Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the January 22nd Toon Talk review of 101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure at: <a href="News-ID114750.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID114750.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations Kirby, I'm frankly shocked that this is a descent video. ;o) My kids have asked for this and thanks to your review I might just pick it up. Still a rental might be a better option. ) There have been some good DTV and "sequel" movies. (Lion King II, Return to Neverland, and The Tigger Movie come to mind) It would be nice if we could trust they'd all be at least O.K. Thanks again for the review, MouseBear
Originally Posted By jdub <<...this is a descent video>> WHAT!? ANOTHER one? In the other line of comment, it's getting pretty good reviews! So the descent continues, though, huh?
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations All, Of course I mean "decent" But "descent" is amusing. ) MB
Originally Posted By slave2moonlight Well, I'm glad this topic area about 101 Dalmatians 2 is going better than the one I started. I wrote about how much I loved this one and how it was the best Direct to Video Disney DVD so far (admittedly, most are not good, but a few I thought were excellent), and I ended up getting a full on verbal assault! Ha.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I agree with you, Slave2moonlight. I also think this is the best DTV they've ever done. Why couldn't they treat all of the others with this same level of respect and quality? I really appreciated having British actors voice some of the characters. I also agree with Kirby about there not being as much ham-fistedness with the story and morals. I didn't mind the non-xerox look since most of the film retained the look of the original. Unlike Return to Neverland and the upcoming Jungle Book 2 that introduce shadowing to the art style (although the original films did not). I really wasn't holding out much hope for 101 Dalmatians 2 after having seen Cinderella 2, and Hunchback 2, but I was very pleasantly surprised and if they can turn out product that is this good, then I would think twice about bad mouthing the DTV's.
Originally Posted By slave2moonlight gurgitoy2, it's good to see some folks who went into watching this flick with a truly open mind and an understanding of direct to video limitations, unlike those folks on the thread I started yesterday. *ugh* People like that are one of the main reasons I rarely bother with message boards, or don't waste my time by hanging around very long if I do. High-minded know-it-alls with really nothing better to do than complain about a perfectly good movie just because it has variations from other stuff they've seen by the same company. The only way you can truly make a sequel that matches the original is if it's made simultaneously with the original, or sometimes it's do-able if it's made by entirely the same crew. But I don't feel that that means sequels have to be flat out avoided if they are still done well. And frankly, I thought 101 Dalmatians 2 had an even more developed story than the original. The original is great, but it really isn't much more than a long chase scene, plot-wise, ha. And yeah, I really appreciated the use of British actors too (or in some cases, American actors using British accents), and I can't stress enough how glad I was that it wasn't a musical. I love musicals, but I guess the budgets just are never good enough to make a good straight to video musical, and I really don't like musical sequels based on non-musical originals. Lady and the Tramp 2 was so sad because it could have been great had it not been for making it a musical and casting someone who was too old for Scamp. As for Return to Neverland, I didn't all out hate it. What bothered me was that terrible song repeated throughout the film (Faith, Trust, Pixie Dust), Peter's voice sounded like he was going through puberty even though it sounded like he already had in the first one..., and the humor with Hook and Smee was a bit too forced and copied from the original, changing the croc to an octopus just to make it seem new (I miss the croc). But did anyone get the great Peter Pan ship from McDonald's? That thing is awesome! And if you have a particular Wendy PVC from the Disney parks and the Disney Stores years ago, and the crocodile compass McDonald's gave out in a previous Peter Pan set, you can set it up to look like it's from the first movie instead of the second, ha. Okay, that was all off topic. I'll have to start a thread about Happy Meal Toys. Anyways, as for Jungle Book 2, my hopes are probably too high for this one. True, it looks different, but I understand why. There are two types of stubborn complainers: Those that complain if a film looks different from the original, and those that complain if it "looks like their animation hasn't advanced since the 60's." With jerks like those you can never really win with an animated sequel. So it seems that they usually go one way or the other. Except when they do something that is legitimately complaint worthy, like the cheaply animated Hunchback of Notre Dame 2. But anyways, my hopes are high for Jungle Book 2 because I loved the original and have been waiting for more for a long time, though Tale Spin and Jungle Cubs were nice in the meantime. The first Jungle Book MIGHT be my fave Disney animated feature, though I'm torn between that one, Lion King, Little Mermaid and a few others. But, granted that Cinderella 2 and Hunchback 2 were bad, and I'm sure they'll make more bad ones. The Direct to Video releases that keep my hopes up for new stuff are Lion King 2, Extremely Goofy Movie, and a few others that were below par of course, but still great in my opinion, like Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas, and Mickey's Once Upon A Christmas. Not everything has to be a Masterpiece, contrary to what some people around here think. Not EVERYTHING Walt did was a Masterpiece either, even if I loved nearly all of it. But in my opinion, 101 Dalmatians 2 was far better than Atlantis as far as entertainment value is concerned, and I think that says a lot right there.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Slave2Moonlight: Can you define "High minded know-it-alls with nothing better to do than complain"? Thanks
Originally Posted By slave2moonlight Sorry, I won't be drawn into one of those message board arguements that never ends(because no one will change views no matter how many messages are posted).
Originally Posted By actingforanimators I'm not looking to argue, Moonlight. I'm looking for clarity and something more direct rather than something backhanded. I'm sure you'd agree that it's fair to ask that you give me the respect accorded you for having an opinion that my differ, rather than bating the question with veiled slams which you made. I'd be grateful for your carefully reviewing everything I've written before making blanket statments and assumptions that are less than what you're capable of - and I say that based on everything else I've read in your posts since joining the boards on the 19th. You appear to be intelligent, articulate and fair. While our view of a particular product or line of work may differ it doesn't mean I would speak down to you. So, I've no arguement at all, just a request for some respect rather than some snipes. Thanks.
Originally Posted By slave2moonlight I could appreciate that if I felt it was sincere, but I really don't. It seems like there's someone like you on every message board that always takes all the fun out of it, and I for one am not interested in wasting my time with that kind of back and forth jabber, because no matter how intelligent the responses, they'll never end and I'd rather move on to other topics. You could say I have a short attention span, and it's true. The thing that aggrivates me about posts like the ones you've been posting is not that you have your own opinion, but that you express it in a way that makes it sound like a person would have to be a complete moron to disagree with you. Talk about disrespect and "speaking down" to people, hmmph.
Originally Posted By Doobie Well that's your right, slave2moonlight. But realize that many are here for the very debates you're avoiding - that's why a lot of people use discussion boards. No one should be rude to you and everyone should treat you respect, and I'm sorry if that didn't occur. But I hope you won't begrudge those that do want to discuss or even debate the topic. Back on topic: I saw the film two nights ago. Probably the best direct-to-video I've seen (I liked Return to Neverland better for overall sequels). I was very pleased when I saw Kirby liked it as well. Doobie.
Originally Posted By slave2moonlight Doobie, glad you liked the movie. I have no problem with Debates, but prefer not to get involved because they're too time consuming and dull to me. Not to mention pointless, because as I said before, no one is going to change their opinion.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>And frankly, I thought 101 Dalmatians 2 had an even more developed story than the original. The original is great, but it really isn't much more than a long chase scene, plot-wise, ha.<<< I haven't seen it yet. Now I'm very curious. However, your statement above is telling, in that the film was at least somewhat inspired by Hitchcock's work, and the storytelling in 101 is deft, subtle (well, aside from Cruella, who is herself in an elite category of animated performances, period) and so solid as to be under the radar. I'll watch the sequel, and I'm sure I'll find entertainment in it, but I don't think that because people disagree with you, or take great lengths to explain WHY they disagree with you, means they're trying to make you look like a moron. I think you might have a little chip there that maybe has been throwing your shoulder out of whack. AFA is a champion of all the serious investment of story and craftsmanship that has long been the legacy of Disney Animation. As a former animator myself, I am probably going to see and bemoan a lot of what he did in the film, simply from an aesthetic point of view, and these things CAN'T be debated... the fluidity of characters and their rendering... the tonal quality of backgrounds, the effort that goes in... this is pretty objectively observed stuff. If he says they went cheap, it might escape the eyes of some, but I guarantee you that at least in that respect, he's almost certainly correct.
Originally Posted By Bill5925 I, too, am glad to see the positive reviews for this. I work for the mouse and have worked on some direct to video projects, some dreadful. I saw this film in a screening some months ago. From the opening titles it looked feature (ok, DTV feature) quality. At least it doesn't follow the gawdawful character style of the TV series!
Originally Posted By slave2moonlight I don't disagree with AFA's comments about the technical differences. I'm able to see the differences between the "fluidity of characters and their rendering... the tonal quality of backgrounds, the effort that goes in..." I'm an artist myself. I am a bit frustrated with the idea that it's inexcusably wrong and ignorant to derive any entertainment value from a direct to video film just because it's not up to par with theatrical releases, and I'd be surprised if anyone couldn't get that out of his statements on the other thread. But no doubt, I do have a chip on my shoulder from always running into one person, and it's always just one mind you, on these internet message boards who seems to have a delusion of grandeur. It's not about a difference of opinions or thorough and detailed explanations of those opinions, all of which I'm fine with and happy to read, it's about the way they're worded. And to be honest, with these recent Disney sequels, every slight difference from the originals, from the art to the animation to the voices, irritates the heck out of me too. But I'm glad I can still enjoy it if it's a good movie on its own, and respects the classic characters, at least to a reasonable level, as I feel this one did. And I'm a fan of Disney animation throughout its history, and I still say this film does nothing to tarnish the Disney name, unlike other releases we all could mention. But that's just my opinion.
Originally Posted By Bill5925 Kirby, You state that "none of the original actors are with us anymore." Isn't Rod Taylor (Pongo) still around? It was also nice to see Lucille Bliss get credit for her Kanine Krunchies commercial jingle (reused from the original, I believe). Lucille, the voice of Crusader Rabbit and Smurfette is also very much with us.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I also noticed that they used Kathryn Beaumont as one of the miscellaneous voices too. I have no idea what voice she provided, but it's nice to see them still using her. Now why on earth they couldn't get her to voice the grown up Wendy in Return to Neverland, I'll never know...
