A version of this article originally posted in November of 2012.

We Recommend


  • Cinaclov - April 12, 2014 6:40 a.m.

    I was kind of disappointed with the original (and the moral at the end was awful, it was basically saying 'accept the lot you're born with because no one has any hope of changing it'). I think the concept has a lot of potential, but the original really didn't go far enough with it and they're sort of locked into the things they established with that one, so I'm of two minds as to whether a sequel would be worthwhile.
  • codystovall - April 11, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    I want it to be an 80s movie and ralph comes to the real world and the gamer goes to the game world Wacky antics ensue WOOOAAAH.
  • Shyplay - April 10, 2014 1:43 p.m.

    To be honest, I would prefer to have Felix and Ralph work together rather then have Felix angry at Ralph, if only because they were sparated for most of the first movie, and it would be nice to see them together and their relationship, expeccially with Vanillope and the girl from the shooter series( don't remember her name.) And with the training with Mario idea, why just mario? Train with many characters! Gives more chance for cameos. Jump training with the Mario Bros, running with Sonic, Puzzles with GLaDOS, spontaneous planning with Q*Bert, ECT. More likly though, is showing off the villeins, with Ralph training with them. Power of Bowser and whatnot. Plus, from what I read, they did have enough to have Mario for a cameo in the first one but cut it because they didn't have enough for Mario AND Luigi. Speaking of those, if the sequel is about family then it would be nice to hear famous brothers such as Mario and Luigi; and Sonic and Tails talk about what it means to be brothers. It may even be a way for Nintendo and SEGA to dispel rumors about the characters for them to talk that way, such as having Mario and Luigi give a tale about their childhood to dispel the rumor that Mario hates Luigi or vice-versa.
  • turbotastic - March 15, 2013 5:51 p.m.

    i want turbo back anyone with me here?
  • Nocturne989 - November 13, 2012 1:26 p.m.

    I like the idea of implementing the Kill Screen as an apocalypse for the game cabinet.
  • Trollkitten - April 10, 2014 5:49 p.m.

    Me too!
  • remas-haytham - April 11, 2014 2:11 p.m.
  • Travia220 - November 9, 2012 1:27 a.m.

    As much as I loved this movie to see a sequel would be the saddest day of my life. I don't trust Disney to do as well as the first time and sure as hell felt the movie doesn't need a sequel. Sometimes things are better when left as it. There are so many things in entertainment that get a sequel that just doesn't need it and it turns out to be god awful. That then just ruins the franchise.
  • interasteral7 - February 4, 2013 5:35 p.m.

    Usually when Disney do sequels, they usually suck. They should not make a sequel to Wreck-It Ralph.
  • Trollkitten - April 10, 2014 5:50 p.m.

    Well, keep in mind that a lot of those bad sequels were produced in the era in which Disney was sequel-ing left and right for some sort of reason.
  • BladedFalcon - April 10, 2014 9:15 p.m.

    That reason has a name: Michael Eisner.
  • Trollkitten - April 11, 2014 7:14 a.m.

    I honestly wouldn't know. All I knew at the time was that Disney was making a lot of crummy sequels. Not all Disney sequels are bad, though. I especially enjoyed Lady and the Tramp 2 (more so that the original, actually!), and The Jungle Book 2 was enjoyable, but it would have been noticeably better if production values had been worthy of the theatrical release it got -- I cringed when I saw a single still image of Sher Khan remain completely static for several moments, because I'm a detail-oriented person who notices such things quite frequently.
  • BladedFalcon - April 11, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    None of the sequels were made with quality in mind, much less because anyone thought they were necessary. They were made out flatly because they wanted to make a quick cash and to bank on all those properties popularity. That was the Michael Eisner way, make as much cash putting as little effort possible, legacy and brand reputation be damned. It was only after John Lasseter took over that this horrible practice stopped, and Disney started making good shit once again. Let me spin it another way: Michael Eisner was to Disney what Bobby Kotick is now to Activision.
  • BladedFalcon - April 11, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    Derp. I meant Bob Iger, not John Lasseter, huge brain fart on my part X
  • Trollkitten - April 11, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    "NONE of the sequels were made with quality in mind"? Think of how many people actually work on making a single movie (need help imagining how many? Watch the credits sequences). Now, odds are some of those people probably DID have quality in mind while making the movie, even if it was just another sequel. After all, some people in the company most likely actually DO care about both Disney's image, and keeping their jobs and salary. And what the heck is good shit, anyway? The kind my dad uses to fertilize his garden? Since when did a swear word for dung become a complement?
  • BladedFalcon - April 11, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    Right it sounds like you're arguing for the sake of arguing :P
  • Trollkitten - April 11, 2014 3:43 p.m.

    The second part, true. The first part, not so much. I'm just saying that your comment is a weak generalization; are you offended at that?
  • Trollkitten - April 11, 2014 3:45 p.m.

    Arguing for the sake of correcting someone COULD pretty much be classified as arguing for the sake of arguing, since the sake of arguing is to correct someone. Correct me if I'm wrong about that...
  • Trollkitten - April 11, 2014 7:16 a.m.

    Well, Disney is never going to get sequels right if they just stop making sequels, so it's not a matter of whether they should make a sequel or not, it's a matter of them looking at the way they make sequels and how they should improve on that. They'll never make a good sequel if they never make any sequels at all, and if they want to make a good sequel, SOME franchise has to be first.
  • CrKnight - November 8, 2012 9:21 p.m.

    I like the idea of an expanding arcade with players taking a bigger part. It makes for a very cheerful and positive sequel. The other option would be the transition from arcade to home gaming, but now that I'm thinking about it more it's not as fun.

Showing 1-20 of 23 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.