|
|
Post by MatKearneyFan on Jan 6, 2009 19:44:36 GMT -5
I have seen many members asking why Flo(Charlie's "probable" girlfriend from the 1st movie) wasn't in ADGTH 2. I have done research on the actors from the 1st movie and many of you do and do not know that Burt Renyolds(voice for Charlie Barkin) and Loni Anderson(voice for Flo) were married at that time and the producers wanted them to be in the movie together. Sadly, in 1993, Renyolds and Anderson had a bitter divorce.
|
|
|
|
Post by xenussb2 on Jan 7, 2009 11:43:25 GMT -5
I have seen many members asking why Flo(Charlie's "probable" girlfriend from the 1st movie) wasn't in ADGTH 2. I have done research on the actors from the 1st movie and many of you do and do not know that Burt Renyolds(voice for Charlie Barkin) and Loni Anderson(voice for Flo) were married at that time and the producers wanted them to be in the movie together. Sadly, in 1993, Renyolds and Anderson had a bitter divorce. they Stars it is normally to them get many marriages and divorces |
|
|
|
Post by Soapy on Jan 7, 2009 12:47:29 GMT -5
Intresting......
Nice researching Adidas!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kameinu on Oct 21, 2009 18:56:26 GMT -5
That divorce really wasn't a problem. They did recasting for characters, so getting Loni back when changing Reynolds for Sheen doesn't seem imposible for me. Or, the most likely choice, since most of the cast was recasted, Flo could had been recasted for too. Simple as that. If they wanted they could had dumped Sasha and have had Sheena herself do Flo's voice. It wouldn't had been a shocking change since first, Flo had a minor role, and second the change from Reynolds to Sheen was, apparently, not badly received. =/
|
|
|
|
Post by MatKearneyFan on Nov 1, 2009 13:01:41 GMT -5
They could not bring Flo back. What would the reason be for Flo's return? If you are thinking they should have been brought together, then it would have not worked because in the 1st movie, they were apart. She was his former ex girlfriend. Killer should have been brought back in the 2nd movie actually. Reynolds was in his 50s so his voice would have been too old to voice Charlie again. Sheen was selected because in the 2nd movie, Barkin's character was a smooth talking/ladie's man type kind of like Charlie Harper from 2 1/2 Men.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kameinu on Nov 1, 2009 19:01:44 GMT -5
They could not bring Flo back. What would the reason be for Flo's return? What was the reason for Sasha? Just Charlie's love interest Flo, heck, even Annabelle could had served THAT purpose. If you are thinking they should have been brought together, then it would have not worked because in the 1st movie, they were apart. She was his former ex girlfriend. I'm not thinking they should had. I'm talking of the possibilities had different scenerios taken place when making the decisions of the direction of the film. Killer should have been brought back in the 2nd movie actually. If Killer should had come back, why not Flo? Actually adding more movie 1 characters to the story would had made the need for the timeskip pointless and we've had less plotholes. Reynolds was in his 50s so his voice would have been too old to voice Charlie again. Dom Deluise says hi. He's 2 years older than Reynolds. And don't get me started on Charles Nelson Reilly. Sheen was selected because in the 2nd movie, Barkin's character was a smooth talking/ladie's man type kind of like Charlie Harper from 2 1/2 Men. You do know one reason many animated films have A list actors playing roles is to bring more viewers in, right? That's most likely the case here. Burt Reynolds played that type of role himself many times. I don't see this being much of an excuse for him not being in movie 2. |
|
|
|
Post by annabelladonna on Nov 1, 2009 23:17:59 GMT -5
How long was Charlie in heaven? She could have died and was never put vack in the movie cause of that reason. And remember Itchy had Anne-Marie who took care off him since Charlies 2nd death in the first movie, Flo didn't have anyone to feed her and the pups.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kameinu on Nov 2, 2009 0:06:21 GMT -5
Movie 1 took place in 1939 and it's speculated that the 2nd one to place in the 90's (pressumbly 1995/6). That's over 50 years. No way could Itchy had lived that long, that's the second the inconsistencies started. Every animal from movie 1 is dead by the time movie 2 came along.
Also, during that time skip the orphan pups obviously grew up, that either is an excuse for her not to had returned.
Alot of the decisions taken into the story of movie 2 just make no sense. While they had characters and resources to draw from movie 1. Just add the horn plot and there ya go. There was no need for the timeskip. No reason to keep Killer poofed. Flo wiped from the face of existence. And Itchy to make it into the book of world records for being the longest living winner dog. >_>
|
|
|
|
Post by MatKearneyFan on Nov 3, 2009 16:05:42 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't get how Itchy could have lived for more than 50 years and suddenly just appear in heaven. What is the main reason for Flo's return? If you look at sequels, the main character and other characters get new voices. Look at Balto 2 and 3. The actors for Balto, Jenna, Boris, and the polars bear were the same but their characteristics changed. I didn't like Maurice because his voice for Balto was too old and he looked too lazy hence the constant sleeping at the beginning of the movie which bored me. Plus, many of the characters never reappered like Steele, Nikki, Kaltag, Star, Dixie, and Sylvie. The biggest problems with those sequels was that they added in too many characters then they remove them. The biggest question was what happened to Steele? The sequels never showed what happened to him and leave us dumb founded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kameinu on Nov 4, 2009 8:52:11 GMT -5
It's called bad writing. When sequels are done the writers try to out due the originals by adding more characters, but they forget one thing, sometimes introducing new characters to an established universe isn't the only thing to make a succesful story. You have to make a solid story if not the characters won't work. And since most sequel stories present the characters in situations that didn't meet the great expectations of the writers the characters are dropped.
Or in the case of Steele and Flo, again, writers want to surpass the riginals, but since this types of projects tend to bring in new people, they want a succesful sequel but want it to be remember as the great thing THEY did, they try to break all ties to the people who worked in the original and not be directly directed to them. To bad for the ADGTH 2+ people, because ADGTH is widely rememrbed as Don Bluth's classic.
|
|
|
|
Post by MatKearneyFan on Nov 4, 2009 12:57:50 GMT -5
That is true but not all sequels are bad. Balto 2 and 3 are the top 2 worse sequels that I consider mainly because of the songs, crappy animation, boring storyline, and new character. ADGTH2 in my opinion isn't that bad. What is the main reason for Flo's return? What would her purpose be in the sequel? I didn't see any purpose for her return. As for Steele, there was a reason that he had to return. We have to see what will happen to him. The ending of him in Balto 1 was just left a lot of unanswered questions. Did he get banned? Did he run away to plot revenge? Did he get sold? In order to bring back a character from the original movie, there has to be a purpose and a role for that character. If you bring the character back and he or she does nothing, then boom, it will make the movie a bit boring. Killer should have been brought back to ADGTH2 also.
|
|
