Ever wondered what if Disney Feature Animation did this?

[toonaspie]

Now we know how Walt never believed in sequels and how the DTV sequels were all pretty much a let down.

But have you ever wondered or even considered (given that 2D animation will return soon) what would it be like if Disney INTENTIONALLY made an animated feature that NEEDED two or three films to tell its story?

What if Disney did an animated feature (regardless of story source) where in the first film could be a stand alone classic but had an incomplete ending which would need a sequel in order to fill? What if Disney told the story of one animated classic into a trilogy where each film was a new chapter in a story like Lord of the Rings. Or what if you had a trilogy where each film could be told as a stand alone but was still part of a major story like Harry Potter?

It wouldnt be like The Rescuers Down Under or any of the DTV sequels where they were only made to cash in on the success of the first film. What if Disney added three films into their cannon that were all the same but each film was part of one bigger story? It would be an easy way for Disney to cash in if part one becomes successful I'll tell ya that.

Another question: Do you think any of the past Disney cannon films needed a sequel to fill in a plothole or felt open-ended?

Sorry if this is long but I wanted to know your thoughts.

[King Arthur]

You're suggesting quite an interesting idea that I would definitely consider if I held an important position in the studio. My response would be, "why not", although the story source would be key to making the series successful. If the studio released a, let's say, 3-part story that's practically unknown and with no pre-established fanbase, it might be a big risk as it might represent a box office fiasco. However, if they did it, they'd probably base it on an already popular and well-known story that's a sure-fire hit. For example, had they acquired the rights to Harry Potter, or any other popular literary series, they could manage to pull it off successfully.

As for a film from the Disney canon that could benefit from a sequel in order to tell the complete story, well, in no doubt, "The Sword in the Stone". This Arthurian-based film, as we know, is just the first part in T.H. White's "The Once and Future King" and works simply as an introduction to King Arthur's humble origins and his ascension to being king. A second or third film could go on to fully develop his legend, his mythical kingdom, battles, and so forth.

And in my opinion, one of the already existing sequels that gives nice continuity to part one is definitely Pocahontas II. Although practically historically innaccurate, it does attempt to explain the heroine's life in Europe and her dilemma between the love she felt between the two Johns.

[Wonderlicious]

One thing that should be said about The Sword in the Stone is that T.H. White wrote it originally as a stand-alone book, only to then write sequels further exploring the legend of King Arthur, eventually combining the books into one volume called The Once and Future King (look at it a bit like Lord of the Rings and how the separate parts were published apart and then as one volume). However, the version of The Sword in the Stone in The Once and Future King is different to the stand-alone version, and a lot of its silliness is removed (for example, Madam Mim is removed). The Disney version is based on the stand-alone version not part of The Once and Future King (which is still available), and is thus, in my opinion, less an adaptation of a section of The Once and Future King and more an adaptation of the original stand-alone piece.

It's funny, because I have actually wondered what it would be like if Disney made a proper animated film series with intentional sequels and if I had my way at Disney and if every film I made was successful, then I would try it out. I know that The Golden Compass with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig exists, but having read the His Dark Materials books, I think that they could work really well in animation. There are some things that I don't think Disney would be comfortable dealing with in the books (quite a lot of gruesomeness, and I can't imagine Disney wanting religious-nutcases from Nowhereville USA boycotting the films due to it lampooning their school of thought), but there's also some things in the books that cry "animate me", from daemons and armoured bears to parallel universes and fantastic objects. Plus, Mrs Coulter is the type of villain that could make the likes of Maleficant or Cruella de Vil look like Cinderella or Dumbo...

[Disney's Divinity]

Yeah, I don't think TGC could ever work as a Disney movie. The ending of the first book alone would be too much. Besides, barely any of the characters were likable and I couldn't see an entire [successful] trilogy inspired by that series.

It's too bad that The Black Cauldron bombed, otherwise they could've attempted sequels to The Chronicles of Prydain. Of course, it would already be somewhat out-of-line with the books just by the first one, but there comes in that "inspired" part of film-making.

For the most part, I doubt this could happen simply because Disney seems afraid to ask 'serious' questions in their animated films. Like with His Dark Materials and even with Harry Potter, the stories get to a point where I think Disney would consider them too 'serious' to be animated. Too bad they aren't more like Studio Ghibli in this respect.

[2099net]

Well, Disney sort of are with Tinker Bell.

As a commercial cinematic concern, I don't think that they could for two reasons:

1] Back in the various generally accepted "peaks" of WDFA, pre-planned trilogy films weren't really a done thing, even in the mid-80s to mid-90s despite such film series as Star Wars, Back to the Future and Indiana Jones. None of those (no matter what Lucas may say about Star Wars) were planned specifically to be trilogies. BTTF was the closest, but Pt2 and Pt3 were still afterthoughts after the success of part 1.

2] From the mid-90s onwards, where planned trilogy films became more accepted as an offering to the public, Disney was failing to attain commercial and critical success (wrongly in my opinon, but that's another thread). It is possible for example that Atlantis could of had a vague trilogy mapped out beforehand, before the sequels were "demoted" (if indeed cinematic sequels were originally mooted) to a DTV and a TV series, and before even those were quashed by poor public reception to the main film. Disney wasn't in a position to comission a trilogy of animated films, because commercially they were on a downwards trend at the box office, and it would have been too big a financial risk to do so.

[littlefuzzy]

BTTF was the closest, but Pt2 and Pt3 were still afterthoughts after the success of part 1.

While the sequels may not have been planned before the first one hit the theaters, 2 and 3 were both planned together (and filmed back-to-back.)

Back to the Future 2 was definitely left with a "cliff-hanger" ending, and theater goers knew a third one was coming.

[KubrickFan]

BTTF was the closest, but Pt2 and Pt3 were still afterthoughts after the success of part 1.

While the sequels may not have been planned before the first one hit the theaters, 2 and 3 were both planned together (and filmed back-to-back.)

Back to the Future 2 was definitely left with a "cliff-hanger" ending, and theater goers knew a third one was coming.

I think that's exactly what he said . By the way, you even got a preview of Part III when Part II was over (it's still on the dvd). So yes, they knew that it was coming .

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I was going to suggest The Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan but that's like 11 books long and there's a 12th on the way to finish it, so that ones sort of out of the question. Perhaps as a t.v series though.

But then again the first book could be done over 2 movies, it's a fair sized book and if they added elements of the second or prequel novel in it could work. Bit of a longshot though.

[2099net]

But Disney can't do a big animated fantasy trilogy because (all together now) IT'S NOT WHAT DISNEY DOES. Just like the public thought the majority of Disney's animated films from 1995-2005 are NOT WHAT DISNEY DOES and how everyone is cock-a-hoop waiting for The Frog Princess and Rapunzel because THEY ARE WHAT DISNEY DOES.

It's pointless even suggesting such a series really, as Disney would never greenlight it. You know, in may respects, an animated Chronicles of Narnia series of films would be much more satisfying than live action films - I'd bet they'd be cheaper, they'd get around the problem of actor's growing up, and all in all, I bet they could even show more imagination and be even more magical.

But hardly anybody would go to see them; especially with Walt Disney Feature Animation branding and no songs.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

1] Back in the various generally accepted "peaks" of WDFA, pre-planned trilogy films weren't really a done thing, even in the mid-80s to mid-90s despite such film series as Star Wars, Back to the Future and Indiana Jones. None of those (no matter what Lucas may say about Star Wars) were planned specifically to be trilogies. BTTF was the closest, but Pt2 and Pt3 were still afterthoughts after the success of part 1.

I know and agree what you're trying prove in your post, just want to point out both Star Wars and Indiana Jones were planned to be series. Lucas has stated that his inspiration for both were the old serials that were just one long stories broken up into pieces shown in the theaters.

He may not have planed out what the sequels were to be about while the originals was made, he did intend both to be series. It just depended if the originals were successes at the box office(needless to say they were).

[2099net]

I know and agree what you're trying prove in your post, just want to point out both Star Wars and Indiana Jones were planned to be series. Lucas has stated that his inspiration for both were the old serials that were just one long stories broken up into pieces shown in the theaters.

He may not have planed out what the sequels were to be about while the originals was made, he did intend both to be series. It just depended if the originals were successes at the box office(needless to say they were).

Indiana Jones is a series, not a trilogy as such (especially now there's 4 of them! ) but really none of the Indy films continue directly on from the others. Heck, Temple of Doom even jumps back in time! Not something common in a traditional, pre-planned trilogy!

As for Star Wars, who knows what Lucas had in mind? First it was three, then nine, then six, and if it was six or nine he starts literally in the middle of the series when he made his first film[s], then Episode IV was actually two parts of his nine story epic merged together, then it became 6 parts again etc. etc. Too many contradictions means I have little conviction of any of his statements.

[KubrickFan]

Indiana Jones is a series, not a trilogy as such (especially now there's 4 of them! ) but really none of the Indy films continue directly on from the others. Heck, Temple of Doom even jumps back in time! Not something common in a traditional, pre-planned trilogy!

As for Star Wars, who knows what Lucas had in mind? First it was three, then nine, then six, and if it was six or nine he starts literally in the middle of the series when he made his first film[s], then Episode IV was actually two parts of his nine story epic merged together, then it became 6 parts again etc. etc. Too many contradictions means I have little conviction of any of his statements.

That's the difference between a trilogy and a series. A trilogy mostly has one continuing story, while films in a series can be viewed apart from each other. Indiana Jones is a series, and Star Wars is a trilogy .
And while George Lucas definitely didn't had the entire story in his mind like he said, I do think he had a trilogy in mind when he made the first one. Probably around the time he decided Darth Vader would be Luke's father, he thought it would be interesting to show his transformation to Darth. Some early drafts were called Episode II, so he would have made the decision later in the game.

[JDCB1986]

What if they did a 2D animated film in black and white...Or even a Sin City or Pleasantville type thing ? (where only certain things have colour and the rest is black and white) I think it would be something cool and new to see in terms of animation.

[PeterPanfan]

Disney should do The Wizard of Oz series as animated films. I REALLY wanted the Narnia films to be animatede, but, whatever.