Deffo The Lion King 2, although The Little Mermaid 2 and Tarzan 2 (the midquel, not the awful straight-from-TV-series-film) were fair. The other STV Disney sequels however have been poo. 
Glad I’m not the only one!
Nobody like Return to Neverland? 
I’m sure I’m in the extreme minority on this one, but I enjoyed it jsut as much as Peter Pan.
I liked The Lion King II: Simba’s Pride, Lady and the Tramp II, 101 Dalmations II: Patch’s London Adventure; Cinderella II: Dreams Come True; Cinderella III: A Twist in Time, The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea; Aladdin and the King of Thieves and…I think that’s it.
You like Cinderella II but hated Up? What wrong with you!
He listed practically every direct to video sequel, most of which were widely panned.
On the other hand, he apparently dislikes everything that has been critically acclaimed.
Personally, and please don’t flame me for this, but I’ve never been a huge fan of Disney animated sequels. I have extremely high standards for Disney and besides a select few, I didn’t really feel like any of them could measure up to the originals (many of which actually tainted my view of the original films). That being said, here’s my extremely subjective short short list:
[list=]
Lion King 1 1/2 Funniest thing ever to come out of The Lion King (apart from Timon and Puumbaa)
Return of Jafar Loved the spirit and wit that this movie captured from the original, especially the songs “I’m Looking Out for Me” and “You’re only second Rate”. And Iago is awesome.
The Rescuers Down Under Undeniably one of the best sequel adaptations, the characters Bianca and Bernard were admirable and adoring as always.
Fantasia 2000 It’s not really a sequel IMO b/c Disney’s original plan was to keep switching out various shorts with new ones each year. That being said, it’s still a great spiritual successor.
Ever Single Winnie The Pooh movie- ie Day For Eeyore, Pooh’s Grand Adventure, Tigger Movie in particular For some reason or another, all of the Winnie The Pooh movies after Many Adventures are all really good. I really liked Pooh’s Grand Adventure, perhaps one of the saddest films Disney ever made, as well as the Tigger Movie and parts of Piglet’s BM and Heffalump (despite it being totally non-canon). I think they are a testament to the fact that if Disney actually tries to make heartwarming and funny sequels they can. [/list]
That confuses me so much!
Up was boring minus the Married Life sequence and doesn’t even fit the Pixar mold. Every Pixar film except Up fits a mold of being zany. A story about an old man that floats on a house with a thousand ballooons is not zany.
I forgot to mention that I liked Mulan II and The Hunchback of NOtre Dame II, well, the concept of the latter.
And no, I do not like every direct-to-video sequel to Disney movies. I hated Bambi II for instance. And the makers of Bambi II are producing Planes. So it’s not enough to wreck Disney masterpieces…they want to destroy Pixar worlds too.
Next they’ll be making, “A Dinosaur’s Strife,” “Aliens Inc.,” “Finding Waldo,” “Disablities,” “The Trash That Wall-E Built,” and “Dug: Beneath the Earth’s Surface.” NOt to mention “Coward, the story of a prince who is afraid of everything, even flowers and wristwatches.”
Fit a mold…
The point of Pixar is that they don’t have a mold. I don’t know what movie you were watching…
You know what? I have some reasons why Disney Toon Studios isn’t going to mess up Planes and other possible in future Pixar related direct to video films.
- Planes is a different reality. Much like the Buzz Lightyear TV show. It’s not even counted as a Pixar production.
- The Pixar company isn’t filled with idiots. If they just asked to make a sequel to one of their films they’d reject it. They must of approved and liked the idea of planes.
- Pixar’s protective of their franchises. They might be looking over the production at work. How can you go wrong with that?
I’m trying really hard here not to laugh. You have no idea what a good movie is. Fitting a mold is never a good thing, and is boring. Up is extremely zany, everything about it except for the one scene you listed is a crazy wacky adventure with talking dogs and flying houses and action-hero-old-men.
Lover_of_Fiction- I sorta get what you mean, not that I agree or anything but Pixar’s films generally have elements that make them great: top notch storytelling and animation, and imagination. And yes, in regards to UP, having talking dogs did, at first, seem childish and stale and it did take me aback a little on the first watch.
But have you ever heard of a story of an old man flying a house before UP? And even so, why should old ideas always be bad? The idea of monsters in closets is not really a new concept, but Monsters, Inc. worked, no?
I’m not trying to be harsh or anything, don’t get me wrong. I think it’s a little harsh for others to say you have no taste in animation because everyones different. But there are fundemental things that make films “good”-and Pixar, on a whole, cover those things-but thinking out of the box and not fitting a mold has solidified some great directors in the past.
I just think its funny how his/her criteria for what makes a Pixar film good can be so weird. Fitting into a formula is not something most people want, and something that is different from everything else is typically a good thing. He/she’s basically saying that saying that Pixar films have a formula of not having formulas, and that Up didn’t fit the formula because it fits formulas. Nothing about Up felt formulaic, it was all so unexpected and different from the average animated film. Its a movie about an old man, who flies away in a house supported by balloons, meets talking dogs who can fly airplanes, saves a giant bird from another old man, and becomes friends with a young cub scout. That’s about as “zany” as anything can get.
While most of the sequels he listed, like say Cinderella II were not entertaining a bit. Cinderella II was one of the most boring things I’ve ever watched.
Oh, I’m not agreeing with him/her, I’m just trying to get things from all angles
And Cinderella 2 was boring, I quite agree
Up was boring…the only character I even remotely liked was Kevin and she doesn’t even TALK.
I liked Cinderella II not because of it’s amazing storyline, which it lacks, but because it teaches that love can happen to anyone. More so than any other film except The Hunchback of Notre Dame II, but that one does it kind of weakly.
I loved the idea that love could happen to anyone; at least, I did when I was younger and believed it. After rewatching old Disney Channel shows lke Lizzie McGuire, however, I am coming to despise the notion that love can happen to anyone because it can’t.
I do not care what you say about my taste in movies. I am not a big fan of them anyway. When I do watch a movie I want to forget that there is a world outside that movie. In Up, that is impossible because the film exhibits this world in such gruesome detail.
I count on Pixar to introduce me characters that I’m not supposed to believe can exist. To think that cowboy dolls in our world can talk, that in an alternate universe cars can go to the bathroom, that monsters use odorants to make themselves smell worse, and that fish actually have the thinking capacity to search an entire ocean for their offspring…THIS is what I expect from Pixar. Up does not do this. Except for the fact that helium in a thousand balloons isn’t strong enough to lift a house, and that a man who is over 100 years old and has lived in South America for seventy years can be still be healthy enough to act on his selfish deeds, nothing in that film is unbelievable, and these things aren’t good enough.
Its good to know how easily you believe in giant prehistoric birds and talking dogs that can fly planes.
You’ll not like WALL-E then, thats for sure…
At least we both like Wall-e, I just finished watching it now actually. 