info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Nostalgia Chick: 10 Worst Disney Sequels
14 views
Skip to first unread message
calvin
Jan 16, 2012, 6:11:58 PM1/16/12
to
On Jan 1, 8:07 pm, TMC <tmc1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://realwrestlecrap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=...
> http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/team-nchick/nostalgia-chi...
I couldn't put up with the blabbermouth girl long enough
to get through 'Lady and the Tramp', but my nomination
for bad Disney sequel would be 'Fantasia 2000'.
> http://realwrestlecrap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=...
> http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/team-nchick/nostalgia-chi...
I couldn't put up with the blabbermouth girl long enough
to get through 'Lady and the Tramp', but my nomination
for bad Disney sequel would be 'Fantasia 2000'.
Bill Steele
Jan 18, 2012, 1:28:39 PM1/18/12
to
these quickie-to-DVD ripoffs.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Jan 18, 2012, 2:50:47 PM1/18/12
to
In article <jf730n$1u4$2...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
Of course "Fantasia 2000" wasn't a sequel and wasn't direct to DVD.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Howard Brazee
Jan 18, 2012, 4:15:44 PM1/18/12
to
On 18 Jan 2012 19:50:47 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
looks fine on my blu-ray.
I don't know that 'Of course', it wasn't a sequel.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
<tednolan>) wrote:
>>> I couldn't put up with the blabbermouth girl long enough
>>> to get through 'Lady and the Tramp', but my nomination
>>> for bad Disney sequel would be 'Fantasia 2000'.
>>
>>Not the greatest presentation, but I can applaud the idea of trashing
>>these quickie-to-DVD ripoffs.
>
>Of course "Fantasia 2000" wasn't a sequel and wasn't direct to DVD.
I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
>>> I couldn't put up with the blabbermouth girl long enough
>>> to get through 'Lady and the Tramp', but my nomination
>>> for bad Disney sequel would be 'Fantasia 2000'.
>>
>>Not the greatest presentation, but I can applaud the idea of trashing
>>these quickie-to-DVD ripoffs.
>
>Of course "Fantasia 2000" wasn't a sequel and wasn't direct to DVD.
Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
looks fine on my blu-ray.
I don't know that 'Of course', it wasn't a sequel.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Jan 18, 2012, 4:38:23 PM1/18/12
to
In article <cfdeh79mjhs803irj...@4ax.com>,
If I write two murder mysteries with different characters the second one
isn't a sequel just because it's in the same genre and by the same author.
Is the first "Fantasia" a sequel to any number of cartoons set to classical
music?
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On 18 Jan 2012 19:50:47 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>>> I couldn't put up with the blabbermouth girl long enough
>>>> to get through 'Lady and the Tramp', but my nomination
>>>> for bad Disney sequel would be 'Fantasia 2000'.
>>>
>>>Not the greatest presentation, but I can applaud the idea of trashing
>>>these quickie-to-DVD ripoffs.
>>
>>Of course "Fantasia 2000" wasn't a sequel and wasn't direct to DVD.
>
>I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
>Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
>looks fine on my blu-ray.
>
>
> I don't know that 'Of course', it wasn't a sequel.
>
Well, IMHO, to be a sequel, it has to depend on the first one somehow.
>On 18 Jan 2012 19:50:47 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>>> I couldn't put up with the blabbermouth girl long enough
>>>> to get through 'Lady and the Tramp', but my nomination
>>>> for bad Disney sequel would be 'Fantasia 2000'.
>>>
>>>Not the greatest presentation, but I can applaud the idea of trashing
>>>these quickie-to-DVD ripoffs.
>>
>>Of course "Fantasia 2000" wasn't a sequel and wasn't direct to DVD.
>
>I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
>Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
>looks fine on my blu-ray.
>
>
> I don't know that 'Of course', it wasn't a sequel.
>
If I write two murder mysteries with different characters the second one
isn't a sequel just because it's in the same genre and by the same author.
Is the first "Fantasia" a sequel to any number of cartoons set to classical
music?
Howard Brazee
Jan 18, 2012, 4:47:16 PM1/18/12
to
On 18 Jan 2012 21:38:23 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
setting of showing the orchestra and talking about movies is the same.
I would change "Of course", with "IMHO" in your first line quoted
above.
<tednolan>) wrote:
>>>Of course "Fantasia 2000" wasn't a sequel and wasn't direct to DVD.
>>
>>I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
>>Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
>>looks fine on my blu-ray.
>>
>>
>> I don't know that 'Of course', it wasn't a sequel.
>>
>
>Well, IMHO, to be a sequel, it has to depend on the first one somehow.
>
>If I write two murder mysteries with different characters the second one
>isn't a sequel just because it's in the same genre and by the same author.
>
>Is the first "Fantasia" a sequel to any number of cartoons set to classical
>music?
Disney planned to do a series of Fantasia movies, updating pieces. The
>>>Of course "Fantasia 2000" wasn't a sequel and wasn't direct to DVD.
>>
>>I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
>>Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
>>looks fine on my blu-ray.
>>
>>
>> I don't know that 'Of course', it wasn't a sequel.
>>
>
>Well, IMHO, to be a sequel, it has to depend on the first one somehow.
>
>If I write two murder mysteries with different characters the second one
>isn't a sequel just because it's in the same genre and by the same author.
>
>Is the first "Fantasia" a sequel to any number of cartoons set to classical
>music?
setting of showing the orchestra and talking about movies is the same.
I would change "Of course", with "IMHO" in your first line quoted
above.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Jan 18, 2012, 5:41:30 PM1/18/12
to
In article <vafeh71r2ae2jmo8p...@4ax.com>,
:-)
But, to scope-down, then of course "IMHO"..
A "series" of anything does not make later elements of the series "sequels".
For instance, "The Twilight Zone" was a series but very few (zero?) episodes
were "sequels". If I wanted to tax claim my travel expenses for my
hypothetical murder mysteries, I might make them into a series like:
_Mean Streets: Toronto_
_Mean Streets: Prague_
_Mean Streets: Poughkeepsie_
etc, but assuming they still had no common characters, they still wouldn't
be sequels.
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On 18 Jan 2012 21:38:23 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>>>Of course "Fantasia 2000" wasn't a sequel and wasn't direct to DVD.
>>>
>>>I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
>>>Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
>>>looks fine on my blu-ray.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know that 'Of course', it wasn't a sequel.
>>>
>>
>>Well, IMHO, to be a sequel, it has to depend on the first one somehow.
>>
>>If I write two murder mysteries with different characters the second one
>>isn't a sequel just because it's in the same genre and by the same author.
>>
>>Is the first "Fantasia" a sequel to any number of cartoons set to classical
>>music?
>
>Disney planned to do a series of Fantasia movies, updating pieces. The
>setting of showing the orchestra and talking about movies is the same.
>
>I would change "Of course", with "IMHO" in your first line quoted
>above.
>
Well, where's the fun in making a non-categorical, non-sweeping statement?
>On 18 Jan 2012 21:38:23 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>>>Of course "Fantasia 2000" wasn't a sequel and wasn't direct to DVD.
>>>
>>>I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
>>>Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
>>>looks fine on my blu-ray.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know that 'Of course', it wasn't a sequel.
>>>
>>
>>Well, IMHO, to be a sequel, it has to depend on the first one somehow.
>>
>>If I write two murder mysteries with different characters the second one
>>isn't a sequel just because it's in the same genre and by the same author.
>>
>>Is the first "Fantasia" a sequel to any number of cartoons set to classical
>>music?
>
>Disney planned to do a series of Fantasia movies, updating pieces. The
>setting of showing the orchestra and talking about movies is the same.
>
>I would change "Of course", with "IMHO" in your first line quoted
>above.
>
:-)
But, to scope-down, then of course "IMHO"..
A "series" of anything does not make later elements of the series "sequels".
For instance, "The Twilight Zone" was a series but very few (zero?) episodes
were "sequels". If I wanted to tax claim my travel expenses for my
hypothetical murder mysteries, I might make them into a series like:
_Mean Streets: Toronto_
_Mean Streets: Prague_
_Mean Streets: Poughkeepsie_
etc, but assuming they still had no common characters, they still wouldn't
be sequels.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Jan 18, 2012, 5:47:21 PM1/18/12
to
In article <9np04q...@mid.individual.net>,
Thinking a bit more, I would say that even in the case of common characters,
entries aren't necessarily "sequels". Consider "Star Trek" (TOS). In most
cases, the episodes do not build on each other, or take past events into
account. (Those that *do* would be sequels).
entries aren't necessarily "sequels". Consider "Star Trek" (TOS). In most
cases, the episodes do not build on each other, or take past events into
account. (Those that *do* would be sequels).
Derek Gee
Jan 20, 2012, 11:23:22 PM1/20/12
to
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:cfdeh79mjhs803irj...@4ax.com...
portion with the new restoration that was done by Reliance Digital (formerly
Lowry). That's why it looks so good. It looked a lot worse on the original
DVD release of "Fantasia 2000".
D
news:cfdeh79mjhs803irj...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Jan 2012 19:50:47 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>>> I couldn't put up with the blabbermouth girl long enough
>>>> to get through 'Lady and the Tramp', but my nomination
>>>> for bad Disney sequel would be 'Fantasia 2000'.
>>>
>>>Not the greatest presentation, but I can applaud the idea of trashing
>>>these quickie-to-DVD ripoffs.
>>
>>Of course "Fantasia 2000" wasn't a sequel and wasn't direct to DVD.
>
> I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
> Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
> looks fine on my blu-ray.
For the Blu-ray, Disney seems to have replaced the Sorcerer's Apprentice
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>>> I couldn't put up with the blabbermouth girl long enough
>>>> to get through 'Lady and the Tramp', but my nomination
>>>> for bad Disney sequel would be 'Fantasia 2000'.
>>>
>>>Not the greatest presentation, but I can applaud the idea of trashing
>>>these quickie-to-DVD ripoffs.
>>
>>Of course "Fantasia 2000" wasn't a sequel and wasn't direct to DVD.
>
> I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
> Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
> looks fine on my blu-ray.
portion with the new restoration that was done by Reliance Digital (formerly
Lowry). That's why it looks so good. It looked a lot worse on the original
DVD release of "Fantasia 2000".
D
Howard Brazee
Jan 21, 2012, 10:23:10 AM1/21/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:23:22 -0500, "Derek Gee"
<dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
>> I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
>> Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
>> looks fine on my blu-ray.
>
>For the Blu-ray, Disney seems to have replaced the Sorcerer's Apprentice
>portion with the new restoration that was done by Reliance Digital (formerly
>Lowry). That's why it looks so good. It looked a lot worse on the original
>DVD release of "Fantasia 2000".
I hadn't seen that. But it also looked a lot worse on the big IMAX
<dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
>> I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
>> Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
>> looks fine on my blu-ray.
>
>For the Blu-ray, Disney seems to have replaced the Sorcerer's Apprentice
>portion with the new restoration that was done by Reliance Digital (formerly
>Lowry). That's why it looks so good. It looked a lot worse on the original
>DVD release of "Fantasia 2000".
screen.
Derek Gee
Jan 22, 2012, 3:35:37 PM1/22/12
to
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:82mlh7tuigeinb72r...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:23:22 -0500, "Derek Gee"
> <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
>>> Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
>>> looks fine on my blu-ray.
>>
>>For the Blu-ray, Disney seems to have replaced the Sorcerer's Apprentice
>>portion with the new restoration that was done by Reliance Digital
>>(formerly
>>Lowry). That's why it looks so good. It looked a lot worse on the
>>original
>>DVD release of "Fantasia 2000".
>
> I hadn't seen that. But it also looked a lot worse on the big IMAX
> screen.
You're right, it looked terrible on a giant IMAX screen, with extremely
> <dgeeSP...@twmi.INVALID.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> I saw it first on IMAX. The old IMAX with the large format film. The
>>> Sorcerer's Apprentice portion was obviously not so high def there, but
>>> looks fine on my blu-ray.
>>
>>For the Blu-ray, Disney seems to have replaced the Sorcerer's Apprentice
>>portion with the new restoration that was done by Reliance Digital
>>(formerly
>>Lowry). That's why it looks so good. It looked a lot worse on the
>>original
>>DVD release of "Fantasia 2000".
>
> I hadn't seen that. But it also looked a lot worse on the big IMAX
> screen.
large grain patterns visible. Not sure if the problem was the source
material IMAX was given, or how IMAX enlarged it (this was prior to the IMAX
DMR process), or combo of both, but it did look awful for that release.
D
0 new messages