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.
rescuers down under was cool... so there
----
I see you're drinking 1%
I really doubt most of them lost money.
And this is very funny.
So basically, you're wrong :P
It's already been mentioned a few times, but I just thought I'd add my two cents: Rescuers Down Under is the best Disney sequel ever (except for Toy Story 2, but I consider that Pixar), and one of the very few Disney sequels that are worth watching.
In my opinion Lion King was the greatest Disney, if not the greatest movie ever made. The Lion King 2 was, well let's just say it didn't do justice to the original (I'm in a nice mood today). It was unnecessary to make and while had some entertaining bits in the end just took away from how awesome number 1 was. I haven't seen Kronk's New Groove but I have seen Emperor's New Groove which I loved and I think that, like the Lion King, this could screw up that movie. I thought Kronk was awesome but not enough of a complete character to hold a movie. Why make these sequels?
The more the words the less the meaning and how does that profit anyone?
Lets go back at least 20 years. Disney did not want to get in to the home video market because they were afraid that not only would they loose money, they thought, but they thought it would bomb. Well, they entered the VHS market skeptisism and the sales proved them wrong. Were you aware that the sales of Fantasia on VHS were the sole financial backing of Fantasia 2000? Now once again Disney was afraid that DVD technology was not going to work either. Now that the sales have once again proved them wrong, they have discovered another market, "Direct to Video." That is why they are cranking out all of the sequals. Disney's very first "Direct to Video" sequal was "The Return of Jafar" which was on VHS. Now, I have seen and own practically every one of Disney's Direct to Video DVD sequals. There was a few that I was not too impressed with was "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" and Atlantis Milo's Return. Other than that, let me voice my opinion on the following "Direct To Video" sequals. I totall enjoyed "The Lion King II: Simba's Pride," (initially released on VHS) and laughed till I cried at "The Lion King 1 1/2." "Tarzan 2" had its moments and so did "The Jungle Book 2" As for "The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea" it had a great story line, the animation was excellent and I felt that it was almost up to par with the original. Now, I can go on to say that I have also seen "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" and it was touching, "The Return of Jafar" was excellent, but the only thing I did not like that Robin Williams did not provide the voice of Genie. He had his reasons and it was NOT money. "Aladdin and the King of Thieves" was an excellent conclusion to the Aladdin story which was very well written. Then there was "An Extremely Goofy Movie." The disco scene with Goofy and his new found love Sylvia is worth the price of admission alone. "Mulan II" decent, but they could have done more. "Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World" I can honestly say that DVD still sits on my shelf sealed so I have no opinion. "Return to Neverland" it was a nice tie-in with the original story. "Atlantis Milo's Return" that should have never been made. "Mickey's Twice Upon A Christmas," I loved the CGI and each segment was very well written and I liked the creativity behind the whole video. Does anybody know where the "Hidden Mickey" is in that film? Last but definitely not least is "Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure." I saw it once and i did in fact enjoy it. I liked how the story kept going back to the original. It kept it interesting. One sequal that I am glad that never saw the light of day, but I did see the trailer on the "Dumbo" DVD was "Dumbo II." They would have definitely ruined a classic.
In closing, let me state that not all "Direct to Video" sequals are bad as bad as people make them out to be. They pass judgement without ever seeing them. I agree that some are down right terrible, but in my opinion that is just a few. I know that they are made just to make money, but if it did not work, would Disney keep on making them? I know that you probably do not believe me that I have seen all of the above listed movies, but I have and I do own them as well. I will state that I will quit if Disney does go through with a sequal to "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs." THAT IS ONE FILM THAT YOU DO NOT TOUCH UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE!!! PERIOD.
I welcome your opinions with open arms that is why I have created an email address just for such. Please email me at "[email protected]" me with your opinions to my thoughts on "Direct to Video" sequals. I want to hear what you have to say. If your emails are mature and thought provoking, I might just reply.
Wanting to make money is not a good enough excuse for lack of creativity. Make sequals all you want, but don't throw stuff together just to milk the story for all its worth to make a few extra bucks. New story lines, something other than the same old thing with the same characters. Just because the first movie did well doesn't mean they should stretch it out. Anyone creative out there should apply for a creative director, etc, job at Disney.
shareThat IS a good enough excuse. That's all Hollywood is about. It's a business like anything else and needs to be in the black every year. The Emperor's New Groove was mildly profitable, even after all the creative troubles it endured, and Kronk proved to be the most popular character there, so they decided simply to fashion a movie centered around him. Give him more personality than the henchman role he had in the first movie, inject him with feelings. That's all it's about. It's the common assumption in Hollywood that if a character is popular enough, studios will do what they can to put that role center stage somehow, especially in animated movies. That's why the penguins of Madagascar had that Christmas short before Wallace & Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit and why they're getting their own direct-to-video movie in 2007. Money, my dear. Please the public and there's lots of it waiting. Everything in Hollywood has been motivated by money somehow.
shareI'm well aware that that's the game played, I'm saying it's not good enough. Shouldn't people put in more effort, like they used to? That's how we have classics, rather than some meaningless story part 2 that will sit on the shelf. Character development, new characters, new storylines. These are creative people that are hired, I just think they should be living up to their potential. I'm not saying this movie will be bad, I'm just saying it's a waste of creativity to do the same thing over and over if you're hired for more than your repetition skills.
shareTry telling that to studio executives in Hollywood. You'll be laughed right out of their office suites.
shareWhat about Lion King 1 and a 1/2? That was pretty funny.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Maybe I'm questioning the ability of those hired to create storylines for movies to actually come up with good movies. Let's think about this from some other persepective than a child's or even parent's: You're hired for your skills in story-telling, creativity, working in teams, whatever. MANY sequals (not all, mind you), seem like throw together regurgitations of their previous origins. It seems like a waste. I feel the makers of such films are capable of better quality, or maybe are past their prime and have nothing left to offer their audience but what they dug out of the trash from previous makes. Again, didn't say this movie would be bad or that all sequals are bad.
share[deleted]
actually disney makes a *beep* off of sequels. as sad as that sounds it is pretty true, it really pissed me off when they *beep* over aladdin. bastards.
xoxo,
grant
Why complain? Disney sequels are out for kids, not old fat-asses like Roger Ebert or whiny adults who think that they "ruin" the movies. I know when I was a kid, I loved it when my favorite characters came back for a sequel, no matter how bad it was. However, I think when they take out the original voice actors, they probably shouldn't make the sequel because it doesn't feel like a sequel...just a cheap imitation (ie. Return of Jafar wasn't as good because Robin Williams didn't come back to play Genie, but the third one felt a little more like the first).
I saw Kronk's New Groove yesterday and I could say while it won't be a classic, a lot of children would enjoy it and I have no right to complain. It had all the original actors, and it was a fun movie. Who expects any sequel to be better than the original? Probably no one (TS2 got lucky albeit), but as long as they actually put some effort into it and tried to please the target audience (the kids), then why does it matter what us adults think?
Like a poster above said, the parents buy these movies to please their kids, and most of the time it works (unless there's some 5 year old movie critic who's trying to judge the story line), so let it be....
I REALLY don't like sequels. I wish that they would stop making them.
share[deleted]
Hi,
Um I don't really know any secils other than toy story. but i don't think there should be another emperor's new groove because they fisrt one basically completes the story. me and my brother think of ideas for the emperor's new groove 2 and wen i saw there was actuallt a no.2 i read it and it didn't sound that goo.
I LOVED THE FIRST ONE!!!!!
But i would still like to see no. 2 just to see......
Bub-bi
from Samantha
[deleted]