Disney sequels and canonicity

[dismaldowns]

So everyone around here probably knows Disney sequels (not talking about Fantasia 2000, Ralph Breaks the Internet and Frozen 2) were not made by the Walt Disney Studios but by Disney Toon Studios. These sequels rapidly became the bane of everyone who really cared about the original movies because most of them are considered sub par or outright terrible, many times even contradicting events previously established by the Walt Disney Studios.

So it's no wonder that a lot of people don't consider the sequels to be canon. Nevertheless a lot of people do consider them canon. I for one would be more than happy to disregard almost every single one of them but I really dig a small portion of them. The main example is the Aladdin series. I was a huge fan of Return of Jafar and The Forty Thieves and also the animated show. One of the biggest reasons was the redemption arc and character development of Iago, a character I was very fond of, being actually my favorite one in the original Aladdin. Without the sequels being considered canon Iago remains a prisoner of the lamp forever even though he is not really bound by it like Genie Jafar is and that is kind of sad.

So my question is: do any of you consider the Disney sequels canon and if so why?

[Scrooge MacDuck]

I definitely consider them all canonical, for the simple reason that I don't think being made by the original authors has anything to do with canonicity. It's always seemed a peculiar notion to me, especially when dealing with something like a Disney animated feature, which already has five hundred "authors"  or so to begin with. 

That doesn't mean I like all of them (I definitely like the Aladdin sequels as well), but I think that the main fun of "canon" as a concept is precisely the opportunity to contrast weird and stupid ideas with the wider web of storytelling and try to see if those chemicals mix in some interesting way. 

[Hector]

I'm generally against messing with a masterpiece by writing a sequel, unless you come up with something really exceptional. History has shown that most attempts to write a sequel of something really good have disastrous results, regardless of possible commercial success. Disney is no exception to that rule.

I definitely don't consider Lion King 2 canon, with all those new characters coming out of nowhere even though they declared they had always been there! Let alone Lion King 3 and Timon&Pumbaa series! In my headcanon, Scar was always a lone wolf with no one on his side. The only LK3 parts that fit well into my canonicity are Timon's backstory and the moments from Simba's childhood/adolescense in the jungle.

Alladin 2 was a pointless battle with the same villain one more time. The series was an obvious commercial scheme to overmilk the movie's success. With the excpetion of some good genie jokes, it was mediocre and expanded the universe by adding elements from legends/mythologies incompatible with the original movie's islamic ambience.

I would skip all the above and write, in my headcanon, as Alladin 2, not as Alladin 3, a movie with Alladin reuniting with his father and Iago somehow redeeming himself. Also, in that movie, Alladin would already live at the palace, because it made no sense in the series that he still lived as a vagabond when he was engaged to the princess.

Little Mermaid 2 is too depressing to be accepted as canon by me. I mean, Ariel went through all this stuff in the original movie only to wind up living in fear and sorrow for 12 years? And, in the prequel series, her character was developed too much for her boldness at the beginning of the first movie to be justified. It would have been a better idea to write a series with a similar plot, except with Melody (Ariel's daughter) being the main character. She could have found a way to transform from a human into a mermaid and vice versa and have adventures both on land and at sea.

The Hunchbank of Notre Dame 2 was mediocre like hell and felt like it was written merely for Quasimodo to get a love interest. An 1000 word long official fanfic written as a children book could have done the same job!

I haven't watched Pocahontas 2, but, just because I have seen on Internet memes that Pocahontas kisses someone else, I don't consider it canon. As a child, I liked to imagine that she and John Smith would end up together someday. They killed my childhood!

The Hercules series is obviously not meant to be taken as canon, so I accept it as an official parody.

The Emperor New School is non canon like hell to me. Not because Yzma has changed back into a human, but because, in the original movie, Kuzco was practically omnipotent and, in the series, suddenly, he's forced to attend school! Where did that come from?

The Tangled series seems wrong to me for some reason. Something about Rapunzel is different. It's not that she's drawn as a 2D character. Something about her makes her seem a different person from her movie counterpart. Perhaps someone else here can help me and define that thing.

The only sequel I really like, the exception to the 'sequels are a bad idea' rule, though it's a prequel rather than a sequel, is Beauty and the Beast 2. Great character development, especially on the Beast's part, and interesting new characters that by no means disrupt the original canonicity.

[TheMidgetMoose]

They're all canonical as far as I'm concerned with maybe a few exceptions. I don't see "they're not good" as being a valid excuse to revoke their canonical status when they were, for the most part, intended to be in continuity with the preceding franchise installments. It's true that these were made by Disney Toon Studios and not Walt Disney Studios but that doesn't change the fact that these sequels were approved and allowed to be produced by the company that holds the copyright to the original films. In other words, these aren't just fan films or unlicensed sequels. Like it or not, these sequels are official, even if they were produced by a different studio within the Walt Disney Company.

There is at least one exception to my general belief that all the Disney Toon sequels are in continuity with the films on which they are based. That exception is Tarzan and Jane and, by extension, The Legend of Tarzan. Why? The timeline. Tarzan and Jane/Legend of Tarzan seem to be set in the early to mid-1910's, around the time of World War I, based on a segment in Tarzan and Jane. The original Tarzan on the other hand, probably takes place about 1882 if my estimations are correct. In the film, either Jane or her father mention Queen Victoria, Kipling, and Darwin as living, famous people whom Tarzan may meet. Charles Darwin was the first of those three to die, and he passed in 1882, thus making that the latest possible date for the film. Considering that, at least based on my minimal research, Kipling doesn't seem to have been very well-known prior to 1882, I'd reckon 1882 is when the film takes place. For Tarzan to take place in 1882 and its sequel series and film to take place roughly 30 years is hard for me to buy. Thus, Tarzan and Jane is the only Disney sequel which I strongly believe to not be canonical to the film on which it is based.

Are there contradictions with the other films, too? Sure. For example, in Bambi, Bambi's mother says that "Of all the deer in the forest, not one has lived half so long" in reference to the Great Prince of the Forest. Surely it's not wrong to interpret this to mean that all the deer currently living in the forest are less than half the age of the Great Prince. However, in Bambi II, the Great Prince himself claims that when he met Bambi's mother, he was still young, roughly the same age Bambi is at the end of Bambi II. Bambi isn't implied to be anymore than two years old at the end of Bambi II. If this is correct, that means that Bambi's mother was, at a maximum, less than three years apart from her mate. I'm not sure how the math works for her to be only three years apart from him and still both less than half his age and old enough to have a son in Bambi. In my opinion, this is a contradiction between the two films.

However, this contradiction, while somewhat frustrating, is not significant enough for me to disavow Bambi II. I assume that most of the dialogue we see in the Bambi films is translated, and that what we are hearing is not exactly what was actually said. I assume that either deer don't actually speak in the Bambiverse and that what we are hearing is a rough translation from "deer talk", or that the deer do speak but, perhaps, speak German (based on the assumption that the films take place in Austria). Either way, I can easily fix the apparent contradiction by deciding that "Of all the deer in the forest, not one has lived half so long" is a translation of either "deer talk" or German and that what Bambi's mother actually said was something more along the lines of "Of all the stags in the forest, not one has lived half so long", allowing her to be close in age to the Great Prince and fixing the contradiction. Is the contradiction frustrating? Yes, but I don't see it as reason enough to discount the film unless it is wholly irreconcilable with the original film.

TL;DR: For me, all of the sequels are canonical by default and only cease to be if a major contradiction is found between it and the original film for which there is no reasonable, believable solution.

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jan 12, 2020 22:15:13 GMT Hector said:

The Hercules series is obviously not meant to be taken as canon, so I accept it as an official parody.

What an odd position. I mean, the tone is very parodical, yes, but the tone of the original movie is very parodical. I don't think one is jokier than the other.

Jan 12, 2020 22:15:13 GMT Hector said:

IThe Emperor New School is non canon like hell to me. Not because Yzma has changed back into a human, but because, in the original movie, Kuzco was practically omnipotent and, in the series, suddenly, he's forced to attend school! Where did that come from?

The fact that Kuzco has learned his lesson, duh. Presumably, the obligation always existed in the word of the law, but it is only after his time with Pacha that Kuzco admits that it's wrong for him to abuse his power and refuse to attend school. 

Also, how do you feel about Kronk's New Groove (the actual, filmic sequel)?

Jan 12, 2020 22:15:13 GMT Hector said:

The Tangled series seems wrong to me for some reason. Something about Rapunzel is different. It's not that she's drawn as a 2D character. Something about her makes her seem a different person from her movie counterpart. Perhaps someone else here can help me and define that thing.

A different voice actor?

Jan 13, 2020 2:42:57 GMT TheMidgetMoose said:

There is at least one assumption to my general belief that all the Disney Toon sequels are in continuity with the films on which they are based. That exception is Tarzan and Jane and, by extension, The Legend of Tarzan. Why? The timeline. Tarzan and Jane/Legend of Tarzan seem to be set in the early to mid-1910's, around the time of World War I, based on a segment in Tarzan and Jane. The original Tarzan on the other hand, probably takes place about 1882 if my estimations are correct. In the film, either Jane or her father mention Queen Victoria, Kipling, and Darwin as living, famous people whom Tarzan may meet. Charles Darwin was the first of those three to die, and he passed in 1882, thus making that the latest possible date for the film. Considering that, at least based on my minimal research, Kipling doesn't seem to have been very well-known prior to 1882, I'd reckon 1882 is when the film takes place. For Tarzan to take place in 1882 and its sequel series and film to take place roughly 30 years is hard for me to buy. Thus, Tarzan and Jane is the only Disney sequel which I strongly believe to not be canonical to the film on which it is based.

I feel as though the ol'Broadstrokes Principle may apply here. The specific identity of the people the Porters mention in the first movie doesn't seem at all essential to me; you could just as easily mentally bleep them over into more appropriate "recognizable names".

Or… well, I know you're more set on these films resembling the real world than I am, but it's not outside the realm of possibility to propose that in the universe of the Tarzan films, Charles Darwin & Co. died at a later age than they did in the real world. For example, Darwin was born in 1809, so it would have been perfectly imaginable for him to be alive in 1907 or so; a 5-10 years interval between Tarzan and Tarzan & Jane is maybe a little more than one would assume, but it's perfectly plausible. 

A yet again more far-fetched theory, of course, would be that whatever portion of the Heart of Atlantis that Queen La had brought to the jungle did in fact allow Tarzan, Jane & Co. to barely age between 1882 and the 1910's. (After all, the very same excuse is used for why Team Atlantis barely seems to have aged between Atlantis: The Lost Empire, set in 1913, and Atlantis: Milo's Return, set in the early 1930's.)

[Mesterius]

Jan 13, 2020 18:24:15 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jan 12, 2020 22:15:13 GMT Hector said:

The Tangled series seems wrong to me for some reason. Something about Rapunzel is different. It's not that she's drawn as a 2D character. Something about her makes her seem a different person from her movie counterpart. Perhaps someone else here can help me and define that thing.

A different voice actor?

No, Rapunzel has the same voice actor in the TV series as in the original movie (Mandy Moore). Same with Eugene/Flynn (Zachary Levi).

[Hector]

Jan 13, 2020 18:24:15 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Also, how do you feel about Kronk's New Groove (the actual, filmic sequel)?

I haven't watched it.

[TheMidgetMoose]

Jan 13, 2020 18:24:15 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jan 13, 2020 2:42:57 GMT TheMidgetMoose said:

There is at least one assumption to my general belief that all the Disney Toon sequels are in continuity with the films on which they are based. That exception is Tarzan and Jane and, by extension, The Legend of Tarzan. Why? The timeline. Tarzan and Jane/Legend of Tarzan seem to be set in the early to mid-1910's, around the time of World War I, based on a segment in Tarzan and Jane. The original Tarzan on the other hand, probably takes place about 1882 if my estimations are correct. In the film, either Jane or her father mention Queen Victoria, Kipling, and Darwin as living, famous people whom Tarzan may meet. Charles Darwin was the first of those three to die, and he passed in 1882, thus making that the latest possible date for the film. Considering that, at least based on my minimal research, Kipling doesn't seem to have been very well-known prior to 1882, I'd reckon 1882 is when the film takes place. For Tarzan to take place in 1882 and its sequel series and film to take place roughly 30 years is hard for me to buy. Thus, Tarzan and Jane is the only Disney sequel which I strongly believe to not be canonical to the film on which it is based.

I feel as though the ol'Broadstrokes Principle may apply here. The specific identity of the people the Porters mention in the first movie doesn't seem at all essential to me; you could just as easily mentally bleep them over into more appropriate "recognizable names".

Or… well, I know you're more set on these films resembling the real world than I am, but it's not outside the realm of possibility to propose that in the universe of the Tarzan films, Charles Darwin & Co. died at a later age than they did in the real world. For example, Darwin was born in 1809, so it would have been perfectly imaginable for him to be alive in 1907 or so; a 5-10 years interval between Tarzan and Tarzan & Jane is maybe a little more than one would assume, but it's perfectly plausible. 

A yet again more far-fetched theory, of course, would be that whatever portion of the Heart of Atlantis that Queen La had brought to the jungle did in fact allow Tarzan, Jane & Co. to barely age between 1882 and the 1910's. (After all, the very same excuse is used for why Team Atlantis barely seems to have aged between Atlantis: The Lost Empire, set in 1913, and Atlantis: Milo's Return, set in the early 1930's.)

Those are good ideas. I'm not a huge fan of the Broadstrokes Principle. I'm willing to come up with ways to say, "what we saw/heard isn't exactly what happened", but I like for there to be a reason that what we saw/heard isn't exactly what happened, e.g., I propose that what we hear in Bambi isn't exactly what was said, but I give a reason for it, that reason being that what we hear is a translation of either "deer talk" or German.

I do like your other ideas, though. They're both plausible enough. I would probably lean towards your last idea, since I do indeed prefer to keep the setting closer to the real world. I'm not wholly against the "historical figures living longer in this universe" proposal. I'm just not sure I'm wholly for it either. At any rate, you've managed to convince me that maybe I should allow Tarzan and Jane to be canonical to Tarzan. I can't think of any other major offenses committed by Tarzan and Jane that makes it incompatible with Tarzan, so I guess I can longer say I have reason to keep the films in separate continuities, which is perfectly fine by me.

[Hector]

Jan 13, 2020 18:24:15 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jan 12, 2020 22:15:13 GMT Hector said:

The Tangled series seems wrong to me for some reason. Something about Rapunzel is different. It's not that she's drawn as a 2D character. Something about her makes her seem a different person from her movie counterpart. Perhaps someone else here can help me and define that thing.

A different voice actor?

I think I have realized what is different. Movie Rapunzel looked like a 13-14 year old girl, whereas Series Rapunzel looks like a young adult.

[squeakyboots]

Feb 5, 2020 19:23:13 GMT Hector said:

Jan 13, 2020 18:24:15 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

A different voice actor?

I think I have realized what is different. Movie Rapunzel looked like a 13-14 year old girl, whereas Series Rapunzel looks like a young adult.

Rapunzel had turned 18 during the movie and at least another year had past since then during the show so she is supposed to be around 19-20 right now.