I'm not usually a fan of Disney sequels--In many or most cases they're pointless, IMO--But I do think the Aladdin trilogy is probably one of the best sets of Disney movies ever. While Return of Jafar (1994) is a bit of a letdown in terms of it's animation, the story is great and the idea of a villain returning is awesome, as Jafar is one of my favorite Disney villains. Aladdin and the King of Thieves (1996) is an epic movie, on par with the original, IMO. It's a great film with heart.
Anyone else love the Aladdin sequels?
I remembering liking them, but, it's been years...
Me, I like most Disney sequels personally.
Yeah, King of Thieves is great. Return of Jafar, so so. I watched the crap out of all of them when I was younger.
I don't like the Return of Jafar, but I absolutely adore King of Thieves. It's a fitting ending to the series.
I really loved all three of them when I was younger -- Return of Jafar was the weakest link overall, but I think it had better songs in it than King of Thieves.
I loved Aladdin. Although, I considered the movies continually worse as they went on, with King of Thieves being the worst. But they're all good. The sequels don't have the same feeling as the original at all, but that makes sense because they were made by Disney Television so it's more like the TV show, which makes sense. The original is the best ever, though. I used to think the sound effects in Return of Jafar were amazing. Didn't like how they reused all the music from the Aladdin score for Return of Jafar. But it's good music so it's all good.
Aladdin. Best Disney movie evar.
Aladdin is easily one of my favorite Disney movies. I'm hoping they give it the 3D treatment; I would love the opportunity to see it in the theater again, and The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast in 3D were sweet.
I don't remember much about the following two movies; I've seen them both, though. I do recall that they were enjoyable, just not as good as the original. But I need to see them again. I do remember specifically not liking the fact that Robin Williams was not in Return of Jafar.
Quote from: Enchantermon on July 28, 2012, 02:47:19 PM
I do remember specifically not liking the fact that Robin Williams was not in Return of Jafar.
Perhaps that's why I felt like this movie wasn't as good as the other two. Not having Robin Williams just made it seems tainted somehow.
Remember that I used to love Return of Jafar when I was a kid. He was such a great villain, and it was a lot of fun to see him make use of his new genie powers. Plus, you get to see Iago get some character development.
King of Thieves I didn't own, so I only watched it a few times growing up, but seem to remember it being pretty good.
As for the first Aladdin...do you even need to ask?
Let's talk about Disney sequels. :P I think they're contrived and terrible and inevitably involve time travel and trying to undo the first film so the antagonist never fell in the first place. :P WHY?!
...Well, I like them. Every one that I've seen I'ved liked.
Quote from: Deloria on August 05, 2012, 02:40:53 AM
Let's talk about Disney sequels. :P I think they're contrived and terrible and inevitably involve time travel and trying to undo the first film so the antagonist never fell in the first place. :P WHY?!
Have you never seen the
Rescuers Down Under?
Toy Story 3?!
Pixar doesn't count, Haids. Pixar is ALWAYS awesome, atleast in my eyes.
I haven't to both of those. :( Maybe they've improved since the first sequels came out.
Actually, Rescuers Down Under came out in the 90s. I highly recommend it, and you don't need to see the first movie. The animation is beautiful, and the story is good.
I had the misfortune of seeing Cinderella II on TV once. *shudder*
It's probably the worst Disney Sequel of them all...it basically feels like a bunch of cheesy rejected scripts from a potential Cinderella TV series. :P
And Cinderella III... (Yes, they made a third one.) what the meatloaf?? It's like they got tired of hearing people complain about things in the original movie (The Prince having no personality, Cinderella having mice and fairies do all the hard work for her, etc.), and decided to make a screwy time travel plot where Cinderella gets to be an action heroine and the evil stepmother gets god-modding magic powers to rewrite reality with. :P
It's one of the most ridiculous things Disney's ever made in my opinion. (The stepmother thing is a pet peeve of mine, really...she didn't need magic to be a good villain, she had sheer cruelty instead. Suddenly making her more powerful than Maleficent and the Queen from Snow White combined really messes up her character.)
I only saw the Beauty & the Beast Christmas sequel.
Uhm.
Sequel isn't really the right word for it.
It's a flashback that takes place during that "snowball fight" montage in the original movie.
.....that's right, that montage skipped over and entire adventure involving an evil organ and whatever his evil plot was, I don't really remember.
Are you kidding me right now?!?!?! I mean.... no, just no.
They are usually terrible--at least the straight to video ones. I try to avoid them!
The reason they use time travel or flashbacks so often, though, is because the alpha couple has reached their "happily ever after", which apparently puts a hard stop to all conflict and evil and hardship in their lives. So to have an actual plot, they need to go back to pre-happily ever after.
At least Lion King & Little Mermaid just jumped ahead to the next generation instead. No idea how good those were, but it shows a little more effort.
Quote from: KatieHal on August 10, 2012, 01:52:38 PM
At least Lion King & Little Mermaid just jumped ahead to the next generation instead. No idea how good those were, but it shows a little more effort.
Lion King 2 is okay, but...I think it would have been better if they somehow came up with a better back story for the villains. It just seemed like we were supposed to assume that Zira and her followers were around the whole time of the movie.
Lion King 1 1/2 is kinda funny in a way. Plus it adds to the back stories of Timon and Pumbaa. It's basically the Lion King as told by them and it sorta works.
Little Mermaid 2...ug. It's the original movie in reverse almost. Instead of mermaid wanting to be human, you have a human that wants to be a mermaid.
And the 3rd Mermaid movie was just awful. It's a flashback story where the kingdom was forbidden to have music. Really? Just...no.
For Aladdin - I did not like Return of Jafar but remember liking King of Thieves. It's been ages since I've seen either of them though. But I remember liking Aladdin's Dad as character.
The best of the Disney (non-Pixar) sequels is probably Rescuers Down Under. But then again, that was the only sequel (I think) animated by the movie studio. So the animation is wonderful and the story is pretty good too.
If you count Tangled Ever After, then that one too is a lot of fun. (It's only a short instead of a full movie though.)
Edit: Just corrected some typos.
You can't count The Rescuers Down Under on this list of "Disney Sequels" because, if I'm not mistaken, it was also based on one of The Rescuers novels by Margery Sharp. Even if I am mistaken and there was no Australian book in that series, The Rescuers was at least based on a series from the beginning whereas all these other films are based on stand alone stories that did not continue and did not have sequels. I think that helps The Rescuers Down Under immensely.
Well, Tarzan also had several books too. And Winnie the Pooh had multiple books as well. The sequels with those characters have been kinda mixed.
As for the Rescuers, I don't know if there was a definite book that had an Australian setting.
I didn't even know they made a sequel to Tarzan.
As for the Winnie the Pooh, with the possible exception of the latest movie which I didn't see, every movie and tv episode was pretty consistent and pretty in line with the books (not that they used stories from the books or poems, but in the behavior of the characters and such).
You think this should be relabelled The Disney Movies Topic? We seem to be discussing all our favorites aside from the Aladdin movies anyway.
As for Winnie the Pooh... I feel bad about the newest one. See, my Mama loves those stories (and so do I, having grown up with them), and we'd planned on seeing it in theaters together. But, I have a certain rule when it comes to movies based around books I like: before seeing the movie, re-read the book(s) the movie is based on, and then once you see the movie try and pick out any differences you see between the book and the film if there are any.
That doesn't seem so bad, right? Except for one problem. I couldn't find my "Complete Collection of Winnie the Pooh" book anywhere! so, we ended up missing the theater run and I've just now found it again.
*sigh* Maybe one of my little cousins will get it someday.
Quote from: GrahamRocks! on October 04, 2012, 05:10:46 PM
But, I have a certain rule when it comes to movies based around books I like: before seeing the movie, re-read the book(s) the movie is based on, and then once you see the movie try and pick out any differences you see between the book and the film if there are any.
That is a ridiculous rule, made even more terrible by the fact that you actually passed up the opportunity spend quality time with your mom because of it.
... Thanks for making me feel bad first thing in the morning there, buddy.
Play nice, kids.
And GR, now that you found the book, you could always rent the movie to watch together.
My rule for movies based on books I like is to pretend they have nothing to do with the book- often, that's not far from the truth. :P
It works better if you see the movie and then read the book (except that you miss out on the book in the meantime). That way it's not a disappointment when you find out how much better the book is.
It works better if you treat each individual work as it's own entity, rather than spend needless amounts of time comparing and contrasting them - so much so that it gets to the point where you miss out on the enjoyment of either.
In most cases, personally, I find that books are better merely because of the nature of the medium. The stories can be fleshed out with more detail and a generally more intimate and intricate nature. But films have their merits too - it's a different method of storytelling. Sometimes I think comparing books and films is like comparing, say, Coq au Vin to Bubble Tape. Sure, both are considered "food", but one is a sumptuous meal, and the other is a fun snack. Sometimes, I want to sit down and eat the Coq au Vin, and savor it over time while sitting at a table. Other times I want to chew bubble gum while I kick some rocks around outside. Point is, both have their place.
Bt
And now we know one of Bt's hobbies is kicking rocks and chewing bubble gum. :)
Quote from: KatieHal on October 06, 2012, 09:33:59 AM
And now we know one of Bt's hobbies is kicking rocks and chewing bubble gum. :)
But he's all out of gum.
Sorry, Graham. I basically meant what Bt said, but I could have put it more nicely. ;)
No hard feelings, you two. :)
Quote from: KatieHal on October 06, 2012, 09:33:59 AM
And now we know one of Bt's hobbies is kicking rocks and chewing bubble gum. :)
Katie, you've met me. It's really not that hard to imagine now, is it?
Bt
It offers an explanation for why your avatars mouth is moving all the time. :P
Quote from: crayauchtin on October 04, 2012, 03:16:39 PM
I didn't even know they made a sequel to Tarzan.
As for the Winnie the Pooh, with the possible exception of the latest movie which I didn't see, every movie and tv episode was pretty consistent and pretty in line with the books (not that they used stories from the books or poems, but in the behavior of the characters and such).
There's a Tarzan II movie that's an 'interquel' of Tarzan's life as a kid. There was also Tarzan and Jane, but that was more the pilot to the animated series. I gotta admit, I never say Tarzan II but the animated series was decent at least.
As for Winnie the Pooh - agreed. the series and most of the sequels kept to the personalities of the characters. They were usually at least cute, if not all that memorable.
I'm just glad there's no sequel to The Great Mouse Detective or Oliver and Company!
Bt
SUCH good movies Bt, but a sequel would be awful you're right!
Quote from: crayauchtin on October 10, 2012, 10:30:15 AM
SUCH good movies Bt, but a sequel would be awful you're right!
Yeah, I dig the movies - but I think sequels to those would just be a faceplant!
Bt
Awww, I got here late. :( Kayak-travel is way too slow.
I think it's nice to have traditions/rules that you think have value. :P
Quote from: KatieHal on October 06, 2012, 09:33:59 AM
And now we know one of Bt's hobbies is kicking rocks and chewing bubble gum. :)
Better than chewing rocks and kicking bubble gum :D
QuoteAnd 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.
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.
Quote from: dark-daventry on November 12, 2012, 11:09:47 AM
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]
Etiquette is important. :P Take it from an aspiring social climber. :P
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)
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. :P
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 XD)
Quote from: Neonivek on November 12, 2012, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: dark-daventry on November 12, 2012, 11:09:47 AM
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.
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.
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.
"it's for kids" is usually to gloss over the "it's for money" statement.
Bt
"It's for kids" reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SwvSu3jxAA
I saw that years ago, and totally forgot how long he's hula-hooping for in that scene! Holy crap!
Quote from: KatieHal on November 21, 2012, 02:37:28 PM
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.
Quote"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"
Yeah - exactly. They know it's crap, but it's cheap to produce and it will sell. Crap, for kids, sells like hotcakes.
Bt