SPOILER: Moana 2 (debut on Nov 27, 2024)

mf1972

Well-Known Member
is it me or was the bat lady character just unnecessary for the movie? i thought she was going to be a villain but she didn’t have much of a purpose
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
is it me or was the bat lady character just unnecessary for the movie? i thought she was going to be a villain but she didn’t have much of a purpose
Did you stay for the scene during the credits? I’m sensing she’s going to be a major character in a sequel or spinoff. I liked her but agree her purpose wasn’t altogether clear.
 

mf1972

Well-Known Member
Did you stay for the scene during the credits? I’m sensing she’s going to be a major character in a sequel or spinoff. I liked her but agree her purpose wasn’t altogether clear.
i wasn’t aware there was a mid credits scene until i saw it mentioned here. i’ll see it whenever it streams on disney+
 

CinematicFusion

Well-Known Member
Spoliers...






it's was good, first was way better. songs were way better in the first.
This movie feels like a set up for part three. It got all the main characters together for the final film.
It's a must to watch the end credits.
 

Surferboy567

Well-Known Member
As said in the main thread, overall enjoyed the movie. The beginning part all the way up to the Kakamora scene I enjoyed. Was not a big fan of the Kakamora and the dart slime monster. After they get swallowed by the maw that is when I think it picks back up and I enjoy the film once again. Crew felt like afterthoughts but the dynamic between Maui and Moana is still strong. Songs are not as strong as the first but has a few songs throughout the film I enjoyed.
 

Phroobar

Well-Known Member
The problem is this movie is made from a scrapped tv show. It introduces lots of new characters but none of them do anything or are developed because the movie doesn't have enough time to do that. In a four hour tv show, you can do that. You can't in a hour and half. The pacing is bad. Every twenty minutes, you get new characters, you get a new song, they fight a new bad guy and then move on. No one grows or develops. The new characters don't use their skills they developed during the movie to help fight the final boss. It would have been better if they just started from scratch and came up with a tight well thought out story.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Original Poster
this movie is made from a scrapped tv show.
It wasn't scrapped as if it were so bad they didn't want to do it.

In fact, Iger saw early footage and thought it was theatrical quality (v. just TV-quality) and asked for it to be cinemafied.

It was revised. That doesn't necessarily mean it's deficient in some way.

Remember that so many really good movies are adaptations of books. You take the story you're given and you massage it into a theatrical screenplay. Those movies don't necessarily have chapter-by-chapter beats of the original book... or they could. It depends on how it's stitched together as a whole.

The story given here in Moana 2 is the screenplay for a series. It was massaged into a movie. That doesn't mean the movie is adhering to that original screenplay and we get a handful of fades-to-black where the commercials would go.

There are plenty of movies that were not originally a screenplay for a TV series that have clunky transitions to the plot points.

It all depends on how the creators create a whole story. In the first Moana, the Kakamora was an isolated episode from the rest of the movie and has all the hallmarks of a single TV 'bottle' episode. But the first Moana wasn't originally a TV series screenplay. This means, it's easy to look at isolated events in a movie and think "that was originally a TV episode" when it was not... because it wasn't originally a TV episode.
 

Phroobar

Well-Known Member
It wasn't scrapped as if it were so bad they didn't want to do it.

In fact, Iger saw early footage and thought it was theatrical quality (v. just TV-quality) and asked for it to be cinematized.
The tv show was scrapped and revised for the movie and you can totally see the results.

In the early 2000s, Eisner saw the work being done by off shore Disney Toons matched the theatrical quality. He ordered them to make direct to video sequels (Bambi 2, Cinderella 2, Little Mermaid 2). He even released Return to Neverland theatrically. This threatened on-shore ability to create a movie. They were afraid their jobs would be outsourced for cheap. It's the same boneheaded executive thinking that cheapen the brand in the 2000s.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
The tv show was scrapped and revised for the movie and you can totally see the results.

In the early 2000s, Eisner saw the work being done by off shore Disney Toons matched the theatrical quality. He ordered them to make direct to video sequels (Bambi 2, Cinderella 2, Little Mermaid 2). He even released Return to Neverland theatrically. This threatened on-shore ability to create a movie. They were afraid their jobs would be outsourced for cheap. It's the same boneheaded executive thinking that cheapen the brand in the 2000s.
Except scrapped isn't the correct word, that word has an exact meaning in Hollywood. Scrapped means the project in all forms was cancelled, that isn't what happened here. It transitioned from being a streaming series project to being a feature length movie project.

The movie is likely going to make over a Billion dollars, something you said wouldn't happen, so that doesn't seem like its cheapening the brand at all. I don't care what you say about the quality of the story, the movie is well liked by audiences and in the end that is all that matters.
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
Original Poster
The tv show was scrapped and revised for the movie and you can totally see the results.

In the early 2000s, Eisner saw the work being done by off shore Disney Toons matched the theatrical quality. He ordered them to make direct to video sequels (Bambi 2, Cinderella 2, Little Mermaid 2). He even released Return to Neverland theatrically. This threatened on-shore ability to create a movie. They were afraid their jobs would be outsourced for cheap. It's the same boneheaded executive thinking that cheapen the brand in the 2000s.
You keep using "TV series adapted to movie" as if that was an objective detriment to any project. It's not.

Less than a year ago, the “Moana” follow-up was poised to be a streaming series rather than a feature theatrical release. Moving it posed a risk that could have backfired, but Bergman felt the project was worthy of a cinematic bow. In February, the animated sequel relocated from Disney’s Vancouver studio to a production facility on the Burbank lot, with everyone working on an aggressive timeline to keep the Nov. 27 release date. With a renewed emphasis on the theatrical strategy, the studio also reversed course on this year’s “The First Omen” and “Alien: Romulus,” which were intended for streaming.


 

Farerb

Well-Known Member
The tv show was scrapped and revised for the movie and you can totally see the results.

In the early 2000s, Eisner saw the work being done by off shore Disney Toons matched the theatrical quality. He ordered them to make direct to video sequels (Bambi 2, Cinderella 2, Little Mermaid 2). He even released Return to Neverland theatrically. This threatened on-shore ability to create a movie. They were afraid their jobs would be outsourced for cheap. It's the same boneheaded executive thinking that cheapen the brand in the 2000s.
They released Return to Neverland and The Jungle Book 2 to theaters (big mistake in my opinion) and had Eisner remained at the company, I'm sure Bambi 2, Cinderella 3, Little Mermaid 3 would have been received a theatrical release as well.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom