Are the Disney Cheapquels really that bad?

He asked how many Disney sequels, hence why I listed Rescuers II. I certainly don't think it's bad.

Personally, I've always remembered Lion King 2 a lot more fondly that the original. No idea why, and I'm sure if I watched it now I'd find it much worse, but... I dunno. Maybe that's why I prefer Othello to Hamlet.

"It's so hard to be humble, knowing how great I am."

There are exactly four official Sequels: The three Caballeros (sequel to Saludos Amigos and the reason Walt Disney swore to himself to never make another one...it's not good Imho, but it's not worse than the first past, and Disney has the war time excuse for it), Rescuer's Down Under (which is often considered as one of the forgotten Disney Gems and certainly does live up to its predecessor), Fantasia 2000 (which is okay, but then Fantasia was made to have this kind of sequel, and they could have done better) and Winnie the Pooh (Sequel to The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh...which had the perfect ending in my eyes, therefore I can't bring myself to watch the sequel, but it did get good reviews).

However, there were tons of Pooh cheapquels, both DTV and in theaters. (The Heffelump movie, Piglet's big movie, The Tigger Movie, Pooh's Grand Adventure, etc.)

Umm, congrats? I said they were made to be enjoyable, not that every single adult will find it enjoyable.

Which were, imho, part of the reason the official sequel didn't meet the expectations at the box office.

]Opening the same exact weekend as Harry Potter didn't help either.

speaking of which, was that actually good? i wanted to see it very badly when that first trailer with the keane song turned up but i never got around to it.

Pooh is now such a franchise people tend to see the films as a series rather than 'one film plus some cheap sequels'. It's like calling the Musketeers movie a cheapquel to a Mickey Mouse feature.

I rarely see as much bile for the Pooh follow ups either, some of the specials are considered bad, but not for the whole 'only the first film is true Pooh' complaint or anything.

I used to watch all the sequels that Disney made during the late 90s and throughout the 2000s. But now that I look back at some of them, I would say that the cheapquels were average at best. The ones that I liked the best were The Lion King 2 Simba's Pride and Cinderella 3 since I felt that they were actually progressing the stories for the characters. I also liked Beauty and the Beast the Enchanted Christmas, even though I did think they wasted a good opportunity at just telling a story that immediately took place after Belle and the Beast were married instead of going back to the days before the Beast turned into a prince.

I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!

Part of the problem some of these sequels run into is that the original film ended with a permanent change to the status quo that audiences had gotten used to. The Little Human or Beauty and the Kinda Funny-Looking Dude or The Man-Village Book won't be as compelling to audiences who sat through the originals and loved every minute. The writers have to find a way to bring those characters and situations back. So instead of true sequels, we get prequels, midquels, and Generation Xerox scenarios.

Stuff what I do.

Well, that's the problem with sequels in general.

"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."

Says you. I would have enjoyed The Little Human!

Didn't Disney already make a movie about little humans?

"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."

Part of the problem some of these sequels run into is that the original film ended with a permanent change to the status quo that audiences had gotten used to. The Little Human or Beauty and the Kinda Funny-Looking Dude or The Man-Village Book won't be as compelling to audiences who sat through the originals and loved every minute. The writers have to find a way to bring those characters and situations back. So instead of true sequels, we get prequels, midquels, and Generation Xerox scenarios.

Ironically, Pixar's movies, while usually ending with pretty important changes to the status quo, do it in ways that are far more conductive to sequel potential. The Incredibles opens a whole new era for superherodom. Toy Story 3 gives us a whole new setting and owner dynamics to explore. Finding Nemo gives us a whole new family dynamics it barely touches upon in the end sequence. Even the mostly lackluster A Bugs Life leaves a lot of material to explore and mine upon in its setting. Up is the only one I really find can't go further than it went to, because even Wall E, Ratatouille and Monsters Inc end with the protagonists embarking into promising but also VERY challenging new enterprises that could merit stories of their own.

edited 1st Nov '14 6:53:52 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

x6 Funny enough, Enchanted Christmas was originally going to be a straight sequel which was about Gason's brother (who reused the aristrocrat angle Gaston had very early in development) organizing revenge for his brother's death.

While, yes, it has some chapquel-ness to it, it arguably could answer a lot of the issues I had with the original's ending; The village just sort of was OK with the whole castle attacking them??? And ok with their Town-Hero-Practically-The-Mayor-Because-Clearly-No-One-Else-Is-In-Charge-Or-Gives-A-Fuck being thrown off a castle to his death? And La Fou who was all but gay for Gaston?

Anyway, I remember liking, of all things, Cinderella 3 the best. I know it has such an absurd plot only tangently related to the original's, but Cinderella actually had personality and worked to achieve her goals and pulled herself out of danger several times.

I thought the worst was Hunchback of Notre Dame II... Just in simply how much of a far cry it was from the original's quality. The only mark on the original I had was for the gargoyles and their annoying plot-stopping song, but the musical rectified that issue completely.

You have a movie about a judge who's entire villainy comes from his Holier-Than-Thou nature and his conflicting internal morals for feeling lust towards a woman he views, in his own words, 'ants beneath (his) finger'. His villain song is him singing to the VIRGIN MARY to either make her HIS or SEND HER TO HELL.

And I felt the most beautiful thing about the entire original was how Quasi saw Esmeralda as The Madonna while Frollo saw her as The Whore; contrasted through BOTH of their I Want Songs (Heaven's Light/Hellfire) using the exact same tune. Phoebus, on the other hand, saw her as a woman and a person. And that's why she falls for him.

The sequel? That's all about finding Quasi a love interest for virtually the sole reason that the original didn't give him one and it has a lame excuse for an antagonist that might as well be an ant beneath Frollo's finger.

Ugh...

edited 2nd Nov '14 10:39:15 PM by lancesolous13

I'm a critical person but I'm a nice guy when you get to know me. Now, I should be writing.

Yeah, some of the sequels are definitely worse than others.

Part of the reason many of them are so bad (as has been stated in this thread) is simply because they lack any type of purpose or meaning (Fox and the Hound 2, Beauty and the Beast enchanted christmas, mulan 2). The lack of reason for even existing makes them just appear more cheap.

I also agree that the problems with the Disney Cheapquels is that there really is no reason to make them, especially if the first movie already had an ending for the characters. The only sequels I thought were plausible to make were The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride and Cinderella 3. I thought that it was logical to make a sequel to the Lion King because the first movie did end with new stories to tell (Simba becoming the new ruler of Pride Rock and having a daughter) and Lion King 2 actually explored that ending much further. Cinderella 3 was an interesting "What If?" scenario that actually had Cinderella and her evil stepmother take on a more active role than how the first two movies did with them.

I love animation, TV, movies, YOU NAME IT!

Terrible comparison.

Toy Story 3 is still about toys. Incredibles 2 will still be about super heroes. They don't have to change the basic premises.

A Beauty and the Beast "sequel" couldn't possibly work after the movie with Prince Insert Name not being the titular Beast at all.

Little Mermaid 2 had to backtrack and find a way to make Ariel a mermaid again, Little Mermaid 3 settled for being a prequel to the first movie.

Aladdin's sequels and tv show works because the story is allowed to progress but even then they keep Aladdin in his street rat clothes despite the first film resolving the Rags to Riches story. Even though the first film ends with Genie leaving and saying a tearful goodbye they brought him back for the first DTV/ Pilot Movie to the tv series because like hell can you do anything Aladdin without the Genie.

Imagine if Toy Story ended with all the toys turning to normal toys and Pixar wanting to do a sequel. Or Incredibles ending with a mass depowering.

edited 16th Nov '14 1:08:57 AM by Batman39

Imagine if Toy Story ended with all the toys turning to normal toys and Pixar wanting to do a sequel

Well, arguably, you could just do another movie focusing on another group of toys, unless you mean 'all the toys' everywhere.

You even could keep several familiar faces around, since Buzz, Woody and the others were mass-produced.

edited 16th Nov '14 6:39:06 AM by NapoleonDeCheese

I really don't get the love for Cinderella 3. The movie lost me in the moment when the king tried to stop the prince from searching for the girl which fits the shoe...because that's such a blatant rewrite of the original, it made it obvious that the animators either didn't even bother to watch it, or they simply tried to appeal to the Cinderella critics from the get go. Because in the movie, it is the king who insists that the prince has to marry whatever girl the shoe fits (because he doesn't care if it is the right one as long as he gets his grandchildren).

And personally, I think the movie diminished Cinderella. Yeah, she has some token action scene. But that doesn't make her a better character, only a cliché one. I liked the Cinderella from the first movie, who is trapped in a terrible situation but doesn't allow it to drag her down, way better. Because to me, that is true strength.

Which realistically they would never do a Toy Story movie without Woody and Buzz.

Well, what if he somehow gained the ability to Beast Out?

Megaman joke that goes over my head because I never played or watched Megaman aside, yes any theoretical Beauty and the Beast sequel that progresses the story would have to find a way to turn Prince Insert Name back into the Beast for marketing purposes if nothing else.

It's why Enchanted Christmas and Belle's Magical World settled for midquels.