The trailer seemed like a slam dunk for being better than the first (at least story wise) so I'm a bit surprised here.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Initial Frozen 2 impressions
- Thread starter RastaMentality
- Start date
The trailer seemed like a slam dunk for being better than the first (at least story wise) so I'm a bit surprised here.
OP
OP
I'm kind of getting "if you liked the first one's story, you won't like this one as much but if you thought it needed work, you'll love this" vibes.
OP
OP
Oof. Classic case of unnecessary-sequel-itis. Wreck it Ralph 2 was one of the worst things I've ever seen because it wasn't just bad but it actively besmirched the characters of the original (which I loved). Not surprising, if a tad disappointing.
Considering I thought the first was nothing special, I'm hoping I like the second better.
OP
OP
The first is basically cookie cutter princess fare. All the way down to the cheap twist which is why this immediately looked better.
I liked the trailers and first movie enough to watch this on faith alone. The fact that they agree the music is still bopping is all I need.
Sounds similar to " A Goofy Movie" what with no traditional villain it's more about the characters battling their own demons and trying to figure out who they are and their own relationships.
"Frozen 2 is the straight-to-DVD sequel I dreaded wasting my time on"
Pre-release twitter impressions are usually inflated heavily in favor of the movie in question, so this is... worrying.
Trying to figure out how you would gather than from the tweets in the thread so far.
OP
OP
No way. Every decent disney animation ends in the 80s+. It's easily the most RT inflated genre.
The only person who said Olaf was the highlight complained about the movie being too dark, lol
I don't know, it's been a while since we've had a decent villain- Moana and Ralph Breaks the Internet didn't have one, and we haven't had a decent, non-twist villain since Mother Gothel, back in Tangled. I actually think that the modern Disney movies have been missing a strong villainous presence for a while now.
He's not too off if any sequel is downplayed compared to the first the rating drops substantialy
I actually really, really liked Wreck-It Ralph 2 despite thinking that the trailers made it look awful. Maybe it helped having low expectations, but my wife and I both really enjoyed it. Neither of us has been particularly enamored by Disney's recent output other than Marvel movies (and even then, she only likes a few Marvel movies).
I'm sure the movie will be fine, but before buying into hype it's sometimes worth it to do minimal legwork. For instance, impressions from a Disney fan site and someone working for a platform that sells you tickets probably aren't the same as your average critic, or even viewer. Similarly, a lot of these early impressions come from higher profile bloggers who make money from hype and access but also trust and credibility with their readership, so you get something less effusive and more honest, but rarely outright negative. Not saying they can't be trusted, I tend to think early impressions from this latter group are reliable, it's just worth understanding the context.
Never saw the first and no real interest in this. Still ki da sucks it seems it went through the motions.
It had so much potential to explore about videogame lore.
-The same character meeting different versions from the same game.
-The character meeting later versions of themselves from sequels.
-A Donkey Kong Country situation where the villain of the series goes on to become the hero in a completely different series.
The directors even gave some of these story ideas for any potential sequel!
All thrown out for the piece of mediocrity we got.
PS. I'm kind of tired of Disney (and Western animation) getting rid of straight up villains.
They're usually the best and most memorable part of a cartoon.
Wreck it Ralph 2 disappoints me the more I think about it.
It had so much potential to explore about videogame lore.
-The same character meeting different versions from the same game.
-The character meeting later versions of themselves from sequels.
-A Donkey Kong Country situation where the villain of the series goes on to become the hero in a completely different series.
The directors even gave some of these story ideas for any potential sequel!
All thrown out for the piece of mediocrity we got.
PS. I'm kind of tired of Disney (and Western animation) getting rid of straight up villains.
They're usually the best and most memorable part of a cartoon.
The OP is literally a bunch of people saying that the movie felt unnecessary and worse than the first one but at least it had a good song.
Same. I mean, it's just from those picture books haha. But I can see the general plot and ending now, and I think it could be better than the first.
Which does not equal "in the 50s on RT." That's not how RT works.
You're also (purposefully?) ignoring the other impressions outside of the OP that say it's very good or better than the first.
You asked me if I read the OP, so I explained to you that I did and that all the impressions in the OP are mediocre at best.
I guess we'll see if I'm wrong soon, but it still sounds like a 50s-60s movie. I enjoyed the first one for what it's worth and I'm looking forward to this one.
N... No. You asked me if I read the OP first. Despite the fact that there were already more positive impressions in the thread.
Like, literally 2/3 posts under the OP. And then even more later on.
Oh that's actually good news then, the first movie was best during it's darkest moments.
I asked you if you read the OP, and you retorted with "Yes, did you?", which makes no sense considering the content of the OP.
But yeah, there's more positive posts later on. But that's not what we were talking about.