|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:54 pm
I watched Tarzan II today... o_O
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:06 pm
Usually Sequels as a rule suck. There are two movies that have shattered my belief in that rule though like a rock smashing a window. Those are Brother Bear 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean 2. They have not only not sucked, but they were way better than the first movies of them. PotC2 though I have to say is the most awesome sequel I have seem EVER. Possibly the best movie period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:29 am
Ah, but then comes the age old argument.
Can PotC2 be considered a true sequal, since it's part of a trilogy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:10 pm
Pirates is deffinately a trilogy. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
LittleBlackWolf Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:37 pm
Let's see...
I really liked the Little Mermaid II...not too fond of the Lion King II...never saw the Hunchback II...I want to see Peter Pan II...
Mulan II...um...it was kinda boring. sweatdrop I didn't watch Bambi II yet even though I've got it.
Cinderella II looked like a joke. sweatdrop I'm sorry.
I really enjoyed the second Pocahontas movie, "Journey to a New World" or whatever...I was so excited when I found out they made a second one. heart sweatdrop
Some are good...some are bad...some are ugly. sweatdrop
EDIT: Oh! I also liked the sequels to Aladdin. 3nodding I can't really remember what happened in the Return of Jafar, but I know I liked it (I would always beg my friend to watch it but she would always say no stare ), and the King of Thieves was a good one too. heart xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:12 pm
Hmm. None of the sequals have really impressed me, except for Pocahontas 2, The Lion King 2, and maaaayyybe the Little Mermaid 2... Oh! Pirates of the Carribean was AWESOME - if not a little confusing at times. It's a good thing I watched the first one before going to see it the next day!!! 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:39 pm
yeah, I love the Aladdin triology too.
but the thing is that some people argue that second parts of trilogies can't be counted as sequels because of course they're going to be good, they kind of have to be. that's why in every evaluation of sequels I've ever seen, they usually leave out like Star Wars II and such.
that's what I meant when I asked about PotC. I'm sure it will probably be one of the one that's trilogy exempt from the sucky sequel rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:41 am
Mystic_Blue_Fox Usually Sequels as a rule suck. There are two movies that have shattered my belief in that rule though like a rock smashing a window. Those are Brother Bear 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean 2. They have not only not sucked, but they were way better than the first movies of them. PotC2 though I have to say is the most awesome sequel I have seem EVER. Possibly the best movie period. I'm not sure I completely agree with you in the brother bear one. While true, the sequel is a good movie, the first one was better for me. The drama and lesson was different than the usual "True love conquers all, is pure, and is selfless." We still see true love, but among family. You say love and think of some guy/girl, but I, as the oldest of 8, found myself in Sitka (and Kenai when he's fighting with Koda). I think the only time I felt more of myself in a Disney movie was in Lilo and Stich. Even now I say to my mother that if she dies me and Andrea are going to be just like that. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:58 pm
Yeah I'd have to say that probably the best sequels are pirates of the carribean: dead man's chest and Lion King 2. Probably the worst I've seen are Aladin 2 and 3, and Little Mermaid 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:01 pm
I haven't seen most of the sequels, and never really wanted to. For years, I've felt the original was enough, and the sequels would just be cheap knockoffs anyway, so they weren't worth seeing.
I'm not looking forward to Fox and the Hound 2, which is coming out in November, a month after the 25th anniversary DVD release of the original. I hope they do something besides repeating the story with Copper's kid and Tod's kid, or something of that nature. And I hope Disney doesn't pull another Mulan in its Disney Dogs marketing line, trying to sell Tod as a "dog" even though he's a fox. In that case Robin Hood might as well be a "dog."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:05 pm
...call me pessimistic, but I'm sure Fox and the Hound 2 will also have a bunch of unnecessary new "dog" characters to market as Disney Dogs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:43 am
moethebartender ...call me pessimistic, but I'm sure Fox and the Hound 2 will also have a bunch of unnecessary new "dog" characters to market as Disney Dogs. Call me "pissed" because I don't think this movie needs a freaking sequel. It's beautiful as it is!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:58 am
that's so cheap.
sometimes they just take things too far. not every freaking movie needs a sequel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:55 pm
ragazzaa_blu that's so cheap.
sometimes they just take things too far. not every freaking movie needs a sequel.
I couldn't agree more. But apparently, Disney is cutting down on how many sequels they make. From now on, they'll only make new sequels if they use characters from one of their merchandise lines. Hence Cinderella III (Princesses), Peter Pan III and Tinker Bell (Fairies) and Fox and the Hound II (Dogs).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:13 pm
There's a second Fox and the Hound? eek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
