Proof that Walt wouldn't have approved of all the sequels!

[bicker]

Of course, Walt was personally involved in the biggest sequel Disney ever executed, the sequel to Disneyland that was built in Florida. That seems to have worked out okay...

 

[dcentity2000]

Many sequels can be good, but Disney's attempts are dire. The only reason that Toy Story 2 was any good was that Jobs' mob (Pixar) developed it themselves as a freebie to prevent it from being pants.



Rich::

 

[Planogirl]

I think it's obvious. Normally, Disney sequels stink while other companies' sequels are hit or miss. Toy Story 2 was creatively NOT a Disney film. I hope that Disney improves a lot with Pirates of the Caribbean 2 & 3.

 

[Feralpeg]

I know I will be in the minority here, but I like several of the sequels. I love Lion King 1 1/2. I think it is hysterical. On the otherhand, I really didn't care for Toy Story II. Actually, I wasn't crazy about the original Toy Story.

I think the thing to remember here is that there are enough folks out there with different taste that Disney can make a decent profit with the direct to DVD sequels. Many people will enjoy them. If you don't like the sequels, don't buy them. Disney is a business. As a shareholder, I hope they continue to make the sequels. It is a good business decision. I love Walt, but he isn't here and times have changed.

 

[dash]

I enjoyed toy story 2 as well. As for Disney sequels, I haven't seen the following in years, but I remember enjoying "The Apple Dumpling Gang Rides Again," "The Shaggy D.A.," and "Return from Witch Mountain." Maybe I didn't enjoy the Witch Mountain sequel as much as the original, but I really liked the Shaggy D.A. I think there may have been some other live action Dis movies that had sequels that I enjoyed, but I can't think of them right now.

 

[dash]

Sorry, didn't mean to kill your thread!

 

[grinningghost]

Sorry, didn't mean to kill your thread!

Here - I brought it back to life.

 

[greenyskp]

Of course, Walt was personally involved in the biggest sequel Disney ever executed, the sequel to Disneyland that was built in Florida. That seems to have worked out okay...

Disneyland Paris...

 

[dash]

Tokyo Disney

 

[bicker]

I loved Disneyland Paris. If a park could be more Disneyland than the original, that's Disneyland Paris. If you ever have an opportunity, as a Disney fan you need to make a little time in a visit to France to visit Disneyland Paris.

 

[Obi-Wan Pinobi]

I think what cardaway said about applying the same quality to the sequel as the original can be said for ANY sequel, no matter who makes it.

If a sequel is made solely as a money-making venture instead of carrying the story further, it's going to suffer. Many of the classic Disney cartoons -- Cinderella, Snow White, etc. -- were made with a pretty definite ending, making it difficult to take the story further. I mean, how can you build a compelling story on "and they lived happily ever after"?

Movies like The Godfather and Star Wars were open-ended, allowing for more plot development. That's why those sequels were successful. Superman II did well, but Superman III and IV did not. Why? Poor plot and execution.

 

[VSL]

I loved Disneyland Paris. If a park could be more Disneyland than the original, that's Disneyland Paris. If you ever have an opportunity, as a Disney fan you need to make a little time in a visit to France to visit Disneyland Paris.

My BF has been twice and said it just doesn't compare to WDW (we haven't been to DL California yet) - he feels that 'no one can do Disney like the Americans'.

 

[grinningghost]

I think what cardaway said about applying the same quality to the sequel as the original can be said for ANY sequel, no matter who makes it.

If a sequel is made solely as a money-making venture instead of carrying the story further, it's going to suffer. Many of the classic Disney cartoons -- Cinderella, Snow White, etc. -- were made with a pretty definite ending, making it difficult to take the story further. I mean, how can you build a compelling story on "and they lived happily ever after"?

Movies like The Godfather and Star Wars were open-ended, allowing for more plot development. That's why those sequels were successful. Superman II did well, but Superman III and IV did not. Why? Poor plot and execution.

So very well said Obi Wan. ITA about Snow White and Cinderella. Happily Ever After - leave it right there.

 

[bicker]

I think what cardaway said about applying the same quality to the sequel as the original can be said for ANY sequel, no matter who makes it.

And applies as much to first-features as it does to sequels. In other words, quality always matters, just the same.

Well, that's actually not true: Quality actually matters less for sequels than for first-features. Sequels can often be successful in the absence of the original quality, just capitalizing on the audience's thirst for more stories about beloved characters.

So if anything, things work precisley opposite as asserted earlier.

 

[grinningghost]

Well, that's actually not true: Quality actually matters less for sequels than for first-features. Sequels can often be successful in the absence of the original quality, just capitalizing on the audience's thirst for more stories about beloved characters.

Beloved character encores. Yes, I think you might have it bicker. People want to see their favorite characters again, and perhaps some aren't content with re-watching the original in order to get their character "fix" - they need to know what else that character is up to.

As for me, unless it's non-fiction, I can be perfectly happy thinking a character is only capable of doing whatever he did in the original film. So it makes a pretty one-dimensional character, who cares? It's fiction.