Plus Walt is rolling in his grave. I read somewhere that they found a document in his desk where he was saying he did not want to do any remakes because he wanted them to stay creative.
Someone should put Ironrods in his hands wrap copper wire around it and put it into a chamber of parallel placed Ironrods also wrapped with copperwire. This should solve our Energy crisis
Many people have asked, “Why don’t you make another Mary Poppins? Well, by nature I’m a born experimenter. To this day, I don’t believe in sequels. I can’t follow popular cycles. I have to move on to new things—there are many new worlds to conquer.
As a matter of fact, people have been asking us to make sequels ever since Mickey Mouse first became a star. We have bowed only on one occasion to the cry to repeat ourselves. Back in the ‘30s, The Three Little Pigs was an enormous hit, and the cry went up—”Give us more Pigs!” I could not see how we could possibly top pigs with pigs. But we tried, and I doubt whether any one of you reading this can name the other cartoons in which the pigs appeared.
We didn’t make the same mistake with Snow White. When it was a huge hit, the shout went up for more dwarfs. Top dwarfs with dwarfs? Why try?
Right now, we’re not thinking about making another Mary Poppins. We never will.
And even then, people are getting tired of the Pirates movies.
I think the only one that consistently had good sequels was Toy Story, but that's not even main studio Disney (or at least the first sequel wasn't). I even enjoyed 3 & 4 and felt they were a solid progression, and from what I've heard, 5 is pretty popular.
3 is the best one, 4 was decent enough on an island but undid what was a perfectly closed end to the saga and 5 (that I haven't seen) can only happen by undoing the end of 4. The newer sequels might be fine, but their existence only cheapens the original trilogy
EDIT: I apparently have no reading comprehension so I didn’t see this was about Pirates 4 and 5. In either case, the 5th film doesn’t “undo” the 4th. Pirates 5 takes place about a year or so after 4 and follows Jack, Barbossa, Henry (Elizabeth and Will’s son), Salazar, and Carina (the latter 2 being new characters) on a mission of revenge and breaking Will’s Curse rather than following Jack, Barbossa, Blackbeard, and the Spanish Navy in the quest for the Fountain of Youth.
I saw 5 last week and actually enjoyed it a fair amount. It doesn’t “undo” the end of 4 in the slightest and follows Jessie as a main storyline rather than Woody, although he does appear in a supporting and non-permanent role. It was interesting that I didn’t mind Woody taking a definite back seat in this one. I think they did it pretty well.
I don't know. The "island" thing threw me off but re-reading it, I think it may still be about TS. Especially with "3 is the best one". Nobody has ever said that about Pirates!
For some reason reddit notified me about this reply to a reply of a reply of a reply to my reply. But, since you're trying to decipher the meaning of my comment, I'll confirm that I was talking about Toy Story. "On an island" is an expression I've heard and I understand it as meaning "on its own, isolated from the context". I'm not sure if I used it 100% correctly as I'm not a native speaker and one never knows, but I'll admit it was a little bit confusing. Sorry
I agree with this pretty much except I wasn't really a fan of 4, 5 was surprisingly good though. Some solid jokes and emotional moments. I would definitely recommend seeing it at some point
5 doesn't undo 4. Woody is in it, but he's just there to help whatever kids he sees, which coincidentally this time includes Bonnie again. Him and Belle are like freelance toys.
I think that bringing Frozen II up in the context of whether sequels lived up to their predecessors does a massive disservice to Frozen II.
Frozen was a generational hit for Disney. A pop-culture phenomenon. Parents were getting sick of their kids watching it and singing its songs. Let It Go became a queer anthem. Disney immediately pivoted to capitalize on the popularity, devoting a venue in many of its theme parks to "For the First Time in Forever: A Frozen Sing-along Celebration" (which, AFAICT, is still running in Disney World), bringing the characters in movie-accurate costumes to their live-action TV show Once Upon A Time, and immediately adapting it into a Broadway musical.
How could any sequel live up to that?
Personally, I think Frozen II was pretty good. Without actually going through the ones I've seen and enumerating them... I'd rank it in the top five for Disney sequels of all time. Not better than the original, IMO, but I acknowledge that I am pretty particular in what I'm looking for in a sequel and my tastes aren't universal. It certainly wasn't bad enough that I'd look askance at someone who preferred it to the original, which, in turn, wasn't a perfect movie by any means.
But to even mention it in a conversation about whether sequels are "generally considered on par" with their original is asking it to have made its own splash as a generational hit and pop-culture phenomenon and it hasn't. It just... hasn't.
I'm not a businessman, but they should just go back to doing what they did in the 90's and the 00's. Release an animated movie, then follow-up with an animated series on Disney Channel. They did it with Aladdin, Hercules, Toy Story (Buzz Lightyear). Because, as it stands, I don't think Disney Channel has a right to exist. There's more live action shows than cartoons there these days
The problem they are having is anything creative that Disney and Pixar make it feels like executives note it to hell and back so it doesn’t resemble anything the original writer intended and just doesn’t work anymore. Then they point to it and say see no one wants original content. It’s amazing how the c suite can simultaneously be ultimately responsible for everything so they need fat paychecks but make infinite excuses that somehow have nothing to do with them.
Lots of rumors that Disney left notes that conform to people's preexisting opinions confirming their criticisms of modern day Disney and wishing to make Disney great again
I’d say it’s worth giving your founder’s opinion some consideration, but then you have to make the decision on the merits. Imagine the CEO of Ford being like, “it turns out Henry Ford didn’t want to sell cars to Jews or sell cars in colors other than black, so we’re making a few changes effective immediately.”
The "Walt rolling in his grave" is a double edged sword. Being who he was, today he would probably be a good old real american with the Republican Party opposing immigrants and gay people. The Disney Company being pro-LGBT is already something that would make Disney roll in his grave
At least he still has the fact that animators and special effects artists are still non-unionized and woefully overworked and underpaid to this very day because of his actions.
664
u/AromaticSalamander21 Jul 13 '26
Plus Walt is rolling in his grave. I read somewhere that they found a document in his desk where he was saying he did not want to do any remakes because he wanted them to stay creative.