Disney Movie Sequels

[Neonivek]

And Cinderella III... (Yes, they made a third one.) what the meatloaf??

Actually it isn't that bad.

It was about actually working for your dreams but truthfully I think Anastasia was the real main character anyhow.

Certainly better then a whole GIANT host of Disney Sequels.

[dark-daventry]

Cinderella III, if I remember correctly, was really just a series of mini-stories. Nothing bothers me more than a movie that is really just 3 or 4 mini-movies bundled together. I have very few exceptions, but generally I can't stand them.

[Neonivek]

Cinderella III, if I remember correctly, was really just a series of mini-stories. Nothing bothers me more than a movie that is really just 3 or 4 mini-movies bundled together. I have very few exceptions, but generally I can't stand them.

No no no... Cinderella 2 was a series of stories (where only 1 was any good and easily could have been a movie onto itself. It became the basis for Cinderella 3).

I went on a Disney Sequel binge and watched Cinderella 2 and it was pretty bad. The worst was the story where Cinderella had to plan a ball but all these rules and ettiquete got in the way.

Mind you it is only "worst" from an adult perspective because:

[spoiler]Cinderella just choses it uttarly ignore the rules and every single reason why these rules exist and... The ball goes off without a hitch and the class divide seemingly no longer exists[/spoiler]

[Deloria]

Etiquette is important. Take it from an aspiring social climber.

[Neonivek]

Now the best story was the one that made Anastasia the main character (also freekishly enough... Anastasia actually has a good singing voice. It is her sister who cannot sing and yet is stuck with the job of singing).

Honestly there is a reason why I often sympathise with the villains. It is because they are often written in such a way that they are just doomed to be unhappy.

Think of it this way Cinderella was so beautiful and had such a kind heart that she could have married anyone she chose.

Anastasia as far as the movies are concerned is ugly, ill mannered, and undeserving of any affection. It isn't an excuse but I can see why she mistreats Cinderella so.

It is why I am able to really put away the fact that she was a wicked villain so easily.

It is also why I sort of think this other movie dropped the ball. It was another movie where the wicked step mother gained ultimate power. Frankly she kinda had a point, because of the dictations of a book she was basically forced into a villain's role and was doomed never to find happyness. They really could have added ambiguity. Unfortunately this isn't a disney movie so I'll stop talking about it. (I think the movie was called "Happily ever after" or something. It was about an INCREDIBLY whiny and insufferable Dishwasher boy and why he was clearly supperior to the prince)

[Deloria]

Disney targets a specific demographic with these sequels: Children under the age of eight. These children may be simple-minded and not capable in thinking in anything but binary terms or they might just prefer fairy tales with clear distinctions between good and evil. Whatever the case, Disney is not trying to tell a brilliant story. They are trying to entertain the little snots for half an hour.

[dark-daventry]

Deloria, I have to agree with you on that. If you want a well-written movie, disney is not always the best choice. their main consumer is children, and like Deloria said, most kids probably don't understand social status or anything overly complex. I certainly couldn't when I was that age (the argument can be made that I still don't today )

Cinderella III, if I remember correctly, was really just a series of mini-stories. Nothing bothers me more than a movie that is really just 3 or 4 mini-movies bundled together. I have very few exceptions, but generally I can't stand them.

No no no... Cinderella 2 was a series of stories (where only 1 was any good and easily could have been a movie onto itself. It became the basis for Cinderella 3).

Ah, ok. I got the movies mixed up then.

[Neonivek]

There are well written children movies and shows.

There are well written children movies and shows from disney.

Though a well written children movie or show from a "Cash-in" disney sequel though... yeah.

Mind you well-written and complex are seperate things. Usually children shows do status by barely scraping at the surface. Which is fine.

[crayauchtin]

Gotta agree with Neonivek -- "it's for kids" is not an excuse for poor writing. Yes, you have to simplify things, but you don't need to completely gloss over them.

[Blackthorne]

"it's for kids" is usually to gloss over the "it's for money" statement.


Bt

[snabbott]

"It's for kids" reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SwvSu3jxAA

[KatieHal]

I saw that years ago, and totally forgot how long he's hula-hooping for in that scene! Holy crap!

[Neonivek]

I saw that years ago, and totally forgot how long he's hula-hooping for in that scene! Holy crap!

I can attest that Hula-hooping for a long while is actually pretty strenuous exercise. Much more then you would think by looking at it. Muscles you never knew existed will hurt.

"it's for kids" is usually to gloss over the "it's for money" statement

In my experience whenever people say "It's for kids" it is usually to gloss over the "It sucks" statement.

Which I personally dislike the idea that children are the dumping ground for our crud.

Don't get me wrong, there are times "It's for kids" is valid and makes sense... but most of the time what people REALLY mean is "Yes it is a terrible product but they are kids they won't care"

[Blackthorne]

Yeah - exactly.  They know it's crap, but it's cheap to produce and it will sell.  Crap, for kids, sells like hotcakes.


Bt