Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the October 22nd column by Rhett Wickham on Animated Sequels at: <a href="News-ID210030.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID210030.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By JiminyCEsq Completely on point, Rhett, with one exception - Ollie, Frank, and all the true talent who brought illusion to life need not be reminded of how the mighty have fallen. Rather, many thanks to them all and those who still try ... and thanks to you for your passion and conviction. One can only wish the words reach those who have ears to hear... and that the dilution of enchantment does not obliterate the legacy which still brings brightness to our eyes.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan You know what's sad? Disney could make an even bigger killing in the direct to video market by launching a good quality, original direct to video animated series. It could be a real experimental "lab" for young animation talent, marketed under some snazzy Disney brand name. (I dunno, something like "The Disney Laboratory" or "Disney's Fresh Paint" or something.) "Available only on home video and Disney DVD!" the ads could shout. This could be a cool thing for animation lovers and allow Disney to try out new stuff in "limited edition collections", and the lessons learned by the animators could be put into practice again on larger feature film projects. This is what they used to do with the theatrical shorts -- experiment with techniques and styles and technology. I'd actually pay to see more things like "John Henry" on the American Legends DVD. That was fresh and innovative and risk-taking. It would be a way to capture a huge share of the DTV market without tarnishing their original masterpieces.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I am no fan of the sequels; I'll be the first to admit it. I bought one and I will never buy another. It seemed cheap and very "un-Disney". But, it is obvious that there are hundreds of thousands of people who dig 'em or they wouldn't sell as well as they do. I don't know if I can blame Eisner and the gang for pursuing this avenue. However, I do think it will catch up with them. The re-release of the original every seven years is going to seem less meaningful if there are 2 or 3 "sequels" floating around the marketplace. I wouldn't be surprised to see sales start to flatten out down the road.
Originally Posted By DisneyDude81 I agree with the article in full, and i dont know why they keep making them i know alot of kids that actually can tell this cheapos are not the real thing, even they know they are been cheated! that really sad that when they grow up all they will know is the fake sequal magicless characters what will be next start adding sequel characters to disneyland and disney world? i know that i wont be seen Jungle Book 2 nor any other sequel! im sticking with the original only.
Originally Posted By SFH They sell well because parents love anything that is animated and appropirate for children content-wise to keep their child occupied. Toddlers are too young to discern the difference in quality on a conscious level. Older kids notice. As long as they sell well Disney will sell them, and most investors will demand that Disney sell them. As a shareholder, my concern is the brand name and the public perception of Disney quality. But then I'm not the average investor. SFH sfh(at)flash(dot)net I get paid to write. If you aren't paying me to write this, then rest assured I'm not representing you here. If you're still confused, check out my full disclaimer at <a href="http://I.Pellman.com" target="_blank">http://I.Pellman.com</a>
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Does anyone remember the Goodtimes videos that existed prior to Disney entering the direct-to-video market? These super-cheap rip-offs of every Disney movie flooded the stores before every new animated film release. In comparison, the recent Disney DTV's are Oscar caliber masterpieces.
Originally Posted By ParrotHead Bravo! I couldn't agree more. Speaking of the goose and the golden eggs: <a href="http://www.pruiksma.com/A" target="_blank">http://www.pruiksma.com/A</a>%20NOT%20So%20Silly%20Symphony.html And another interesting read: <a href="http://www.pruiksma.com/bananasplit.html" target="_blank">http://www.pruiksma.com/banana split.html</a> Think about the recent DVD release of Snow White. Here's a movie that's still making Disney money after nearly 70 years. That's what quality will do for you. Cinderella II and the other cheap, direct-to-video sequels will never earn this kind of money for Disney. So even if you exclude the artistic aspects and only look at the financial, it still makes sense to stop producing garbage and instead invest that money in fresh, new stories and characters.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Great minds! LOL I hadn't see this "fable", and I feel very lucky to have landed by chance on the same analogy, though it's little wonder. Still, I wish I'd see this before I set about my rant as the fable told by Dave is far superior, plus his has a happy ending. Thanks ParrotHead for the link, and for the comments. Rhett
Originally Posted By Dabob Kar2oonMan, I love your idea. And you're absolutely right about comparing this idea to the experimentation that used to take place in the theatrical shorts. Sadly, they probably wouldn't sell as well as the crud we're talking about. A harried parent in Blockbuster, faced with the choice between Cinderella II and the hypothetical "Disney's Fresh Paint" might well choose the former, just due to familiarity. "Well, they like Cinderella, so..." Perhaps they could market a "Disney's Fresh Paint" more to animation-loving adults like us, rather than kids, at least at first. It ain't just kids watching Toon network, NickToons, etc. etc., and the adult market is larger than you might think. If the word of mouth was good, parents might start buying them for their kids as well. I don't know - it's a tough one. But a lot of my friends have kids, and I've seen several of those DTV sequels, and ugh.
Originally Posted By gmaletic Very well-written article, and I generally agree: Disney can do better than churn out shoddy video sequels to its theatrically animated films. But to treat this new wrinkle--sequels to "classics"--as a descent into depths Disney has until now never explored to is to ignore past Disney film history. For every ambitious film, Disney has always produced a half-dozen formulaic, derivative, meaningless ones. Are these direct-to-video films really worse than "The Black Cauldron?" "Oliver & Company?" "The Aristocats?" What about other classics like "The Shaggy D.A.?" "Herbie Goes To Monte Carlo?" "The Apple Dumpling Gang Rides Again?" For all of its innovation, few studios have been as slavish to formula as Disney. As an example, Fred MacMurray makes "The Absent-Minded Professor." It does well, so they made every possible permutation of that movie with the exact same star. Same with Hayley Mills, same with Kurt Russell. "The Jungle Book" made money...let's do "The Aristocats" with some of the same exact vocal talent! Walt Disney Productions was an innovator in the 30s and 40s. Since then, there have certainly been great films, but the overall record is spotty, and the studio has rarely hesitated to sell itself out to capitalize on its latest formula. These direct-to-video releases are only the newest chapter in a long line of lousy, cynical Disney film work. There will always be bad Disney releases. The best we can hope for is that there are few good ones, and fortunately, those appear with enough regularity as to keep us all encouraged about the future of the studio.
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>Are these direct-to-video films really worse than "The Black Cauldron?" "Oliver & Company?" "The Aristocats?" What about other classics like "The Shaggy D.A.?" "Herbie Goes To Monte Carlo?" "The Apple Dumpling Gang Rides Again?"<<< Yes, they are worse than most of the films you listed. Even BLACK CAULDRON was ambitious and featured some things never before attempted by Disney. It was a great experiment. A failed one, but it does have some beautiful artistic moments, and you can't really say any of those things about the DTV sequels. You certainly can't peg any of them as ambitious. Oliver had great music and great personality animation. The Aristocats, while showing its antecedents, still had its own charms, and some warm pedigree in the contributions of the music, and it's genuinely funny. The Live-Action films you mentioned are easy targets, but broadcast them today and you'll find some heart, some energy, an innocence missing in much of today's dreck. >>>As an example, Fred MacMurray makes "The Absent-Minded Professor." It does well, so they made every possible permutation of that movie with the exact same star.<<< At first, I thought that was kind of a shallow assertion, and then I checked and discovered it actually WAS. Fred did the Sequel (Son of Flubber) to Absent Minded Professor, and that was it. Aside from that, in the other films he made for Disney, he played a Minister in a musical about love and family, a Scout Leader in another, a husband reinvigorating his romantic yearnings in Bon Voyage, and then you have Charley and the Angel. None of these films have a whole lot in common except that they featured a very accessible, venerable actor. There are better examples, but they are no more "slavish to formula" than any other studio, in fact probably less so, unless you can come up with more credible examples. The truth is, Disney has, prior to this modern span of the last dozen years, provided a great diversity of both animated and live-action product, pushing the scope of entertainment, and yes, also providing the familiar in new, comfortable and accessible wrapping. But even when they were doing this, before the current, mindless assembly line mindset, they did them with care and quality. You watch some of those few sequels done under Walt's auspice, and they are entertaining and they hold up. They don't feel as transparently motivated as these modern things do. Kurt Russell played Dexter Riley three times, and this was no different from serializations of motion pictures that were a staple of theatrical entertainment in the 40's, so people were used to this. Other than that character, all of his other films were very different from the "science whiz" idea, and from each other. And you're confusing Annette's several beach movies with the work she did for Disney. Look at her films. They were all pretty different, and some of those Disney projects were made expressly for television anyway. See, it's easy and kind of cheap to make the assertions on "oh, that 50's/60's Disney wacky comedy" that people dismiss. And Disney DID make a lot of wacky comedies. But these films were more often DIFFERENT from each other than resembling each other. They also had a lot of heart, and sometimes very tough lessons for the protagonists. In short, they had substance, and that's something you pretty much will have to scramble HARD to find in these Schumacher-era straight-to-video also-rans.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Thanks for the comments gmaletic. I think the quality of "AristoCats" and even "Oliver & Company" and "The Black Cauldron" are far superior to the direct-to-video releases. They are - albeit weaker than most - at the very least attempts to deliver a new story and characters. They are the same stumbles any repertory company makes when trying to stay fresh. Sometimes you fail. But those films were great talent, delivering at the very least quality animation. The direct-to-video releases are, IMHO, pure animation dreck! I think the old 1970’s franchises in live action are an entire other argument I'll leave to Jim or someone better suited to examine that genre. Although I'd argue that the use of talent like Mills and Russell and MacMurray reflects more of an old-school "studio stars" mentality than anything else. My intent in the editorial was (and still is) to draw focus on a division that is the heart of the company, one that the company is failing to properly care for and reinvest in so that the return is one of lasting value rather than instant corporate and consumer gratification. I'd far rather see stumblings like "Black Cauldron" or "Oliver & Company" than "Little Mermaid II" or "Enchanted Christmas." The former are the necessary growing pains that lead to better films. The latter are just lazy and wasteful and ignorant of how to challenge and nurture talented artists who should be trusted with a medium they know better than the execs do. And I DO think this is the lowest depths to which this studio has ever sunk, and it is far worse than anything they've settled for previously, even the missteps made under Card Walker and Don Tatum. "The AristoCats" and the other films you site didn't come on the heels of all but dismantling the animation division and passing it off to amateurs thinking nobody would notice. These DTV's are just that, and I think it’s a disgusting waste of resources, talent, and misdirected profit. Rhett
Originally Posted By wdwgreggy I also agree to the statements made in the article. I purchased one of the first DTV's, Return of Jafar, and absolutely hated it. It literally felt like I had been robbed. To take such time-honored classics that generations have grown up with, and then pawn off these cheap sequels is further evidence that the magic has been missing for some time now. One need only look at the theme parks for more of this evidence, where for the most part original, one-of-a-kind masterpieces are giving way to cheaper, much more commonplace carnival rides. The quantity vs. quality debate is one that I have been very concerned with as far as Disney is concerned, and they have been making the wrong choices at nearly every turn. And then, as was pointed out, the second that they finally get back to doing something right with Lilo & Stitch, they wreck it by not even giving it time to become the classic it deserves to be by planning the DTV sequel! The Jungle Book happens to be my favorite of the Disney animated features, and I will struggle when JBII comes out. I will be intrigued simply because it is my favorite movie, but I hate the idea of it being tarnished by something that likely will be a heap of junk. My only hope is that someone finds a way into the upper reaches of the company that has the cojones to stand up for the magic that the company was founded on, and return it to its rightful place atop the pedastal.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 While I do have a problem with Jungle Book 2 and *shudders* Dumbo 2 being released, it didn't really upset me that something like Mickey's House of Villain's was released. Because I look at that release as something that came from the tv division as opposed to the feature film.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators But DDMAN26, "Jungle Book 2" and "Dumbo 2" DID come from the tv division!!!! I don’t want to slam the animators at Disney Television Animation. They have talent, but it needs to be challenged in order to grow. Folks, I don't mean to focus only on the films released solely on dvd/video. I think that "Return to Neverland" and "Jungle Book II" are equally as dreadful and as much a waste. Kar2oonMan and Dabob make an excellent point. The ancillary animation divisions of Disney would do far better work and grow into far more accomplished units were they given a chance to develop more original material. Problem there is that once they do that, and Television animation delivers they’ll do to them what they did to the ensemble over at Feature Animation. Feature Animation was was dismantled – all too blithely -- because it was just “too costly.†So now in an attempt to keep up appearances they are USING (in every sense of the word) the TV unit to make up for what’s been lost by handing over “classic works†to them and showing them off as proof of the ability to deliver what they perceive as the same but for less. Less costly? Yes oh yes! The same? Uhn uh! Penny wise and pound foolish, I think. They aren’t even willing to do what they did with "A Goofy Movie." Here was a film that was wonderful, fresh, funny and charming. I think it outshines "Return to Neverland" in every aspect. But "A Goofy Movie" (Directed by "Tarzan"'s Co-Director Kevin Lima) also was developed and nurtured very differently and at costs greater than these horrid sequels – both theatrical and DTV. If they were will to put both development and production into place with TV Animation that they did with “A Goofy Movie†then the question that gets begged – why dismantle Feature Animation? The answer is simple - it ISN’T what they want. This is about placing cost above quality and trying to get as much of it out there as possible. This is about ignoring the requisite approach to get the end-product that is the best. This is about the time and talent needed to give you something truly lasting. Disney is taking a couture product and trying to produce it via ready-to-wear methods and in huge volume – and it shows! They think it’s fine. As long as we keep buying it – we the public/consumers – then they’ll keep saying things like “Look, they satisfy, they sell and clearly we’re doing it correctly. Here’s another one!†Again, Kar2oonMan is correct. 3 fewer direct to videos each year could make one fantastic new feature with an original story and new characters. There’s plenty of talent and material to make that happen. It’s seems so absurd trying to make it faster and cheaper and thinking that the brand will sustain you. The Disney name is not enough if the Disney substance and quality aren’t there. And if you keep putting out more of poor quality than of great, eventually the poor is what brands you. I don’t like seeing Disney animation synonymous with “junk.†Animation is what sits at the center of this company – if the animation is junk, then eventually the entire Disney name becomes junk. And the stock will be priced accordingly.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think back to one of Jungle Book's most amusing running gags -- the ponderous Col. Hathi leading his troops and then they end up crashing into each other -- a big elephant train wreck. The exact same gag (maybe the same footage or darn close to it) was used in a little short called Goliath II about a pint sized elephant. It was the experimentation in the short that probably saved a bunch on the feature film. But one thing I started to mention was the idea of a series of regular characters that are specifically created for the Direct to Video market. Veggie Tales has sold oodles of cassettes this way over the years. Now they're even launching a movie, and they have a pretty big line of Veggie Tales merchndise to boot. This shows that there is a market for DTV stuff, and Disney should own it. The fact is that most people see a movie today for the first time at home rather than in a theater. Disney wisely started selling their tites at competitive prices and made a killing. Then DVD's came along and they're doing it again, selling the same titles largely to folks who already own the film on VHS. That can continue for generations. But launching a whole new line of characters specifically for the DTV maret takes advantage of this huge revenue stream and keeps the core brand name in tact.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Ooops. I didn't mention that Goliath II came out before Jungle Book. Proof. Then hit submit. Proof. Then hit submit.
Originally Posted By Jim I hereby dub you, Saint Rhett. Thank you, thank you for this excellent look at this abomination to animation lovers everywhere, known as the cheapquels. Disney is doing to animation what it did to WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE--driving it into the ground. They release junk in the spring, quality in the summer, and Pixar in the winter (I know, not an exact formula, but close). On top of that, add STD sequals (straight-to-DVD, of course), and people have Disney animation coming out of their nostrils. Many people, it is my belief, wait in seeing the big animated features in order to buy them because the rush of titles. The sequels on video/DVD push the convenience of seeing them on TV instead of the need to see them on the big screen. Furthermore, besides abusing these classics of the past, they are undermining the art of animation. Kids growing up with this junk will never grow up to see the beauty and art of QUALITY animation. Disney promotes these sequels so heavily, there is a blurred line in the eyes of people anyway. Add to this the low quality. I cannot tell you how many people I know who bought the various sequels and were highly disappointed (I'm talking regular viewers, not animation fans). A few other soapbox issues: POCAHONTAS II--the idea is LUDICROUS! The whole concept behind and the sadness of the original is that these two characters (NOT to be confused with the historical people) are soulmates and are forever parted. Sequel: Oops! Just kidding! It's no big deal folks, because they find love elsewhere. HUNCHBACK II: This title is stupid. Sequel one of the world's greatest novels? Yes, the original movie was a departure, but it still held faithful of Hugo's intent. This idea is just ludicrous, and Demi Moore, Tom Hulce, and Kevin Kline should have faced some public artistic criticism for appearing in this literary abomination. Well, I need to go. I should say, I have never set eyes on any of the STD sequels because I don't want to support them. I don't want to ruin the originals by imagining that Jafar returns, or whatever. That said, I have seen animation from them, heard music from them, and so on. Thanks again Rhett--wow, that was great!
Originally Posted By Inkan1969 Excellent article, Saint Rhett. You made the point that if Disney keeps forcing the goose to lay the "golden" eggs they're not going to be golden anymore. People are stopping to care about the Disney brand. There's no magic anymore if all you'r going to get are churned out plastic copies. Therein lies the big counterargument to the people who say they're making lots of money off of cheapquels: The Disney brand won't be valuable anymore, and no one will buy. Somehow, the Television Animation Division has made "Teacher's Pet", "Kim Possible", and "Fillmore". Now THOSE are excellent cartoons, with very original artistic styles and tones distinctive to their creators. Those shows are what the TV animation division could really do if so much of its time wasn't so dedicated to cheapquels. There's got to be a way to make the TVA management prefer those original projects over the knockoffs. - Inkan <a href="http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl/intro.html" target="_blank">http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl /intro.html</a>
