Wreck-it Ralph 2

this feels like a self-congratulating disney-sponsored corporate advert

I don't understand why it needs the Wreck-it Ralph label when it's hardly about gaming to begin with. I don't think I've seen any video game references outside of that lonely Mushroom and assets from the previous film.
 
Princess Mario said:
this feels like a self-congratulating disney-sponsored corporate advert

I don't understand why it needs the Wreck-it Ralph label when it's hardly about gaming to begin with. I don't think I've seen any video game references outside of that lonely Mushroom and assets from the previous film.
Click to expand...
Because the writers and creators enjoy these characters and want to continue their story?

I feel like the video game references in the first film were fun and fan servicey, but they shouldn't be the main selling point of a movie. The characters should be. Wreck it Ralph is Ralph and Vanellope's not Mario's or any other video game character. This film, while still being pretty fan servicey, is at least branching out from video games.

It feels like some people only cared about the first film for the video game references. and if that's the case, more power to you, it just feels shallow.
 
Expecting the sequel to be about video games too, especially when the first one partially delivered, is not "shallow"; it's established by the first movie, which has done all the world-building of a "hidden world" video game characters reside in. Ralph and Vanellope came off to me as video game characters in a video game world with a plotline that revolves around video game tropes, so there's bound to be video game references; I don't know where you're getting how I think real video game characters should steal the spotlight, I don't think I've argued that aside from gaming references (though I intend to mean "glitches", "arcade cabinets", "source code", "80's video game sound effects", those sorts of things). I think the video game aesthetics and story IS the main selling point of the movie. The movie plot revolves around a video game villain wishing to redeem himself and also try to help out a glitch character not get destroyed because her glitchiness is interfering with the players' enjoyment of the game, so the first movie is built around video games. It's also why people were complaining how the first film's second part was about candy references.

When you "branch out" (I don't think it's "branching out", I think it's a complete subject change), you risk abandoning what makes the first movie so appealing and I think the sequel is toeing with that. It's like the equivalent of having the sequel of Toy Story to be all about supermarkets.

I'm also miffed they haven't given attention to either Felix or Calhoun, who were pretty big characters in the earlier film. And I do like Felix.
 
When a kid playing Sugar Rush, Vanellope’s game, accidentally breaks the steering wheel off of the console, because the game’s manufacturer went out of business years ago, Mr. Litwak thinks it might be time to just let that old game go. But the kids in the arcade don’t want to see that happen, so they find a steering wheel for sale on eBay, but that steering wheel is so expensive that Mr. Litwak decides to unplug the game and sell it for parts, leaving Vanellope without a game. At the same time, it hurts Ralph to see how sad Vanellope is, so he decides that they’re going to sneak into the wifi router, go into the internet, find eBay, and get that steering wheel, so that Vanellope’s game will be saved and everything can get back to normal.

While Sugar Rush is unplugged, all of the other candy racers are also without a game. In need of parental figures, they turn to Fix-It Felix and Calhoun.
Click to expand...

Looks like this movie will have an A and a B plot coinciding with each other, much like the first film - and if it goes like the first film, the two plots will conjoin at some point near the end.

I'm cautiously optimistic about this film. While a lot of people are saying it's basically the Emoji movie 2.0, a lot of the reason the Emoji movie failed was because it didn't strictly follow its own logic, it didn't define a world, and its humor only relied on memes that grow stale. The trailer demonstrates that this movie is going to at least somewhat dodge the overly meme humor, and the article written about the movie suggests that the internal structure of the world is something they've put a lot of thought into.

You do have to keep in mind the people writing this are Disney, and Disney isn't a slouch when it comes to the writing department for the most part so long as they're not heavily reliant on subversion tropes (looking at you, Frozen...) and they're willing to tell a story that acts as an actual story even if you don't get the references. The appeal in the first movie was that, while it had a bunch of references, it still worked as a tight and well-meaning story even without it. As long as this movie takes a similar route, I'm willing to buy moving away from video games and moving toward the internet in general.
 
Mario won't be in the movie. Welp, that seals it for me. It's mainly copyright that Universal has that I guess would be why Disney couldn't use Mario in the film. But I lost interest pretty early on, so I'm not going to watch the movie. If it's good, I still wouldn't want to watch it in theaters unless someone bought tickets for me or something.

Now I'm waiting for just the Mario film by Illumination and I just want that one to be just decent, that's all I ask.
 
Mario wasn't going to convince me to watch this film, but there's now literally no reason for me to watch this film anymore.
 
Well, if Mario didn't make it, at least Sonic did! And he seems more important in this movie than the first one! Look at this trailer!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back