Animation Source Forums

Im a huge fan of the first movie but i hated the second for two reasons,first it seemed like charlie learned NOTHING from the first one,in the 2 movie he still acted like a jerk and caused problems like he only went back to earth to have fun while itchy focused on getting back the horn
and they dont even talk about ana maria which i have no clue why.2 why i dont like the sequel they made carface a goofy sidekick for red.in the first movie carface was the scary gangster that all he wanted to do was kill charlie while in the second he just helps red as a little sidekick. but over all i would just stick to the first movie. what do you guys think?

I didn't hate All Dogs Go To Heaven 2, nor did I like it; I also think that the directors and story writers should have stuck with the original plot and built off of that for the movie's sequel.
The first movie was directed by Don Bluth and the second was directed by Larry Leker and Paul Sabella, and with new directors you get new ideas for the sequels (which sometimes messes up the plot of the first movie). Not to mention that the animators screwed up some of the characters' designs and made the characters really cartoonish whereas in the prequel the characters looked more realistic.
I think they tried to make Charlie's personality similar to his in the beginning of the first movie, but they didn't do a very good job at it; but Itchy's attitude was very close/exactly like his in the first movie.
The reason why the characters don't mention Ann-Marie is because her voice actress (Judith Barsi) was killed one year before All Dogs Go To Heaven was released, and the directors/script writers decided to replace her character with David.
Lastly, in my opinion I think they made Carface a goofy dog so that they wouldn't scare little kids. Yes, I know that in the first movie there was killing, stealing, and the talk of the underworld, but as time went on parents began to want their children to watch "child-friendly" movies instead of films about Heaven and Hell.

Thats a good point but i think they shoild have made it in the future in New Orleans with a grown up Ann Marie and its sad about judith barse (sorry for incorect spelling)but they could of got another actor and at the and of the first movie charlie promised he see ann marie again so they broke a HUGE part of the story,and i think kids should see some dark parts cause when kids grow up the evently see some dark things so its good to start em young so they be ready for any dark things in the future. But u have a good point.

Same here; they should have kept the plot to Charlie's promise, had an adult Ann-Marie, and set the plot to modern New Orleans instead of San Francisco.
Another point that I'd like to touch on is that the sequel looks as if it took place around the late 1990s, but the original took place in 1939. That's a 51+ year difference, so in that case Itchy would have been dead and should have already been in Heaven.
I'm partially against the "children should be exposed to dark themes" because they are really young and the themes may scare them, but I am partially for them because parents can't hide their children from the facts of life forever; they're going ton eventually find out whether they like it or not.

Yep i mean i never seen a dog live 51+ years and in 1939 itchy was already 6 or 7 in human years so it makes no sense what so ever.And your right for having a 50/50 on the dark parts but kids have to see dark things some times of course not blood and gore but Heaven or Hell topics.But i hope they make a 3rd movie thats about the modern day New Orleans (but of cousre itchy wont be the same cause of the death of don deluies). But i would just stick with the first movie (also one of my favorite movies of all time).

In a way, I feel the same as you. Sadly, some people/dogs never learn.

But i really like charlie (in the first movie) i dont like him in the sequel because like i said he seems like he didnt learn anything when he did,and also that he never talks or specks about the events of the first movie or even ana marie which is disapointing.

I actually prefer the sequel, if only for the music. I adore Charlie Sheen's singing voice, and actually found the plot very interesting. But I can see your point. Didn't the young girl who played Anne Marie pass away before the sequel? Maybe they didn't want to draw attention to it?

Was murdered actually by her father and yes that could be a possibility why they didn't re-mentioned her, and well in my opinion. Charlie had experience he learned when he had died. Possibly when he was in Heaven and came back from Heaven to earth he was given a new body.. so the skills experience he learned was in a way lost. and as a friend of mine stated. He was knocked down a few IQ points. That's in a way true as he was MUCH younger and naive which he wouldn't act normally if it was the original Charlie. A magic trick to make quick money? Seriously? That's a typical young person using a get rich quick schemes. Charlie the original used his head. He KNEW who would win and bet on the 100% accurate information Anne Marie. Not luck.

yeah charlie was docked a few I.Q. points and was also docked a few points in other areas, also if you see from the beginning he was going back as it were to have fun and get away from the boring life in heaven which wouldnt be boring if it werent for the "flying nun" now i have a theory on why he calls her that but i'll keep you all guessing on what it is

I think that he learns his lessons slowly, or Anabelle knocks some sense into him cause thoughout the movies and series he is a jerk sometimes but in the series he is more selfish, but still very caring for his friends,but also seems to have less and less respect for Anabelle through the series