Reply With QuoteUm...wow?
Ya Skunt
Disney's Animated Sequels
It happened not too long ago that Disney thought it wise to produce cheap animated films designed for the home video market based on their successful theatrical properties. Since then, we've seen a slew of direct-to-video adaptations to some of this generation's greatest animated classics.
We're going to take a comprehensive look at every animated sequel, how they fare as films in and of themselves, and how they stack up against the original.
In the order of the ORIGINAL film's release:
Sixty years since Fantasia, Disney makes an ambitious push to redesign the original, brilliant formula of setting classical music to animated shorts. It contains all-new footage and music (excepting the Sorcerer's Apprentice part, which was left in for posterity.) The movie has been described as "trying desperately to interest children" or "bending over backward to be entertaining rather than engaging." But the movie has been praised, particularly for segemnts such as "The Tin Soldier" and "Rhapsody in Blue." Fantasia 2000 has turned out to be among the more solid of Disney's sequels.
The sequel to 1950's animated masterpiece, "Cinderella," Cinderella II: Dreams come true is actually a compilation of 3 shorts that don't seem to tell a comprehensive story, but rather bang out some easily digestible fables that are meant to teach a lesson about life, people, etc. For example, the first short is about Cinderella's adapting to Royal life, and how fellow members of royalty to not like her mingling with "commoners." The second segment involves one of her step-sisters finding love and changing her views on life.
The movie has been criticized for being un-cohesive and unoriginal, but the film should be engaging for young girls from ages 4 to 8.
Peter Pan's "Return to Neverland" is among the few Disney sequels to see a theatrical release. A follow-up to the 1953 original Peter Pan, the story takes place in London, circa WWII. Wendy's granddaughter, Jane, has become a hardened realist in this time of war, and does not believe whimsical stories and play is appropriate while London is falling apart. Things get interesting, however, when Captain Hook captures Jane (thinking it's Wendy) in order to foil Peter Pan. The premime, while sounding solid and interesting, unfortunately doesn't go anywhere, and essentially becomes a carbon-copy of the first film. Though it does little to change its old formula, Return to Neverland is another of the few solid sequels generated by Disney.
The follow-up story to Disney's original 1955 hit "The Lady and the Tramp." Six months after the events of the first film, Lady and the Tramp are living peacefully with their owners and their family and friends. However, one of their children seems to take after his father a bit too much. Craving adventure and the desire to be a "real dog," Scamp runs away to become a member or the Junkyard Dogs. Said to be far too short and not impactful in the slightest, Lady and the Tramp 2 is trite and does not live up to the name it uses.
Not to be confused with 102 Dalmations, this is a follow-up to the original animated film. The family plans on moving from the city into the country, where the dogs will have space to roam, but Patch, one of the puppies, has an identiy crisis. He wants to be somebody, and to live his dream, he runs away into the big city to audition for a part in his favorite show. While a tad predictable, the movie should entertain young boys.
Another of the rarely seen theatrical release sequels, this is the follow-up to The Jungle Book. Unfortunately that says nothing for its freshness. Almost identicial to its predecessor, the movie is all about the same things: Same characters, same conflicts, same resolution, even the song "The Bare Necessities" comes back. The only thing different is the inclusion of the female character Shanti, who is described as so bland that her inclusion is negligent at best.
Ah, now for the Rescuers Down Under. The first among Disney's sequels to see a theatrical release, this title also marked some of Disney's first forays into CG-aided animation. The result is a gorgeous looking animation style (even by today's standards) The film involves Bernard and Bianca, called to rescue a young boy (Cody) captured by an evil poacher in Australia. The boy had set a magnificent golden eagle free from the poacher's clutches. Often overlooked, this movie marked the beginning of Disney's animated Renaissance.
The Little Mermaid II follows the same formula of previous animated sequel endeavors: The offspring of the previous main character seeks adventure, most notably the exact opposite of what the parent desired. This movie is no different. Ariel's daughter, Melody, is in danger from being targeted by Morgana, Ursula's evil sister. As a result, the keept Melody's roots a secret, and forbid her to learn of her oceanic heritage. Of course, Morgana finds her and uses this information to manipulate her and use her in a scheme not unlike Ursula's. A fun little romp with a few new songs, it doesn't stack up to the original, but keeps the same overall values.
Ah, the Beauty and the Beast sequels. Well, not so much sequels but "In-Between" quels. They both take place before the first film's resolution.
The first "Enchanted Christmas" involves Belle's desire for there to be Christmas in the castle, in order to liven up everyone's spirits. However, Forte, Beast's personal advisor (and pipe organ, of course) is against the idea, as it might bring Beast and Belle closer.
"Belle's Magical World", like the second Cinderella movie, is really a compilation of three short episodic cartoons, each giving some sort of diluted moral message. The first is about a verbal misunderstanding between Belle and Beast, the second is about a romantic evening turned bad on a horse-drawn sleigh, and the third is about Belle's entreatments for beast to treat a songbird nicely.
A common complaint about both is how short they are, and how un-memorable the songs are. Some reviews even stated that it detracted from the experience. As well, the sequels do little to evolve or further explain the story, but rather it seems that characters from vastly profitable enterprise is put into generic scenario x.
And now for the Aladdin sequels. Having been so massively successful, Aladdin saw a lot of expansion (a show, two sequels, games, etc.) Among the first of these sequels is "The Return of Jafar." A movie that details the return of our favorite sorcerer-turned Genie of a villain. This time he plans on exploiting the stupidity of his new "Master" a thief with lots of ambition but little in the ways of planning or smarts. Meanwhile, Iago the parrot is struggling to befriend Aladdin and the rest of the gang, but he's finding it hard to detatch himself from his old master. Robin Williams unfortunately does not return as Genie, and it shows. Not so much bad (And with Jafar there, it can't ever really be BAD) as it is uninteresting, at least until the second half of the movie.
Now, Aladdin and the King of Thieves has a lot going for it. Detailing the last great adventure Aladdin will most likely ever have in his life (Haha, marriage joke) Aladdin makes a concerted effort to find his father, a member of the cutthroat Forty Thieves. He joins him in a quest to find an artifact called the Midas stone, an object that can turn anything into gold. A cut above the normal direct-to-video fare, the animation is well-done, Robin Williams returns as the Genie, and the writing is genuinely fresh. My only personal complaint is the total lack of Jafar, who was much more interesting a villain than the smarmy douche in this film.
Now for the Lion King sequels.
The Lion King II: Simba's Pride revolves around the son of Scar (Kovu) and his involvement with Kiara, Simba's daughter. Being a member of the outcast pride of lions that followed Scar (including Kovu's mother, their leader) The newly befriended lion cubs must prevent all-out war between the clans.
The Lion King 1 and 1/2 is actually a side story, told from the perspective of Timon and Pumbaa, the franchise's lovable sidekicks. Taking a far more humorous angle than the two previous movies, the film actually seems to pok fun at itself and at the original film in some cases. The movie takes place before a during the first film, entirely from the perspective of Timon and Pumbaa.
Both sequels are actually among the more solid sequel endeavors, though neither of them have nearly the production values or voice talent from the first.
The first Pocahontas received a lot of Flak for the rampant historical revisionism, and if you were one of those flinging mud, please do not see Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World.
The story details Pocahontas' visit to England (That part really did happen) and of course witnessing the culture shock. She gets into a few hairy situations, escapes them with the help of a few cute animals, and is madly in love with John Smith/Rolfe. Heavily detracted for its blatant historical inaccuracy, as well as the inability to be nearly as engaging as its predecessor, Pocahontas II seems like more and more like a big mistake (had ot not made so much money, of course.)
Now this, in my opinion, was an interesting choice in sequels. Considering the very dark nature of the first film, I wondered how a sequel would fare, or reflect upon the first film.
Anyhoo, Quasimodo is still the ringer and protector of Notre Dame's lovely bells. Esmerelda's son, Zephyr, has become fast friends with Quasi, and often keeps him company. When the circus comes to town, Quasimodo becomes enamored towards Madellaine, the headmaster's assistant. However, the headmaster (Sarousch) is a conniving thief, and orders Madellaine to deceive Quasi with romantic hijinks while he steals the prized bell of Notre Dame.
Significantly more kid-friendly than its predecessor, it unfortunately makes it far less interesting. Much of the voice talent returns however, and the writing is not half-bad.
A sort of lazy application of the "Three Story Sequel" trend that I've noticed with these sequels, the film is merely an extension of the animated television show, borrowing heavily from at least three separate stories from the series itself.
The story revolves around Jane looking for the perfect 1 year anniversary gift for Tarzan, which of course necessitates her going into a flashback to remember what she SHOULDN'T give him.
I don't know if I'd even consider it an original movie, but seeing as how I didn't like the first one all that much (Fuck you, Phil Collins) I don't see the loss.
Having never seen the first one, I can't really give an accurate comparison to the second. However, I do know that Disney once again employed the use of "Three loosely linked short stories" that together more or less make a whole movie. The three adventures borrow from common mythology, like batting a giant Kraken, an Ice Giant, and wild sand coyotes.
I've never been a fan of the episodic sequels, I believe they're an excuse for a lack of cohesive effort, so naturally I didn't really like this. I haven't really even seen the first, so that may be a factor as well. None of the characters are particularly interesting, which could be a major part of it.
Well, that about does it for their current projects. During my research I came across the news of a Bambi sequel in the works, as well as a Mulan sequel.
I'm particularly disappointed in the decision to make a Mulan sequel, for I believe it was the last truly great animated film they produced (Besides the Emperor's New Groove.)
Amazon.com and IMDB really helped out as source material, so if you're curious about any of these in greater detail, that's where you should go.
Last edited by George; 07 Dec 2004 at 02:41 PM.
your mom
Um...wow?
your mom
Wow, that was really a great read.
I had no idea that the unnecesary Disney sequels had gotten so out of hand =X
HA! HA! I AM USING THE INTERNET!!1
My Backloggery
From Zero to Hero
I bought Aladdin: Return of Jafar and Aladdin and the King of Thieves. I definitely enjoyed the King of Thieves more. Jafar was absolutely a joke in the second movie, but yeah, the villain in the third movie wasn't as memorable.
I think it all started with Return of Jafar, unfortunately...Originally Posted by Mzo
BTW, Mulan 2 is coming, yay!
Name: Rock
Town: Arcadia
Good thread Trialsword.
The Darkest Soul
I liked King of Thieves too. It was good.
I'll promise a better reply later but I have to add that the recent Disney shakeup with Roy Disney leaving the company had to do with several of the movies you see here. Many more including Dumbo 2 and Snow White 2 were planned (Dumbo 2 even recieving a sneak peak on the Dumbo dvd)
I was pretty hard into Disney history about a year ago but I've since stopped caring about the company. Perhaps Kingdom Hearts 2 will re-invigorate me.
"Chuy, you're going to have a magical life. Because no matter where you go, it's always going to be better than Tucson."
level six laser lotus
It would have been a lot faster to just say "Shit." after every image, excepting Rescuers Down Under and maybe Fantasia 2000 & Aladdin King of Thieves.
You forgot a few, too... Stitch! the Movie and An Extremely Goofy Movie come to mind, and it seems like there should be even more than that, actually.
Ya Skunt
I did forget Stitch: The Movie. I'll add it later. And A Goofy Movie wasn't really part of their animated masterpieces line, so I didn't really count it.
Also, I didn't count Winnie the Pooh, for a number of reasons. One of which being that it started as a book and a television special.
Last edited by George; 07 Dec 2004 at 03:31 PM.
level six laser lotus
Well, for what it's worth the first Goofy Movie was released theatrically, though it wasn't a big summer title.I did forget Stitch: The Movie. I'll add it later. And A Goofy Movie wasn't really part of their animated masterpieces line, so I didn't really count it.
Hm, would Buzz Lightyear of Star Command count? Even if not, I'd like to say that it was actually quite well-written and worth a watch.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks