Are you ready for Jungle Book II and Piglet's Big Movie? How about...

[Mop]

Dumbo II, 101 Dalmatians the Animated Sequel, Tarzan II, The Lion King III, Mulan II & III? What about Snow White II and Atlantis II?

Get ready for Disney to dilute its properties. When re-releases just aren't enough anymore, make a sequel!

Variety reports: Disney bets on Piglet's prospects

Orlando Weekly reports: Two much of a good thing?

 

[Another Voice]

Actually, their next move is going beyond the sequels. Rumor is that they will start to bundle together episodes from some of the animated television shows ('Alladin', 'Tarzan') and sell the spliced together shows as a direct-to-video "feature".

The best of all worlds - a sequel without any additional animation.

 

[roymccoy]

Thumper's Big Adventure

Hunchback III - Quasimoto's Revenge

The Chihuahua King

Pete's Druggin'

31 Dalmations (you know...with all the cuts at the parks...)

The Amazing Adventures of the Little Birds from Cinderella

Captain Hook, USMC

National Lampoon's Porkyhontas

101 Snoop Doggy Doggs

Beauty and the Beast II - The Bitter Divorce

 

[airlarry!]

Roy, that's funny!

I participated in a petition online to ask the Disney company not to put out a Snow White II.

Pointless? Fruitless? Yes and Yes. But who cares? It took me a minute or two to fill out, and I really, really, really, don't want to see television animators go anywhere The Classic.

I'm a Snow White Snob

 

[d-r]

Cinderella III - Back to Rags

 

[JeffJewell]

...nothing like a huge burst of laughter coming out of my office to cement my job security...

Jeff

 

[Buzz2001]

Peter Pan Sails to Top of Box Office
02-19-2002

(by digitalmediafx.com) Peter Pan: Return to Never Land flew to the top of the box office on Monday, bringing in $3.7 million for a first place finish. Over the four day holiday weekend, Disney's sequel to the classic animated Peter Pan finished 3rd at the box office with a take of $15.6 million.

Peter Pan: Return to Never Land cost Disney's TV Animation division only $20 million to make. The movie is expected to gross close to $100 million by the end of its box office run as Disney reaches deep into its archives to continue making animation sequels and animated sequels to sequels. The numbers are encouraging for Disney, resulting in a very high profit margin before the sequel hits DVD where it will make even more money.

 

[wvrevy]

Buzz...Don't equate financial success with artistic success. Just because people go to see a sequel, don't assume they're going to see IT, so much as trying to recapture the magic of seeing the original when they were kids. That is particularly so when they are taking their OWN kids, simply because they are trying to give them those same cherished memories that they themselves have of attending Disney movies when they were kids.

I'm reminded of a quote from the movie "The American President". I think it applies fairly well:

Lewis: People want leadership. And in the absence of genuine leadership, they will listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership, Mr. President. They're so thirsty for it, they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

Sheperd: Lewis, we've had Presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty, Lewis. They drink it because they don't know the difference.

 

[YoHo]

Here's a thought, could it be that return to Neverland is actually a good movie?
I mean I've heard some generally positive reviews.

 

[Another Voice]

No Mr. Scoop – the copout here is a corporation here that no longer has the will to create good movies yet blames the public for the failings of bad efforts like ‘Emperor’ and ‘Atlantis’.

It’s the company’s fault for producing cheap swill like ‘Cinderella 2’ and dressing it up in fancy labels and marketing and trying to pass it off like the original.

It’s the company’s fault for preying on the public’s desire for good quality movies, for luring those parents in with memories of past glory – and then selling them cut rate work at first rate prices.

It’s the company fault they’ve decided that short term small profits are more important than long term large profits. How many people will be watching ‘Peter Pan 2’ in fifty years? It took the better part of a century to build up the Disney film library and less than five years to reduce it to filler on Saturday morning television.

Soon, very soon, the public is going to catch on. They already have with theatrical releases. The huge crowds that showed up for ‘The Lion King’ based on their expectations were disappointed when they showed up for ‘Pocahontas’, ‘Hercules’ and the other lesser films. Once burned, they haven’t been back. How many cheesy video sequels will it take for Disney’s products to be lumped alongside all those ‘The Land Before Time’ video tapes?

What we’re seeing is not seeing is not a reaction to public demands. We’re seeing the deliberate strip mining of a brand, an intentional effort to con the public based on their perception of quality. I really don’t see how ruining a company to enrich it’s present executives really is in the best interest of us stockholders.

 

[wvrevy]

I can easily answer that question, thedscoop:

Then why was my product so well-consumed in an era of limitless entertainment options:?

Because it has the Disney name attached to it. That is the ONLY reason. This has become a company living off it's past successes, uninterested in generating the kind of creative atmosphere that inspired those initial success in the first place. I meant what I said before: I truly believe that Walt would be ashamed of what his company has become. Wanna know why Dreamworks is putting out better products ? Because Disney isn't interested in the product, only the result.

"Because it's Disney" may not be an acceptable answer to you, but it is the correct one. Disney gained it's prestige by being an innovative company that put out quality products. That image is unfortunately changing to a company, desparate to make a buck, willing to sell out it's founder's legacy for an extra quarter point on it's stock price. That may be acceptable for most any other company, but it is most assuredly not the direction I (as a stockholder) would like to see the company take. Not even if it means I can't biggie-size my burger order with the extra 15 cents they might have made me.

and to YoHo: You may be absolutely correct. However, it still amounts to standing on the shoulders of giants. The creative genius that was embodied by the Walt Disney Company in it's infancy and as late as a very few years ago gave the company name a certain amount of prestige. Now, the jackals that run what's left of that once-proud company apparently are not concerned with continuing and building that legacy, but would rather repackage it and see it to a gullible public wishing to relive the magic of their childhoods. It doesn't matter that the occassional sequel has merit of it's own. It matters, or should, that Disney is content to keep repackaging it rather than trying to create new magic. Sure, there will be the occassional disappointment. But then, everybody thought Snow White was gonna bomb, so you never know.