Yes, it's just the other reason.
Moolah. If there's money to be made, any studio will chase that. Of course, faced with the orders from head office to make these things, the <I>artists</I> do do their best to try and pack them with as much artistry as possible, but their reason for being is because somewhere someone thought they could make money from them.
As mentioned above, perhaps in a way that flew over most heads, we won't be seeing sequels to The Black Cauldron any time soon, despite the fact that, <I>artistically</I>, this is one film that would lend itself to further books in the series being adapted. But...y'know, forget the art. It wouldn't make any money...
It's a possibly unpleasant fact of the movie business, and as much as we'd all like to think that these films are made because there are interesting stories to tell, it's just not the case. The fact is that market research shows what sells and what has the potential to sell, then an order is put out to make a product to fill that gap. That's all it is. Product. And sometimes it slips down to the right people, who are able to come up with something that does justice to the franchise, and sometimes, well...it doesn't.
The Little Mermaid
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 260
- Joined: October 29th, 2004
- Location: UK
... I said the old arguments would come flooding out. We've had worse sequels (Cinderella II, Pocahontas II and Hunchback II). Of course they want to make money. The original wasn't just because they found a group of talented people who just HAPPENED to all like Mermaids collectively! LMFAO! If you have imagination enough to enjoy the story, I'm sure like me you're sold on letting a good tale well told (and the fact that this has relatively good production values in comparison to the aforementioned sequels) be enough. I'm off to bed to watch it again! Good night folks x Remember Ben's just a guy who runs a website and reviews the DVD, in all respect, make up your own (open?) minds!
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6709
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
That was a bit...harsh.JustinWilliams wrote:Good night folks x Remember Ben's just a guy who runs a website and reviews the DVD, in all respect, make up your own (open?) minds!
Seriously, I think that Ben has a lot of good points there.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
Except that by clinging to the misdirected-anger of "They just wanted more money", it still doesn't answer the question of what they even conceptually hoped to accomplish with a "Fox & the Hound" sequel that bore no remote resemblance to the original except to mention the characters, if not to sell old one-disk Gold Edition DVD's of the original with better 2-disk editions?
And did the Dumbo and Aristocats 2-disks "suddenly appear for no reason" within a reasonable halfway-through-production timeframe as their sequels had been cancelled?
(People...WHAT will it take to convince half the board that Disney sees--or "saw", now that it's officially in past tense, as of this disk--sequels only as a promotional/legal requirement tool, interchangeable of all possible monetary and-or artistic concerns?
Yes, we know you're frustrated and want to blame Bad People, but look at it in rational context: The only reason Cauldron in the thread was mentioned was to illustrate one point, and it wasn't about money or desperation for source material.)
And did the Dumbo and Aristocats 2-disks "suddenly appear for no reason" within a reasonable halfway-through-production timeframe as their sequels had been cancelled?
(People...WHAT will it take to convince half the board that Disney sees--or "saw", now that it's officially in past tense, as of this disk--sequels only as a promotional/legal requirement tool, interchangeable of all possible monetary and-or artistic concerns?
Yes, we know you're frustrated and want to blame Bad People, but look at it in rational context: The only reason Cauldron in the thread was mentioned was to illustrate one point, and it wasn't about money or desperation for source material.)
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25715
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
I'm not angry. I'm stating the fact.
Of course a Fox And The Hound sequel was designed to shift more of the first one, and to probably make Copper and Todd viable characters again for more spin-offs in the way of merchandising and a possible TV extension.
And I'm not "blaming Bad People". As I have said <I>countless</I> times in reviews, I am all in support of these artists. They have a sometimes dirty job to do, but they try and do it with style and by keeping as true to the originals as possible.
Conceptually speaking...what they wanted to accomplish artistically with any of these films is a moot point. The aim for them is to be made cheap ($12m to $20m, a fraction of a $100m to $200m feature budget) and make lots (some of these titles have brought in <I>more</I> that some features). That's all there is to it. It's the artists that are then able to say, "okay, well, if they want one of those, then let's see what we can do to make it work".
I don't get the Cauldron argument. That was exactly about money. We're not going to see a Cauldron sequel - despite the fact it might be <I>artistically</I> worthy - because the projection say it would not make money.
Most of you guys have not been in pitch meetings where the first thing said is not, "wow, what great characters, what a great story", but, "yes, something like this should shift the right kind of numbers". It's all about the numbers.
As for a guy running a website, I'd like to think that my years writing and advising on film and animation makes me someone with at least an informed opinion. Which is what a reviewer is.
After all, Roger Ebert is just a guy who expresses an opinion. That's all any reviewer is. It's what they know and how they can place the topic in context that counts. Which is why we continue what we do here, and if we can turn some people towards a certain title that they might have passed on, or save people from wasting their money on substandard fare, then we're just doing our job!
Of course a Fox And The Hound sequel was designed to shift more of the first one, and to probably make Copper and Todd viable characters again for more spin-offs in the way of merchandising and a possible TV extension.
And I'm not "blaming Bad People". As I have said <I>countless</I> times in reviews, I am all in support of these artists. They have a sometimes dirty job to do, but they try and do it with style and by keeping as true to the originals as possible.
Conceptually speaking...what they wanted to accomplish artistically with any of these films is a moot point. The aim for them is to be made cheap ($12m to $20m, a fraction of a $100m to $200m feature budget) and make lots (some of these titles have brought in <I>more</I> that some features). That's all there is to it. It's the artists that are then able to say, "okay, well, if they want one of those, then let's see what we can do to make it work".
I don't get the Cauldron argument. That was exactly about money. We're not going to see a Cauldron sequel - despite the fact it might be <I>artistically</I> worthy - because the projection say it would not make money.
Most of you guys have not been in pitch meetings where the first thing said is not, "wow, what great characters, what a great story", but, "yes, something like this should shift the right kind of numbers". It's all about the numbers.
As for a guy running a website, I'd like to think that my years writing and advising on film and animation makes me someone with at least an informed opinion. Which is what a reviewer is.
After all, Roger Ebert is just a guy who expresses an opinion. That's all any reviewer is. It's what they know and how they can place the topic in context that counts. Which is why we continue what we do here, and if we can turn some people towards a certain title that they might have passed on, or save people from wasting their money on substandard fare, then we're just doing our job!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 260
- Joined: October 29th, 2004
- Location: UK
Ben, do forgive me. I merely meant that people have to make their own minds up about animated features [especially sequels] and not just assume that if one person has a certain view it's the right one - or the final say. My point was to suggest that people are open minded and view it for what it is - a story which, in my opinion, doesn't replace or match or have any impact on the brilliance of the original. I meant no slight on your contribution to this site or your creditability as a reviewer just that you're bound not to like it because of where you have already said you stand [re. 'You guys are really going to hate my review']. I still stand by all my other comments however of expecting to hear people with lots of tired arguments revolving around money and greed, etc. Boring!
People will probably compare the music not created by the same composers, the animation created not by the same animators and the direction not by the same Director to the original and point out the obvious – that this isn’t as good as the original; is an inferior piece. Of course it is! Disney and the whole team working on it will know that they’ll never match the original – I don’t think they’re trying to. Is there anything wrong with a sequel which doesn’t ever attempt to be its original but has a story to tell? Should we never invent new tales for new generations because the old ones we have can’t be bettered? Some would have imagination shelved in shrinkwrap but Ariel’s Beginning is a cracked mirror which still reflects an image.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: October 7th, 2007
- Location: Unknown
No,it's not.
Obviously this movie is more to Ariel fans then anyone else,Ariel is so popular they made this movie and there is a story to tell,so Cinderella was made JUST to make money? it tried to be different and so is Ariel's Beginning and maybe Lion King 1.5,Cinderella III is a twist on the story and Ariel's Beginning tell things that many people were wondering for many years.
Almost all the other cheapquels were made to make money (Like Little Mermaid II) but don't say that on films like Cinderella III or Ariel's Beginning that are trying to be different.
Obviously this movie is more to Ariel fans then anyone else,Ariel is so popular they made this movie and there is a story to tell,so Cinderella was made JUST to make money? it tried to be different and so is Ariel's Beginning and maybe Lion King 1.5,Cinderella III is a twist on the story and Ariel's Beginning tell things that many people were wondering for many years.
Almost all the other cheapquels were made to make money (Like Little Mermaid II) but don't say that on films like Cinderella III or Ariel's Beginning that are trying to be different.
[img]http://i43.tinypic.com/bfqbtk.jpg[/img]
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6709
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
Why are people so eager to defend this movie?
I'm sorry, but to me, this was seriously the most commercial movie that Disney's done in ages.
The plots holes are terrible. The animation lacks depth. The film, quite honestly, is often quite boring.
They changed the characters so that they'd work for the story that they wanted to tell. The movie just doesn't work, at least for me, when you play it in front of the original.
And they came up with a new, pointless villain who hated Sebastian. Seriously, couldn't they have come up with something a little, you know, stronger?
The way that I saw it, the movie felt desperate. Disney *really* wanted to make another Little Mermaid film, so they came up with one that they thought would work. For me at least, it didn't. Big time.
Again, all my opinion.
I'm sorry, but to me, this was seriously the most commercial movie that Disney's done in ages.
The plots holes are terrible. The animation lacks depth. The film, quite honestly, is often quite boring.
They changed the characters so that they'd work for the story that they wanted to tell. The movie just doesn't work, at least for me, when you play it in front of the original.
And they came up with a new, pointless villain who hated Sebastian. Seriously, couldn't they have come up with something a little, you know, stronger?
The way that I saw it, the movie felt desperate. Disney *really* wanted to make another Little Mermaid film, so they came up with one that they thought would work. For me at least, it didn't. Big time.
Again, all my opinion.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25715
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Thanks, Justin. I appreciate that.
Yes, I wrote that "You guys re going to hate my review", actually a little in jest, since it was getting such good notices here and I thought "wow, what I'm about to post isn't going with the popular opinion here"! And, yes, I will be attacking the animation, songs and whatnot, not because they are "sequel fare", but because they are simply substandard.
We <I>know</I> the DisneyTooners can do better than this. And there are several things that could have been done with this that might have raised the game. I am <I>not</I> anti-sequel. Since Return To Never-Land, many readers would have read my sequel reviews and found me quite complimentary in many ways, going against the grain with animation purists whose aim it was was to get these things shut down.
But as WJ says, this is the most out and out commercial release from Disney in many years, and when you say it doesn't have an impact on the original, I am split on putting up an argument: do I tell you that the film <I>should</I> have had an impact, that as a companion piece it should have actually complimented the original and enriched that further when we watch again in future, or should I tell you that we now have a six year old child who will not watch any Little Mermaid we have in the house "because Ariel is boring".
If this wasn't made with a commercial intent, wheres the art and what's the point in making something that "doesn't replace or match or have any impact on the brilliance of the original"...?
Yes, I wrote that "You guys re going to hate my review", actually a little in jest, since it was getting such good notices here and I thought "wow, what I'm about to post isn't going with the popular opinion here"! And, yes, I will be attacking the animation, songs and whatnot, not because they are "sequel fare", but because they are simply substandard.
We <I>know</I> the DisneyTooners can do better than this. And there are several things that could have been done with this that might have raised the game. I am <I>not</I> anti-sequel. Since Return To Never-Land, many readers would have read my sequel reviews and found me quite complimentary in many ways, going against the grain with animation purists whose aim it was was to get these things shut down.
But as WJ says, this is the most out and out commercial release from Disney in many years, and when you say it doesn't have an impact on the original, I am split on putting up an argument: do I tell you that the film <I>should</I> have had an impact, that as a companion piece it should have actually complimented the original and enriched that further when we watch again in future, or should I tell you that we now have a six year old child who will not watch any Little Mermaid we have in the house "because Ariel is boring".
If this wasn't made with a commercial intent, wheres the art and what's the point in making something that "doesn't replace or match or have any impact on the brilliance of the original"...?
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 260
- Joined: October 29th, 2004
- Location: UK
Just wanted to ensure you realised your work was appreciated.
It's unfortunate your daughter thinks Ariel is boring after seeing Ariel's Beginning. For some, it will be either a reintroduction to the original which they will be thankful for, the first time they venture on the tales of The Little Mermaid or an opportunity for young minds to make decisions about what they like about the original. I think it's also a matter of where the film connects with you. I think the issues are more complex than the girl fancies boy of the original and require and invite wonderful opportunity for discussion within families - esp. as I noted before, those who may have experienced loss like Ariel and Triton in this feature.
This def. isn't the most "out and out commercial release from Disney in many years" when you consider Fox and Hound 2. I've never denied there was a commercial intent, in fact I glibly said that the original wasn't Mermaid Fanciers Anonymous collectively learning how to animate a feature. But there's no harm telling a new story which never attempts to overwrite or match its original.
The Princess Tales have been vastly popular and expanded those lines. Adult heads may shake at their slim fidelity to the originals, but good morals of persistence and whimsy of new adventures are just imaginative extensions of the original that most children often go back to.
It's unfortunate your daughter thinks Ariel is boring after seeing Ariel's Beginning. For some, it will be either a reintroduction to the original which they will be thankful for, the first time they venture on the tales of The Little Mermaid or an opportunity for young minds to make decisions about what they like about the original. I think it's also a matter of where the film connects with you. I think the issues are more complex than the girl fancies boy of the original and require and invite wonderful opportunity for discussion within families - esp. as I noted before, those who may have experienced loss like Ariel and Triton in this feature.
This def. isn't the most "out and out commercial release from Disney in many years" when you consider Fox and Hound 2. I've never denied there was a commercial intent, in fact I glibly said that the original wasn't Mermaid Fanciers Anonymous collectively learning how to animate a feature. But there's no harm telling a new story which never attempts to overwrite or match its original.
The Princess Tales have been vastly popular and expanded those lines. Adult heads may shake at their slim fidelity to the originals, but good morals of persistence and whimsy of new adventures are just imaginative extensions of the original that most children often go back to.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25715
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Not that you would have guessed, but she's not my daughter! Just a younger member of the family.
Again I would suggest though, that there's no point in creating something if it doesn't do anything.
And that...with my review going up later today...is all I'm going to say about this. One can go on until they're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, Ariel's Beginning is not worth it.
Again I would suggest though, that there's no point in creating something if it doesn't do anything.
And that...with my review going up later today...is all I'm going to say about this. One can go on until they're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, Ariel's Beginning is not worth it.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1960
- Joined: December 16th, 2004
- Location: Burbank, Calif.
Eh.
I enjoyed Ariel's Beginning; it was what I'd hoped for .. which is to say, a DTV vehicle that prominently features Ariel's sisters (characters which, as I'd said before, have long been 'personal favorites' .. and who hadn't gotten much attention from Disney, until now).
It was nowhere near the quality of the original film .. but I didn't expect it to be.
However (IMHO), it far surpasses the early-1990's 'Disney Afternoon' TLM TV series, in both animation quality and storytelling.
----------------
As to whether it's a 'blatantly commercial' venture .. well, yeah. All Disney films are (including the features); heck, all 'Hollywood' studio films are. This is show business.
As Ben pointed out, the 'creatives' strive to stick as much 'art' into the mix as they can (or are allowed) .. still, from personal experience (on different DTV projects), I can say with confidence: it's a blind miracle that most movies turn out to be even halfway 'good' at all.
I enjoyed Ariel's Beginning; it was what I'd hoped for .. which is to say, a DTV vehicle that prominently features Ariel's sisters (characters which, as I'd said before, have long been 'personal favorites' .. and who hadn't gotten much attention from Disney, until now).
It was nowhere near the quality of the original film .. but I didn't expect it to be.
However (IMHO), it far surpasses the early-1990's 'Disney Afternoon' TLM TV series, in both animation quality and storytelling.
----------------
As to whether it's a 'blatantly commercial' venture .. well, yeah. All Disney films are (including the features); heck, all 'Hollywood' studio films are. This is show business.
As Ben pointed out, the 'creatives' strive to stick as much 'art' into the mix as they can (or are allowed) .. still, from personal experience (on different DTV projects), I can say with confidence: it's a blind miracle that most movies turn out to be even halfway 'good' at all.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: October 7th, 2007
- Location: Unknown
.Why are people so eager to defend this movie?
Because I liked it and I think it's my favorite sequel.
Something original,good,much better then that horror Return To The Sea,and they showed and she even had a song,not a picture like Prince Charming's mother in Cinderella III or like Jasmine's mother in Enchanted Tales that the Sultan just said how Jasmine is like her mother.
It may have plot holes and doesn't make much sense but don't get me started on Little Mermaid II or Pocahontas II.
I think that Ariel's Beginning and Cinderella III are the beast sequels/cheapquels and Cinderella II,Mulan II and Lion King 1 1/2 were good.
[img]http://i43.tinypic.com/bfqbtk.jpg[/img]
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25715
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
http://animated-views.com/2008/little-m ... el-begins/Ben wrote:And that...with my review going up later today...is all I'm going to say about this. One can go on until they're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, Ariel's Beginning is not worth it.