“Unnecessary : The Sequel”

...yet another addition to the recent disturbing trend of creating sequels to movies that do not need them.

I'm not sure if this particular eye-gouger has only just been announced, or if it was revealed to the public months ago, but last night was the first time I saw a commercial for it.

And all I could do was shake my head.

No, EB White never wrote a sequel to the classic original story; the plotlines were woven from thin air- and despite the announcement that this movie will be "another adventure with your old friends", I seriously doubt- no matter how many times the composer has gone over the score to see that emotional tones are right- that the characters will be recognizable past their names and general appearances.

" Since the second movie isn’t based on a book, Piluso said he had more freedom to tell the story the way he wanted."

“The thing about movies is whether you remember any of the characters. I think the thing about this one is you remember the animals,” he said."

Well, duh. The book (and original movie) is CENTERED around the animals. They are the main characters, not merely creatures added for purposes of comic relief.

It's bad enough that Disney hacks off classics, changing the entire point of the story as well as the ending (which wouldn't bother me so much if they gave their movies different names and then added "based off of..."), or blatantly rips off animes without even a tip of the hat to said sources (Kimba the white lion/the lion king, Nadia: secret of the blue waves : Atlantis, etc.) but NOW they are coughing up sequel after sequel to their bastardized versions. :roar

(It should be mentioned at this point that the film inspiring this post is being released by Paramount, not Disney- this is not a complain against Disney alone, rather against all unnecessary "part twos". When I say "Disney" I'm generalizing- but they *did* start the trend.)

I loved the lion king, and learning that the plot was taken from another source didn't lessen my respect for it, only for the company that refused to acknowledge its origin. And from what I've heard, they didn't cover the whole movie, so perhaps a sequel to it could be forgivable.

But "The Lady and the Tramp 2" , "Peter Pan 2", "The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2", "The little Mermaid 2", "Beauty and the Beast 2" and "Cinderella 2"...these movies need not a sequel. The stories that end 'happily ever after' do so because nothing of great interest is left to tell- no obstacles, no drama. Everything is "happy". You can leave the story in peace knowing that your characters will all be fine.

But as for the littlest mermaid and the hunchback...these stories did not have happy endings. The main character(s) of each died in the original. (Something which I can't help wondering about- what will all the children raised on the Disney (or equally unsightly sequels created by other non-Disney animation studios) versions think of the originals when they read them? (If they ever do...watching a 75 minute film is, after all, so much easier than the effort it takes to read through a full-length novel.) I'm willing to bet a few sheltered souls may be near traumatized by them, or come to the conclusion that the Disney version is better because it is more upbeat and has a happy ending.)

Disney's obvious shift in focus from telling stories to be enjoyed by whole families to creating avenues for merchandising by aiming more and more to just children is enough to make Walt spin in his grave. All of these "Part Two's" are direct-to-video (or DVD) releases. People are willing to drop the cash for these to shut their children up when they pass the displays in the mall and start whining, but not to pay money to go see it in a theater, where it would no doubt get such horrid reviews that adults would shudder at the thought of being forced to sit through it themselves. But a DVD, hey, you can pop that in and let the kiddies watch it why you sit across the room and do work on your computer.

Or leave the room, if the little ones are old enough- gods know they won't need your presence around to comfort them when something shocking and unfair happens, or the movie ends on the permanent death of a main character.

Atlantis. Think about it. Disney had a spin-off TV series in production- VOICES even recorded for a few episodes- before this movie's release. And when it didn't make as much money as they'd hoped, they killed the show. Now, if the series had been meant to be a continuation of the movie brought about by people's interest and love for the characters and desire to see them do more, why start production before the movie was even released? And then why cut it when it didn't bring in the numbers they so obviously thought it would?

Either Disney would start a TV show spinoff because they themselves thought it merited it, or because the masses asked for it- at least, that is how a company intent on making good stories rather than "How much do you think parents would pay for a such-and-such doll? What about if it was also sold with a separate fish-racer?"

Or, on a smaller scale, how Disney "requested" that Gargoyles work in having a helicopter piloted by on of the garg characters, in hopes that it would be marketable as a toy, then deciding not to go through with the idea after the episode was released. Change the plot to make an excuse to market a toy. Change the plot so everyone lives happily ever after so the kiddies aren't upset by it, because gods know everything in life works out perfectly just like the movies. And now, change the plot so you have an excuse to market a poorly-plotted movie that could not stand on its own legs, thus forcing the incorporation of a classically beloved cast in order to interest people. :..O

"Happy" does not always equate to "Good" when it comes to storytelling , something these companies would do well to remember.

...If they actually cared about good storytelling and not cold cash, that is.

-Lynati