Are the Disney Cheapquels really that bad?

And, of course, no King Louie.

(Admittedly, that was due to legal issues, but that's still a black mark on the film.)

That's true, though Louie was a One-Scene Wonder in the first anyway, there was plenty of other stuff that could have made up for it. Why were the wolves not even mentioned? They were such a big part of the novels and in the sequel Mowgli doesn't even seem to remember them. Most of the other characters that did appear were just repeating their songs and shtick from the original (except Shanti, who was a kinda predictable archtype in the sequel).

edited 26th Oct '14 6:53:31 PM by Psi001

A One-Scene Wonder, yes, but still a great part of the film. His scat duet with Baloo is the stuff of legend.

I will also note that John Goodman, while a great actor, is no Phil Harris.

The Little Mermaid II's plot of "offspring retread" didn't even have to be bad. The sequel came out 11 years after the first film, and between then some of its original fans may have become parents or started thinking about having kids. Ariel's relationship with raising her daughter and avoiding her upbringing's mistakes could be its plot, as well as the effect of having a kid would mean for her relationship with Eric. They'd both be much more busy, and can't be back to the idyllic days of being just two who have all the time they want. That's sure to be both a development and a strain.

And maybe the "child takes a reverse journey of parent" plot doesn't have to be dumb. Melody might have heard her mother's stories about what living under the sea was like, and is unhappy that she can't visit that magical world she knows is real. Maybe she runs off to become a mermaid because the pressure of behaving like a princess is too much for her, and she wants an escape to a place without rules. Maybe the villain isn't some Big Bad plotting against her since infancy, but someone who she rubs the wrong way during her escapade as she discovers how dangerous the ocean actually can be. And perhaps this and Ariel hunting for her helps her learn to appreciate her human life. I demand a time machine to Disney Studios 1999!

I'm not trying to be mean and Goodman isn't terrible, but the dude uses the same voice in almost every movie he's in. Sully, The Dad from Emperor's new Groove, etc. It gets a bit old.

Baloo sounded more like an uncle you're force to talk to at a family reunion.

edited 26th Oct '14 8:06:20 PM by teddy

When he works, as in the films you mention, he works. When he doesn't it makes me want to imagine his character breaking things with a crowbar and screaming "See what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass?!"

Then at least I can imagine I'm watching a much better film with John Goodman.

edited 26th Oct '14 8:11:37 PM by Aldo930

"See what happens when you fuck a tiger in the ass?!"

Arguably, that's kinda what Mowgli did when he tied a long flaming branch to Shere Khan's arse, so... it fits?

When he's in a role that fits, it fits. Sorta like a dad who rarely drinks or a Canadian. Sweet.

edited 26th Oct '14 8:22:46 PM by teddy

In fairness the same could be said about Harris. He used his Baloo voice for every other character.

My guess is Ed Gilbert (who did Baloo for most projects beforehand) would have voiced Baloo if he hadn't sadly passed away shortly before the film's production, leading them to go for a guest voice to compensate.

Wonder how Bill Murray will do in the new film.

edited 26th Oct '14 8:37:50 PM by Psi001

And to be fair to both, that's just how they talk. Harris made a lot of novelty records in the 50s, and when you listen to them you just know he's using his normal voice for every character he plays.

He wasn't a voice actor, is what I'm saying.

edited 26th Oct '14 8:46:36 PM by Aldo930

I wouldn't say that those cheapquels are "harmless", especially not those which got a theatrical release. In my honest opinion they ruined the brand and were part of the reason Disney struggled so much in the 2000s. They are part of the reason that traditional animation lost so much credibility.

Well, it could've been worse. They were thinking of doing an Aristocats film and having Goodman be Thomas O' Malley. I can kind of see the thought process (even if I don't like it) behind having Goodman voice Baloo because of the whole Big Fun jolly guy angle, but not O' Malley.

edited 27th Oct '14 1:24:50 AM by KnownUnknown

I think their worst crime was that they were clearly designed as cash grabs for little kids while the main movies were made to be enjoyable by any age group.

Also, anyone else notice that the kid that sees dead people is in a lot of them? (Hunchback 2, Jungle Book 2)

Haley Joel Osment?

edited 27th Oct '14 3:01:55 PM by Odd1

"I think their worst crime was that they were clearly designed as cash grabs for little kids while the main movies were made to be enjoyable by any age group. "

I'm an adult and I don't find Disney movies to be really enjoyable.

One adult's opinion does not an overall consensus make. A ton of adults all liked these. Well, all the ones from pages 3 to 7.

Which surely is the reason why you bothered to come to an animation forum and take the time to post in a Disney animated movies thread.

Opinion could still be valuable though!

I haven't even bothered watching almost any of them, aside from Little Mermaid II which we were forced to watch during a school movie thing. It was boring and creepy in all the ways it wasn't supposed to be.

I thought Cinderella III was genuinely good, though. I can't remember why I decided to watch it in the first place, but I didn't regret it.

x6/x5: Of course he's in every Disney sequel. He voices Sora.

edited 28th Oct '14 2:01:32 PM by BaffleBlend

Did anyone ever see The Return to Neverland in theaters? I did as a kid, and I enjoyed it, but there was something that bothered me afterwards. Where were the Native Americans from the first movie? Obviously I now see why they didn't reappear. It's really sad that a Disney movie that's regarded as such a classic included such a wrongful portrayal of Native Americans.

So in the end, I think that while the Disney sequels are cheap, I think they would be only be truly terrible if they continued to have the racist portrayal the original Peter Pan did, or were morally wrong in some other way. I mean, a lot of cartoons these days suck, in my opinion. They're cheap, lazy, and have none of the brilliance of the Looney Tunes of days past. But as long as they're harmless and morally right, they're really not that bad for the kids watching.

How many of the Disney sequels actually went to theaters?

Jungle Book II, Return to Neverland, Bambi II but only in Argentina, Rescuers II but that's actually part of the canon... and that's all I can think of.

Rescuers down Under is certainly not a cheapquel.

Cinderella got a theatrical release.

Return to Neverland is a bullet I dodged. I originally was excited about getting a sequel (at this point I was very uninformed and didn't know the difference), but then I learned that the crocodile wouldn't be in it. I watched it later on, but I would have been angry with myself had I spend money on a ticket.

I'm pretty sure all three got a rather publicised theatrical release in the UK.

edited 30th Oct '14 9:34:31 PM by Psi001