I hadn't heard about the sort-of sequel to
Sleeping Beauty until I had started
Dalmatians. I'd already reserved the right to skip sequels, but I might catch it when I get to
Aladdin.
101 Dalmatians 1961
First Seen: Early childhood.
It's not as stark as the difference between
Bambi and the package films, but the animation isn't quite as pretty, overall. Mind you, animated all those spots was technically impressive, and this movie is when Disney started using something called
xerography, which resulted in the scratchy outlines for the next decade and a half.
An actual animation historian would probably have a lot more to say about xerography, but I'm just noting the changes in technology.
Overall, it's a fun movie, if rather low-stakes compared to the previous. Not really a musical, though, with only one number that I'm not sure if I should count.
This is probably the most faithful adaptation Disney has done up to this point in the canon, with it being more streamlined than really changed.
The change that sticks out the most is what was done with Cruella. She's drawn with a down-right corpse-like appearance but is otherwise a normal human, while the book character was an attractive woman that was implied to actually have fiendish ancestry.
This movie got a live-action adaption
before Disney started remaking all their animated classics, and that movie even got it's own sequel. I'm not watching them as part of this instance of the thread, but they were fun. Glen Close had a blast as Cruella, and her outfits were great. Haven't seen
Cruella with Emma Stone, but I've heard that it's good, if not at all close to the original story.
101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure 2003
First Seen: First instance of this thread.
I've mentioned when the cash-grab sequels are sillier than the original movies. This isn't a complaint, exactly; I'm just remarking on a change in tone. While pretty much all of the sequels so far have been at least a little sillier, they've (generally) been serious when they needed to be, so it's at least not a problem, and sometimes used to their advantage.
If the previous cash-grab sequels have been a notch sillier, this one is two notches, three if Cruella is around. The film realizes that the premise involves Cruella and her henchmen being outmaneuvered by a literal puppy on multiple occasions, and set the tone appropriately. Which is to say, total clownshoes.
This movie is goofy as hyuk, and it works pretty dang well.
It's serious when it does need to be, but that's not when Cruella is around. It's a fun comedy, if a bit childish, and probably my second favorite of the cash-grab sequels so far, with the writing managing to make up for the underwhelming animation.
Yeah. The animation is straight-up
worse than a movie forty-two years it's senior. I wouldn't call it bad, but it's... definitely TV rather than movie quality.
For the curious, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual sequel to the book, which is infamous for being oddly cosmic.
The Sword and the Stone 1936
First Seen: Early childhood.
Storybook opening. I really should actually keep track of which ones have them.
Huhn. At first, I thought that the sequels had a more jocular tone because they weren't confident that they could hold their audience without inserting a lot of jokes, but now I'm wondering if they were emulating the tone of movies like this one. I think that
Sword is actually the most comedic of any of the feature-length entries, so far.
Kinda makes me wonder what would happen if this got a sequel. Crank up the silliness higher, or actually keep the tone more serious?
Kinda surprised it didn't, to be honest. I haven't read
The Once and Future King, but there's plenty of Arthuriana to draw upon, and it's not like Disney is a stranger to altering source content.
Merlin and Mim both sing to make their magic, but I'm not sure just how much of a musical that makes it.
Overall, I'm actually surprised at how lighthearted this movie is. Madam Mim is certainly dangerous, but I think that it'd be an exaggeration to really call her a villain. Mostly, the movie is just Arthur and Merlin having goofy misadventures.
I know that the Good Fairies gave Briar Rose a (then) modern-style dress, but I think that Merlin is the first Disney Magic Mentor to clearly reference the future. I wonder how many will?
