|
Post by Graygrl92 on Feb 10, 2011 14:28:16 GMT -5
No I see what you're saying: I just think, in the long run Disney would care more about how well the movie fairs rather than keeping up an old "theme."
But we're getting way too into this XD
It's just for fun, right?
Maybe it's just that I never got to see LePelt animated (not counting that old PC game). And I always loved him XDDDDD
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Feb 10, 2011 15:01:09 GMT -5
No matter what the theme is, I have high doubts this film would be worth Disney's investment.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Feb 10, 2011 15:43:00 GMT -5
No matter what the theme is, I have high doubts this film would be worth Disney's investment. That's kind of sad considering that 101 Dalmatians is one of the highest-grossing animated films of all time, even though it is one of the lesser-known Disney franchises.
|
|
|
Post by GrayGrl92 on Feb 10, 2011 16:44:29 GMT -5
Ya I know.
But times have changed--and though I loved Patch's london adventure, it' didn't do super well in the long run right? Sadly, Disney must move on.
|
|
|
Post by Nemo on Feb 10, 2011 16:50:59 GMT -5
Ya I know. But times have changed--and though I loved Patch's london adventure, it' didn't do super well in the long run right? Sadly, Disney must move on. To me that movie was 'ehhhh =/' at best. Especially since they got a lot of the character designs messed up (ie Lucky, which really made me go.. 'that's.. HIM?! o.o was he bleached?!' ) LOL.
|
|
|
Post by GrayGrl92 on Feb 10, 2011 16:53:23 GMT -5
XDD Ya, I was peeved t Lucky's design. But Patch is so adraoble and Thunderbolt....
Oh Thunderbolt. He made the movie for me XD
|
|
|
Post by RaceFanX on Feb 11, 2011 14:16:01 GMT -5
I can't see a 101 Dalmatians 3 being made. The DTV Sequels damaged Disney's creditability and the company moved away from them with just cause (still I wish they'd made an Oliver and Company 2 first).
The only way I think you'll see another 101 film is if someone other than Disney tried to make "Starlight Barking" into a knockoff 101 movie. Smith's novel sequel has never been adapted for any media and I'm not certain Disney locked the rights down to it (although they may still have just to prevent such a scenario).
But as said before, the heck with logic. Let's have some fun
|
|
|
Post by RaceFanX on Feb 11, 2011 14:19:14 GMT -5
If they ever did a third movie I'd want to see them move away from Cruella kidnapping the dogs to kill them. In the first one for the coat that made sense, in the second one the movie felt like it hit a wall when Cruella wanted to off them to make art with their furs (that doesn't even make sense, especially for spot-loving Lars). It seemed forced. She'd need a new motivation.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Feb 11, 2011 15:28:28 GMT -5
Well, yeah, you do have a point. The DTV sequels that came out from 1998 - 2007 were pretty much of a trainwreck in the Disney company. I'd like to add on to the fact that along with Oliver & Company 2, they were also planning on making a Dumbo 2 and an Aristocats 2, but those never saw the light of day. Dumbo 2 was even advertised on the DVD.
However, we have entered a new era where Disney actually put their minds in gear and figured out that the key to a good movie is a good story. That's what Pixar has been trying to tell them. When Disney was making the DTV sequels to their movies in the late 90's and a majority of the 2000's, they were just trying to capitalize on the franchise and didn't really care much about story; they thought, "fans of the original will be suckered into buying the DVD, and then we'll make tons of money off of it."
However, as of 2008, they stopped doing that and gave story the #1 focus on all the rest of their movies beginning with "Wall-E". Some of the films had stories that were so good that they made people cry. Maybe someday, they'll get back in the habbit of making sequels and put some strong focus on the stories.
As far as I know, every Disney Animated Feature that suffered the DTV sequel fate only had one sequel. The only ones that managed to get a third part were "Aladdin", "Cinderella", "The Lion King" and "The Little Mermaid".
Also, as many of us know, all of the DTV sequels to the Disney Animated Features were totally inferior to the originals. Well, "101 Dalmatians 2" and "Lady and the Tramp 2" caught my attention (and I thought they were decent), and "The Lion King 2" has a pretty big fanbase to this day. Still, they're nowhere near as good as the originals.
So anyway, that's what I gotta say about that.
|
|
|
Post by RaceFanX on Feb 12, 2011 0:59:49 GMT -5
It's funny we're taking all these shots at the DTV sequels in the past tense. I just remembered Disney just released "Beverly Hills Chihuahua 2" like two weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by babclayman on Feb 12, 2011 5:16:54 GMT -5
Whilstis true, Disney's DTV Sequals are known to have a Bad reputation.
I will say, "Patch's London Adventure" Was pretty good as far as the Standards are. The Animation is nice, The Writing was actually humourous and it did have Character Development. ;3
The only complaint that, I ever hear from, Pups about it, is that, The other, Dalmatian's Ears are White. Isn't that like taking like say...Indiana Jones and giving it, Two Stars because a Crew Man's hand just slipped in for a breif second?
I think, I understand why they did that, White Ear thing though. The Film was about, Patch and also how he was different from the other, Dalmatian Pups. =3 So, This can lead into him having the Black Ear and Patch, so he differs in appearance too. So, Pretty much an Artisit View of it.
The Only complaint, I have with it, is that they could have made, Roger's voice more like it was in the, "Animated" "101 Dalmatians". I mean, I know why they couldn't have gotten, Roger's Voice back, But this one did have a bit of a higher voice, if you get what I mean.
Still, "Patch's London Adventure" Is a Pretty Good Film and one of the only times that, a Disney STV Sequal was Actually Good. *Hugs* X3
Still, On the Subject of, "101 Dalmatians 3". ;3
For, Cruella, We could try the "Starlight Barking" Method and have her make a brief Scene, you know the Dogs suspecting something before seeing she is innocent...'This time'.... in a way. So, At least, Cruella would appear. ;3
A DTV Dequal can work, It just needs a number of things. 1. Good Writing. 2. Decent Animation. 3. Consistansy with the Original Story. 4. Good Voicing.
It is Possible, Just a bit of effort is needed too. ;3
Still, I look forward to seeing what happens in this, Discussion, Pups. *Hugs* X3
|
|
|
Post by Trey_Vore on Feb 26, 2011 6:40:29 GMT -5
The only complaint that, I ever hear from, Pups about it, is that, The other, Dalmatian's Ears are White. Isn't that like taking like say...Indiana Jones and giving it, Two Stars because a Crew Man's hand just slipped in for a breif second? I think, I understand why they did that, White Ear thing though. The Film was about, Patch and also how he was different from the other, Dalmatian Pups. =3 So, This can lead into him having the Black Ear and Patch, so he differs in appearance too. So, Pretty much an Artisit View of it. This will make more sense, I promise. For quite some time, you have an idea of what a character in your favorite movie is supposed to look like. You kinda expect them to look a specific way. Ever since 1961, this tends to be the way you see Lucky. And then you see the 2003 sequel and... ...wait...what...the...f**k?? Can you tell something is wrong here? Back in 2003 I bought the DVD along with some collectible prints from the Disney Store and I could point out which puppy was supposed to be Lucky. The first time I watched the 2003 sequel I thought that was just another generic puppy until Patch had refered to him by name. Then it was just like, "Wait...THAT was Lucky??" If you need another example, this will help. Say you are a big fan of The Simpsons. In 2007 you finally got the chance to see The Simpsons Movie. It may have been 10 years late, but it's here. You then see it and... "Umm... guys? Is there a reason Marge is colored like a big ice cream cone??" No, no passing references, no explanation, not even a joke is made; this is just how the character is supposed to look, like it or not. The point is it's almost like a typical "Jump the Shark" moment called "Same Character, Different Actor". Basically imagine they made Back to the Future Part 2 and in the role of Doc Brown Christopher Lloyd was replaced by Jon Lovitz and there was no explanation for the change. You can tell something is wrong but it seems like they are trying to deliberately insult your intelligence. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by babclayman on Feb 26, 2011 6:55:47 GMT -5
I don't think, Lucky having White Ears, is as Bad as changing, Marge Simpsons Hair and Clothes colour. =/
Lucky wasn't the Center Role in the, Film. It was, Patch's Movie. Like I have explained, The Reason they did it, was because it was to make, Patch stand out more amongst the, Dalmatians. You can tell the, Artistic Idea to it.
I still think, Critics are jumping the Shark for complaining on that, one little Insignificant detail. =/ I mean, Does the Entire Plot of the Movie rely on, Lucky having a certain colour ears? Would it make any alter to the Story if it was another colour? X3 Sort of, Nit Picky in my Opinion. o.o
But then, That's My Opinion. ;3 I don't really have an issue of, Lucky's Ears being White in this Movie. ;3
Any Pups care to back me up on this, Matter? *Hugs* X3
|
|
|
Post by Nemo on Feb 26, 2011 9:49:20 GMT -5
I'm actually with Trey on this. When I first saw the movie I was like... 'wait... did Lucky paint over his ears or something? o.o' It'd be like changing Spongebob to be pink instead of yellow.
|
|
|
Post by 101Army on Jul 26, 2012 16:54:20 GMT -5
The only complaint that, I ever hear from, Pups about it, is that, The other, Dalmatian's Ears are White. Isn't that like taking like say...Indiana Jones and giving it, Two Stars because a Crew Man's hand just slipped in for a breif second? I think, I understand why they did that, White Ear thing though. The Film was about, Patch and also how he was different from the other, Dalmatian Pups. =3 So, This can lead into him having the Black Ear and Patch, so he differs in appearance too. So, Pretty much an Artisit View of it. This will make more sense, I promise. For quite some time, you have an idea of what a character in your favorite movie is supposed to look like. You kinda expect them to look a specific way. Ever since 1961, this tends to be the way you see Lucky. And then you see the 2003 sequel and... ...wait...what...the...f**k?? Well...
|
|