Disney Sequel Marathon - First time watching!

[Big One]

Actually, it doesn’t. Besides the fact that the movie portrays her as reacting towards her banishment, we don’t actually get much about what happened before…so I’m not sure how you could even say her “insanity predates her banishment,” when we never see any of that. If she was insane before, she wouldn’t have been a part of the court to begin with. She didn't get banished until she attempted to dethrone the king (or so we guess)--which you don't necessarily have to be crazy to think of doing.

No, this is wrong. To quote Poor Unfortunate Souls:

<center>I admit that in the past I've been a nasty
They weren't kidding when they called me, well, a witch
But you'll find that nowadays
I've mended all my ways
Repented, seen the light and made a switch
True?
Yes!</center>

Okay…you actually watched the movie, right?

Yes, where does it state Ursula that she has a vendetta against the king? At most she just wanted to take over the world with Triton's trident, I never got the feeling she had a personal agenda.

[Disney's Divinity]

No, this is wrong. To quote Poor Unfortunate Souls:

I admit that in the past I've been a nasty
They weren't kidding when they called me, well, a witch
But you'll find that nowadays
I've mended all my ways
Repented, seen the light and made a switch
True?
Yes!

1. You do realize that “Poor Unfortunate Souls” is delivered entirely at Ariel’s expense? Ursula conforms to what will make Ariel like her better--and nothing is more convincing than a criminal who’s been reformed, and sees the error of their ways.

2. “I’ve been a nasty” doesn’t read “Hey, I was crazy, sorry,” to me. It means she was a bad person (ie, attempting to overthrow the king, the character she’s singing to’s father--bad). Even the “I’ve mended my ways” implies that she‘s talking about bad actions she‘s committed, because you can’t “mend” crazy that you have no control over. So, to me, that’s hardly evidence that she was crazy before her banishment. It just says she was a horrible person, which is already apparent--why else would she be banished?

Yes, where does it state Ursula that she has a vendetta against the king? At most she just wanted to take over the world with Triton's trident, I never got the feeling she had a personal agenda.

Where does it state that the Queen envies Snow White? In the dialogue:

- The intro where she complains about how horrible her life is because of Triton.
- She sees Ariel as “The key to Triton’s undoing.” Not “to get the trident” or “to rule the seas.”
- “Triton’s daughter will be mine--and then I’ll make him writhe. I’ll see him wriggle like a worm on a hook!” *If this isn’t obvious enough to prove the point, then it’s useless to go on.
- “You see, the contract’s legal, binding and completely unbreakable--even for you.”
- The whole deal scene at the end, where she basically lays all over him in a mocking sort of flirtatious way. And then she also turns him into a polyp just like the others, so he can suffer forever.

Yes, Ursula wanted the trident so she could rule--that’s why she got banished in the first place. But after the banishment, revenge became a huge part of it. I never thought I would ever have to argue that part of the story… Even in the stage musical, she mentions wanting “the crown, the trident--the whole damn works. But most of all I want 'ol Triton pinned and wriggling on the rack." Where they copy the "wriggling" line from the film. Clearly, Disney disagrees with you about what the character’s motivation was.

[Disney Duster]

I am coming into say a few things.

The first is that I am ask you, to please, please, curb your language a little bit. Your last post was okay (except for the non-bleeping of the f and s words) but a lot of lasts post mention horrible things that or morally evil and disturbing and are far more offensive than anything I have written. If you don't find that to be so, at least consider this: You are writing reviews on a public forum. I am not asking you to censor art. I am asking you to write your hilarious reviews without depending on the most grotesque and offensive language, since they are reviews on a public, Disney forum where a lot of tweenagers and more innocent-minded people read.

So please, even if I have to beg, please edit some of the worst things of your last posts (like about miscarriage and dog-shooting-and-raping) and stick to the humor that actually makes fun of how bad the movie is instead of outrageous hyberbole for your own reactions to them which are just too offensive. And then in the future, just please be mindful of your language and descriptions.

Next, as someone who likes the character of Cinderella so much and is fascinated by your...far-going opinions, I was wondering if you would explain to me any more about why you felt the did when you wrote this:

"While this may sound kind of hammy, I think this actually brings more depth on the Cinderella character. In the original Cinderella - despite it ending in a very random and magical ending for Cinderella - had already a lot of depth about how Cinderella's character shaped up to be. Her story is tragic so the only emphasized sides you see of her are the two extremes: Joyous and depressed. She goes through specific character arcs tailored for the audience's emotional response, and it works well in the original. With Cinderella III: A Twist in Time, instead of rehashing those two elements all over again, we begin to see the more Grey side to Cinderella's Yin and Yang. The "Twist" isn't just about the fact that it takes place in an alternate universe situation, or the fact that the movie has an action movie take on Cinderella's classic story, but it's on Cinderella's character too. In my opinion, this is the highlight of the film and actually makes it worth watching. It expands on an already great character."

I guess what I really want to know is what depth do you think was added, what characters ars and depth did you think Cinderella had before in the original, and what grey areas did you think she had in this second sequel? Also, what did you mean when you wrote "despite it ending in a very random and magical ending for Cinderella "?

Finally, I actually don't think Cinderella II was that bad. I actually just don't think of these movies are that bad. I just don't think any of these movies cna truly be below a 3/10, because I've seen enough of them to feel that way and also because if they are based on the originals and know Disney movies are really that bad...well, at least I don't think any Disney movies are below a 4/10.

But it's just, you really exaggerated on Cinderella II, when it ast least is able to muster up some warmth and good feelings. Also, The Little Mermaid II is not nearly that bad either. I enjoyed how funny Morgana could be, as well as Tip and Dash. Not all the time, just sometimes. The movie was fun overall, it wasn't like the worst thing ever.

Finally, Ursula would clearly hate Triton since he was the one who banished her, and she kept talking about "Triton's undoing" and seeing him "wriggle like a worm on a hook!" It's clear he is to blame for her going to such stakes. However, it is true that she could be called evil for trying to overthrow him, but, in some deleted lines from the film, she tries to say she wasn't so bad. She says admits she was "a nasty" and "a witch" because she's trying to get on Ariel's side by agreeing she was bad in the past, but now she is good. And I find her to be one of the best Disney villains. EDIT: Okay Disney's Divinity explained that already, sorry!

DDivinity...I think if purple was supposed to mean that, then Triton's tale would be purple too, that's just what I think...and I really wish I could tell if Ursula was supposed to officially be purple or grayish purpleish blue...!

[Big One]

1. You do realize that “Poor Unfortunate Souls” is delivered entirely at Ariel’s expense? Ursula conforms to what will make Ariel like her better--and nothing is more convincing than a criminal who’s been reformed, and sees the error of their ways.

2. “I’ve been a nasty” doesn’t read “Hey, I was crazy, sorry,” to me. It means she was a bad person (ie, attempting to overthrow the king, the character she’s singing to’s father--bad). Even the “I’ve mended my ways” implies that she‘s talking about bad actions she‘s committed, because you can’t “mend” crazy that you have no control over. So, to me, that’s hardly evidence that she was crazy before her banishment. It just says she was a horrible person, which is already apparent--why else would she be banished?

Yes but that's all pretty much assuming too much. Why would she be banished without a good reason? It's very clear Triton banished her because of the witchery and fucking around with people she does quite a lot.

Where does it state that the Queen envies Snow White? In the dialogue:

- The intro where she complains about how horrible her life is because of Triton.
- She sees Ariel as “The key to Triton’s undoing.” Not “to get the trident” or “to rule the seas.”
- “Triton’s daughter will be mine--and then I’ll make him writhe. I’ll see him wriggle like a worm on a hook!” *If this isn’t obvious enough to prove the point, then it’s useless to go on.
- “You see, the contract’s legal, binding and completely unbreakable--even for you.”
- The whole deal scene at the end, where she basically lays all over him in a mocking sort of flirtatious way. And then she also turns him into a polyp just like the others, so he can suffer forever.

Yes, Ursula wanted the trident so she could rule--that’s why she got banished in the first place. But after the banishment, revenge became a huge part of it. I never thought I would ever have to argue that part of the story…

Okay fair enough, that's a legitimate point.

I am coming into say a few things.

The first is that I am ask you, to please, please, curb your language a little bit. Your last post was okay (except for the non-bleeping of the f and s words) but a lot of lasts post mention horrible things that or morally evil and disturbing and are far more offensive than anything I have written. If you don't find that to be so, at least consider this: You are writing reviews on a public forum. I am not asking you to censor art. I am asking you to write your hilarious reviews without depending on the most grotesque and offensive language, since they are reviews on a public, Disney forum where a lot of tweenagers and more innocent-minded people read.

So please, even if I have to beg, please edit some of the worst things of your last posts (like about miscarriage and dog-shooting-and-raping) and stick to the humor that actually makes fun of how bad the movie is instead of outrageous hyberbole for your own reactions to them which are just too offensive. And then in the future, just please be mindful of your language and descriptions.

Disney Duster, I put NSFW in my two curse-word and gore-heavy reviews for a reason. Not Safe For Work. I can't say I didn't warn you.

I guess what I really want to know is what depth do you think was added, what characters ars and depth did you think Cinderella had before in the original, and what grey areas did you think she had in this second sequel? Also, what did you mean when you wrote "despite it ending in a very random and magical ending for Cinderella "?

I don't think depth was added, I just think that showing Cinderella in a different light worked really well for the movie. It gave her a different direction of depth in character than in the original movie. I think that worked really well, considering how much Cinderella III: A Twist in Time was pointless in design, it still effectively pulled off an interesting look at a classic character. I also thought it was interesting cause it made Cinderella work for her Happily Ever After rather than receiving it for having such a shitty life.

[Elladorine]

Now this isn't directed at the OP, but to the mods. The reason I'm posting it in this thread is due to Disney Duster's latest reply.

To be honest I've recently been skipping over a lot of posts since they've simply been making me downright uncomfortable. I don't think of myself as a prude. I swear plenty in RL, occasionally finding reason to say "hell," "damn," "kick-ass" or whatever here on the forum. I also think I've been relatively open-minded throughout the years here about adult-oriented topics (correct me if I'm wrong).

But some of this crap . . . joking or not . . . about raping a dog? Appealing to pedophiles? With the amount of swearing (s***, f***) therein? Would these posts have been allowed a few years ago, or even a few months ago?

As far as I can recall we were never even allowed to link to adult/questionable material, even with NSFW warnings, let alone post such material outright. I thought this was a family-friendly site overall (PG-13 at the most), and this is the last place I'd expect to feel too uncomfortable for regular participation. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but the recent lack of decorum is staggering.

[Big One]

Now this isn't directed at the OP, but to the mods. The reason I'm posting it in this thread is due to Disney Duster's latest reply.

To be honest I've recently been skipping over a lot of posts since they've simply been making me downright uncomfortable. I don't think of myself as a prude. I swear plenty in RL, occasionally finding reason to say "hell," "damn," "kick-ass" or whatever here on the forum. I also think I've been relatively open-minded throughout the years here about adult-oriented topics (correct me if I'm wrong).

But some of this crap . . . joking or not . . . about raping a dog? Appealing to pedophiles? With the amount of swearing (s***, f***) therein? Would these posts have been allowed a few years ago, or even a few months ago?

As far as I can recall we were never even allowed to link to adult/questionable material, even with NSFW warnings, let alone post such material outright. I thought this was a family-friendly site overall (PG-13 at the most), and this is the last place I'd expect to feel too uncomfortable for regular participation. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but the recent lack of decorum is staggering.

Well I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable, but you have to remember that I'm putting myself through madness here.

I do not normally make jokes about such things (but I really don't care about cursing), but when watching these movies I can't help to describe how I feel about them by pushing them to such extremes. It's enraging, in fact, to put up with this, so I have to vent somehow.

You entered a thread where someone is pushing himself to see all of the Disney sequels, enough said. Besides, you aren't doing too well yourself. Endorsing piracy in the Lady and the Tramp thread? C'mon ;/

[Elladorine]

I hope you don't think I'm trying to attack you in any way; the thing is that there are plenty of forums out there that the more extreme posts are welcome to, but we've got younger teenagers here (although I guess one could argue that every board potentially does). I personally don't have a problem with swearing and adult humor but seeing this much at once in a Disney-oriented forum is rather jarring.

I must say the thing that bothers me the most are any of the pedophile references, which actually goes beyond the scope of this thread (seeing as you were comparing Duster unfavorably to them; I was tolerant of the remaining rant before the replies got out of hand but that drew the line IMHO). At the same time I'm not here to dictate what anyone should be saying or doing (it's up to the mods to enforce any rules after all). I've really wanted to steer clear of any drama but I guess I've finally become uncomfortable enough to speak up about it.

No hard feelings I hope.

[Super Aurora]

Yo, might want to down down it too, Big One. I hate for kiddifying your original posts too as I thought all that stuff is hilarious, but many people here are stupidly emotional and sensitive fucks, and mods here have no sense of humor and could delete your posts or even your thread entirely.

Remember what they did to my post in 10 ten thread I told you about?

Don't want same happen to your posts either.


Though I do find it rather preposterous about some members saying there are teenagers here or that it's family friendly as when is internet ever family-friendly? LOL

But yeah might want to tone down or edit previous posts. I hate for you do it too but for sake of keeping thread alive and shit, best go for that.

[disneyboy20022]

Athough I think You may have a future in reviewing movies like Nostalgia Critic or www.thatguywiththeglasses.com

I'm not offended by your colorful language of posting however there are rules here on the forums and not posting excessive Profanity is one of them. So edit it please since I want to see this continue if your sanity can take it without using curse words so often...you can say some curse words but your kinda overdoing it..I think it's great and funny but tone down on so many curse words..use some but not ever other sentence..or...try using something instead of it like Oh Truck this is a pile of garbage or good grief.....

[Elladorine]

Besides, you aren't doing too well yourself. Endorsing piracy in the Lady and the Tramp thread? C'mon ;/

*shrug*
I've gotten it on VHS twice, on DVD once (er, twice now that I think of it), and will be picking up the Blu-ray. It's not interfering with my previous purchases nor will it prevent any future sales on my end so I really don't care, but if it's seriously an issue Luke is more than welcome to take it up with me.

but many people here are stupidly emotional and sensitive fucks

I suppose I'm one of them. I don't have to expose myself to some of this and I'm sure a lot of others feel the same way; unfortunately we don't have a way to block members so I may be taking a break from posting until the word "pedophile" stops being thrown around all over the freakin' place.

Though I do find it rather preposterous about some members saying there are teenagers here or that it's family friendly as when is internet ever family-friendly? LOL

That should really be up to the owner of any site in question; 13-year-olds are allowed to register and post here, and all that register are expected to follow the set rules, i.e.: "Posts containing explicit content, prurient images, or other material inappropriate for the forum will not be allowed. Links to other websites hosting similar material are also not allowed. Use your best judgment in posting."

Besides, this isn't 4chan; using one's best judgement doesn't seem to be an issue there.

[Rudy Matt]

Now this isn't directed at the OP, but to the mods. The reason I'm posting it in this thread is due to Disney Duster's latest reply.

To be honest I've recently been skipping over a lot of posts since they've simply been making me downright uncomfortable. I don't think of myself as a prude. I swear plenty in RL, occasionally finding reason to say "hell," "damn," "kick-ass" or whatever here on the forum. I also think I've been relatively open-minded throughout the years here about adult-oriented topics (correct me if I'm wrong).

But some of this crap . . . joking or not . . . about raping a dog? Appealing to pedophiles? With the amount of swearing (s***, f***) therein? Would these posts have been allowed a few years ago, or even a few months ago?

As far as I can recall we were never even allowed to link to adult/questionable material, even with NSFW warnings, let alone post such material outright. I thought this was a family-friendly site overall (PG-13 at the most), and this is the last place I'd expect to feel too uncomfortable for regular participation. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but the recent lack of decorum is staggering.

Considering the films being discussed, there hasn't been enough profanity and colorful analogies to animal sodomy. The cheapquels did incredible damage to the brand name of Disney feature animation, and they cannot be criticized enough. There is no such thing as words "too harsh" or "offensive" when it comes to discussing these reeking cinematic abortions.

[Big One]

<center></center>

The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning is the most inoffensive supplement to a Disney movie I've seen yet. I'm going to be honest, I don't have much to say about this, good and bad, which is kind of disappointing cause I would love to be able to laud it's greater features and shoot down it's lesser. This'll be my shortest review so far; I don't really have much to say on it but I will get this done. Thankfully it's more more refreshing compared to The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea. Now I will say I have never seen The Little Mermaid TV series, so whatever contradictions happened between it and The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning I have nothing to say on, but I am aware that they exist.

The Good:

Characters - I could go on about how all of the old characters are on-model, but to be honest there isn't very many of them in this movie (understandably), but with what's there Ariel, King Triton, Sebastian, and all of the others seem to be consistent with their originals as much as they could be. My only gripe is Flounder, who is suddenly this music groupie, which I don't really remember him as in the original The Little Mermaid. Ariel's sisters are also very cute characters that prove that this movie not only has something for girls, but something for us guys too.

Onto the original characters.

<center>
Starring down into your soul, you're instantly imagining
her precious lips pressing against your hardened body</center>
I want to take her out somewhere to eat, if you know what I mean.

There isn't much to say on Queen Athena, though, other than she makes a better adult Ariel than Ariel in The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea. She's playful, full of life, attractive, and cute. That's Ariel, not the failed copy we got in The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea. There isn't much to say about her other than that, other than she serves her purpose in the movie's plot.

And then there's this shit...

<center>
OH MY GOD KILL IT WITH FIRE!</center>
Mygod, everything in this movie is perfect till this blight on the Ideascape itself appears on the screen. Fortunately it's still not as bad as Morgana, and her assistance Benjamin genuinely provides a good way into humoring her very existence. This character tries too hard to be a villain, and while she's still a better character compared to Morgana, she's even more pointless. Her existence in The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning is pointless and could be cut out of what could be an even more consistently good, character-driven movie. I have a feeling the same people who were responsible for The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea thought this was a good idea.

Animation - The animation in this movie is freaking beautiful, it seems around the later years DisneyToon Studios started really stepping up when it comes to animation as seen previously in example by Bambi II and Cinderella III: A Twist in Time. The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning is the best yet, probably cause the setting gives them more opportunities and kind of forces them to animate well. Things such as the movements of the hair and tiny details such as that are beautifully animated, and really shine in this movie. All of the characters look on-model, and all of the new characters look like they could've appeared in The Little Mermaid. I am 100% sure this animation is better than the animation in Home on the Range and Chicken Little. Take that canon-only fans!

There are no errors, flukes, jankiness, nothing. It's just really smooth and believable.

Humor - This movie is pretty funny! As I said above, Benjamin provides good comic relief, but so does all of the other side characters. The Catfish Club Band are all funny and cool characters that, while still being on the trope of talking animal sidekicks, provide believable and funny comic relief amongst the madness that is going on in the story itself. Sebastian also returns to being a black culture stereotype!

<center>
The resemblance is uncanny.</center>
Backstory - The backstory in this movie is really heartwarming, and is a good supplement to the original The Little Mermaid. While I think it's a bit ridiculous that King Triton would ban music from Atlantica, the actual story behind it is good and convincing for the characters in question.

The Meh:

The whole movie is kind of pointless. While the above elements seem like I'm praising it on all ends, and for the fact that I have nothing bad to say about it, doesn't mean I think it's the best thing ever. This movie is flawed in one major aspect: It's really light on plot focus. A lot of stuff that should be talked about, such as Triton's hatred for humans, is kind of shunned out in favor of "music" which is the central theme of the movie. They should've just called it The Little Mermaid: Electric Boogaloo Adventures. This movie is about mermaid teenage girls getting off on rebelling against their father's wishes by partying and dancing to music he doesn't want them listening to you. It's a movie mainly about having fun with some important backstory every once in a while. Ariel and Triton are good, character driven characters, but the character development is often shied by the humor.

Conclusion:

While I don't like this as much as I liked Cinderella III: A Twist in Time, I can understand if someone were to. It's the most well-animated of the sequel movies I've seen so far, and actually supplements the original The Little Mermaid better than anything I've seen yet. Someone could watch The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning and be convinced that it falls in line with the original. Ultimately, however, this movie was kind of pointless, I guess you could say. It's worth watching if you're a big fan of the original like I was, unlike it's other sequel.

6/10

Up Next: Mulan II

[Big One]

I must say the thing that bothers me the most are any of the pedophile references, which actually goes beyond the scope of this thread (seeing as you were comparing Duster unfavorably to them; I was tolerant of the remaining rant before the replies got out of hand but that drew the line IMHO). At the same time I'm not here to dictate what anyone should be saying or doing (it's up to the mods to enforce any rules after all). I've really wanted to steer clear of any drama but I guess I've finally become uncomfortable enough to speak up about it.

I didn't compare Disney Duster to pedophiles.

*shrug*
I've gotten it on VHS twice, on DVD once (er, twice now that I think of it), and will be picking up the Blu-ray. It's not interfering with my previous purchases nor will it prevent any future sales on my end so I really don't care, but if it's seriously an issue Luke is more than welcome to take it up with me.

That isn't an excuse, there's never an excuse for piracy, even though we've all done it, it's still bad. Just sayin'.

Yo, might want to down down it too, Big One. I hate for kiddifying your original posts too as I thought all that stuff is hilarious, but many people here are stupidly emotional and sensitive fucks, and mods here have no sense of humor and could delete your posts or even your thread entirely.

We'll see. I might censor my posts and posted uncensored versions in Google Docs format. We'll see, give me some time to think on what I should do on this subject. I wasn't aware people here were able to get offended at intended hyperbole and extremes.

[toonaspie]

I hated the shameless incorporation of pop music into Return to Neverland and Cinderella 2. Surprisingly it didn't bother me so much with Bambi 2, which is my favorite of the Walt-era DTV sequels.

I'm probably the only person on here who felt that Cinderella 3: Twist in Time is rather overrated. As much as making action heroes out of Cinderella and the Prince adds more excitement to the film, to me it just felt so out of character. Also Bruno and Major (the horse) and other mice characters were completely absent from the film despite appearing in Cinderella 2, which kinda offset things a bit for me.

Bambi 2, is underrated. The original film itself leans toward the younger kiddies (till you get to Man) of course. So no surprise to me that the midquel did the same. The only changes I would've made would've been to lose that Disney-death (it's a midquel we know Bambi's going to freakin live!!) and to make Man's presence more dreading and scary like in the original. (Damn this politically correct century we now live in!!!)

HOTND2 is the biggest WTF?! The film could've been slightly decent if the animation quality was on par with the original...but yeah...

Finally worse part of Return to Neverland: cutting Kathryn Beaumont from the final film for "production reasons". Production reasons my ass. More like "who would be cheaper to pay to voice this role?" And replacing the crocodile with the octopus? Did the writers of this film even watched the original Peter Pan????

[Big One]

Finally worse part of Return to Neverland: cutting Kathryn Beaumont from the final film for "production reasons". Production reasons my ass. More like "who would be cheaper to pay to voice this role?" And replacing the crocodile with the octopus? Did the writers of this film even watched the original Peter Pan????

I wasn't aware she was cut out, but I agree about the octopus, it was lame.

I'm shocked not much people are shedding their thoughts about Return to Neverland, I thought it was pretty good for the most part.

[BwayJ]

Is it just me, or does the animation in Hunchback 2 remind anybody else of Gargoyles? I'm not at all suggesting this animation is as good as that of Gargoyles, but the way the characters move looks a lot like episodes like "Awakening" and "The Mirror."

[disneyboy20022]

Is it just me, or does the animation in Hunchback 2 remind anybody else of Gargoyles? I'm not at all suggesting this animation is as good as that of Gargoyles, but the way the characters move looks a lot like episodes like "Awakening" and "The Mirror."

Here would be a terrible crossover of Gargoyles

these



Meet these Gargoyles

[BwayJ]

Is it just me, or does the animation in Hunchback 2 remind anybody else of Gargoyles? I'm not at all suggesting this animation is as good as that of Gargoyles, but the way the characters move looks a lot like episodes like "Awakening" and "The Mirror."

Here would be a terrible crossover of Gargoyles

these



Meet these Gargoyles

Well, Gargoyles is already in the same universe as Atlantis, so who knows?

[Super Aurora]

Well, Gargoyles is already in the same universe as Atlantis, so who knows?

Wait...WAT?!

[BwayJ]

Well, Gargoyles is already in the same universe as Atlantis, so who knows?

Wait...WAT?!

Back when Disney was developing an Atlantis TV show before the movie flopped, they wrote and recorded an episode that featured Demona as a character. The show was cancelled and they did not include that episode in Atlantis II: Milo's Return, but Greg Weisman would play the audio of it at the Gathering of the Gargoyles and included a reference to it in the Gargoyles comic book.