Should Disney Have Made A DTV Sword in the Stone Sequel?

[CMWaters]

Conversation with a friend of mine brought up this point: with how much lore there is with the Arthurian mythos, as well as how many Direct to Video movies Disney did back in the day, do you think they should have continued the story of "The Sword in the Stone" to show stuff from after Arthur became king?

I mean, obviously some things would have to be toned down (any fighting for example), but I could see a few things happening in it:
1)A sorta "redemption" for Kay, making him be an overprotective big brother to the new King (since Kay did become a Knight of the Round Table).
2)The introduction of a young Guinevere for a love interest for Arthur (sorry lady squirrel).
3)Morgan Le Fay as the villain, berating Mimm for her failure and such.

Are we off base for thinking this?

[JIMBOB]

They are all interesting ideas. I would definitely watch if it was ever made.

[MolotovMocktail]

As someone who loved The Sword in the Stone (my second favorite Disney movie after Robin Hood), I am intrigued by these ideas. Even bring in the battle with the Black Knight, and the reveal of it as Sir Pellinore, who did appear in the original movie.

That being said, it’s best left alone given the general low quality of Disney sequels. I’d rather not taint the legacy of the original.

[Zombie Mod]

I think it was ok as a standalone film, but I could see disney trying to do a mirror sequel showing Guinevere's path to Arthur.

problem is they should make it in a traditional animation style when everyone expects everything to be cgi

[CMWaters]

Jul 17, 2020 14:15:48 GMT -5 MolotovMocktail said:

As someone who loved The Sword in the Stone (my second favorite Disney movie after Robin Hood), I am intrigued by these ideas. Even bring in the battle with the Black Knight, and the reveal of it as Sir Pellinore, who did appear in the original movie.

That'd be a rather weird battle considering the age difference, and Pellinore being one of the two who were on Arthur's side during the public sword pulling. Speaking of, was unique for the time for the knight in black there (I've heard it's Sir Bart, don't know enough of my Arthurian lore to know for sure) to be one of the good ones.

Jul 17, 2020 14:16:38 GMT -5 Zombie Mod said:

I think it was ok as a standalone film, but I could see disney trying to do a mirror sequel showing Guinevere's path to Arthur.

problem is they should make it in a traditional animation style when everyone expects everything to be cgi

I did mean more back when the DTVs were on the regular and not today, admittedly. As for that path, it could work, but would be missing something I think without a Merlin type figure for Guinevere.

[Dr. T is an alien]

I was initially very confused. When I see Disney and DTV, my mind instantly goes to the music video show that the Disney channel ran in the 80’s.

[dav]

Jul 17, 2020 18:05:20 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

I was initially very confused. When I see Disney and DTV, my mind instantly goes to the music video show that the Disney channel ran in the 80’s.

Wait, was that the one where they basically did AMV's using clips from old Disney movies and cartoons?

[Dr. T is an alien]

Jul 17, 2020 21:00:42 GMT -5 dav said:

Jul 17, 2020 18:05:20 GMT -5 Dr. T is an alien said:

I was initially very confused. When I see Disney and DTV, my mind instantly goes to the music video show that the Disney channel ran in the 80’s.

Wait, was that the one where they basically did AMV's using clips from old Disney movies and cartoons?

Yep

[BlackoutCreature]

I always wanted them to use the DTV's for crossovers. I'm thinking Arthur/Taran: The Sword and the Cauldron.

Also, Mulan could possibly be taking place around the same time as well.

[Mandarin Dessert Version 0]

One other story idea: Merlin trying to find out the secret why Arthur, ever since he knew him, seemed to have three different voices.

[ToyfareMark]

You mean Unidentified Flying Oddball wasn't the sequel?

[Hassan bin Sober]

Would have worked better as a Disney Afternoon series.

[CMWaters]

Jul 18, 2020 14:07:20 GMT -5 Hassan bin Sober said:

Would have worked better as a Disney Afternoon series.

That is a good point. Worked for Aladdin (and while not Disney Afternoon, worked for Tangled too).

Though a DTV movie probably would have been the pilot.

[HMARK Center]

It'd work since there'd be some good source material for it: The Sword in the Stone is the subtitle for the first half of the book The Once and Future King, while the second half of the book focuses on the story of Arthur establishing the Round Table, and the eventual tragic downfall once the affair between Guinevere and Lancelot is uncovered, as adapted in the musical Camelot.

Not that I think Disney would be eager to depict a love triangle like that (albeit one Arthur is more chill with than people might think), but hey, it's a great book.

[hassanchop]

By DTV I thought you meant one of these

[Deleted]

........perhaps the reason is that it's based on an actual myth/legend that Disney only told part of. There's more to the myth/legend that's been published and what not, and maybe Disney didn't want to either adapt that stuff or contradict it with their own lore.

Same goes for Robin Hood too, IIRC...

[HMARK Center]

Jul 20, 2020 7:24:59 GMT -5 @knapp said:

........perhaps the reason is that it's based on an actual myth/legend that Disney only told part of. There's more to the myth/legend that's been published and what not, and maybe Disney didn't want to either adapt that stuff or contradict it with their own lore.

Same goes for Robin Hood too, IIRC...

Again though, the Disney movie was an adaption only of parts of the first half of the T.H. White book; they didn't dive into Malory or other associated stories and retellings.

[Deleted]

Jul 20, 2020 21:01:58 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

Jul 20, 2020 7:24:59 GMT -5 @knapp said:

........perhaps the reason is that it's based on an actual myth/legend that Disney only told part of. There's more to the myth/legend that's been published and what not, and maybe Disney didn't want to either adapt that stuff or contradict it with their own lore.

Same goes for Robin Hood too, IIRC...

Again though, the Disney movie was an adaption only of parts of the first half of the T.H. White book; they didn't dive into Malory or other associated stories and retellings.

Another part (which I didn't get into) is that.......there's a bit of darkness to certain points of the King Arthur tale after where the movie stopped, right? I could see them trying to avoid those places and also wanting to stick to the basic spirit of the story, and I'm sure what interested them most was "kid becoming king."

I don't think Robin Hood has any sort of shady stuff; but the story they tell is basically the story every other adaptation sticks to. IIRC, there were a *bunch* of Disney comics in the '70s devoted to RH, but they mainly just played with that safe "Robin vs. Prince John, robbing the rich to feed the poor" world and didn't venture into new areas post-movie, so I reckon that was their preferred place to play with RH...