Nick Danger

In the book Bambi's Children, the young son of Bambi gets captured by humans, and drops out of the story. He shows up again as a tame deer who was released back into the wild. The next time he sees a poacher, he trots over to say hello, and is shot dead.

That's a sequel I could support.

bsmith

I think l'll stick with the sequel Disney did (Bambi II) where the movies picks up after Bambi's mother dies and he meets his father who teaches him how to be a prince. One of the stories in the middle of a story, like "Beauty and the Beast Christmas" is based on a period of time inside the "Beauty and the Beast" story. But to each his own.

Mabuse

The development was a lot more complicated than that. Check out IMDb for all the details.

Jay G.

But the routine killing of villains, like the dwarfs chasing the Queen off a cliff, is okay? Keep in mind that many of these stories are based off of fairy tales or other stories for children.

Except all the other originals you mention do have sequels. I found it odd that you referenced Finding Nemo as well, which is an "original" without a sequel.

There's a variety of reasons why people don't like the direct-to-video sequels:

1. People are suspicious of sequels in general, which if not executed well, can diminish the memory of the original for some.
2. The direct-to-video movies appear to be a mercenary move to cash in on the positive memory/popularity of the original film.
3. Less time, money, and effort is clearly put into these films compared to the originals. Nobody really likes half-hearted efforts made for no other reason than the original made money.
4. The sequels often have dubious story premises at best. A lot of the original films have fairly definitive endings, which makes some juggling of the story elements for the sequel. For example, Bambi 2 takes place in the middle of the original film. Don't you think that if Disney thought that what happened to Bambi in that period was important to the story, he would've shown it to us in the original film?
5. Disney has made a sequel for nearly every animated movie they've ever made. Contrast that with Pixar, which has only made one sequel so far
6. The time, money, and talent Disney pumps into these DTV cheapies could otherwise be directed toward another animated feature film. Studio resources are limited, so we as an audience are effectively getting less theatrical fare so that the DTV sequels can be made.

bsmith

Very true, but times change. Without going into specifics there are plenty of viewpoints we can see in story telling from the past that while acceptable at that time we would not want to promote today.

You are right there still is other killing going on. My daughter tends to feel more comfortable thinking that even when the villians die they are forgiven and go to heaven.

My daughter picked up an old "Three Little Pigs" book while waiting in the hospital. While reading it we came upon the part where the wolf blows down the first pigs house. The next line went something like "and he ate him". I changed it on the fly to "the pig ran to his brothers house". I found that change to better suited.

True, I was just on a roll referencing how much disney movies tend to like to kill off the mother and Nemo slipped in on that account. I've never quite understood their intent in that regard.

Sequels have a hard time living up to originals and it is normal to question it, but there are examples where they not only live up to but may even surpass the original. So while I can see where generalizations can be made, each sequel should be judged on it's own merits not on a generalization.

DTV can give an impression that the quality and content may suffer, but again that is a generalization and each movie should be judged on its own merits and not on its distribution methods.

Where is your basis for saying how much time and money went into these productions, or whether they are half-hearted efforts. I completely disagree. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Disney is no different then any other production company with their wins and losses. Again with a five year old daughter who likes to watch movies and I with her I know what is cheap and what is not. The ones I mentioned above are all top notch stories and production (I have no problem mentioning others that are not). The good ones we will even watch on the 92" screen because they are that good.

Many times we are critical of a movie for combining and skipping sections of the book it is based on or for not fully developing a character so it can squeeze into the alloted time. Cinderella 2 and the Princess Stories I have seen are awful story telling and bad quality in general. However, B&B Christmas and Bambi II are excellent stories and productions in their own right, even if they are just taking a moment in time from the original. Have you seen either of these? I have many times and the concept is sound when done right.

I like Pixar, they have accomplished some excellent productions. They do well with adults as well as children. My daughter enjoys them too. But children like repitition. They watch movies over and over again. They enjoy seeing familar characters in new situations. These sequels are more for them then the adults. IMO, I don't think originality can be sped up just by throwing more money at it. While I agree that some of the sequels are cheap and their cost could have been better used. The quality ones are worth it.

Before having children I watched my fair share of disney and Pixar and at that time would have probably shared in all your viewpoints. However, I do have a daughter I don't have to generalize about Disney sequels (as I believe some are in this thread), I can judge each individually because I have seen most of them on several occasions. Several are very good and I am happy that they took the time to produce them. We see sequels being produced by all production companies (Rocky, Rambo, Alien, Terminator, Predator, Beverly Hills Cop, Superman, Spiderman,...) and the list goes on. Why would we expect Disney to be any different or not have as many wins and flops as anyone else? The difference is that they all hit the theaters and didn't have the negative stigma of DTV (being judged before even being seen).

So I hear what you are saying and agree with why people may object, but I disagree with the premise that all DTV sequels are alike and that they can be generalized in those terms. If you have taken the time to watch them and still feel they provide no value to at least the children they are primarily intended for then fine. If you haven't even watched the majority of them then you really shouldn't be judging them.

It it seems like I am taking this thread too seriously, it is probably because I am. It just seems like too many are just shooting from the hip without really having experience with what they are condeming. Or they feel these films are meant more for adults then children. Yes, family films can be for all ages and some qualify but some can be primarily for the children and if anyone was to fill that gap it should be disney.

Jay G.

The killing off of villains hasn't really changed too much. The first two Shreks did it, and so did the Incredibles. Also, as you pointed out, Finding Nemo has the death of the mom, and that wasn't released too long ago. So death, or the threat of death, has always been present in children's animated fare.

Are you sure it's your daughter who gets upset, or do you get upset for her?

Also, it seems odd to tout death-free sequels, since your kids are going to watch the death-filled original first; unless you're actually suggesting showing a kid only Bambi 2.


At least in Nemo, it serves as an important story element, namely to explain why Marlin is so protective of Nemo. Without the death, Marlin comes off much less sympathetic (I know this because Pixar tried placing the death of Nemo's mom later in the story, but then audiences didn't understand Marlin's actions at fist and thus liked him less).

In most of the examples I can think of, the on-screen death of the parent is an important story point, driving character development. That the death is unpleasant is usually the point.

I agree that sequels should be judged on their own merits, but given Disney's track record with these knock-offs, it's easy to understand where the prejudice comes in.

I don't think it's the method of delivery here that's putting people off, it's the obvious lack of attention at resources that Disney puts into these films. Some DTV material is worth of theatrical release, while others, like these sequels, would still look like DTV material on the big screen.

The proof is in the pudding indeed. I haven't seen them all, but from the ones I've seen, these DTV sequels are clearly 2nd tier productions.

All reports are that the DTV sequels are made on the cheap, for far less money than the original theatrical films. The original DTV sequel was more or less an accident of marketing: Someone at Disney thought to package the first few episodes of the Aladdin TV show and sell it as a DTV "movie," and people bought it up in droves.

There's also the story of Toy Story 2, which started off as a cheap DTV sequel, but which Pixar put on hold when they saw how badly the production was going story and animation wise. Pixar then put as much time, money, and effort into that sequel as they did the original, and ended up with a film Disney felt worthy of theatrical release.

Except Disney was unique in consistently strip-mining almost every single animated film it had for a cheap sequel. At least when other studios make animated sequels to their films they at least appear to try to make it as good as the original, pumping money and effort and releasing them to theaters. Sure, there's the occasional DTV knock-off sequel kids film, but those are inspired by Disney's practice for the last 10 years, and not as consistent in their output. The only releases I can think of that are worse than Disney are the endless Land Before Time series.

OK, all of the titles you've listed are ones I haven't seen. But Cinderella 3 is better than the original? Really? What's the ranking on those films, 2<1<3, or is it a constant build up of 1<2<3?

Really, all of those titles cause no feelings in me but massive indifference. I could care less about a sequel to The Fox and the Hound, but I'd have to try.

That's typically not the problem with the stories Disney adapts. Go back and read the story of Cinderella, and there's nothing in it that Disney left out of the original film, and certainly nothing that merited not one but two sequels (it is just two, right, or is there a Cinderella 4?).

Yet even with 2 being bad, you watched 3?

No, again I cite massive indifference. The B&B and Bambi sequels at least have the decency to basically admit there's nothing to add to the end of the story. However, I'm not convinced the middle of those stories needed filling out either.

Oh, I understand why they're popular. My older sister used to watch Grease 2 almost as much as the original when she was a kid. That doesn't mean that they're any good.

[quote]IMO, I don't think originality can be sped up just by throwing more money at it. [quote]
Frankly I don't care too much about "originality," and I never mentioned the need for these productions to be sped up. If anything, they needed to have been slowed down, and allowed time for an actually interesting story to have been created for them. Better yet, they shouldn't have been greenlit at all unless one of their writers or animators actually had a decent story idea. The impression I get from these sequels is that Disney would pull a classic movie from a hat, stick the sequel on the production list, and then assign some poor sap the duty of trying to come up with a story.

Oh God. Now I'm definitely not having kids. What's the point of using a video to babysit the kids if you're going to watch it as well? I'd probably end up playing videogames with the kids instead of watching Bambi 2 yet again.

Your thinking is backwards. People don't like theatrical sequels because they're in theaters, and in fact every movie series you cite has at least one sequel that's greatly disliked. They like them because they're good. However, with those theatrical sequels, you know that the producers at least put an effort towards creating something as good as the original. With the DTV sequels from Disney, you're left with the impression that these aren't even as good as the sequels that they have released theatrically, Like Peter Pan 2 or Rescuers Down Under.

People prejudge all the time. It's how we pick movies to watch. I'm almost certain that everyone who's posted on this thread has at least seen previews for a few of these sequels, and have judged them, based on the trailers, synopsis, and reviews, to be not worth their time. I'll concede that you may have found a few to be enjoyable, but I'm still glad Disney's stop producing films that I have absolutely no interest in seeing and degraded my opinion of Disney's qualities as an animated studio.

Why should Disney's goal be "entertain just the kids" though? Shouldn't they be trying to entertain the whole family, especially if it's a "family film"? I know at least some people dismiss Pixar as kiddy fare, but they consistently make films people of all ages can enjoy. Meanwhile, films like Shrek miss the point and think that they have to appeal to the groups separately, with fart jokes for the kids and Matrix references for the adults. If there's any studio that can make animated fare that is once again appealing to all simply because it's a good story, then it should be Pixar-led Disney.

bsmith

Jay G.,

No need to quote it all.

I'm actually not touting death free disney movies but I did find it interesting their obsession with pulling the heart strings in so many releases.

We seem to disagree on the disney track record since I believe many can hold their own and justify their existance. Just curious but of the ones I've mentioned as being very well done, how many have you've seen? I see no lack of quality or evidence of cheapness in the ones I've mentioned. Now it could be I appreciate them more watching them with a child then I would just as an adult.

It is interesting that you mention "Land Before Time" since we have all of those and my daughter loves them too. The production quality of those is definitely limited but they are still good children stories that can be enjoyed.

No Cinderella 3 is not better then the original (I didn't say they all were). However, it is a complete and original story that is decent while Cinderella 2 falls into the category of several short bland exerpts with no redeeming value (luckily they have good resell value, even the bad ones). B&B 3 suffers from the same. Yes, as bad as Cinderell 2 was I watched 3 since I don't allow one bad sequel to discount the potential merits of another.

Did Bambi need to be filled out in the middle maybe not, but is the overall story better that it was, I would say very much so. Patrick Stewart does a fine job as Bambi's father and it is a good story from the perspective of the progression of Bambi's father from not wanting the responsibility of raising a child to discovering the joys in doing so. Of course you would have to see it to appreciate it.

I enjoy spending time with my daughter which is why I have watched them numerous times. Questions continue to arise even after the first viewing and it helps if I am there to explain. Believe me the lesser fair I try not to watch more then I have too but the good one's I don't mind.

You notice I didn't mention Peter Pan 2. That is because I don't think it is as good as the one's I did mention, regardless of it being released in the theater, Just shows you should not prejudge a DTV.

As you admit you don't have kids so you are approaching this as an adult, which I can understand. But, it is different when you have kids and you won't know until you do.

I never said disney's goal should be to cater to kids. What I am saying is why should every movie they produce try to cater to everyone. I hear over and over how PG-13 is destroying the potential for good movies because they toning everything down for the masses. That some would have been more appealing if they could have went with an "R" rating. I'm saying it is fine for disney to make some movies just for the kiddies, I did not say all.

Obviously, we have to just disagree with one another in this case. We come from two different perspectiives. I just wanted to share insights from my perspective since I'm not sure the thread received an equal share of viewpoints. As a result, I would welcome more DTV sequels. Hoping that they manitain the quality and good story telling as many (not all) that I have seen and I hope they do continue to make some with a focus on just children and don't feel the need to try to always meet the masses.

Jay G.

It certainly read like you thought the lack of deaths in the sequels was an advantage, as you called the sequels less "harsh," and had difficulty explaining the attempted murder in Snow White.

And are you seriously baffled why Disney would want to "pull the heart strings" in so many of its releases?

None of them that you mentioned I've seen. And none of them I ever plan to see. I mentioned that in my previous post.

I can see the reduced quality animation in just the previews for these films.

Yes, I think we've already established that kids are not good arbiters of quality.

You did say some were though. Which ones on that list do you think exceed the original?

This aside is just more to my point. Even the horrible sequels have good resell value, because parents buy these for their kids in droves, regardless of how good they are. When parents do that, it's not surprising that Disney wasn't putting 100% into these productions.

Was it really your enlightened position of judging every sequel on its own merits that led you to buy it. Or rather, did you daughter actually like Cinderella 2 despite it having "no redeeming value," and wanted to see the third?

Yeah, still not convinced that Bambi 2 is anything but filler. The story description doesn't really help either, since it sounds like they had to contort an archetypal character in the original into a cliched "deadbeat dad."

Spending time with the kids is good, but shouldn't it be quality time?

Peter Pan 2 was actually started as a DTV project that was inexplicably bumped up to theatrical release. I think Disney saw the success of Toy Story 2 and thought, "hey we could release these sequels to theaters too." Unfortunately they missed the distinction that TS2 was actually good.

I'm an adult, but I'm a kid at heart. And as an adult I can say that there's nothing more disappointing than going back and watching a film you loved as a kid and discovering it's not that good. It's like discovering you've been conned. On the flip side, nothing is more exhilarating than watching a film you loved as a kid and discovering that it's an all-around great movie.

Yes, you said that there's a niche for films made solely for kids, and that Disney should be the one to fill that niche. I say that's aiming low.

Why shouldn't they? It's how Disney operated for the first 60 years or so of its existence. Beauty and the Beast got nominated for a Best Feature Film Oscar because it appealed to everyone. The sequels, not so much.

Aiming low on even just some films is still aiming low, and a disservice to the parents that buy these films, and even to the kids themselves.

"Many"? you mentioned 6 of the DTV sequels, out of what I've counted as 23 that have been made:
http://www.gaygaybrad.com/NODTV/nodtvlisttheater.html

That's a "few," not "many."

bsmith

Jay G.,

Lets just accept the fact that we disagree. I could write a reply to each and everyone of your points to dispute them in my view and you can continue to do the same back. It is not going to go anywhere. I think any reader will be able to get enough from both are inputs to make a determination.

You've already stated that you have seen none that I mentioned as very well done and don't plan to, yet you continue to discount them. Anyone reading this will have to take that opinion with a grain of salt. At least I am reviewing something I have seen.

As for previews, I've seen plenty of previews where what is shown is not indicative of the content or quality of the presentation. It is not a very good indicator, imo. Your interpretation of Bambi 2 off of what I said is actually quite funny, showing that anybody can come up with a negative interpretation from anything. Either watch and review it fairly or don't comment on the story.

maybe someday when you have kids you might understand the difference, but for now you are just judging them as an adult. The so called classics you saw as a child while the sequels you may have seen as an adult. We shall have to wait and see how the children of today revisit these in their adulthood to see if they will get garnered as new classics. It is not for us to judge.

As for your list I have not seen them all. of the ones I have seen:
- Tarzan and Jane (not very good, same as B&B 3 and Cinderella 2)
- Tarzan II (very good)
- Toy Story II (very good but too much for my 5 year old to handle for now)
- Return of Jafar (not that good from what I recall)
- Jungle book II (not bad but wasn't a big fan of the first)
- Mermaid II (just ok)
-Aladdin : King of Thieves (not very good, same as B&B 3 and Cinderella 2)

The others I have not seen, so I will stand by stance of the sequels I have seen, I would say more are very good to excellent then bad.

I think one thing that stands out in our discussion though is that my opinions are based on first hand knowledge watching them, as well as seeing their impacts on my daughter. Where as your opinion is based on perception as an adult with adult life experiences and maybe having watched a few.

There is no value in continuing this discussion since we obvious agree on very little (if anything) and neither is going to convince the other to change their position. We will habe to leave it having presented two different sides and we will let any reader interpret as they like. Enjoy, I'll let you have the closing arguments.

Jay G.

I haven't actually said that the ones you like are bad. I have said that they present no attraction to me, which is odd considering what a fan of animation, even kids animated movies, I am. I didn't miss a Disney animated feature film up until Treasure Planet, and I still don't miss a Pixar film. However, there's lots of lesser CGI films I have skipped, and I've skipped nearly all the DTV sequels. Whatever magic Disney had, and Pixar still has, to grab my interest has slowly dissipated, and it unsurprisingly started around the time of the cheap Aladdin sequel.

I was using the previews as a judgement of animation quality. A trailer is more than suitable for that determination. As for the rest of the film, I also rely on the story synopsis and reviews to help prejudge what I think is worthy of viewing.

As an example, here's a compare/contrast between the user ratings for Bambi 1 & 2 on rottentomatoes:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bambi/reviews_users.php
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bamb...iews_users.php

Bambi scores 89% and 7.5/10, while Bambi 2 gets a paltry 49% and 4.8/10. It doesn't take a genius to determine that the sequel pales horribly in comparison to the original.

I didn't say the story was bad, I said the story sounds bad, and unnecessary, especially if it focuses on Bambi's dad so much. If you spliced Bambi 1 & 2 together, with 2 inserted in the middle of 1, I don't think you'd end up with a better movie. Rather, you'd end up with an unevenly paced movie that takes a sudden right turn down an odd tangent.

Wow, so you're now dissing the originals like Bambi as "so called classics"? As I've already said, as an adult when I've revisited childhood favorites, crap I used to love just looks like crap to me. However, most of the Disney films still are just flat-out good films. They're not films made just for kids. They're films with quality stories that kids can enjoy, as can anyone else.

They better be prepared for crushing disappointment.

Yes it is. I can judge whatever film I feel like. Who are you to suggest that some films are "out of bounds" for criticism?

So seeing Bambi's mother get shot is okay, but someone stealing a toy is "too much"?

So you don't know if the majority are very good.

I'm not sure what the impact on your daughter has to do with your opinion of the films. Do you defer to your daughter's opinion often? Again, kids like crap. It's not really their fault, they haven't experienced enough to really discern between good and bad quality films and TV, which is presumably why they have parents to help make those determinations for them.

Oh, I never thought I'd change your opinion. I've long given up on that sort of delusion. I just wanted to voice my side, and to help illustrate why some view the DTV sequels as worthy of derision, even if they hadn't seen any.

CaseyB

I hope the debate between bsmith and Jay G. continues. I really love the passion you both have for movies.

djones6746

For anyone wanting a review for Tinkerbell on Blu ray....the link I am providing is from a reviewer on avsforum.com. Love his reviews and trust what he has to say.


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1078450

dx23

I thought Disney was stopping this bullshit, but apparently the want to milk the cow a little more.

TomOpus

But it's a Blu-ray... not a DVD.

kstublen

I don't understand how anyone could try and say that the Disney Direct-to-DVD Sequels are not only as good, but better than, the originals. It blows my mind. I watched all these Disney movies as a kid and have nothing but fond memories of them. When I revisit them today I enjoy them just as much, if not more, and appreciate them more than I did as a child. As far as I am concerned, these movies are integral parts of my childhood (and I suspect I am not the only one who feels this way). Part of the reason I want these on DVD or Blu-ray is so when I have kids they can watch good movies and not have to watch the crap that studios are churning out for kids these days.

Sure it was sad when Bambi's mom died, but that was important to the story. I never thought I'd see the day when someone actually suggested that the movie would be vastly improved if Bambi's mom wasn't killed in the opening act.

As far as I'm concerned, halting these sequels is the right thing to do, both creatively and as a business move. Lasseter made the right call and hopefully we see more quality animation from Disney...in theaters...in the future.

The Valeyard

But... she's got a new wand.

I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it!

i86time

That's nothing new. Disney actually included a teaser for this release on the original Tinkerbell DVD.

joltman

Actually, when they released the first TinkerBell movie last year, it was already known that it was going to be the first in a series of four (now five, they just recently announced another one) direct-to-video movies.

The Monkees

I agree that most of the sequels are garbage (Hunchback II mostly) but I do enjoy some of them. I really liked the Little Mermaid ones and Bambi II I thought was pretty good. I would NEVER say they were as good or better than the originals. Even the ones I like I can still point out that the animation isn't nearly as good or the acting or the stories. But still, I enjoy a few of them.

Dr. DVD

Hmmm, I never knew the back story to Bambi 2. I find it interesting that it actually acknowledges the buck being Bambi's father as it was always just inferred in the original.

JeremyM

Was it really just implied? It's been a while since I've seen it but I don't remember ever questioning if they were father and son. Weird.

dkedvd

<--- Owner of all the animated Disney movies & their prequels/sequels.
I miss the days of Aladdin 2 And The Lion King 2. Those were damn good movies! Aladdin 3 & Cinderella 2 were just awful! They were full length features made with failed pilot episodes for TV series based on the original movies. They just took three episodes and strung them together with filler. Blehhh! Disney sequels seam to be hit or miss. Some I love and will watch over and over. Some I thought were ok but will probably never watch again. And others I own just because they are a sequel and I'm a completest. So its hard to say if they should stop or not. I would love to see more but only with more effort put into them. Bring back the days of Aladdin 2 & Lion King 2! PLEASE!

MTRodaba2468

As one of the former children that the Disney DTV movies were marketed to, I have to concede with Jay G. The originals still hold up. The sequels don't. The drop off in quality is quite noticeable.

bsmith

Personally, I never said all the sequels (or DTV) were good but I did say some are as good as the originals. Some may forget that not all of what Disney did back in the day are considered to be treasured classics.

What about (I had never even heard of these before):
- Saludos Amigos, 1942
- The Three Caballeros, 1944
- Make Mine Music, 1946
- Fun and Fancy Free, 1947
- Melody Time, 1948

My kids can't even sit through the shorts with pluto, mickey, and friends.

Others that at least weren't favorites of mine that I saw as a child:
- Dumbo, 1941
- The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, 1949
- The Aristocats, 1970
- Robin Hood, 1973

Some of the later ones, after I was a kid that I would not place too highly:
- The Rescuers, 1977
- The Great Mouse Detective, 1986
- Oliver & Company, 1988
- The Hunchback of Notre Dame, 1996
- Atlantis: The Lost Empire, 2001
- Treasure Planet, 2002

There have been questionable Disney efforts ever since they have been around and there always will be, whether original efforts or sequels. It seems like sometimes when people look to to the past Disney efforts they only remember the Cinderella types and forget the rest.

Also, of the classics I let my children watch I have cut out certain scenes because they are not what I would view as appropriate anymore (e.g., Dumbo's mother being whipped by the circus manager, The eveil queen wanting Snow White's heart in a box).

MTRodaba2468, I will concede that there are sequels we did not like. But you actually think Lion King II, Bambi II, Beauty and the Beast Christmas, Fox and the Hound 2, Brother Bear 2, to name a few are a quite noticeable drop off in quality? I would have to disagree. And more importantly my kids disagree (after all they were marketed to them). And as far as these being sequels, I'd still prefer these to some of the original efforts done in the past two decades.

As I've stated before, those that have fond memories of some of these movies as a child and still favor them today cannot fairly judge the value of children's movies that they've only seen as an adult. I watched plenty of Godzilla and Tarzan movies as a child and can still enjoy them today because of my enjoyment in the past. However, I would find it difficult to imagine most kids of today growing up on Transformers and Spider-man wanting to sit through a movie with a guy walking around in a rubber suit stepping on carboard cities.

Darth Maher

My 5 year old daughter was QUITE excited when I gave her this news last night.