Google+

27 comments

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Elgyem - November 8, 2012 8:15 p.m.

    I actually recall a SMB arcade cabinet at a pizza place a while back. Ralph could enter that. I like the idea of Billy Mitchel as the villian. Imagine the possibilities.
  • nokeisoka - November 8, 2012 6:36 p.m.

    I'd like to see link worked into the training if it happened being his spar partner teaching him without ever speaking a word just through action would be interesting.
  • Nap1400 - November 8, 2012 12:04 p.m.

    I kind of want to see the next game involve the addition of consoles in today's gaming market. I know a bunch of arcades nowadays have a tendency to include and Xbox or something to appeal to the market that doesn't normally play arcade games or for multiplayer arcade-style games that never got arcade releases. (MvC3 comes to mind) It would allow more games that weren't in the film here a chance to get cameos since they're not arcade games. (I'm relatively sure almost all the characters in Game Central Station were from arcade games, and it was only the graffiti that had non-arcade game references like Aerith Lives and such) It's all just a wish, though.

Showing 21-27 of 27 comments

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

OR…

Connect with Facebook

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