Early thoughts on Once Upon a Time in Wonderland

DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE SHOW!  THIS COMMENTARY WILL CONTAIN SPOILERS FOR THE SHOW IN QUESTION!  IF YOU CHOOSE TO READ FORWARD, JUST REMEMBER THAT YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

With the success ABC had with Once Upon a Time, naturally that called for a spinoff series, unfortunately with more disastrous results.  Once Upon a Time in Wonderland is a clustered mess of a series, that harms not one but two of Disney's most storied franchises and basically sets out a rehash of the original series.  Nevertheless, there are some elements of the show that are pretty impressive.

Plot: Alice returns to Wonderland in order to gain proof for her father that this land exists.  While there, she comes across a genie named Cyrus and an Attack of the Clones style romance is formed.  As the two prepare to make their lives together, the Red Queen apparently kills the genie and makes Alice leave for home.  Shunned by her new stepmother, and mentally scarred by her father, she enters an insane asylum, but is freed by the Knave of Hearts and The White Rabbit, who tell her that Cyrus is alive but in the clutches of the Red Queen.

Meanwhile, the Red Queen plots with the evil wizard Jafar of Agrabah who plans to use Cyrus's magic to become the lord of all of the magical elements.  While the Queen believes they are partners and Jafar plots to "take care" of her, both hold their own hidden agendas from each other an trust the other less and less with each episode.

Alice begins to learn more about the Knave of Hearts, who continues to hide the truth from her about a mysterious girl named Anastasia, while the Caterpillar hunts him down.  Jafar plans to push Alice to use her three wishes she was given by Cyrus, so he can become the ultimate wizard.

Main Leads (Alice and Cyrus): This is the area of biggest fault for the show.  Alice is thickheaded and distrusting of most (except ironically the characters who betray her), which is unsettling, given the way they wrote the surroundings.  She is perhaps too clever for the show to work and is given way too many easy opportunities to escape danger without using a wish.  For example, her and the knave were captured by the Grendel and were being readied to be eaten, when Alice uses one of her wishes to free herself.  Naturally, I thought she had actually used a wish.  But in this world, apparently, wishes are sharp and pointy balls of energy that could cut her free.  WHAT THE F***?

As for Cyrus, not only is he blessed without having a personality, he is also apparently blessed without having a brain.  He is a genie, a freaking GENIE!!  He could just teleport out of the  cage Jafar put him in and go get his bottle!  No?  You just wanna sit in your cage and say love lines that would make George Lucas and Stephanie Meyer spill their lunch?  You are the single most useless Genie since Genie in Return of Jafar!

Not only are their characters out of sync, but so is their chemistry.  Just like in Attack of the Clones, a relationship between the two is more implied than shown.  Instead of showing us their relationship, even in Episode 2 where the whole episode was about their relationship, we are told to care about it more than we are allowed to care for it.  I do not really care what happens to Alice and Cyrus and I hope that the series goes off in a different direction.

The Villains (The Red Queen and Jafar): Now here is where the show exceeded my expectations.  The Red Queen is a smarmy, overconfident beauty who takes her role as the Queen of Wonderland very seriously (she is the only Wonderland character where it's okay for her to not be insane because they explain it in the show).  She loves being the supreme authority in the kingdom and is quick to flex her royal muscles when she chooses.


The only person in her kingdom that doesn't listen to her is her partner in this endeavor, Jafar.  Once a peasant boy from Agrabah, he learned the ways of magic from a witch named Amara.  Jafar is ruthless and very deceitful when it comes to dealing with Alice and the Red Queen, and is quick to demonstrate his terrible powers when he feels the need to.

For the most part, when it comes to spinoffs, Jafar is usually a minion to a greater villain.  For example, in the Hollywood Studios show Fantasmic!, Jafar is only one of the villains the Wicked Queen summons to do battle with Mickey Mouse.  Then. in the Sorcerers of the Magic Kingdom, Jafar is only one of the villains Hades tries to trick into helping him in his cause.  Finally, in Kingdom Hearts, Jafar is Maleficent's second in command and is very serious about following Maleficent's schemes, while others do what they want.

Here is where Jafar is able to flex his character building muscles, as he is the most powerful person in the story in terms of magical ability and knowledge.  We have seen how ruthless and cutthroat Jafar can be in this show and I am fully expecting him to blossom into an even more sinister and blackhearted devil then any of the previous re-tellings of Agrabah have ever done.

Supporting Cast (Knave of Hearts and Alice's Father): If Jafar and the Red Queen exceeded my expectations, then the Knave of Hearts far doubled those of the previous two.  The Knave is not only the "comic relief" in the show, but also the show's most tragic character so far.  The Knave was once under the alias of Will Scarlet and he and his true love Anastasia came to Wonderland in search of a better life.  Anastasia quickly breaks his heart and abandons him, which ruins the Knave.  After having his heart brought back by Alice, the two become friends.  The Knave is witty, sly, and quick thinking, but also hides an emotional side that makes him stand tall against the forces of evil, particularly the Red Queen.

As for Alice's father, here is another well thought out and principled character.  Her father (I don't remember his name right now) truly loves his daughter, but is troubled by her constant babbling on about Wonderland and her mourning over Cyrus.  He worries over her constantly until being convinced by a mysterious Arabic man to journey to look for her (cough JAFAR cough)

Setting and Key Ideas: Here is where the show falls flat on it's face.  Wherein Once Upon a Time occurs in fairy tale lands and the town of Storybrooke, Wonderland takes place in two completely different worlds: magical and mysterious Agrabah, and insane and nonsensical Wonderland.  The show waters down the elements in both well known worlds to such a horrible degree that they completely trash what both worlds mean.  I mean, Genies can be trapped in cages?  Can't he just warp out and go back into his lamp?

For example, in the Agrabah in Aladdin, the only way someone could use a wish is if they rub the lamp and make a wish.  And this little fact: WHOEVER CONTROLS THE LAMP CONTROLS THE GENIE!  Which is how Jafar was able to conquer Agrabah and use in his fight with Aladdin.  In this Agrabah/ Wonderland, you apparently don't need the bottle to use wishes, just saying "I wish ---------" gets you what you want.  WHAT?  Oh and wishes are little gems you can use for anything, like a knife?  WHAT THE F***?!?!?!?!?!?

But by far the worst element in the show is Wonderland itself.  Not the design, but the characters and people.  You'd think that it was some sort of lost Star Wars planet the way some of these characters act.  The nonsensical elements of Lewis Carroll's work are completely ignored and sidelined for a love story no one cares about and action that is so highly choreographed that it makes the Prequel Trilogy look like an actual war.  The citizens of Wonderland act as if their in a medieval kingdom and are perfectly fine with White Rabbits running around and giant Jabba the Hutt esque Caterpillars that want money.  Theirs actually MONEY in Wonderland?  WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!

Tone: The biggest fault in the show is it's tone.  Alice in Wonderland and Aladdin  were two of the most comical and bizarre of Disney's works.  The nonsensical characters in Wonderland were a stark contrast to the other characters in Disney's library.  As for Aladdin, the comedic styling of Robin Williams and Gilbert Gottfried helped shape the kind of Agrabah that we could love for years.  Where is this comic relief in this show?  NO WHERE TO BE FOUND!  That's right, no where.  The show has no comic relief in any sense and crudely pictures both Wonderland and Agrabah as fictional non comical worlds that take everything seriously.

How It Could Have Been Changed: 

1: Dump Cyrus, add Aladdin: In order for the show to work, you can't just have an unexplained motivation for Cyrus and Alice to fall in love.  It doesn't work.  Not at all.  Instead, have Aladdin (in possession of the magic lamp) flee from Agrabah and Jafar and arrive in Wonderland.  Here, he helps Alice get out of trouble from the Queen's guards and the two become friends.  Eventually, the two open up to each other and fall in love.  Aladdin decides he can trust Alice and gives her the lamp for safekeeping, when he hears that Jafar is still hunting him down.

In the night, Aladdin and Alice are captured by the Red Queen.  Desperately seeking a King and his "power", the Red Queen steals Aladdin away and lies to Alice, telling her he was beheaded and sends her back home to London.  Jafar arrives and intends to buy the genie from her, but learns that she only has Aladdin.  Jafar orders the Queen to bring Alice back so he can find out where the lamp is.  All the while (at least until the Knave returns to Wonderland) the Red Queen tries to make Aladdin fall in love with her, but he refuses.

It would make sense that he cannot escape from the cage and could not use any magic powers to find Alice when she does return.

2. Add Iago AND The Genie: While they don't have to be as comedic as they were in the movie, these two are mandatory because Agrabah is so underepresented in this universe.  The Genie can give a comedic light to the whole scenario and also explain his powers and express his dreams of freedom from the Lamp.  As for Iago, he is mandatory to be a sidekick and advisor to Jafar, and it will come in handy when it comes to tricking Alice or the Knave into doing Jafar's evil bidding.

3. BRING BACK THE INSANITY: While I understand changes have to be made, they have to have some sort of connection to the original work.  Wonderland should be nonsensical, insane, and demented, not a fancy Tatooine knock off.

Maybe the show will get better with next weeks episode, but until then, I'm EXTREMELY UNDERWHELMED

"Frozen" a sign of Disney's Second Renaissance?

From 1989-1999, Disney kicked their animated minds and talents into hyperdrive, creating many of the stories and fairy tales we grew up with into animation milestones and masterpieces, captivating an entire generation of moviegoers with an irresistible sense of charm and delight.  These films, no matter how you look at them as a critic, have undeniably created the foundations on which the morals, beliefs, and actions of the next generation of politicians, doctors, heroes, and princesses will have in their hearts.                                                                                                   The Little Mermaid taught the beliefs that following through on your dreams can really make them come true.  The Rescuers Down Under taught that the consequences of our actions sometimes outweigh the rewards flashed in our faces.  Beauty and the Beast preached the longstanding fable that true beauty comes from within.  Aladdin spoke to us about being yourself, no matter how poor or downtrodden you are.  The Lion King lectured us on the cyclical nature of life and no matter how bad things are or can get, the circle of life will carry you through.  Pocahontas taught that no matter how different we look or act, we are all connected by our words and deeds.  The Hunchback of Notre Dame spoke about how genuine love and kindness towards your fellow man, no matter how ugly or misshapen, was God's intended message.  Hercules taught us that no matter how many trophies or how many demons we slay on our journey, it is only on how we act as people that our heroic legacy will be written.  Mulan spoke about how anyone can do anything and accomplish anything, regardless of race or gender.  And Tarzan preached the long standing belief that though we may not understand one another, through species or language barriers, we can all affect each other in both positive and negative ways.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  As the 2000's rolled along, Disney went away from telling these grand and legendary stories towards telling more child friendly stories that lacked the passion and involvement of animated ideas and creativity.  It showed both at the critical level and at the box office.  Atlantis, Treasure Planet, and Home on the Range all bombed at the box office, while Brother Bear, Chicken Little, and Meet the Robinson's all failed on a critical standpoint.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   But, as the decade wound down, just like the 1980's before, an Oliver and Company like film came out in Bolt.  It wasn't outstanding, or groundbreaking, but it did give us a story and group of characters we could care about and learn to love.  Maybe it was a bit like Oliver in terms of trying to sell the idea more than tell a story, but it was a step in the right direction nonetheless.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Then, in 2009, a new era began for Disney Animation.  But the question remained, would this be another renaissance, a lucky break, or maybe a new hybrid of both?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     The Princess and the Frog gave audiences not only the first hand drawn animated film in years, but the first since perhaps Tarzan to truly entertain it's audience.  It gave us a heroine we could root for, a supporting cast of comedic and faithful proportions, songs we could sing on the ride home, and a villain we could loathe for his wicked deeds.  It was perhaps the most faithful Disney film we'd seen in 15 years, and yet, the film didn't garner the money it was expected to.  Was animation really being deemed children's fair, or was this just a fluke?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Tangled flung open the money gates for Disney, becoming the second highest grossing animated film in their library, just behind The Lion King.  Rapunzel was a strong hearted and beautiful maiden, Flint Ryder was a worthy compliment, the songs were well written, and the villain, while far less intimidating than your ordinary villain, was also vain and selfish.  It proved that a Disney Film could make lots of money while still being good, but it is debated on whether or not the 3D animation element helped the film reach those levels.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       While not a particularly successful film, Winnie the Pooh was well animated and a seriously well told film that continued the story that no matter how many times we hear, we still love.  The characters are still endearing, the songs, while not classics, still hold our interest, and (perhaps most importantly) the film is able to widen and expand the imaginations of the artists and the children.                                                                                                                                                                                                                   And finally, Wreck it Ralph  gave us a imaginative and funny look at the world of video games and how they work and are structured.  It challenged the norm and like Toy Story, gave us the kind of movie we would expect from a world where video games can come to life.  While not a serious hit at the box office, the film was a critical darling and brought about a fresh new approach to animation.  This was not just Pixar vs Dreamworks anymore.  It was a whole new game.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Finally, we get to Frozen.  I have yet to see the film, but the things I am hearing both impress and underwhelm me.  I do not want to hear any of these films being compared to the previous generation films.  Why?  Well for starters, the three generations of films had three very different generations of audiences.  The films made in Walt Disney's day had to cater to an audience that expected to be blown away by how impressive and beautiful the animation and songs were, regardless of what the plot was or how the characters acted.  The animation was all an illusion to them and they were as emotionally connected to the characters as the characters were to each other.  Cinderella didn't need to seriously know the Prince, nor did Mowgli need to have a well thought out reason to go back to the Man Village.  If the audience could be convinced by the animation, logic didn't really matter.  Which is why Dumbo remains one of my personal favorite movies.  It didn't need to impress us visually, just reach us on an emotional level.                                                                                                                                                                           Time passed, and the Cecil B. Demille's, Clark Gable's, Orson Wells, and Walt Disney's of the world had either passed away or long since retired.  Replacing them were the likes of Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg, Cameron, Lucas, and Jackson, who gave audiences jaw dropping effects, but also rich and emotion AND logic filled stories.  This era brought about the likes of The Godfather, The Empire Strikes Back, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Goodfellas, and Titanic.  Audiences seemed to be sick of animated films that pandered to them and meandered around the kids to little kids genre.  We wanted to see films that could challenge us intellectually and emotionally.  And The Little Mermaid gave us just that.  It gave us an updated protagonist, more modern day music, and even a father who was emotionally involved and evocative in the story.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Logic also played a major role in these stories.  If Walt Disney had been alive when The Lion King was written, he would have most likely gone for a Bambi style story where the death of Mufasa was glanced over and Scar a practically non existent character.  But for the story crew in the early 90's, they made the death of the father a much larger and more emotionally scarring for Simba to deal with.  His conflict with his Scar is also more of the 90's style, as they associate more than in just two scenes with buildup.                                                                                                                                                                             This generation is also more different than twenty years ago, surprisingly.  We're starting to get sick of the special effects Hollywood keeps shoving down our throats, but we're also in high demand for darker more challenging stories.  The Nolan's, Whedon's, and Abrams's of the world are giving us dark and thrilling adventures, something Animation handicaps itself to.  But should it?  Should it just be handicapped to horrid sequels (Madagascar 3, Despicable Me 2, Ice Age 4), or child friendly nonsense (Cars, Monsters University, Turbo)?  Can animation really be dark and brooding, like a Nolan film?  Herein lies the problem.  Films like Bakshi's Lord of the Rings, Miazaki's Spirited Away, Bluth's The Secret of Nimh and even Disney's The Black Cauldron were unsuccessful attempts to change the child friendly pattern and bring an adult audience into seeing cartoons.  And while these films nowadays have incredible followings, the message still hasn't caught onto in Hollywood.  People shouldn't look down on The Hunchback of Notre Dame just because Quasimodo didn't get the girl, or on An American Tail for having the audience put through so much misery leading up to the reunion with Fievel and his father.  Nor should these people ignore the fact that The Prince of Egypt's ending wasn't entirely happy ever after.  These films have enormous followings today, despite not being for kids, but the stereotype lived on.  Pop cultural references and dumb comedic moments are what dominates animated films now, and it is a shame.                                                                                                                                                                    Unfortunately for Frozen, this puts an extreme amount of pressure on the film before I even see it.  When you hear that a film is "The Best Disney Film since The Lion King" it raises expectations to unbearable heights.  I will see this film, but the pressure will be on the film to deliver.  Whether that is fair or not is still up for debate.                                                                                                                                                                           Still...that doesn't mean the film can't deliver.  I've gone into films with high expectations before and have still come out satisfied.  For example, I went into Up with a lot of optimism and still came out stunned at how wonderful the film is.

This film could actually challenge The Lion King, or it could flop miserably and end up as forgotten as A Bug's Life or The Prince of Egypt.  I have faith in this picture, because I had faith in all of the Disney films, no matter 2D or 3D.  I expect a film that can be as good as Tangled, if not better.  I won't put it on the pedestal with the films like Aladdin or Beauty and the Beast just yet, though.  I want to see how this one plays out and then we'll see.

Give me your best shot Disney.  I can handle it.

              

                                                                                               

Pop Culture Question of the Month #2 (Oct. 2013): Why do the direct to video Disney Sequels suck!!!!

There are many reasons why people are starting to despise Disney.  From their hostile takeovers of Marvel and Lucasfilm, to their insane copyright assaults on YouTube, they continue to only care about profiteering instead of giving their long-standing fans what they want.  While 90's kids like me can only watch our favorite shows like Aladdin, Bonkers, DuckTales, Talespin, and Timon and Pumbaa on our home videos or on ad dominated websites, Disney allows us to purchase horrible and crappy shows like Beavis and Butthead (or whatever their called, ya know the one with the platypus).  But easily the biggest reason people have departed from Disney is their atrocious line of films they call "Disney Sequels".  These films were expected to be legendary gems that could be put in the same category as The Empire Strikes Back.  Instead, we got films that insulted our intelligence and the integrity of the original films.  Most people look to the poor animation as the reason these films reek, but I think the situation runs deeper than we could think.  These films were dead in the water from the word go, primarily because Disney demanded one be out each year.  Here is a list of the reasons why the Disney Sequels bite the big one.

1.  Backwards Moving Protagonists.....

While not a very common attribute for these films, five of these films (which are sequels to their four greatest films and one that is meh) suffer from this factor, and it is my main issue for the films.  Instead of showing progress from their first films, these characters fall backwards into situations that hinder their overall development in place of lazy storytelling.


1A. Return of Jafar

 Upon discovering Iago has returned and possibly reformed from his days as Jafar's minion, Aladdin's default idea is to hide the parrot from Jasmine and the Sultan.  Why?  Why not just go up to Jasmine and tell her he found Iago in Agrabah and that he promises to reform.  Why do you have to lie, after you blatantly lied to both of Agrabah's lead officials about your identity in the last film and ultimately allowed Jafar to rise to power in the first place?  It forwards the first act of an otherwise sub-par sequel and sets up the act for Jafar's plan.

While Aladdin does in fact also lie to Jasmine and the Sultan in the third film, it works because after he broke the law and busted Cassim out of prison, he returned to Agrabah to take responsibility for his actions.  But in the first film?  There is no reason in the world to have your main protagonist (who learned to be himself in the last film) to just go right back into lying, even when you now have the Sultan and Jasmine on your side.

1B. Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas
 
Here's a recap of what had happened before the events of this movie: Belle's father is imprisoned in the Beast's dungeon and is only released when Belle agrees to take his place.  After butting heads for much of the next few scenes, Beast rescues Belle from a pack of wolves and the two become friends.

In the first film, Belle was able to negate "Stockholm Syndrome" by leaving the instant the Beast lets her go to her sick father.  But here, she is still a prisoner to the easily angered Beast and is constantly yelled and bullied by him.  You would think that this paragraph would be about the Beast.  But no, it's about Belle, who transforms into some kind of demented hybrid of life coach and reclamation project fixer.  Belle, who in the original wouldn't have taken any of the Beast's nonsense, decides to try to show the Beast the "Christmas Spirit", to which he grumpily rejects, until he learns Belle gave him a present.  WHAT?!  When the F*** did he ever deserve a present?  When?  Was it when he threw his hissy fit in the West Wing, or was it when he imprisoned an old man in the ice cold dungeon? 

Belle...if you think the Beast was good enough to earn a present, then you should have married Gaston, because they were one and the same person!  The Beast was the one who should have gotten her a present, which he does attempt to do, but Belle has no reason in the world to give this spoiled brat a gift.  She only warmed up to him when he stopped being a complete ass to her. 

1C. The Lion King II: Simba's Pride
 
One of the few flaws Mufasa ever made as King of the Pridelands, which ultimately came back to bite him in the rear end, was his banishment of the hyenas.  This caused a great deal of discontent in the savannah and gave Scar the opportunity he needed to dethrone his brother and take over. 

One would think that Simba would have learned from the lessons his father taught him and keep the Circle of Life balanced and not messy.  But we find out in this movie that Simba had banished a group of lionesses from his pride and to land that would make the Hyenas leap for joy that the Elephant Graveyard was plentiful.  Why did he do this?  Because they liked Scar more than him?  What does that show about our protagonist?  That he is more worried about his reputation over his kingdom?  Now does Kiara's line hold water: "You will never be Mufasa!"?

This decision was ultimately the driving force behind Zira's plot to have Kovu kill Simba and reclaim Pride Rock in the name of Scar, his foster father.  And it also made Simba act and look like an ass in the entire film, until learning that there is no difference between his lions and the outsiders.  I give Zira a free pass because she's a villain and is allowed to hold a grudge.  But it's Simba's overinflated ego that causes most of the problems in the film.  Nice one Disney.

1D. The Little Mermaid 2: Return to the Sea

The idiotic reason to keep Melody out of the ocean involves some of the most contrived and stupid nonsense in all of the Disney Sequels.  To prevent her from encountering Morgana, Ursula's sister (LAZY!!)  Hey, feel free to argue this one: Why not just tell her about the difference between good and caring people and evil and using people?  Ya know, the same thing Ariel learned when she struck her bargain with Ursula.  Ariel and Eric could have avoided this entire movie had they just told her about Ursula and what she had done, instead of just building a wall that could be easily swam under.

Also, I want you all to look at this picture.  Does it ring a bell in familiarity? Here's a big hint:

Ariel has become a complete and utter hypocrite in this movie.  Did she forget her entire drive and motivation in the first movie?  To discover and learn about new worlds and meet her a prince?  Does she realize at any point in this movie that she has become her father in oh so many ways?  Yes she does, but only when Melody has already handed Morgana the trident and now another sea witch rules the oceans.  Ya know what Ariel?  You deserved everything you got, from being Morgana's hostage to being zapped and forced to bow to her.  Sorry, Ariel.  You're hot and all, but I feel quite literally no sympathy for you and what you cause with your idiocracy!!!









1E. Mulan 2
 
Granted I was annoyed that this film got a sequel, I still went into this film with a fairly decent amount of optimism.  After all, while the original film was weak, there was still a chance that this could be a Rescuers Down Under style sequel that takes more chances.  Instead, we got a clusterfuck of nothingness, combined with two characters sliding backwards on the character development trail.  Mushu, who acts like selfish jerk for most of this film, was also a jerk in the original.  At the very least they could have given the character some kind of development, but he receives Genie-style treatment as he remains in his previous role from the original movie.

But the biggest and most glaring character flaws are found not in Mushu, Shang, or even the soldiers, but Mulan herself.  When she is told that she must escort the Emperor's daughters to their arranged marriage to princes they've never met, Mulan instantly protests.  Not only is this hypocritical of the very first thing she was going to do in the first film, but listen to this fact: If the lasting alliance between China and one of these other kingdoms fell, they would separate and seek to defend themselves from the oncoming Mongol horde rather than ally in an assault to protect the kingdom.  What does Mulan, our protagonist do?  She pushes her emotions and feelings on the princesses and thinks only about her own emotions instead of what would be best for China.  Shang tries to convince her, but she keeps pressing her emotions on them and causes a rift between her and her fiance.  China was going to fall to the Mongols and it would be because Mulan forced her opinions on others.  Talk about a huge step backwards.

2. Drastic Tone Changes

People forget that these films often differ radically in tone from their original films.  Starting very early, these films often care only about catering to kids instead of catering to an audience.  It's clearly evident in these three films:

2A. Pooh's Grand Adventure: The Search For Christopher Robin

 Going from the colorful and happy land of the Hundred Acre Wood and into a nightmare inducing and depression worsening film unlike any other.  Would you guess this is the premise for a Winnie the Pooh film?  I remember seeing this film as a little kid and I could never make it past the scene when Pooh was separated from his friends (Who thought he was dead btw!) and is on the verge of giving up completely on everything.  Um...this is the same bear who relentlessly went after honey in the first film?  Not only does Pooh suffer far too much in this movie, but his friends also pay the price.  Tigger's confidence in bouncing is shattered, which makes him depressed, Piglet is even more timid and frightened in this film, and Rabbit begins to lose confidence in his ability to think when they get lost. 

Um....Um....Winnie the Pooh, Winnie the Pooh, Willy Nilly Silly Old Bear!?

2B. The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2

We all remember how the original film opened right?  Large Latin choirs sing over a dark scene, in which Judge Frollo hunts down a gypsy woman and kills her on the steps of Notre Dame, nearly drowning her baby, and being told that his actions have been seen by God and that his chances of entering heaven are now in jeopardy.  How does this one start?  They sing a song about loving and caring?  Did they switch the scripts of this and Pooh's Grand Adventure?

Followup question: How can a movie possibly go from an awesome villain like Frollo to this thing?    

Not only do Christian Morals have little to nothing to do in this film, but did we really need to give Quasimodo a girlfriend?  I thought that was cool.  Quasimodo was the only main character from any of the Disney Renaissance films that didn't get a girl.  He was still a great character without Esmeralda on his side.  Even worse, did she have to be voiced by Jennifer Love Hewitt?  How comic and idiotic could this film get?  You'll here more during Disney Sequel Month.

2C. The Lion King 1/2
 
 Yes, this movie is real and yes, this scene really does occur in the movie.  The result is just another unfunny 2000's Disney joke.  Not only does the film lack any of the drama and epic scale the first had, it completely and utterly shits on anything and everything that made the original film. 



For example, the opening to the first film had one of the most iconic visual scenes in entertainment history, with the suns rays hitting Simba and causing the animals to bow to their future king.  In this film, we learn that there was nothing majestic about it.  It was Pumbaa farting!!!  -_-

This really annoys me.  You could go off and have Timon and Pumbaa have their own little adventure, that's fine.  Don't drag a good movie down with you, though.  Disney lost my respect after this movie and it took until 2009 for them to get it back.


3. Epilogue

The Disney sequels are just another way Disney tried to gyp people out of money and funnel it towards themselves.  And while I only touched on what is wrong with many of them, the rest are all flawed in their own special way.  In March 2014, I'll be tackling those abominations in what I will call Disney Sequel Month.  Every direct to video / surprise release to theaters movie will be reviewed and punished for how bad they screw over their original counterparts and have forever made an entire generation migrate to Dreamworks and beyond.