SRKTVAMDGRLXN 232 Posted January 14, 2015 So, I've read in lots of websites people saying/claiming the sequels (and the television series) to the original (Disney) animated movies are non-canon and all I have to say is: Unless Disney herself confirmed it, I DON'T BELIEVE IT. Why's that? Simple. Do you guys remember the movie "The Rescuers" (from 1977)? It gained a sequel in 1990 called "The Rescuers Down Under" and this sequel IS PART of the Disney (main) animated canon movies...Hence, why the sequels (and television series) of other animated movies shoudn't/can't be considered canon, too? Like Aladdin, for example, the TV series takes place before the third movie... Do you guys know anything about it? If so, could you please explain this to me? Love and peace... 1 DarylTrect reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kaweebo 3,617 Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) I like to pick and choose what I believe is canon, and I usually only pick the sequels that are good/necessary, but that's all an opinion thing and most people will have their own preferences on what's 'good'. In my opinion, Cinderella II and III did not have to be made and they weren't very good, either. The argument could be made that Cinderella II had a good moment when Drizella (I think) falls in love with the baker guy and ends up going against her mother's wishes, but that's basically it. Same thing with Aladdin: Return of Jafar, it was completely pointless. However, it did lead into the third film that involved Aladdin's dad and them reuniting, which was decent. But then you get movies like The Lion King II, which, in my opinion, is really good and adds to the original movie. (I actually think it's better than the first movie, but that's just me) The point I'm driving at is that the only sequels that should count as 'canon' are those that are actually worth something and were made with the intent of making a good story, not simply doing more of the same. Edited January 14, 2015 by Kaweebo 1 SRKTVAMDGRLXN reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SRKTVAMDGRLXN 232 Posted January 14, 2015 I like to pick and choose what I believe is canon, and I usually only pick the sequels that are good/necessary, but that's all an opinion thing and most people will have their own preferences on what's 'good'. In my opinion, Cinderella II and III did not have to be made and they weren't very good, either. The argument could be made that Cinderella II had a good moment when Drizella (I think) falls in love with the baker guy and ends up going against her mother's wishes, but that's basically it. Same thing with Aladdin: Return of Jafar, it was completely pointless. However, it did lead into the third film that involved Aladdin's dad and them reuniting, which was decent. But then you get movies like The Lion King II, which, in my opinion, is really good and adds to the original movie. (I actually think it's better than the first movie, but that's just me) That's Anastasia...Drizella is the one in green clothes (to not forget, here is a hint: "Greenzella"...horrible pun, huh?)... Indirectly led to the third movie, since the TV series takes place between the 2nd and 3rd movie. Really? In my opinion, the third movie was interesting and good. I have never seen the second one, so there isn't much to tell. Besides, there are people who claim the third movie, chronologically, comes before the second one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kaweebo 3,617 Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) That's Anastasia...Drizella is the one in green clothes (to not forget, here is a hint: "Greenzella"...horrible pun, huh?)... Indirectly led to the third movie, since the TV series takes place between the 2nd and 3rd movie. Really? In my opinion, the third movie was interesting and good. I have never seen the second one, so there isn't much to tell. Besides, there are people who claim the third movie, chronologically, comes before the second one. I liked Aladdin: King of Thieves, it just wasn't on the same level as The Lion King II. (a lot of that had to do with the animation though, as it was kind of subpar) Edited January 14, 2015 by Kaweebo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SoraDaxjer28 263 Posted January 14, 2015 I Think EVERYTHING Disney Makes Should Be Considered Official!! Why Shove Aside All The Effort Those Artists, Animators, And Digital Storytellers Did To Make Them? Besides, If You Ask Me, Disney Sequels AND Television Series Have A LOT More Innocence Than The Movies. I've Noticed Many People Ignore This. My Dream Job Is Working For Disney, So I Have Noticed Such Patterns In Their Works. After All, "Mickey, Donald, Goofy -- The Three Musketeers (2004)" Is An Innocent, Direct-To-Video Disney Movie, Yet It Made It Into "Kingdom Hearts 3D: Dream, Drop, Distance". For Some Reason, A Lot Of Innocent Movies And Shows Aren't Very Successful. Take The Older Spin-Off Of "The Andy Griffith Show": "Mayberry R.F.D." -- It Only Lasted 3 Seasons. Yet, My Mom And I Both Feel It Has Much More Innocence Than The Original Series; Many Others I've Talked To Who've Seen It Also Agree. Just Because A Movie Or Show Isn't Popular Doesn't Mean It's Pointless To Watch. It's True "Cinderella III: A Twist In Time (2007)" Isn't A Very Successful Movie. Yet, I Feel It Was An Interesting Twist On The Original Story. I Cannot Really Say About "The Lion King 2" (Haven't Seen It For Years), But I Thought The Entire Aladdin Series Was Well-Made -- This Includes The T.V. Series!! Plus, I Thought "Beauty And The Beast: The Enchanted Christmas (1998)" Was Better Than The Original Movie!! I Personally Thought Forte Was A Stronger Villain Than Gaston; The Former Gets More Involved In The Story And Feels Much More Sinister, Like The Devil/Satan (Gaston Doesn't Really Do Much). What About "An Extremely Goofy Movie (2000)"? It's An Excellent Sequel With A LOT Of Emotional Conflict That Gets Very Deep!! Don't Forget "DuckTales" -- Carl Barks (The Artist Who Created Scrooge McDuck, Duckburg, And The Entire Donald Duck Universe Beyond) Helped Create It!! If Disney T.V. Series Weren't Official, Then "Darkwing Duck", "Goof Troop", Even "TaleSpin" Wouldn't Be Counted!! Overall, I STILL Think Disney T.V. Series And Sequels Should Be Considered Official Disney Movies. After all, If It Was Made, There HAS To Be A Reason!! No One Makes Movies Or T.V. Series Without A Purpose!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Setrex 1,031 Posted January 14, 2015 A lot of sequels aren't considered 'canon' because they aren't given a number in the Disney Classics line (or are basically not made by the Walt Disney Animation Studios). The Rescuers Down Under is the only sequel to be included on the list, if you do not count Winnie the Pooh (2011) as a sequel to the original Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977). It's mainly to do with films that flat out got released straight to video/dvd. The list begins with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and is currently at number 54 with Big Hero 6. All these films had theatrical releases, unlike say Return of Jafar or Mulan II. Another point is, I recall The Jungle Book II getting a theatrical release, however it was made by DisneyToon Studios. Therefore it isn't technically canon because the Disney Classics line are made by Walt Disney Animation Studios. It's not that films or television shows based on The Little Mermaid or Aladdin are non-canon, it's just they aren't considered part of the Disney Classics line which I guess in some regards is the Disney 'canon'.... I think you can really consider what you want as 'canon', I personally follow the Disney Classics line because I consider it the true Disney films thing. That doesn't mean I disregard films like A Goofy Movie or Ducktales though, because I'll be damned, they are great films from my childhood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Philip Ellwell 5,487 Posted January 14, 2015 Most are awful, but the ones I remember seeing like Beauty and The Beast: The Enchanted Christmas, Tarzan and Jane, and Stitch: The Movie should be considered canon. A lot of Disney sequels take place DURING the original film, like Bambi 2, so it should be considered a lesser part of disney canon. But you could easily pick and choose: Cinderella 2 is mostly ignored by 3, so it's almost like it didn't happen, while Little Mermaid 3 ignores and often flat out contradicts Little Mermaid 2. So it's hard to say what you could call "canon" and "non canon". The only one I wish wasn't considered a sequel was Belle's Magical World: my cousin made me watch that crappy thing when I was 5, and I still hate it. 1 SRKTVAMDGRLXN reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twilight_roxas 326 Posted January 15, 2015 A lot of sequels aren't considered 'canon' because they aren't given a number in the Disney Classics line (or are basically not made by the Walt Disney Animation Studios). The Rescuers Down Under is the only sequel to be included on the list, if you do not count Winnie the Pooh (2011) as a sequel to the original Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977). It's mainly to do with films that flat out got released straight to video/dvd. The list begins with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and is currently at number 54 with Big Hero 6. All these films had theatrical releases, unlike say Return of Jafar or Mulan II. Another point is, I recall The Jungle Book II getting a theatrical release, however it was made by DisneyToon Studios. Therefore it isn't technically canon because the Disney Classics line are made by Walt Disney Animation Studios. It's not that films or television shows based on The Little Mermaid or Aladdin are non-canon, it's just they aren't considered part of the Disney Classics line which I guess in some regards is the Disney 'canon'.... I think you can really consider what you want as 'canon', I personally follow the Disney Classics line because I consider it the true Disney films thing. That doesn't mean I disregard films like A Goofy Movie or Ducktales though, because I'll be damned, they are great films from my childhood. You forgot Fantasia 2000. 1 Setrex reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SRKTVAMDGRLXN 232 Posted January 15, 2015 Most are awful, but the ones I remember seeing like Beauty and The Beast: The Enchanted Christmas, Tarzan and Jane, and Stitch: The Movie should be considered canon. A lot of Disney sequels take place DURING the original film, like Bambi 2, so it should be considered a lesser part of disney canon. But you could easily pick and choose: Cinderella 2 is mostly ignored by 3, so it's almost like it didn't happen, while Little Mermaid 3 ignores and often flat out contradicts Little Mermaid 2. So it's hard to say what you could call "canon" and "non canon". The only one I wish wasn't considered a sequel was Belle's Magical World: my cousin made me watch that crappy thing when I was 5, and I still hate it. The second film and this one you mentioned all take place BEFORE the fight with Gaston... A lot of sequels aren't considered 'canon' because they aren't given a number in the Disney Classics line (or are basically not made by the Walt Disney Animation Studios). The Rescuers Down Under is the only sequel to be included on the list, if you do not count Winnie the Pooh (2011) as a sequel to the original Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977). It's mainly to do with films that flat out got released straight to video/dvd. The list begins with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and is currently at number 54 with Big Hero 6. All these films had theatrical releases, unlike say Return of Jafar or Mulan II. Another point is, I recall The Jungle Book II getting a theatrical release, however it was made by DisneyToon Studios. Therefore it isn't technically canon because the Disney Classics line are made by Walt Disney Animation Studios. It's not that films or television shows based on The Little Mermaid or Aladdin are non-canon, it's just they aren't considered part of the Disney Classics line which I guess in some regards is the Disney 'canon'.... I think you can really consider what you want as 'canon', I personally follow the Disney Classics line because I consider it the true Disney films thing. That doesn't mean I disregard films like A Goofy Movie or Ducktales though, because I'll be damned, they are great films from my childhood. But even with this aspect, their stories are still canon to the saga, right? I Think EVERYTHING Disney Makes Should Be Considered Official!! Why Shove Aside All The Effort Those Artists, Animators, And Digital Storytellers Did To Make Them? Besides, If You Ask Me, Disney Sequels AND Television Series Have A LOT More Innocence Than The Movies. I've Noticed Many People Ignore This. My Dream Job Is Working For Disney, So I Have Noticed Such Patterns In Their Works. After All, "Mickey, Donald, Goofy -- The Three Musketeers (2004)" Is An Innocent, Direct-To-Video Disney Movie, Yet It Made It Into "Kingdom Hearts 3D: Dream, Drop, Distance". For Some Reason, A Lot Of Innocent Movies And Shows Aren't Very Successful. Take The Older Spin-Off Of "The Andy Griffith Show": "Mayberry R.F.D." -- It Only Lasted 3 Seasons. Yet, My Mom And I Both Feel It Has Much More Innocence Than The Original Series; Many Others I've Talked To Who've Seen It Also Agree. Just Because A Movie Or Show Isn't Popular Doesn't Mean It's Pointless To Watch. It's True "Cinderella III: A Twist In Time (2007)" Isn't A Very Successful Movie. Yet, I Feel It Was An Interesting Twist On The Original Story. I Cannot Really Say About "The Lion King 2" (Haven't Seen It For Years), But I Thought The Entire Aladdin Series Was Well-Made -- This Includes The T.V. Series!! Plus, I Thought "Beauty And The Beast: The Enchanted Christmas (1998)" Was Better Than The Original Movie!! I Personally Thought Forte Was A Stronger Villain Than Gaston; The Former Gets More Involved In The Story And Feels Much More Sinister, Like The Devil/Satan (Gaston Doesn't Really Do Much). What About "An Extremely Goofy Movie (2000)"? It's An Excellent Sequel With A LOT Of Emotional Conflict That Gets Very Deep!! Don't Forget "DuckTales" -- Carl Barks (The Artist Who Created Scrooge McDuck, Duckburg, And The Entire Donald Duck Universe Beyond) Helped Create It!! If Disney T.V. Series Weren't Official, Then "Darkwing Duck", "Goof Troop", Even "TaleSpin" Wouldn't Be Counted!! Overall, I STILL Think Disney T.V. Series And Sequels Should Be Considered Official Disney Movies. After all, If It Was Made, There HAS To Be A Reason!! No One Makes Movies Or T.V. Series Without A Purpose!! Their stories are still about the characters from the first films, even if it's a daughter or son, right? You forgot Fantasia 2000. The 2000 version is canon to the original list? 1 SoraDaxjer28 reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twilight_roxas 326 Posted January 15, 2015 The second film and this one you mentioned all take place BEFORE the fight with Gaston... But even with this aspect, their stories are still canon to the saga, right? Their stories are still about the characters from the first films, even if it's a daughter or son, right? The 2000 version is canon to the original list? yep Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SRKTVAMDGRLXN 232 Posted January 15, 2015 yep So sequels are indeed canon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Philip Ellwell 5,487 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) The second film and this one you mentioned all take place BEFORE the fight with Gaston... I know that. The tone is sort of all over the place with Enchanted Christmas, but it seems alright enough to add it to the storyline. The 3rd film is just three shorts and two awful songs, and should be ignored. But still, does it matter when they occurred? Sadly, most disney sequels sort of ignore or give a slight Frig you to the originals. And EC never mentions Gaston or Belle's father. And MW just seems to forget the other two films even happened, like each film is its own universe separate from the other versions. Edited January 15, 2015 by Jack Overland Frost Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SRKTVAMDGRLXN 232 Posted January 15, 2015 I know that. The tone is sort of all over the place with Enchanted Christmas, but it seems alright enough to add it to the storyline. The 3rd film is just three shorts and two awful songs, and should be ignored. But still, does it matter when they occurred? Sadly, most disney sequels sort of ignore or give a slight Frig you to the originals. And EC never mentions Gaston or Belle's father. And MW just seems to forget the other two films even happened, like each film is its own universe separate from the other versions. Yeah, because that was before Belle found out Gaston was a real monster and the (long) time she spent at the castle with the Beast probably made her forget about her father for a while. Then, after the ball (first film), she remembers him out of the blue...Damn, how much time has passed since then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Philip Ellwell 5,487 Posted January 15, 2015 Yeah, because that was before Belle found out Gaston was a real monster and the (long) time she spent at the castle with the Beast probably made her forget about her father for a while. Then, after the ball (first film), she remembers him out of the blue...Damn, how much time has passed since then? EC takes place immediately after Beast saves Belle from the wolves, like the next day, and MC seems sprinkled across the two films combined, if I remember correctly. I haven't seen EC or MW in years, so I may be wrong, but Belle seemed pretty pissed at Beast when she left, not all happy and bubbly like she is in EC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SRKTVAMDGRLXN 232 Posted January 15, 2015 EC takes place immediately after Beast saves Belle from the wolves, like the next day, and MC seems sprinkled across the two films combined, if I remember correctly. I haven't seen EC or MW in years, so I may be wrong, but Belle seemed pretty pissed at Beast when she left, not all happy and bubbly like she is in EC. Really? Can't recall that... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Philip Ellwell 5,487 Posted January 15, 2015 Really? Can't recall that... Recall what? She's pretty happy for a captive woman in EC: that was before she and the Beast started becoming..well not FRIENDS, but before he gave her the library. And why do you think she left? She was trying to escape the castle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SRKTVAMDGRLXN 232 Posted January 15, 2015 Recall what? She's pretty happy for a captive woman in EC: that was before she and the Beast started becoming..well not FRIENDS, but before he gave her the library. And why do you think she left? She was trying to escape the castle. Oh, OK...Now I remember...sorry, my bad... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Philip Ellwell 5,487 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Oh, OK...Now I remember...sorry, my bad... No harm, no foul: most people don't remember the details on the old Disney flicks. I didn't even see the first one until I was a teenager: I thought EC WAS Beauty and The Beast for awhile. It's not very good on following character traits, plotlines, or really anything besides the basic Belle and Beast set up. Edited January 15, 2015 by Jack Overland Frost Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SRKTVAMDGRLXN 232 Posted January 15, 2015 No harm, no foul: most people don't remember the details on the old Disney flicks. I didn't even see the first one until I was a teenager: I thought EC WAS Beauty and The Beast for awhile. It's not very good on following character traits, plotlines, or really anything besides the basic Belle and Beast set up. These midquels surely confuse us sometimes, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Philip Ellwell 5,487 Posted January 15, 2015 These midquels surely confuse us sometimes, right? That they do: The Belle's Magical world one was highly odd and random. And this has just been Beauty and The Beast: do NOT get me started on Fox and The Hound 2 unless you want a three hour speech. The Disney sequels can be good, but a lot of them range from "meh" to "destroy this movie please", and the midquels aren't much better. 1 SRKTVAMDGRLXN reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Setrex 1,031 Posted January 15, 2015 You forgot Fantasia 2000. Yeah I had a feeling I forgot one more. F2000 was good, not as great as the original, but still good. But even with this aspect, their stories are still canon to the saga, right? Of course. Just because The Lion King 2 wasn't animated by Walt Disney Animation Studios or isn't part of the Disney Classics line, doesn't mean it isn't still a direct continuation of the first Lion King film. So sequels are indeed canon. I must ask, why is the 'canon' thing important? Disney just tended to give TV series' and sequels to a lot of the popular films after the release of The Little Mermaind in 1989. If you want to treat them as canon that's fine. Sequels developed by Walt Disney Animation Studios are 'canon'. As a result, I found this: The Rescuers Down Under was the first animated theatrical film sequel produced by Disney; along with Fantasia 2000 and Winnie the Pooh, it is one of the few sequels that are part of the Disney animated features canon. 1 SRKTVAMDGRLXN reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Weedanort 8,786 Posted January 15, 2015 Nobody mentioned Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 yet? Okay In my opinion, the Toy Story sequels are the only ones worthy of being called "a sequel". I remember Lion King 2 being somewhat good, but every other sequel are just moneygrabbers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SRKTVAMDGRLXN 232 Posted January 15, 2015 Nobody mentioned Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3 yet? Okay In my opinion, the Toy Story sequels are the only ones worthy of being called "a sequel". I remember Lion King 2 being somewhat good, but every other sequel are just moneygrabbers Oh, come on, all of them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Weedanort 8,786 Posted January 15, 2015 Oh, come on, all of them? Like I said, Toy Story 2 and 3 were good sequels, and Lion King 2 wasn't that bad. Again, in my opinion, every other sequel were just moneygrabbers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SRKTVAMDGRLXN 232 Posted January 15, 2015 Like I said, Toy Story 2 and 3 were good sequels, and Lion King 2 wasn't that bad. Again, in my opinion, every other sequel were just moneygrabbers. :sad: too bad... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
