated, its used in movies to do things they couldnt possibly do if they used real life footage with more realism than you get with things like claymation.
but hey, being that ur 13, u are definately the expert.
I believe the last Disney animated film will be a sequal to Snow White.
Ironic in that Snow White was their FIRST animated movie.
The last official animated film from Disney's big-budget animated division was "Home on the Range". Now that major division has switched to computer animation and all other animation will be done cheaply through DisneyToon Studios. That era of animation has already ended.
shareI agree. I've only REALLY liked two "2" movies, Toy Story 2 and Lilo and Stitch 2. As for the other 2 movies I haven't see any I liked at all (but I think POTC2 will be great!). I too liked lion King 1 1/2 but now it's \kind of stupid in my opinion. As for this they're going to DESTORY the emperors new groove. Kronk is a loveable character, but not good enough to make a whole movie off of. Plus, withotu Pixar Toy story 3 will probably fail.
shareA few of the direct-to-video sequels have been absolutely awful awful AWFUL, but in my opinion, the rest, while maybe not as good as their originals, were at least entertaining, and still better than most animated movies released by other studios. I think if Lion King 2 had come out of, say, Dreamworks, we’d all be saying it was their best animated film ever. I really feel that we’re holding these sequels up to extremely high standards because they’re from Disney. I mean, OF COURSE no sequel could possibly be as good as The Lion King or Aladdin, and I think it’s ridiculous to expect that.
The one thing I am wholeheartedly against, however, is sequels based on anything Walt Disney was personally involved with. He isn’t around to approve or disapprove of the idea, so I don’t believe it should be done. I hate to think of someone else screwing around with Walt’s projects like that. Putting myself in that position, I know I wouldn’t want anyone doing that with something I had made while I was alive, unless I had given my permission in advance. I feel like it's just somehow deeply wrong to mess with Walt's movies like that.
It was done, as Walt Disney was personally involved with The Jungle Book. And then The Jungle Book 2 was released decades later.
shareYes, I KNOW it was done. Jungle Book, Cinderella, Peter Pan, soon Snow White and Bambi, as well as others I'm probably forgetting about. That's why I said I was against it; because they ARE doing it and I think it's wrong.
share[deleted]