Animation Source Forums

Well, I'm guessing they had to do something before the hunting season started. Besides, it didn't have to go by that fast, right?

i agree with u selene it actully didnt need a secound film at all when i heard about it i figure if they wanted they could have made a short seires for that matter. they did spend at least a month together altho it seemed like a few days or two weeks. Tehy could have prolonged that for a year on television at least and saved a classic movie a some embarssement (not that it was that bad)

It was definitely unnecessary. The whole thing took the focus of Copper and Todd and onto these two new characters that basically poorly carried the whole thing.

It plainly obvious that The Fox and the Hound II is a telling of just one of the adventures Todd and Cooper had when they were little. It's kind of like those 'The Adventures of --' novels that authors like to release sometimes; they tell of side adventures that a character or group of characters take before, during, or after a main stream of events.
In this case, the original movie is the main line of events for the character, while the 'prequel' is an 'the adventures of --' addition.

As far as placement in time goes, most, if not all, of the sense in second movie have hints to Fall as being the current season. If my memory is right, Cooper left for the hunting season at the end of Fall through the Winter, so the second movie takes place in the first half of Fall.
Also, Fall fairs were very popular to have and are quite common. Their prime time? The beginning of Fall.
To me, these two point are enough for me to label the movie as being possible in the life time of young Todd and Cooper.

As to if the movie was really needed, I can't say. To me, making a new movie to add onto a 20 year old does not make sense, but because of my childhood exposure to the original movie, and my falling in love for it, I'm glad they made another Fox and the Hound movie. Besides, The Fox and the Hound II avoided the fate of most of Disney's sequels, proving to be an excellent movie.

Thank you, Rusty! And that pretty much proves my point...

it was ok i guess but it really made no sense to me pluse how do copper and tod go from adults in the first movie back to kids in the 2 movie .
P.s i might be talking about the wrong movie or was there only 2 fox and the hound
and fox and the hound with the singing?

There is only two movies. The original The Fox and the Hound released back in 1981 and The Fox and the Hound II released December 2006.


It is possible because The Fox and the Hound II is not a sequel; don't let the number in the name confuse you. It is a 'midquel,' taking place between the start and the end of the original movie.

The post I type earlier in this topic explains a little more.

I thought it was unneccessary as well. It feels more like a low-budget cartoon rather than an animated film.

Even though the movie was extremely pointless, I have to say that Reba McEntire, Patrick Swayze and Jim Cummings were great!

I liked the movie, even though I agree that it was pointless. And I liked the music.. :] I also liked some of the new characters.

I dunno.
I thought it was cute and when they make unneeded sequels and prequels in cartoon films,it doesn't bother me near as much as it would in a live action one.
I thought it was good for a kid's movie but,you are right it was random and uncalled for.