Animation Source Forums

ADGTH is different, Charlie dies at the beginning of the film. And the film has a parodic feeling, so it hasn't really made me want to cry or anything, except perhaps the end.

I think balto should of got hurt when he fell in the first movie.....or in the second when the bear threw him

Yes Steet but isn't that the second when he comes down to find the horn to open the gates to let the other dead dogs in..because in the first doesn't he die at the end and then when the second came out he went down to earth and then fell in love with Sasha and stayed there.

I never got the chance to see the second...totally unfindable here (yes, even worse than the Balto sequels)

Don't bother it's awful. The animation is really bad, worse than a normal dtv and the story wasn't so great either.
No offense to anyone who does like it though.

ADGTH 2 should have never been made. Even the worst of Disney DTVs paid attention to past events from the first movie, sometimes even obscure things. ex. Jungle Book II where Mowgli picked up a paw-paw with a stick instead of his hand. I should have returned the tape to Blockbuster the minute Itchy came to heaven in modern-day 1997 when the first movie takes place in the 1940's. So is Itchy a wonder-dog or did he spend 50 years in Hell? I stuck through it, mentally asking myself why, why, WHY?! (5 years later, I asked myself why, why, WHY?! I sat through a 32-chapter fic that had nothing going on for it.)

I agree. I mean what were they thinking when they made this movie. I actually thought it took place in more of a late 20's early 30's, but that's beside the point. They totally killed the characters. Their personalities were awful except for maybe Sasha. She was the only one ever remotely interesting. I think the movie took a lot of meaning out of Charlie's sacrafice too.

Hmmm... I dunno. I liked Red in cat form.

ADGTH was pretty good IMO. Not like the greatest film of all time though. ANd the reason Sasha was good was because that was the first time you seen her in a movie.

Anyway, back on topic.

I think the hero should cut and bleed at times, only when it is more dramatic for him to be. But not too graphic of course. These are kids that we're talking about!

Anyway, with the whole "Jenna getting hurt" thing: That wasn't very believable if you ask me. No blood, no scrapes, nothing! Or at least Balto should have been hurt in either of the bear attacks (Bears really don't like him much, do they?) with at least some slight noticeable injury IMO.

I think it's kinda typical for a hero to have his battle scars (even though some of them have scars not visible to the eye), so show us how the hero got them! Sounds about right . . .

Yes but I don't think Jenna got any scars I think she must have twisted her paw. Then it wouldn't have shown any scars I've twisted my ankle twice and I had no scars just pain.

I don't think so! THink about all the little kids who watch Balto! THey might get scared! Then again, shows need violence...

Bwahahahahahah violence.

*smirk* Good stuff . . . .
Well, every once and a while, but don't make Balto a huge bloodfest okay?

yeah, If a hero went throughout an entire story without being touched at all by any outer or inner conflict, then it would be a hard story to believe no matter how hard-core the guy/chick is. Also there's a lot more suspense when the hero get's hurt to, and I love suspense.