Ac wrote:
But we CAN give Balto a better future without Universal. How? Simple - when you grow up show Balto to your kids and in the future use Balto to entertain your grand kids.
Remember that feeling you had when you first saw Balto? Simply allow others to have that feeling too.
Precisely, Ac. Not every animated theatrical (or even televised) release over the decades has had subsequent sequels, and those which haven't are usually remembered even more fondly than those which have. And no one complains about not having seen more. Look at Disney's
Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs--no sequels since its first release in 1937 (adaptations by other production companies notwithstanding; there have been no direct animated sequels BY the Disney company); or Chuck Jones' (and Columbia's)
Rikki-Tikki-Tavi--no sequels since its first release in 1975; or Chuck Jones'/MGM's
How The Grinch Stole Christmas--no sequels since its first release in 1966 (again, adaptations and re-imaginings, including Ron Howard's lousy live-action, makeup-heavy version from 2000, notwithstanding); or Disney/Pixar's
Up--even though the movie was left wide open for a possible sequel, there have been none announced since the original in 2009.
Well, you get the idea.
People who were kids when the ones I mentioned above first came out (those who are still alive, for example, when they first saw
Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs) remember those movies fondly...whether they appeared first in the theaters, or on television. And the fondness for those movies only grew over time, even without so much as a single sequel.
People have been sequel-crazy in the last thirty or forty years. Especially within the last twenty. It's stupid. Not every movie NEEDS a sequel. Most are better without it. And certainly they don't need
several sequels.
As Ac has said...remember the movies fondly...even if you like
Balto 2 for some reason. Leave the Balto franchise to slip into movie history in peace. It deserves that.