Hate for the Disney Sequels

The first one (Tarzan & Jane) was watchable, the other one (Tarzan 2) was an abomination.

Tarzan actually got a TV show, so I don't know what the deal with Tarzan and Jane was. The show was fine, if stupid at parts, but it introduced a lot of interesting characters and the animation wasn't bad.

The TV show actually includes an oblique reference to Atlantis The Lost Empire in one of the villains, Queen La.

edited 27th Feb '13 9:10:51 PM by Zendervai

Not Three Laws compliant.

How so? IIRC, La was one of the few characters in the show who was directly taken from the original Tarzan stories, though I'm sure she was modified somewhat.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

Because she's a dark-skinned, white-haired ruler of a long-lost civilization, and any of those appearing in a Disney property HAS to be a reference to Atlantis./eyeroll/

edited 28th Feb '13 7:18:27 AM by maxwellelvis

Of course, don't you know anything about ALCHEMY?!- Twin clones of Ivan the Great

I read an interview from the people who made the show who said it was intentional. In the books, La was from Atlantis or if not flat out stated, very heavily implied. The showrunners decided to go with a design that implied that for people observant enough to pick up on it without Atlantis becoming an actual part of the series.

It made sense. The Disney Animated Canon already had an established look for Atlanteans, so there's no reason not to go with it.

edited 28th Feb '13 10:56:26 AM by Zendervai

Not Three Laws compliant.

Yeah, La was specifically mentioned as being from Atlantis in the books. Didn't know that they crossed Disney continuities like that, though. That's kind of cool.

edited 28th Feb '13 8:12:26 AM by CorrTerek

@44 I loved the Little Mermaid II and I found Melody interesting, but very stubborn at times. Although she was called weird for talking to sea creatures, I didn't think she was at all. She was actually like her mother (like mother, like daughter lol)

What did tick me off was how Melody basically put her grandfathers kingdom at risk.

edited 2nd Mar '13 4:32:04 PM by MsCC93

Well... like you said: like mother, like daughter.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

The only Disney sequels I remember enjoying were An extremely goofy movie and Rescuers Down Under. I only remember seeing bits of Little mermaid 2, but I know that Tara Strong loved the original to the point where she almost died happy working with Jodi Benson. I heard Ariel's beginning had some good parts, but I haven't seen it.

I spoke with a former Disney animator and he said to me that Cinderella 3 was originally entitled for the follow-up of II but was later changed to the anthology film having the number II.

I have no recollection of that at all...I'd think I would. Sounds vaguely familiar, but I just don't remember that.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

The Legend Of Tarzan.

Has anyone seen the Cinderella 3 movie...I thought it was wayy better than the first and second movie since we got to see Cinderella take a level in badassitude. Her evil stepmother, however, Took a Level in Jerkass. She's actually worse in that movie.

edited 7th Apr '13 7:09:51 AM by MsCC93

Cinderella 3 is the best one and Cinderella 2 is the worst.

my drawing blog ya'll UPDATES 10 TIMES A MONTH WOW, THIS IS STRAIGHT UP MUH SOGGY KNEE

actually I thought Cinderella 2 was okay, but it isn't as great as the first and third one.

exactly why it's the worst

my drawing blog ya'll UPDATES 10 TIMES A MONTH WOW, THIS IS STRAIGHT UP MUH SOGGY KNEE

Lion King II was pretty cool I thought. Lion King 1 1/2 fit when I realized it was basically Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead.

Of the sequels, the only ones I think are blasphemy levels of horrendous are the Beauty and the Beast ones. Most are passable, though I personally didn't enjoy Mulan II because of it's utterly pointless plot mixed with unnecessary character jerkassery, and I have mixed feelings about The Lion King 2.

My favourites of the bunch are the Brother Bear sequel and the Lady And The Tramp sequel. Don't get me wrong, both are pretty weak plotwise, cliché ridden and I dislike some of the choices they made with the former, but I really enjoyed the animation and the characters.

edited 7th Apr '13 3:15:44 PM by Peryton

I take it that only sequel that people are looking forward to is Wreck it Ralph II? . Joking aside, not every film is perfect. The only sequel I remember enjoying from Disney was Little Mermaid II(then again, since I'm an uncle and I'm starting to know what its like having a kid around I get that feeling that the kid wants to have something more than life).

I had a few friends who worked for Disney when they producing the sequels and we joked about how bad they were. Although, some of them did enjoy working on some of the sequels(like Kronk's New groove).

@unnoun woah that makes perfect sense I can't believe I never put two and two together like that. Wow

I don't get the love for the Cinderella III movie...neat concept, but it contradicts the original Cinderella in the first five minutes. To answer the original Question: When people talk about "Disney Sequels" they don't talks about The Rescuers Down under, Fantasia 2000 or the second Pooh movie, they talk about all the direct-to-video sequels which were made for countless movies. Most of them have very low animation quality and destroy the integrity of the original movie (that's especially true for the Beauty and the Beast sequels). The worst about them is that some of them got a limited theatrical release, and since the common audience usually don't know the difference between a movie made by the animation studios and a movie made by any other branch of Disney, they undermined the animation studios considerable. Personally I'm convinced that they are part of the reason why traditional animation went down so fast and hard. Because of them, "Traditional animation by Disney" simply wasn't synonym with "the best Quality" any longer. The only movies which have somehow a right to exist in my eyes are the Aladdin sequels, and those get a pass from me only because the crappy first one is more or less the pilot for the TV series, and the second (actually fairly well done) is the conclusion of it. All the others should have never be made in the first place.

I think the Lilo and Stitch sequels are the best Disney sequels, for just being great follow ups. The Aladdin ones were decent, as were the lion king ones. I also like Extremely goofy movie, and Kronk's new groove.

The Goofy movies are an entirely different thing, because they are clearly connected to Goof Troop and not the animation studios. It's like the Duck Tales movie, it's not easily confused (and actually pretty well done). It's like with the tinkerbell franchise...it's so clearly an own thing that it doesn't hurt anything, you can take it or leave it, but you would never buy it by accident believing that you get a Disney Classic you simply didn't know about and then you suddenly get something of the quality of Cinderella II or Fox and Hound II.

edited 28th Jun '13 12:19:03 PM by MsCC93

That proves my theory that you can only like the third one if you see the first one exactly this way. This is not what the first one is about, though. It's the story of a young woman in a difficult situation. She is stuck with an evil Stepmother and mean Stepsisters, who do their very best to make her life difficult. She has no other options than to bear with it (when Cinderella explains to Bruno that he better shouldn't dream of revenge because he might end up in the streets when he does, she is talking about herself, too), so she makes the best out of her situation (and no, she can't simply go, she is NOT living in a modern age, she really has no options than bearing it), but doesn't allow her family to destroy spirit. She doesn't become mean, and she keeps hoping that her lucky break will come one day - and then it does come. That is not a bad message. Real life doesn't work that way that you get a reward for the hard work you do, most of the time, you'll just struggle to it. But if you don't give up, and don't allow the nay-sayer to destroy your dreams, you might get your lucky break, too. (Walt Disney loved Cinderella because he saw his own live-story in her). Cinderella III already makes a mistake when the plan to find the right bride with the shoe is suddenly Charming's. There is reason it's the plan of the king in the original movie, because he doesn't care if he finds the right bride, he only cares to force his son into marriage.

I was going to say that (first sentence). But it does make me happy to see that this thread has people talking about how exceptionally good it is. I haven't seen any Disney sequels baring AEGM and a few clips of Mulan II recently enough to really say.

I don't like An Extremely Goofy Movie as much as A Goofy Movie but I don't like any movie as much as AGM, and AEGM is not nearly as bad as some people seem to think it is. As a PJ fan I found it a necessary release given his conspicuous lack of happy ending in the first movie.

Mulan II just had some annoying character changes, but I did kind of like the B love plot.

edited 28th Jun '13 10:37:28 AM by PPPSSC