Sitka
New Character
" Ohh really...?"
Posts: 5
|
Post by Sitka on Jan 22, 2005 12:59:16 GMT -5
Has any one heard of Disney makeing a Brother Bear 2 lately?   |
|
|
|
Post by Krystedez "Spectrum" on Jan 22, 2005 22:43:25 GMT -5
They're supposevely in production stage of making Brother Bear 2...Or so I've heard... Not much news though... It most likely will be released sometime 2006 or 2007, or even later. Direct-to-Video release.
|
|
|
|
Post by Epesi on Jan 22, 2005 23:22:38 GMT -5
www.bbear.org/news/  Sorry, I don't have much to say at the moment, but the link speaks for itself, I think. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Mohegan on Jan 26, 2005 14:36:04 GMT -5
You know what would be a cool idea? If Denahi changed into a wolf. Oh, I hope there are wolves in BB2 ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by EbonyPatriot on Jan 26, 2005 21:42:06 GMT -5
Me too- in fact, I was rather disappointed that the original BB didn't have wolves- well, real wolves. ;D But hopefully they're well-drawn. Live long and prosper.  -EbonyPatriot |
|
Denai
New Character
Posts: 45
|
Post by Denai on Jan 28, 2005 12:08:03 GMT -5
Can't wait! |
|
|
|
Post by rabidchild on Jan 31, 2005 21:13:49 GMT -5
it better not be computer generated like they say it is. that just kind of ruins the whole art of brother bear. secondly, centering it on rutt and tuke is like when they centered a lion king movie on timon and pumbaa. to most its enjoyable but to me its just annoying ><
|
|
|
|
Post by Epesi on Jan 31, 2005 21:42:44 GMT -5
Well, if it is enjoyable to most, they're all the more likely to do it.  That said, though I liked TLK1.5 myself, and I like the moose, I'm not terribly enthusiastic about the prospects of a Rutt and Tuke standalone; let alone one in CG. Still, I always reserve judgment until I have something of substance to base my views on. Maybe they'll surprise me; it wouldn't be the first time. I originally felt the same about TLK1.5. But then, many still do. But as always, if you don't like it, you don't have to watch it. Sometimes people get too worked up over a disappointing sequel; sure, it hurts when you think about what could have been, but it only has to hurt as long as you let it. I haven't heard someone complain of a bad fanfic destroying the integrity of the original source, so why should a sequel be much different? But I'm getting ahead of myself; anyway, I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but just addressing some of the more tiresome issues that commonly come up in sequel discussions.  |
|
|
|
Post by Truttle on Jan 31, 2005 22:36:25 GMT -5
I agree with your view Epesi. If the sequel doesn't turn out so well, at least we still have the original. But I can't deny that I also have that same biased opinion. It already lowers my interest to think that it will be 3D and only based only on Rutt and Tuke. Sure it might be appealing in a different way, but it just doesn't have what I'm looking for, and I may not give it much attention after watching it once or twice.
|
|
Warlock
Recognized Mortal
Novelest and future Producer
Posts: 107
|
Post by Warlock on Feb 2, 2005 13:57:25 GMT -5
I think that maybe they are out of ideas. I try so hard to come up with new ideas myself, and am finding it very hard as I work on my 2nd novel.
I also am not too fond of 3D. It just does not have that charisma that is found in 2D.
|
|
|
|
Post by Epesi on Feb 2, 2005 17:04:17 GMT -5
I actually like CG, myself. I just don't think the two should be compared; it's like apples and oranges. Nobody draws lines between traditional animation and stop-motion, for example. Now of course, stop-motion animation isn't nearly as common as CG or traditional. But I think each is an art form with its own merits, and there shouldn't be a race to see which form comes out on top.
|
|
Jane
New Character
You'll Be In My Heart
Posts: 45
|
Post by Jane on Feb 4, 2005 2:07:48 GMT -5
Your right, apples and oranges. I prefer traditional, I'm just not fond of the look of CG. I hope the sequel is traditional. To look at it in another way, it wouldn't make sense for a sequel to a traditional film to be done in CG. Again, apples and oranges, that'd be like doing an animated sequel to a live action film, it just doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Krystedez "Spectrum" on Feb 4, 2005 6:19:34 GMT -5
you mean doesN'T, Jane?  |
|
|
|
Post by Truttle on Feb 4, 2005 12:08:01 GMT -5
What a perfect analogy! Wonderfully put Jane! That's a great example! While the alternative of making animated cartoons into live action is being experimented on and reseiving mixed results. The one you said hasn't because of the low demand of it. Brother Bear is great in traditional. Why make it 3D? It's good enough as it is and doesn't make any sense to switch it to 3D. Instead, they should be working on making an effort to make the sequel good enough, as good, or even better than the first so that there won't be such an uproar about how lame it is because it is on DVD.
|
|
|
|
Post by Epesi on Feb 4, 2005 12:19:51 GMT -5
Well, from our standpoint as fans it doesn't make sense, but CG is cheaper than traditional. It makes perfect sense to their checkbooks.
That analogy reminded me of something I found while perusing the shelves at Blockbuster--there was an animated sequel to Kangaroo Jack. I've never seen either movie myself, but for once the cover was enough to scare me away, and usually I feel very strongly about giving films a closer look before dismissing them. But my gut instinct tells me that sequel is baaad, and I've come to trust my gut instinct when it comes to movies. ;D
|
|
