I don't miss the sequels themselves, but I do miss the place they had of using secondary studios to make garbage followups, because now the main studios have to waste time making terrible sequels.
Nope.
90% of them had terrible stories and they all looked significantly worse/cheaper than the originals.
At least modern Disney sequels have bad stories but better animation.
Yeah, but at least the animation fit with the story quality. Say what you will, but they were at least honest about their intentions. Meanwhile these new sequels think that decent visuals can mask the wretched stories they're trting to peddle. It's just a waste of talent at that point.
Depends on the sequel. Did we really need Lady and the Tramp 2? Or 3 Cinderella movies? People can talk all they want about sequel quality decreasing, but we got so much Lilo and Stitch. Wreck it Ralph was almost a terrific movie, but jesus it did not hold together, When Dis tries something new, we get stuff like Encanto, and when they try to give us what we ask for we get Lightyear and Rogen's Rescue Rangers. I liked Lightyear, I despised the RR movie.
It always comes down to talent. No matter how much they spend on a movie, they just aren't willing to send talent to work on it.
More sequels? I can't say I'd refuse another Jane In Neverland. Look at the tastes of the current day. Now ask if Peter Pan loose in London during The Blitz would entertain people. >Jane trying to keep Tinkerbelle's light from giving away their position leads to the two to a very muddy bath in churned up ground. >Skunk boy tear gasses a german tank. >Is Hook French, Spanish, or English? Hook arguing with German-allied Spanish is probably going to be hard to keep the subtitles straight. >Peter goes full Tanya the Evil against German forces.
Stitch the Movie (the "true" sequel is a well animated piece of trash), Return of Jafar, Return to Never Land, did not see 2-3 that I want to. So 3/5 are really bad.
>Redefined my life
What? How? It's Goof Troop. Stumbling across a cloth-bound book of tibetian philosophy in english from the 1950s in a stack of harlequins in the back of a used book store, that might be something that could redefine your life.
Cinderella 3 and Lion King 3 were legitimately good. Kronks new groove is watchable. Return of Jafar is not good but it's a guilty pleasure due to nostalgia.
What does Cinemaphile think of Aladdin and the King of Thieves?
>Dalmatians 2 >Lion King 1 1/2 >Lion King 2 >Cinderella 3 >Tarzan 2 >All the Lilo and Stitch sequels
All of these range from decent to good. I vaguely remember liking Bambi 2 but I was really young at the time and I'm not sure if it holds up.
>Stitch has a Glitch was okay >"You are bad, you always were and always will be bad!" (Lilo, after first movie happened) >Stitch has a rare genetic cancer previously unmentioned that will eventually kill him, Stitch dies but comes back to life anyway for no reason at fricking all.
There are flaws in a good story, and then there are cracks. Some story problems are unforgivable.
>Stitch dies but comes back to life anyway for no reason at fricking all.
They literally beat you over the head with foreshadowing that "love is stronger than death" the entire movie with Lilo's dance recital. The movie indeed has issues, but that in particular was not one of them.
>they foreshadowed that literally magic out of nowhere that cannot be explained can sometimes just save the day, just like that
Sorry, I was wrong. Plot hole = plugged!
People shit on that line, but that movie's voice cast was stacked as hell. Got Pat Carroll back, Jodi Benson back, Clancy Brown as the shark, etc.
Even discounting the returning cast, Tara Strong's performance alone carries that movie on her back.
I did think it was weird that she was running around in socks. I feel like in animation that’s a pretty rare character design choice. This movie would get a thread every week if they had made her barefoot.
I actually remember liking Jane for feeling like her own character rather than just being a Diet Wendy. But I disliked how the story put her down for trying to be serious and mature in the middle of a goddamn air raid.
There are only a fixed number of animated movie sequel plots: >Protagonist meets a female version of themselves >Protagonist meets a previously unadressed parent. >The villain from the first movie has a child/relative. >Protagonist is now a dick, and needs to chill out. >Side character gets a love interest >Side character/OC learns the same lesson the protagonist did in the original. >The failed TV show pilot >The one where the director really wanted to make his original movie, and is now desperately bending the original cast's characters into somehow fitting his ideal plot.
Honestly some of them weren't too bad and arguably some were better than the originals.
>lion king 2 has a fantastic setup and a solid start but is undercut by being too short (it needed at least another 20-25 minutes) and wasting too much time on the love story >beauty and the beast 2 had a villain that is way fricking better than gaston and actually gives both beast and belle some much needed extra characterization even if does contradict parts of the original >return to neverland was a pretty solid sequel that could've benefited from a little more time
Now granted you had absolute shit like The Little Mermaid 2 but it wasn't all garbage.
>arguably some were better than the originals
Absolutely not. >beauty and the beast 2 had a villain that is way fricking better than gaston
You fricking WOT? A CG organ in a trashy pointless sequel being better than one of Disney's greatest villains? I like Tim Curry but that is some seriously shit taste.
>A CG organ in a trashy pointless sequel being better than one of Disney's greatest villains?
A well-animated CGI organ with a tsundere obsession with Beast due to his desire to be appreciated for his art that actively drives the plot is better than a "what if classic hero but over-the-top douche" who is basically completely irrelevant to the plot beyond the first and last 10 minutes and is mostly remembered for the tavern song which is mistakenly assumed to be his villain song (it isn't, his song when he leads the villagers to attack the castle is), yes.
They look like Fleischer Superman when compared to the live action remakes. I'd rather have boring sequels with Cinderella baking a cake or some shit, as long as it's actually animated and on-model
Not really. What we have now is worse but it was still an era of quick VHS cashgrabs.
Then again, the old Disney Sequels could at least pretend that they were trying to be a new idea building on an old one. While half of the recent live-action remakes feel like a blatant corporate misunderstanding of their source material in how they're trying to pander to a modern audience. Asking bold questions like, "What if Mulan just had super powers instead of sympathetic flaws?"
i liked the pixar ones but I can't think of any movie from them that could get a followup
I don't miss the sequels themselves, but I do miss the place they had of using secondary studios to make garbage followups, because now the main studios have to waste time making terrible sequels.
Yep. The fact that they're now shackled to making absolute dreck like Wreck it Ralph 2 and Frozen 2 will always be depressing.
Disneytoon Studios got close down, they got no other option left.
Most of them were shit, but I'd honestly take a "chance that it sucks" sequel over the current "guaranteed to suck" live action remake fad.
Zootopia 2 is coming.
Judy won't be in it because of all the porn and acab
You are talking out of your ass, because if Judy isn't in it, Disney HQ will be LEVELED.
What the frick does acab mean?
all criminals are bad
And this is controversial how? crime is illegal for a reason.
all cops are bunnies
Nope.
90% of them had terrible stories and they all looked significantly worse/cheaper than the originals.
At least modern Disney sequels have bad stories but better animation.
>better animation.
That's arguable.
That's not a sequel.
And the animation is pretty good, it's just the character designs that are weak.
Yeah well 2D is fricking dead, in no small part because of Disney.
>And the animation is pretty good
Doubt
>they all looked significantly worse/cheaper than the original
And yet still looked better than current western animation
Yeah, but at least the animation fit with the story quality. Say what you will, but they were at least honest about their intentions. Meanwhile these new sequels think that decent visuals can mask the wretched stories they're trting to peddle. It's just a waste of talent at that point.
Depends on the sequel. Did we really need Lady and the Tramp 2? Or 3 Cinderella movies? People can talk all they want about sequel quality decreasing, but we got so much Lilo and Stitch. Wreck it Ralph was almost a terrific movie, but jesus it did not hold together, When Dis tries something new, we get stuff like Encanto, and when they try to give us what we ask for we get Lightyear and Rogen's Rescue Rangers. I liked Lightyear, I despised the RR movie.
It always comes down to talent. No matter how much they spend on a movie, they just aren't willing to send talent to work on it.
More sequels? I can't say I'd refuse another Jane In Neverland. Look at the tastes of the current day. Now ask if Peter Pan loose in London during The Blitz would entertain people.
>Jane trying to keep Tinkerbelle's light from giving away their position leads to the two to a very muddy bath in churned up ground.
>Skunk boy tear gasses a german tank.
>Is Hook French, Spanish, or English? Hook arguing with German-allied Spanish is probably going to be hard to keep the subtitles straight.
>Peter goes full Tanya the Evil against German forces.
Roger Ebert tore Return To Neverland a new one due to it taking during WWII
I think Aladdin and the King of Thieves was the only one I liked
How can The D make Tron 3 and not make people "trans for clickbait?"
What's that one sequel that you actually like Cinemaphile?
Stitch the Movie (the "true" sequel is a well animated piece of trash), Return of Jafar, Return to Never Land, did not see 2-3 that I want to. So 3/5 are really bad.
Both of The Lion King sequels are good.
I liked Aladin sequels, Tarzan 2, Mulan 2, Lady and the tramp 2 and the Lion King sequels. Haven't seen them in years tho
The best one.
Loved that movie. Redefined my life
>Redefined my life
What? How? It's Goof Troop. Stumbling across a cloth-bound book of tibetian philosophy in english from the 1950s in a stack of harlequins in the back of a used book store, that might be something that could redefine your life.
Lion King 2 and Tarzan 2 are actually good and enjoyable
Cinderella 3.
I remember liking Lion King 1 1/2 but I'm not sure if it holds up.
cinderella 3 is pure kino
Still surprises me how good Cinderella 3 was.
Lion King 3 is kino
Love that version of Lion Sleeps Tonight, and have ever since I got this CD as a kid.
Hell yeah, always did. Miss some quality 2D.
Great CD.
Cinderella 3 and Lion King 3 were legitimately good. Kronks new groove is watchable. Return of Jafar is not good but it's a guilty pleasure due to nostalgia.
What does Cinemaphile think of Aladdin and the King of Thieves?
Dalmatians 2
>ctrl-f
>Kronk
>0 results
This board is filled with plebs
>Dalmatians 2
>Lion King 1 1/2
>Lion King 2
>Cinderella 3
>Tarzan 2
>All the Lilo and Stitch sequels
All of these range from decent to good. I vaguely remember liking Bambi 2 but I was really young at the time and I'm not sure if it holds up.
I didn't like the Stitch spin-off stuff, but thought that Stitch has a Glitch was okay.
And I admittedly loved Lion King 1 1/2 as a kid. It wasn't on par with the original movie but it wasn't really trying to be. It was just dumb fun.
>Stitch has a Glitch was okay
>"You are bad, you always were and always will be bad!" (Lilo, after first movie happened)
>Stitch has a rare genetic cancer previously unmentioned that will eventually kill him, Stitch dies but comes back to life anyway for no reason at fricking all.
There are flaws in a good story, and then there are cracks. Some story problems are unforgivable.
>Stitch dies but comes back to life anyway for no reason at fricking all.
They literally beat you over the head with foreshadowing that "love is stronger than death" the entire movie with Lilo's dance recital. The movie indeed has issues, but that in particular was not one of them.
>they foreshadowed that literally magic out of nowhere that cannot be explained can sometimes just save the day, just like that
Sorry, I was wrong. Plot hole = plugged!
How was there a Brother Bear 2 and not an Alice in Wonderland 2?
If there was an Alice in Wonderland 2, Alice would have to grow up, and that would make certain people very unhappy.
Tim Burton was making bad remakes before it was cool.
>"Ursula's crazy sister!"
People shit on that line, but that movie's voice cast was stacked as hell. Got Pat Carroll back, Jodi Benson back, Clancy Brown as the shark, etc.
Even discounting the returning cast, Tara Strong's performance alone carries that movie on her back.
>voice acting cures bad writing
I saw some storyboards/animatics on YouTube, and for some reason melody looked cuter in them
Yes, i missi when Disney released subpar flicks and shitty sequels as oppose to today when Disney releases subpar flicks and shitty sequels
I remember liking Jane more than Wendy.
I did think it was weird that she was running around in socks. I feel like in animation that’s a pretty rare character design choice. This movie would get a thread every week if they had made her barefoot.
>weird that she was running around in socks
Maybe she wanted to be japanese.
>I did think it was weird that she was running around in socks
Disney was catering to sock lovers like me
I actually remember liking Jane for feeling like her own character rather than just being a Diet Wendy. But I disliked how the story put her down for trying to be serious and mature in the middle of a goddamn air raid.
Why were most these sequels focus on giving the characters girlfriends/some ass? Some of pairings weren't bad but just weird.
There are only a fixed number of animated movie sequel plots:
>Protagonist meets a female version of themselves
>Protagonist meets a previously unadressed parent.
>The villain from the first movie has a child/relative.
>Protagonist is now a dick, and needs to chill out.
>Side character gets a love interest
>Side character/OC learns the same lesson the protagonist did in the original.
>The failed TV show pilot
>The one where the director really wanted to make his original movie, and is now desperately bending the original cast's characters into somehow fitting his ideal plot.
Can't forget also this gem:
>[MOVIE] 2: Lost in Europe
Honestly some of them weren't too bad and arguably some were better than the originals.
>lion king 2 has a fantastic setup and a solid start but is undercut by being too short (it needed at least another 20-25 minutes) and wasting too much time on the love story
>beauty and the beast 2 had a villain that is way fricking better than gaston and actually gives both beast and belle some much needed extra characterization even if does contradict parts of the original
>return to neverland was a pretty solid sequel that could've benefited from a little more time
Now granted you had absolute shit like The Little Mermaid 2 but it wasn't all garbage.
>arguably some were better than the originals
Absolutely not.
>beauty and the beast 2 had a villain that is way fricking better than gaston
You fricking WOT? A CG organ in a trashy pointless sequel being better than one of Disney's greatest villains? I like Tim Curry but that is some seriously shit taste.
>A CG organ in a trashy pointless sequel being better than one of Disney's greatest villains?
A well-animated CGI organ with a tsundere obsession with Beast due to his desire to be appreciated for his art that actively drives the plot is better than a "what if classic hero but over-the-top douche" who is basically completely irrelevant to the plot beyond the first and last 10 minutes and is mostly remembered for the tavern song which is mistakenly assumed to be his villain song (it isn't, his song when he leads the villagers to attack the castle is), yes.
They look like Fleischer Superman when compared to the live action remakes. I'd rather have boring sequels with Cinderella baking a cake or some shit, as long as it's actually animated and on-model
It sucks they never made a Robin Hood one though.
I don't even want to think about what modern culture in general would do to Robin Hood.
As shit as they were, they're better than live action remakes.
No.
When I was a kid, I like Lion King 2 more than the first.
Upendi aside Lion King 2 at the very least had solid music and a decent villain. He Lives In You, We Are One, and My Lullaby were all great.
Not really. What we have now is worse but it was still an era of quick VHS cashgrabs.
Then again, the old Disney Sequels could at least pretend that they were trying to be a new idea building on an old one. While half of the recent live-action remakes feel like a blatant corporate misunderstanding of their source material in how they're trying to pander to a modern audience. Asking bold questions like, "What if Mulan just had super powers instead of sympathetic flaws?"
No. Just because the stuff today is shit, doesn't mean the stuff from yesterday wasn't shit.
There were no 'cal arts' in those films then, so yeah, something can be bad and still be better than something else that's bad.
>tfw we'll never get a Mozenrath movie
I got so obsessed with grown up Wendy
That's fair
Even then they toned down showing off tink even though they showed of their channel series characters