FANDOM


Disney Sequels We WANT

R89st5J-300x160

Released
November 29, 2016
Running time
13:00
Previous review
Next Review
Link


(The shortened opening)

NC: Hello, I'm the Nostalgia Critic. I remember it so you don't have to. With a...certain themed month...

(The Disneycember logo is shown, before showing an image of Doug Walker crying over Blu-Ray copies of direct-to-video Disney movies)

NC (vo): ...coming up in December, and that certain theme containing a lot of direct-to-DVD sequels...

(NC sobs briefly, before resuming speaking)

NC: I figured it only makes sense to talk about a certain aspect of those sequels.

(Footage of various Disney sequels are shown, as well as posters and images of those movies, as well as upcoming movies at some points in this editorial)

NC (vo): You see, in the late 90s and early 2000s, Disney struck it big...ish with their direct-to-DVD sequels.

NC: For whatever reason, kids really wanted to know what happened after happily ever after.

NC (vo): You name it. Cinderella 2, Pocahontas 2, even Hunchback of Notre Dame 2.

NC: Ooh! Maybe now we finally get the original book ending. (That image of that book's ending is shown)

NC (vo): Despite some of them being given an impressive animation budget, almost on par with their theatrical hand-drawn movies, most of them are known as some of the worst material Disney's put out. Who was really asking for another Brother Bear? Who couldn't sleep at night if they didn't know what happened to Kronk's groove?

NC: Looking these over, though, I did start to wonder...which Disney sequels did we want to see?

NC (vo): Which ones could actually be explored more and we'd welcome another film about? Some of these are already in demand and being made, like Wreck-It Ralph, The Incredibles, and so on, but we're also getting Cars 3 and Toy Story 4 after Cars 2 and Monsters University.

NC: So, not that it's likely that these are gonna happen, but I thought it'd be fun to explore the Disney sequels that we actually wanted to see.

(Footage of both Fantasia movies are shown first)

NC (vo): In fact, my first choice isn't even a Part 2. It's a Part 3...to maybe make up for parts of Part 2. I'm talking about Fantasia. The first film is seen by many as an artistic masterpiece, and it was meant to continue with a ton of varying sequels. Well, sadly, we only got one with Fantasia 2000, which not only did poorly at the box office, but it kind of pissed off those who loved the first film with edited versions of the music, slightly more childish segments, and painful, PAINFUL cameos!

Penn Jillette: Fraud! Dismemberment. (Teller performs the old "rip your hand off" trick) Rip-off!

(NC groans in annoyance)

NC (vo): You can figure out their target audience when they refer to Salvador Dali as the "Melting Watch Guy".

Bette Midler: Now, Salvador Dali, you know, the "Limp Watches Guy"...

NC: Yeah. I can really see them doing something similar in the first film.

(We see footage of Deems Taylor in the first film as NC dubs over him)

NC (vo; as Taylor): Leonardo Di Vinci, you know, one of the Ninja Turtles...

(Cut back to footage of Fantasia 2000)

NC (vo): But still, it had some beautiful moments and some exceptional animation and ideas.

NC: So, maybe a third one could work if they just knocked off talking down to the audience.

(Footage and images of various deleted shorts of Fantasia, as well as ones that were originally planned to be Fantasia shorts, are shown)

NC (vo): When the first Fantasia failed to make the money it needed back, they worked in the other segments they were gonna put into future Fantasias into just short cartoons. The same thing happened with Fantasia 2000, which gave us two wonderful segments*. Salvador Dali's...oh, I mean, Melting Watch Guy's...Destino, and a heartbreaking rendition of The Little Matchgirl. Both of these are phenomenal and give hope that maybe a third Fantasia could happen if they're risky but also adult enough to pull it off. It's definitely worth taking that chance.

*(Note: Those two segments weren't planned to be for Fantasia 2000; they were actually planned to be shorts for a possible third Fantasia, which never got green-lit, so the shorts were released separately)

NC: But not all Disney sequels have to be adult. How about Robin Hood?

(Footage of Robin Hood is shown next)

NC (vo): This was about as basic an action-adventure movie you could get, but it did it so...wonderfully. It was creative, exciting, had great action scenes, and one of the few Disney films that was entirely anthropomorphic life forms; no human beings could exist in this world. With (poster of...) Zootopia being such a big hit...hell, maybe that'll get a sequel, too...perhaps another one of these would be a lot of fun.

NC: Everything seems kind of laid out.

NC (vo): Robin Hood and Maid Marian are married...Maid Hood? (The caption that says exactly that is shown) ...they have a babysitter living with them who's also a baby...yeah, I never got that part. But they could have kids and they could go on adventures, too. Just create another evil to fight and this could be a very simple but also enjoyable adventure.

NC: Animation especially has come a long way. It'd be really cool to see these with...

NC (vo): ...much smoother lines as opposed to that sketchiness, and maybe even give them the CG route. Again, they made them look great in Zootopia. It could probably work here, too. It seems like the possibilities are strong enough to check out.

NC: And speaking of animal movies, why not The Great Mouse Detective?

(Footage of The Great Mouse Detective is shown)

NC (vo): The film wasn't a huge hit when it came out, but it's getting more and more of a following. Its hero, Basil of Baker Street, is uncontrollably likeable. He's funny, he's smart, he's got a ton of energy, and he's incredibly enjoyable to watch. Granted, his arch-nemesis Ratigan, who's also a fantastic character, is killed in the end, but so what? The stories of Basil obviously have an influence from Sherlock Holmes. Hell, he stays in Sherlock Holmes' walls. And Sherlock had more enemies than just Moriarty, so why can't Basil? The ending even indicates that he's starting a new mystery. Why don't we just pick up where that left off? A missing ring? Okay, well, who took it? For what diabolical plan? Maybe it's part of some other villain's big scheme, and Dawson, his new assistant, has to get used to Basil's eccentric nature. There's ideas here. Maybe he can even be solving a crime while Sherlock is solving one parallel to his. Come on, there was a cool clock tower scene in the last one. We can go even bigger, even more exciting. Look into it, Disney. There's something cool here.

NC: Now a lot of Disney animated films are based on books, and if the book has a sequel, shouldn't the movie, too?

(Footage of Alice in Wonderland is shown)

NC (vo): I'm, of course, talking about Alice in Wonderland. Now, I know what you're thinking: "Come on. That first film is perfect. Leave it alone. Don't add any more to what was fine."

NC: But here's the thing: There's so many versions of Alice in Wonderland out there.

(Images of other versions of Alice in Wonderland are shown)

NC (vo): Many of them trying to be line-for-line the definitive version, and some of them not even getting the title right.

(The logo for Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is shown, with the logo crossed out and replaced with a new logo written in red captions, "Grown Up Alice Returns to Underland". Back to footage of the 1951 film)

NC (vo): But out of all of that, Disney's is still the best, because they knew it had to be a movie first, and they had to change things around to make it flow like one. But with that said, that means there's still a ton of things left out. Characters like the Jabberwocky, the Griffin, the Knight, there's a ton of places you could go with this. And because the narrative is not very story-based and more of a person just coming across strange thing after strange thing, you don't even have to worry that much about the story. Just focus on the surrealism, the imagination, the humor, all the fun stuff that made the first film so cool. You can make Through the Looking Glass actually like Through the Looking Glass, unlike... (The poster for the 2016 sequel to the Tim Burton version is shown) Through the Looking Glass. (An image of Katheryn Beaumont is shown) Even the original voice actress, Katheryn Beaumont, is still alive, and she still reenacts her role. It seems silly not to make this. All the pieces are right there. Don't give it a complicated story about prophecies or Narnia rip-offs, just do mad people acting like mad people, and you'll have something great. Come on, this makes too much crazy sense not to happen.

NC: But it doesn't just have to be one of the hand-drawn movies. The CG movies are provincially eligible, too.

(Footage of Inside Out is shown)

NC (vo): With all the sequels Pixar says they're bringing out, I'm surprised there's no interest in another Inside Out. Not only was the first film incredibly poignant as well as funny, but the ideas were literally mind-blowing. When growing up, there's so many changes that happen that can be more than just a puberty joke. Maybe some emotions get more powerful and become bullies, maybe some other people's emotions multiply and start taking over her emotions. I mean, come on. Other people's emotions can have an effect on others. I mean, why not have them, like, sneak into another person's brains and emotions and, like, try to take over? Maybe even brand new emotions are born, new characters. The possibilities are endless! Apparently, when making this movie, there were even more ideas the filmmakers wanted to utilize, but they didn't have the time. Another movie showing Riley growing up and dealing with these new emotions is a perfect way to explore them. It makes more sense than Cars 3, for God's sake. Do me a favor, Pixar, and don't keep a closed mind on this one.

NC: But that's not the only Pixar film. How about Monsters, Inc.? (After a beat, we are shown the poster of Monsters University with the caption "HELLO!?!?!?!!?") Let me explain.

(Footage of Monsters, Inc., as well as Monsters University, are shown)

NC (vo): I'm sure you're thinking of the follow-up film, Monsters University, as counted.

NC: First of all, that was a prequel, not a sequel. Second, who the hell wanted to see that?!

NC (vo): What little kid is saying, "Mommy, I want to see this monsters go to a degree granting institution for higher learning."?

NC: No one! But you know what would be interesting?

NC (vo): Maybe Sulley continues to see Boo and watches her as she grows up. Maybe as a teen or an adult, she starts to question whether or not she should still be communicating with quote/unquote "monsters in the closet". Maybe she tries to convince herself they're not real, and that creates a rift between her and Sulley. Maybe all those existential issues that always sneak their way into Pixar films can have an explosion of self-conflict here. Who wouldn't want to see a girl grow up talking to literal monsters and how it affects her or the people around her. It's sensible, it's strange, it's childish, it's adult. It's a neat idea, damn it! It's a neat idea!

NC: I don't want to see a PG-rated version of Animal House! I have the R-rated version for that!

NC (vo): With Pixar's love of talking about growing up and moving on with things, this seems like a perfect format for that.

NC: But it's not like animation and reality always went hand-in-hand. Look at Enchanted.

(Footage of Enchanted is shown)

NC (vo): An animated Disney peasant sent to the real world, only to find out she's not looking for a prince, but instead a reasonable relationship. It was a cute film and did well at the box office, but that does beg the question, what about the prince and the woman he takes to the animated realm? Most of the movie was showing how an animated heroine reacted to the real world, but how about how a real heroine reacts to the animated world? This character didn't get much focus in the original, and now that kids know she was played by Elsa (Idina Menzel), Disney's probably kicking themselves for that. So here's your chance to expand on that character. Disney had fun mocking its own tropes for this, but how about their newer tropes now? Not all Disney films are Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, we got our Mulans and our Hunchback of Notre Dames and such. How fun would it be to see this character try to survive in that kind of animated world? She can teach them about reality, and they can teach her about whimsical magic and such. It could be pretty enjoyable. Maybe there's something here, something that can be explored more. Okay, probably nothing fantastic, but a cute dive into the other side of things. It could be worth looking into.

NC: In fact, a lot of these are worth looking into. With so many Disney sequels that none of us ever wanted to watch, maybe we could start looking at the ones that we do want to watch.

(The poster for Moana is shown, as well as showing footage from various Disney movies once more)

NC (vo): I mean, yes, in the long run, I want to see new material like a lot of people do. We have enough repeats in the world. But if you're gonna do sequels anyway and they're just gonna keep making money, maybe give these a thought. I'm not saying they'll be great, but they gotta be better than a lot of the ones that we got in the past. Disney, this is definitely worth looking into. I know it's a long shot, even dream-worthy, but if there's anything you tried to teach us, it's that dreams can definitely come true.

NC: I'm the Nostalgia Critic, and if you'll excuse me, there's a certain holiday I need to get ready for. (Gets up from his chair and leaves, then suddenly comes back) CHRISTMAS...!!

(The credits roll)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.