Do you like TLK2?

[FlipMode]

I thought the only thing that made the first one better, was the soundtrack score. Honestly I thought two was a better film in all other areas but the music was lacklustre.

[AdAstrα]

I definitely prefer the first one,however I see where you're coming from FM, the score of SP is probably what bugs me most about the whole thing. The songs are good (I personally love We Are One) but the instrumental score should have been captivating as opposed to lame.

[rich198]

I prefer the first one but thier both good

[atouchofgrace]

For me it's the score (very weak, in my opinion. Always the same boring little theme playing), the animation (it's not that awful, per se but what really bugs me is the difference between the original characters in TLK and in SP

This:



looks nothing like this:



and how their personalities were handled in this movie.

I'm not too crazy about the songs but "He Lives In You", "Love Will Find a Way" and "One of Us" are very good, especially "He Lives In You".
"My Lullaby" could be better, the whole "Upendi" scene is AWFUL and "We Are One" could be good if the male singer had a stronger voice.

The story has plot holes and incoherencies but they did what they could do to make this story fit with the original. They can't touch the original to make SP a better movie.

Of course they had little to work with. Low budget, it was produced by Walt Disney Television Animation (or DisneyToon Studios, it's basically the same animators from tv shows like Timon & Pumbaa), it was animated mostly in Australia (Walt Disney Animation Australia), and it means virtually nothing to Disney.

I'm not trying to bash SP in any way but at Disney it goes in this order:

A - Classics considered to be masterpieces, popular, oscar winning, they sell anything and everything. (TLK, etc)
B - Classics in the true meaning of the word, popular and meaningful to the studio (Lady and the Tramp, etc)
C - Classics considered average (Sword in the Stone, etc)
D - Classics no one really knows (Three Caballeros, etc)
E - Classics that were huge financial flops and embarrassments to the studio (The Black Cauldron, etc)
F - DTV movies made to make easy money from A and B movies (SP, etc)

Producers can have the best ideas but without money and support you can't always make a movie the way you want. They've done the best they could do and it's better than Pocahontas II or Hunchback of Notre Dame II (these two are downright AWFUL, in my opinion).
So yeah, as far as sequels go, SP is an average one for me, not awful but not great (mostly because TLK has some big shoes to fill).

[AdAstrα]

Well said ^ I completely agree with everything you said, I mean..the difference between those pics is pretty horrifying in itself, the second one looks like a bad fanart picture compared to the first =\
But yes,it IS a lot better than for example the Hunchback of Notre Dame II,which is without a doubt the worst sequel I have ever seen in my entire life. I couldn't even watch the whole thing.

[FlipMode]

[quote="QueenOfPrideRock"]I definitely prefer the first one,however I see where you're coming from FM, the score of SP is probably what bugs me most about the whole thing. The songs are good (I personally love We Are One) but the instrumental score should have been captivating as opposed to lame.[/quote]

Haha yeah there wasn't anywhere near enough Hanz Zimmer :D

[Jiirani]

There was a Hunchback of Notre Damn II? What the heck o3o I'm so behind, I only found out there was a Little Mermaid III the other day D: How many sequels have I missed o.o

[atouchofgrace]

[quote="Jiirani"]There was a Hunchback of Notre Damn II? What the heck o3o I'm so behind, I only found out there was a Little Mermaid III the other day D: How many sequels have I missed o.o[/quote]

Trust me, I've seen them all (I'm curious ) and you're not missing much.
If you like Hunchback of Notre Dame don't watch the second one.
Music and animation are very poor, the plot is all about Quasimodo getting laid (can I say this here?), his girlfriend is a HUGE Mary Sue, the boring villain wants to steal a freaking bell from Notre Dame, the sassy, feisty Esmeralda is now a minor, bland character (like Nala in SP, oh and Esmeralda is wearing contact lenses in this one too!) and Phoebus is made into a total jerk for no plausible reason (like Simba in SP). All of the sudden he has a prejudice against gypsies? What? Did they forget that in the first one he helped SAVE the gypsies? He even married one!
I can't understand this. You want new characters? Fine, fair enough but don't need to change the old ones to fit the story.

Thank God Michael Eisner left. He wanted to make Snow White 2, Sleeping Beauty 2 and Dumbo 2.
o_0

[crystally]

[quote="atouchofgrace"]For me it's the score (very weak, in my opinion. Always the same boring little theme playing), the animation (it's not that awful, per se but what really bugs me is the difference between the original characters in TLK and in SP

This:

[snip]
looks nothing like this:

[snip]

and how their personalities were handled in this movie.

I'm not too crazy about the songs but "He Lives In You", "Love Will Find a Way" and "One of Us" are very good, especially "He Lives In You".
"My Lullaby" could be better, the whole "Upendi" scene is AWFUL and "We Are One" could be good if the male singer had a stronger voice.

The story has plot holes and incoherencies but they did what they could do to make this story fit with the original. They can't touch the original to make SP a better movie.

Of course they had little to work with. Low budget, it was produced by Walt Disney Television Animation (or DisneyToon Studios, it's basically the same animators from tv shows like Timon & Pumbaa), it was animated mostly in Australia (Walt Disney Animation Australia), and it means virtually nothing to Disney.

I'm not trying to bash SP in any way but at Disney it goes in this order:

A - Classics considered to be masterpieces, popular, oscar winning, they sell anything and everything. (TLK, etc)
B - Classics in the true meaning of the word, popular and meaningful to the studio (Lady and the Tramp, etc)
C - Classics considered average (Sword in the Stone, etc)
D - Classics no one really knows (Three Caballeros, etc)
E - Classics that were huge financial flops and embarrassments to the studio (The Black Cauldron, etc)
F - DTV movies made to make easy money from A and B movies (SP, etc)

Producers can have the best ideas but without money and support you can't always make a movie the way you want. They've done the best they could do and it's better than Pocahontas II or Hunchback of Notre Dame II (these two are downright AWFUL, in my opinion).
So yeah, as far as sequels go, SP is an average one for me, not awful but not great (mostly because TLK has some big shoes to fill).[/quote]
I agree with most things you say, but how does being made in Australia have anything to do with the quality?

[AdAstrα]

[quote="atouchofgrace"][quote="Jiirani"]There was a Hunchback of Notre Damn II? What the heck o3o I'm so behind, I only found out there was a Little Mermaid III the other day D: How many sequels have I missed o.o[/quote]

Trust me, I've seen them all (I'm curious ) and you're not missing much.
If you like Hunchback of Notre Dame don't watch the second one.
Music and animation are very poor, the plot is all about Quasimodo getting laid (can I say this here?), his girlfriend is a HUGE Mary Sue, the boring villain wants to steal a freaking bell from Notre Dame, the sassy, feisty Esmeralda is now a minor, bland character (like Nala in SP, oh and Esmeralda is wearing contact lenses in this one too!) and Phoebus is made into a total jerk for no plausible reason (like Simba in SP). All of the sudden he has a prejudice against gypsies? What? Did they forget that in the first one he helped SAVE the gypsies? He even married one!
I can't understand this. You want new characters? Fine, fair enough but don't need to change the old ones to fit the story.

Thank God Michael Eisner left. He wanted to make Snow White 2, Sleeping Beauty 2 and Dumbo 2.
o_0[/quote]


Excuse me? PREJUDICE AGAINST GYPSIES? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, seriously...did these people even watch the first film?
No wonder younger generations haven't learned to appreciate original masterpieces such as TLK or HoND when they grew up watching this crap :'(