Originally Posted By HauntedMansionFan Personally I'd like to see a happy ending for Lady Tremaine in 'Cinderella 4' -- maybe Lady Tremaine can marry the king or the Duke. After all, both men are single and available as far as we know.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Well, I'd say "The Godfather II" and "The Godfather II" are on par -- or nearly on par -- with their predecessor, and widely considered classics. And let's not forget about the original "Star Wars" trilogy. <<< And Ep 5 and 6 are not classics. Ep 4 is.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<And Ep 5 and 6 are not classics. Ep 4 is. >> Are you ****in insane? Haha To say Empire Strikes Back is not a classic is ludicrous.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>> Are you ****in insane? Haha To say Empire Strikes Back is not a classic is ludicrous.<<< I am in no means saying that it's not great. It is, however, not a classic. Nor is RoJ. Only a ANH is. It's the original, and everything came after.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<<It is, however, not a classic. Nor is RoJ. Only a ANH is. It's the original, and everything came after. >> So no sequel can be a classic? Wrong.
Originally Posted By NikkiLOVESMickey If it's released directly to video, with sub-animation and dubious story, it's NOT a classic, IMHO. Cinderella ended perfectly - there was no need to make a sequel. Same with all of the other Disney classics. Toy Story also ended perfectly, but the sequels that were done were just as good as the original. That's a rare feat.
Originally Posted By brotherdave Of course, SOME sequels can be considered "classics". Godfather Part II and Empire Strikes Back probably fall into those categories. Same for the sequel films in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. If I'm not mistaken, in the literary world, "The Adventures Huckleberry Finn" is a sequel to "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer". Both books are considered "classic". However, direct to video tripe with poor animation and storytelling do not qualify in the slightest as "classics". They might be casually enjoyable by some, but are mainly forgotten by most, if known at all! If you enjoy the Cinderella sequels HauntedMansionFan, then great. Enjoy them. However, most Disney fans, and, more importantly, most of the general public, do not. It would not be in Disney's best interest to even make reference to them. And as far as I know and could find, Perrault, never wrote a sequel to Cinderella! Especially not the stories that Disney made into videos!!!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I got to see a lot of films when I took the Disney Magic across the Pond this spring ... I saw one of the Cindy sequels (think it was 3) and it wasn't the total piece of (bleep) I expected. But it also wasn't nearly up to par with the original. There's a reason why one of the first things John Lasseter did when he came on board was to basically stop most sequels. They harmed the brand tremendously, even the ones that really weren't all that bad. They had no reason to exist ... there was no real story left to tell.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>So no sequel can be a classic? Wrong.<<< Not by the nature of the definition I linked to. I disagree with the notion that sequels can be classics. They come after what they inspired by.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper But what happens when they improve on basically every aspect of the original?
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer Classic doesn't have to be better, it just has to inspire the things that follow it.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 to me everything has something that inspired it. George Lucas had plenty of inspritations that caused him to put together Star Wars....not all of them were classics. Empire Strikes back usually recognized as the pinnacle of SW movies- and it inspired SW to be a little darker than a New Hope was... the gretest book of the 20th century was recorded as Lord of the Rings - is it not a classic because the Hobbit came first ? just my opinion
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^^^ Tolkien actually wrote LotR first, then penned the Hobbit. They were released out of the order he wrote them in, but released in order, for us.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^ actually the Hobbit was written in 1937 and the Lord of the rings was started in 1937 but not completed until 1949- as he write it during WWII
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^ In that case, for me, it depends on what's known more.... People know LotR, not the Hobbit. That's the "classic".
