MovieChat Forums > The Fox and the Hound 2 (2006) Discussion > Disney and their sequels to the classics

Disney and their sequels to the classics

posted 19 years ago by spudleeusa-1
32 replies | jump to latest

Now granted there are seveal Disney sequels that were horrible such as Cinderella 2, Lady and the Tramp 2, Lion King 1 1/2 and others. Not all of there sequels are horrible I personally liked the Aladden sequels and the 2nd Lion King. But what I am getting at is that Disney have been making sequels to there classics for years. When I was a kid back in the 80's my mother used to buy me the Disney story books that were either sold at Big Bear or Kroger's. Every week they had a different story. I remember they made a storybook sequel to Snow White and the Seven Dwars, Lady and the Tramp, along with others. They even made sequels to their classic cartoon shorts like Ferdenian (spelling) the bull. So if Disney want to make sequels to their classic films they should go back and find those books from the 80's becasue they were pretty good. I know most people will probably disagree with me on this but it is my opion.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] marksmith16 19 years ago

The most i can do is just pretend these silly sequels don't exist.

[–] MaryAnne_Spier 19 years ago

He-he. I've blocked the sequels from my memory. Yeah, I don't even count them as a Disney movie when someone asks what the worst ones are. I just assume everyone knows that sequels are bad. Aladdin 3's storyline was decent, but the animation was absolutely terrible. Lion King 2 was ok, but it was made just a few years after the first one and they got the same actors to come back. But to remake something that was made more than ten years ago is just silly. And the Fox and the Hound had the perfect ending and it's unnecessary to have a sequel.

[–] AndresM-1 18 years ago

There was a Cinderella 2? When was this???

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DemiDeity 18 years ago

I'd have to agree with you on some of the sequels. The Lion King 2, Beauty and the Beast, and The Rescuers Down Under were actually good (If not excellent) and had a storyline that was decent. Oh, and Kimberly-Pattie, you know how you said that The Fox and the Hound doesn't need a sequel? You're wrong. It CAN'T have a sequel if the story follows Tod and Copper again. Because if you think about it, the ending to the movie made it sure that there's NO WAY that there could be a sequel. Not after the way the ending was topped off so nicely (I think it's one of the saddest endings in ANY movie of all time). The only way they could have a sequel is that if the story does not follow Tod or Copper but someone else like their children, because the story for Copper and Tod is done. And nobody could guarantee that it will come off great.

[–] SelenaQP 10 years ago

The Lion King 2, Beauty and the Beast, and The Rescuers Down Under were actually good (If not excellent) and had a storyline that was decent.

I agree! Those three were the best sequels so far.

Don't be calling me no bitch! If I'm a bitch, then your mama is a bitch, BITCH!

[–] jenna_donaldson 18 years ago

A lot of Disney's sequels don't do well. I'm not saying all, but there are a lot that can't come close to the originals.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] corestalker 18 years ago

The storylines for the original disney classics undoubtably are the best ever written, and directors these days want to continue those kinds of feelings in their films, usually through sequels. The horrible result that may arise is if they try to improve the movie to make it "fun" to watch by today's standards. These movies were never made by the standards of the time they were in, though they were influenced by them. Disney movies were about the epic tales and lessons from the heart that will always stick with us, and if the developers could understand that and try some originality along those lines we might feel Walt with us again.

~Believe in your dreams, they believe in you.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ExplorerDS6789 17 years ago

You know, there is ONE good thing about these sequels. You know what that is? They make you appreciate the original more. Like for example, when Lady and the Tramp II came out, did you seem to like the original Lady and the Tramp much better? When Cinderella II came out, did you not appreciate the original Cinderella even more? Jungle Book 2...The original Jungle Book must have looked like a million dollars. Really, these sequels are promoting the originals.

Plus, I'm sure we all have wondered what happened next. At the end of The Jungle Book, did you wonder if Mowgli ever saw Baloo and Bagheera again? Or, did Ariel ever see her mer-family again after the end of The Little Mermaid??

My major qualm with the sequels is the voice cast. Now granted the principle voice cast of the original movies is dead, but not all the sound alikes are that great.

[–] firekoolchik 17 years ago

You're right, you know, its the same thing with non-animation, when they make a sequel without the original actors it loses its "magic" People love the originals not only for the charactors but the voices behind them. I do watch the sequels though, always hoping that they continued with what made the originals so brilliant and praying they didnt butcher it, even though most of the time that is the case. It's such a shame when they make sequels that are completely unneccesary, just to make money. And YES, I did appreciate the originals better after seeing the sequels, good point!
But the one sequel that upset me the most was Bambi 2, I was hoping it was going to be about what had happened after the fire and having the twins, assuming they were twins. I remember watching the original and being in awe of the great prince, the way he walked and spoke was almost mesmorizing. and although Patrick Stewart does have a great voice, the entire mood of the sequel just ruined it for me. When I saw the original again, I didnt feel the same way. Does that make sense?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ExplorerDS6789 17 years ago

Well the title was very misleading. Bambi II was actually a mid-quel that explained what happened to Bambi after his mother was shot and before he grew up.

Personally, The Rescuers Down Under was a lousy sequel. The characters were undeveloped, the story was a basic rehash of the first film--it was all brilliant animation and NO story. You got great animation and a strong story, you've got a winner. You have brilliant animation and no story, you got zip.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ExplorerDS6789 17 years ago

"The story was the same thing as the original and the author of the novels would have died if she'd seen Bernard and Miss Bianca marry!"

What's so bad about them getting married?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ExplorerDS6789 17 years ago

Who cares? The books were HER versions. The movies are DISNEY'S versions. 'The Rescuers' concept isn't written in stone, you know. It can be changed. The concept that was in the books can be changed if it were to become an animated movie or two.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ExplorerDS6789 17 years ago

Well as I recall Miss Sharp was alive at the time Rescuers Down Under was made. She died the following year. She could've protested, but apparently she didn't. How do you know she didn't fancy the idea?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ExplorerDS6789 17 years ago

Atrocity, that's just an opinion.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ry_3906 17 years ago

and let's not forget that Disney couldn't stop at one horrible sequel Little Mermaid II which was just bad, but not horrible, now Little Mermaid II, I can't even fathom that this is going to be good. Fox and the hound II as far as I'm concern what the heck? First off the first was was a beginning and a end, the second can't do it when they were children, maybe have their children's get back together, but so many do that. So perhaps the sequel could've gone on after the old guy (sorry I horrible at names) and old woman were starting to like each other maybe they become good friends, and the fox comes back I don't know but anything if they had to make a sequel (and my real suggestion would be not to make one to fox and the hound, but upps to late) anything would've been better then to set the story line back when they were kids cause it just didn't make since with the first ones story line. at least , as bad as it was, Little Mermaid II didn't conflict with the first story line!

[–] Growlyted 17 years ago

I've just seen the trailer & was appalled! F&H is one of my favourites & it deserves better legacy than this. If it had involved one of Tod's cubs & Copper's trainee, I'd have been happier. This singing dog story does not fit comfortably into the original. Copper just wouldn't be interested in such frivolity. His ambition was to be a hound dog & Amos and Chief wouldn't have permitted any such thing. He was chained to his kennel for playing with Tod. As for Tod, he was ever faithful to Copper as a cub and they didn't fall out till they reached adulthood. This is just a case of Disney wanting to make money, while forgetting about the original audience. Other sequels have been okay, but not strictly necessary or simply horrible. The best of the bunch were Stitch Has A Glitch and Beauty & the Beast : Enchanted Christmas. Sequels to the classics always pale in comparison, so why bother?

[–] litlbit2001 17 years ago

Ever wonder if Walt Disney is turning in his grave?
I mean really if you think about it. The classic disney films will always top the ones made today. Why? Because times have changed and so have films for kids. There isn't many movies today that actually have the quality as the classics. PERIOD.

That's great, spit at the fat kid- Vern in STAND BY ME.

[–] sabre_unlimited 17 years ago

I don't understand all the hate for the disney sequels. I happen to like most of them and watch them a lot. But whatever, I really don't care what other people think.

[–] Panic_Wolf 17 years ago

i kinda liked F&TH2, i thought it was really cute, and I loved Lady and the tramp 2 also. i like a lot of sequels...but if i hate a sequel...I REALLY hate it. This honestly was not that bad...I kinda liked it.

[–] litlbit2001 17 years ago

It's not that I HATE sequels, it's just that some of them were fine the way they ended. I happen to like the sequels to Aladdin, expecially the last one when Aladdin found his father and found out why he was abandoned as a kid. Some are not bad, but like I said, some sequels shouldn't be made. I remember growing up watching disney classics on tv on sat and sun after dinner with my family. To each is their own. Everyone has opinions and that's fine. I just think that some classics don't need sequels and some do to continue the story.
I just think that Fox and the Hound didn't need a presquel or whatever you call it. The ending to the classic one was fine. (even though it might of been sad)

That's great, spit at the fat kid- Vern in STAND BY ME.

[–] PopSixSquish 10 years ago

This one's a "midquel," taking place toward the middle of the original, while they're a puppy and a cub who're friends. This one did happen to be quite unnecessary because it didn't really add much to our understanding or view of their relationship...all it did was provide a cute county fair backdrop for what should have been an original story about the Singin' Strays. They are the truly interesting component.

"If you don't have anything nice to say...come sit by me!"