Disney Sequels?

[Sir Hiss527]

What's up with all the Disney Sequels that Disney is making? what they can't come up with there orignal ideas? Im talkin about this new "Jungle Book 2", "Cinderella 2", Little Mermaid 2, and more...Can't really think of any more right now. But anyways I need to know. Thanks! Post! O yea and this "Little Nemo" idea is great, there actually come up with something. And if they make a Snow White 2 i'm boycotting :lol:. Thanks again! Post!

-Sir Hiss527-

 

[CAPTAIN HOOK]

There won't be any complaints from me if there's a Lilo & Stitch 2

 

[imagineer boy]

It's not called "Little Nemo", it's called "Finding Nemo"

 

[Experiment627]

Originally posted by CAPTAIN HOOK
There won't be any complaints from me if there's a Lilo & Stitch 2

There is one in the works, called "Stitch: The Movie". I believe it deals with the other 625 experiments that went wrong. Unless something has changed, it should be out on home video sometime this summer. I hope it has the same animation "feel" as the original. I've noticed that some of the direct to video sequels have a "cheapness" to it, and I love Lilo and Stitch enough that I will be disappointed if that happens.

 

[CDS Disney]

Originally posted by Experiment627
There is one in the works, called "Stitch: The Movie". I believe it deals with the other 625 experiments that went wrong. Unless something has changed, it should be out on home video sometime this summer. I hope it has the same animation "feel" as the original. I've noticed that some of the direct to video sequels have a "cheapness" to it, and I love Lilo and Stitch enough that I will be disappointed if that happens.

Theres a Thing about it on the DVD

 

[NowInc]

Pretty much every Disney film is slated for a sequal...its a good way for them to make a few quick bucks (it works....kids love that stuff)

 

[imagineer boy]

Originally posted by NowInc
Pretty much every Disney film is slated for a sequal...its a good way for them to make a few quick bucks (it works....kids love that stuff)

I know what you mean. I really liked the Aladdin sequal when it came out. ( I was five ). Although, I've heard that the 101 Dalmations sequal was very good.

 

[prberk]

All the direct-to-video (and some of the theatrical) sequels ARE cheap, and they are beginning to cheapen the Disney name. People used to equate Disney with super-premium quality. That is changing, and I believe it is having a direct effect on traditionally-animated theatrical releases (irrespective of the CGI). People do not expect them to be any different from TV animation, so why go?

Disney execs can't seem to say enough about "branding" (the new business-school buzzword du jour) these days, all these cheap sequels are cheapening the "brand."

 

[TURKEY]

Originally posted by prberk
All the direct-to-video (and some of the theatrical) sequels ARE cheap, and they are beginning to cheapen the Disney name. People used to equate Disney with super-premium quality. That is changing, and I believe it is having a direct effect on traditionally-animated theatrical releases (irrespective of the CGI). People do not expect them to be any different from TV animation, so why go?

Disney execs can't seem to say enough about "branding" (the new business-school buzzword du jour) these days, all these cheap sequels are cheapening the "brand."

Even though they are cheapening the brand, they are strengthening the bottom line.

 

[NowInc]

it only "cheapens" the name if you are a purist..

Look at it from the eyes of a child..these movies are just as impressive as a full forced orginal movie...

I dont know about you, but I never once heard a child claim "That movie had horrible animation!" or "The story was so bland!"

Its just as much "magic" for them weather is a lame sequal or not...and THATS why they do so well.

 

[WDWspider]

Wow, I didn't think it was possible to have strong feelings for both sides of an argument. I completly understand both points.

This is hard to post about cause I do feel that the reason Disney is what it is today was because they pushed the envelope, created great quality, and would never sacrifice story.

On the other hand, making sequels to keep storylines fresh and in the minds of youths makes sense and helps maintain older attractions in the parks and even older movie sales. It also is a fast way to make money and feed off of and supply the needs of more and more of a good thing in our society.

I really don't know which leg I stand on and in a way I think they are both excellent sides to be on.

I do feel the exact same thing is happening at the parks although it's harder to put into words.

I feel all the Pixar movies have set new standards for the Disney name, the sequels (although some are quite good) do seem a little less time enduring.

 

[NowInc]

Originally posted by spider-man

I feel all the Pixar movies have set new standards for the Disney name, the sequels (although some are quite good) do seem a little less time enduring.

And the funny thing is..pixar does it mostly all alone..

 

[WDWspider]

Originally posted by NowInc
And the funny thing is..pixar does it mostly all alone..

Yea, I realize that too.

 

[MKCustodial]

I have a pretty clear view on the matter: some are good and some aren't. Even with the classics. Some are good, some aren't. I loved Return to Neverland, Lady and the Tramp 2 and the Jungle Book 2, but didn't like Little Mermaid 2 and The Lion King 2. As for the classics, even the greatest Disney lover will have a hard time admitting The Black Cauldron is a timeless Disney classic.
Also, there's the matter of opinion. There may be someone out there who actually loves the Cauldron! You never know, right? So as long as they try mass-marketing those "cheap" sequels with good storylines, no harm done.

 

[NowInc]

expect a ton more sequals in the upcoming year....

 

[prberk]

Originally posted by turkey leg boy
Even though they are cheapening the brand, they are strengthening the bottom line.

This is never true in the long run.

Things like "The Lion King" and "Beauty" and "Snow White" continue to make money hand over fist for years and years, and over many different product lines.

The cheap things coming in droves make it harder to ever convince adults (and that is who makes the difference) that these STORIES are good and worth seeing. It is what made the Disney name different from, say, "Nickelodeon Movies."

No cheap sequel will ever make as much money and go as far as the well-done, well-respected ones. It is what made the Disney name different.

You can already see the results in Jungle Book II attendance: audiences are not buying it outside of the kids; whereas, Toy Story II came out before all the "crap" and delivered a great story. (It was not because of CGI; it was the story and the trust built in the first one.)

 

[prberk]

Originally posted by spider-man

On the other hand, making sequels to keep storylines fresh and in the minds of youths makes sense and helps maintain older attractions in the parks and even older movie sales. It also is a fast way to make money and feed off of and supply the needs of more and more of a good thing in our society.

You can do that through re-releases. The company seems to have forgotten that, despite "Star Wars" success and their own success in rereleases throughout the years.

Disney used to re-release their classics to the big screen every seven years or so (considering that as a "generation" to a child). They can and should do that still, on occasion. Parents would take their children to share the magic in the films they loved as a child, even if they may own an old VCR copy.

This forever kept the quality and kept the characters fresh, especially if scheduled intermittently, complementing dates for new releases that were of high quality also.

The bottom line is that more people come when they liked the last thing, especially adults and parents that put a movie into the "Lion King"/"Beauty" stratosphere.

 

[MKCustodial]

Originally posted by prberk
You can already see the results in Jungle Book II attendance: audiences are not buying it outside of the kids; whereas, Toy Story II came out before all the "crap" and delivered a great story. (It was not because of CGI; it was the story and the trust built in the first one.)

I'm sorry, but I don't see it. Jungle Book 2 has been in the Top 10 since opening weekend. How can you say it's not doing well?

As I said before, people are biased of sequels. Sure, animation may look poorer. But as Dan said, you don't hear kids complaining about bad animation. It's all about the story. If the story is good, they'll want to go back, and eventually get a DVD or VHS.

 

[AdLibSean]

I can't stand'em. Whether they're Disney or not. If a story has a resolution... why feel the need to do another movie? I know $$$$!! So what- I've lost a lot of respect for the company b/c of some of the sequel's they've put out. Guess that makes me a purist...:lookaroun Sorry, sequel talk always touches a nerve with me.

 

[theonlytigger]

I've said before, I'm a bit biased against most sequels, although I wouldn't mind it as much if they limited the amount of sequels they made. That way, perhaps they can dedicate more time on them and come out with excellent stories, rather than being to rushed and coming out with half-baked stuff. Sure, the little kids may enjoy it, but is Disney supposed to be for the whole family? Everyone should be enjoying them.
Not that I hate all Disney sequels, I actually enjoyed TLK II very much, and Toy Story II was excellent. Disney just needs to give there sequels more thought and loving care and should be extremely picky about the ones they do, if they have any value for the originals at all. So, I'm not entirely against sequels.