354: spite
It's one of those things... I think I'll see this just to spite you purists out there.
REASONS:
1. The Fox and the Hound was "based on" the book of the same name by Daniel P. Mannix, yet the two share absolutely NOTHING in common except names and character specieseses. The movie itself was a cutified hack [though a good one] of a book that's really not suitable for younger readers, so to say the original movie is being defiled is a laugh considering it was a defilement itself. There's nothing to say that a sequel to it won't be a similar hack of similar quality.
2. Sequels do not equal crap. Certainly SOME do, but judging them without even seeing them [for instance, from FIVE SCREEN GRABS] is being quite a bit unfair when people have demonstrated a genuine effort to make something good, particularly in this post-"Spiderman showed people what superhero movies are supposed to be like!" era. Specific examples: The Lion King 2, Treasure Planet [which I've heard condemned simply for being a knock-off of Treasure Island], Atlantis ["too pointy"], King Kong [so I understand], etc.
3. The idea of demanding that a good television series continue but a good movie must END WITHOUT SEQUEL is illogically bizarre. [There is a difference between, "Hey, I have a great idea for a really great sequel!" and, "Hey, that movie did great! I'll make a sequel without putting a lick of thought into it in order to capitalize on its success!"]
4. It looks cute.
5. Haven't you seen how many crap CG movies are coming out?! [Hoodwinked?!] Gimme a good knock back of 2D animation any day!
If you don't agree with those reasons, that's your right, but consider how snotty you're being by condemning something without due allowance.
[Yes, this is one of those, "once in a while, I have to state my actual opinion, regardless of what you guys think because maybe it will make YOU think" things.]
I'm doing laundry, and I had to mail something for Charleses. Otherwise, I would've zonked out upon re-entry XP
REASONS:
1. The Fox and the Hound was "based on" the book of the same name by Daniel P. Mannix, yet the two share absolutely NOTHING in common except names and character specieseses. The movie itself was a cutified hack [though a good one] of a book that's really not suitable for younger readers, so to say the original movie is being defiled is a laugh considering it was a defilement itself. There's nothing to say that a sequel to it won't be a similar hack of similar quality.
2. Sequels do not equal crap. Certainly SOME do, but judging them without even seeing them [for instance, from FIVE SCREEN GRABS] is being quite a bit unfair when people have demonstrated a genuine effort to make something good, particularly in this post-"Spiderman showed people what superhero movies are supposed to be like!" era. Specific examples: The Lion King 2, Treasure Planet [which I've heard condemned simply for being a knock-off of Treasure Island], Atlantis ["too pointy"], King Kong [so I understand], etc.
3. The idea of demanding that a good television series continue but a good movie must END WITHOUT SEQUEL is illogically bizarre. [There is a difference between, "Hey, I have a great idea for a really great sequel!" and, "Hey, that movie did great! I'll make a sequel without putting a lick of thought into it in order to capitalize on its success!"]
4. It looks cute.
5. Haven't you seen how many crap CG movies are coming out?! [Hoodwinked?!] Gimme a good knock back of 2D animation any day!
If you don't agree with those reasons, that's your right, but consider how snotty you're being by condemning something without due allowance.
[Yes, this is one of those, "once in a while, I have to state my actual opinion, regardless of what you guys think because maybe it will make YOU think" things.]
I'm doing laundry, and I had to mail something for Charleses. Otherwise, I would've zonked out upon re-entry XP