Would You Be Against DTV Sequels If They Were GOOD?

[toonaspie]

I think some movies deserved a sequel more than others...the same goes with Disney films.

I'm against Disney sequelfying certain films...mainly any of the fairytales (saved for Aladdin). Fox and the Hound 2 as well as Tarzan 2 were very unnecessary sequels although they were done very well...their stories were very bland (mainly cuz they were midquels). I hate the midquels...except for Bambi 2.

Bambi 2 was a very excellent sequel all-around though I would've preferred an actual post-Bambi sequel instead of another midquel.

The Lion King 2 could've been a little better in animation and writing but the story itself was very intriguing for it being one of the earlier sequels made.

I noticed that Disney didn't care to invest more quality into their DTV sequels until very late in the game...by that time, all of good sequel-worthy Disney films had already been sequelfied (some in very horrid ways than others).

Outside of Disney, I'm annoyed that more films are being produced of Xmen, Spiderman, Pirates of the Carribean, Shrek, and High School Musical. To me, I was fine with their original plan of making all of these films trilogies.

I'm still horrified at the rumors of a possible Back to the Future 4 because Back to the Future was intended to be a trilogy and the final film had a satisfying ending. Not to mention the 20 year gap. I hate when films decide to juice a franchise for all its worth instead find a satisfying way to end it without streching it out. That would be like J.K. Rowling writing an 8th Harry Potter book after Deathly Hallows. The end of that book series was pure brilliance.

[Deco King]

I guess Disney are softening us all up for a Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs sequel with the inclusion of a Snow White Returns as an extra on the forthcoming Blu Ray due October 6th 2009???

[toonaspie]

I guess Disney are softening us all up for a Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs sequel with the inclusion of a Snow White Returns as an extra on the forthcoming Blu Ray due October 6th 2009???

The way you write that post you make it sound like a Snow White 2 is legit.

Please don't scare me like that!

[Deco King]

I HATE Disney sequels with a vengeance - I LOVE the originals , but I'm sure that Disney's logic will be to sell a future sequel to the Disney Princess crowd!! These days it really is all about the almighty dollar - yes I know Disney was trying to make money back in the 1930's but there was undeniably more integrity about than there is now!

[ajmrowland]

Well, with such an economy, every company's trying to stay above ground. Of course, I think Disney is being a little too precocious, anyway. And I can't blame everything on the economy.

[Papa Bear]

I personally have enjoyed most of the Disney sequals, I think most of them tell a good story and its nice to get an oppurtunity to see more of the charecters you love. I would not say that I have liked all the sequals but I don't see how extending upon a story or a charecter can ruin or or alter the experience you've had and can continue to have with the originals. But if you are a hater and hate or even dispise sequals, then just avoid them, I think it is funny how often I see people post how much they hate sequals and think that it has corrupted their previous experiences, if this is the case just don't watch them. But you will and than you will continue to complain about the corruption process you just took part of. I continue to watch them and enjoy them some more than others but you have to take them for what they are they are not generally going to be something that will blow you away with the animation or story telling but they are great extensions to the Disney Universe. I was really looking forward to the Dumbo sequal that has not yet made it to the light of day but hope one day that it will. And I think a Snow White 2 would be good as well.

[Disney Villain]

I personally like the majority of the sequels, because I get to see and spend time with my favorite characters again. I think it’s important to remember that Disney is a company. Disney has spent billions over the last two decades creating franchises based off of popular characters. Children and families will pay to see the classic characters again and Disney knows this. Disney has made a ton of money over the years with their direct to video films, many of which were sequels.

I understand we’re all about character integrity and maintaining the artistic and creative endeavors of the original films, but it’s important to remember that, at the end of the day, Disney is out to make a profit. Having said this, there is NO EXCUSE for Disney to release complete crap like Cindrella II: Dreams Come True. There has to be a way to balance the character integrity and the artistic and creative endeavors of the original films while at the same tie creating a quality product that will maximize profit. Unfortunately, only now, is Disney moving in that direction. No matter how much I like/detest Lassater, he is making an effort to release quality direct to video films.

Thank you, Mike. That is definitely and worthy.

Haha, thank you Escapay!! I've never received a pink Elephant before! you have no idea how psyched I am! Thanks!

[Super Aurora]

eh, sequels are alright. Not GREAT but not downright horrible either.The ones I found enjoyable are these:

Lion King: Simba's Pride
Lion King 1 1/2
Peter Pan Return to Neverland -(I personally find this much more well thought than the original.)
Cinderella III
The Aladdin sequels
Pooh's Grand Adventure: The Search for Christopher Robin


The rest either I never found enjoyable or I have not seen it.

As any sequels I wish they could make, I always thought Sleeping Beauty's would make an excellent on even as a theatrical by WDFA. It also has potential for first disney movie with two major bad guys: One against Philip in the war and the other being the orge mother against Aurora and her kids. It could make up for the fail that is Enchanted Tales.



also lol at Duster's paragraph on "perfect" disney.

[Disney Duster]

I've read everything everyone's said in here, so I've read anything anyone said to my post, and so...

The Disney films are to be viewed as perfect. It is alright if people outside of Disney say that the original Disney films are not perfect, but it is not okay for the company itself to say that the films are not perfect. Individuals that work for the company saying they aren't perfect in interviews or DVD bonus features is different. Even Lasseter or Iger saying it on their own is ok.

And yes, technically Walt's films are factually the perfect Disney films. They are the perfect Disney films as they were made by Walt Disney himself and he determined what a Disney film is. Anything otherwise is opinion, but that fact cannot be denied. What a "Disney film" is can be attempted to be determined by anyone other than Walt Disney, but it will only be true and factual from Walt Disney. So, no one can really say now.

Someone could say, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" would be better with this or that, but it would not be a perfect Disney film because Walt Disney, who originated Disney films, never approved it.

Walt Disney is dead. You can not get his approval on any sequels to his films. Thus, no sequels should be made to them. Alternate realities, dreams, or otherwise not real sequels are allowed to be made to them.

And when I said Walt never made any sequels, I meant to the films I was talking about, his animated feature films, which he never did make sequels to.

[Escapay]

The Disney films are to be viewed as perfect.

Why? Just because they have the Disney name, that all things Walt touched must be considered infallible and immune to criticism?

He was a filmmaker, not a deity. He made short subjects, films, and television shows. He did not create a religion or fanatical cult. Even the Bible has had changes and faults addressed, so why can't a Disney film?

It is alright if people outside of Disney say that the original Disney films are not perfect, but it is not okay for the company itself to say that the films are not perfect.

Why not? Can't a company address when they have made a bad movie, a bad television show, a bad book?

I remember when "Dinotopia" premiered on ABC - the series, not the miniseries - and it was expected to be a huge ratings hit. Instead, it flopped, and when there was a press conference to announce its cancellation, the head of ABC out-and-out said that "Dinotopia" wasn't what they had hoped (both ratings-wise and quality-wise), and in not so many words pretty much admitted that it just was not a good show.

Individuals that work for the company saying they aren't perfect in interviews or DVD bonus features is different. Even Lasseter or Iger saying it on their own is ok.

So if you're a big name or on a bonus feature (you know, the ones where the DVD has the "the interviews and commentaries of the participants reflect their personal opinions and not that of the company" or something of that nature), you're allowed to have a negative opinion about the company you work for, but if you're just some lowly intern or janitor, god forbid you ever say anything bad about the films your company makes.

The problem with Disney is they're too intent on putting on a happy face all the time, that they intentionally sweep all the drama under the rug. And because of this, people get this crazy idea that everything at the Walt Disney Company is A-OK, and as such, nothing should ever be said about them that could be even remotely negative, no matter how true it is.

And this isn't just about their animated movies. There's plenty of drama and backstage gossip when it comes to live-action movies (ask Ray Bradbury if he ever wants to work with Disney again), theme parks, merchandise, even the inter-office politics.

And yes, technically Walt's films are factually the perfect Disney films. They are the perfect Disney films as they were made by Walt Disney himself and he determined what a Disney film is. Anything otherwise is opinion, but that fact cannot be denied. What a "Disney film" is can be attempted to be determined by anyone other than Walt Disney, but it will only be true and factual from Walt Disney. So, no one can really say now.

But even so, the films are not PERFECT. No film is, Disney or not. You can't say a Disney film is a perfect Disney film just because Walt was a part of it. Might as well say every Spielberg film is a perfect Spielberg film because he directed it. Or that every Arthur Freed musical is a perfect Freed musical because he produced it. A film isn't "perfect" just based on who is working on it. That's just a slap in the face to everyone else who worked on the film, by putting that assumption that just because one person is associated with a film, that it's perfect.

Again, Walt was a FILMMAKER, not a GOD. He has made mistakes, he is not exempt from human error. He admitted that Fantasia did not become what he had hoped it would be. He admitted that the package features were pretty much done to keep the studio afloat. He went back and re-did animation in "The Three Little Pigs" and cropped/edited "The Pastoral Symphony" in Fantasia because he realised they were offensive. He has never said his films are perfect, because even he knows they're not. They're good films (well, most of them), but they're not perfect films.

Anyone can have an opinion that they think a Disney animated film is perfect, but it doesn't help if they try to state it as a fact.

And when I said Walt never made any sequels, I meant to the films I was talking about, his animated feature films, which he never did make sequels to.

Then please be more specific next time. A throwaway line like "Walt never made sequels" is so broad, especially considering the vast amount of films/television shows that he was a part of, and the sequels that have already been named.

albert

[Disney Duster]

As comforting as it is to know that everyone thinks differently, it also means people don't always understand each other.

First, I meant the Disney films are perfect Disney films because they are what Walt wanted. You said that insults everyone else who worked on the film? No it doesn't. Walt approved everything in the films. He only allowed what fit his perfect vision. And everyone who worked on the film knew that. If something they made and loved was approved, so some of them got in the film, that's great, but it also was agreed on by Walt that it made the film good.

I might make a Sleeping Beauty live-action remake with a more thrilling, logical, exciting, actually scary climax. I would think it was better. But I would not say the film was better than the original. I would say it was different than the original, and maybe it's a better film for some audiences, but it wouldn't be better period. And it wouldn't be a better Walt Disney film, that would be a fact.

Next, just as they say the comments of individuals do not reflect the company, it's okay if anyone, even a janitor, says something bad about the Disney films, but the company as a whole is supposed to uphold the belief that the original Disney films are perfect as they are, sequeless and all.

You mentioned the Bible, and many people can say they think there are faults, but the church cannot. They can say there are faults with whatever was added or changed about the Bible if they find there were changes or additions, but not about what they believe is what God intended to be in it. But the Bible and a Disney film are completely different, I am not saying they are alike at all and you made that comparison, not me.

Walt may have criticized or changed some of his films. He made Fantasia and The Three Little Pigs more perfect. But anything anyone else says is wrong with a film or would make it better, may be what makes the film better to some, but not better to Walt Disney, which is who it counts with. And we can't know aymore what Walt would think is wrong or better now, so aside from anything he said, the films are perfect. At least in one way. The original creator's way.

When I said that line about no more sequels, the whole time I was talking about his animated features. It was acceptable I did not re-state that I'm talking about the animated features over and over.

And as I said, Walt Disney is dead. You can't get his approval for any sequels or (spin-offs!) to any of the animated films he made and their characters, unless they are alternate realities, dreams, or otherwise somehow not real sequels.

[Super Aurora]

Again I'm LOL-ing at this whole "perfect" ideology.


Escapy, what was offensive about 3 Little Pigs that made Walt edit it?

[Escapay]

Mike...just what definition of "perfect" are you using? Because none of them, as far as I know, include something about how a film (in this case a Disney film) is perfect because one person approved of everything that went into making the film. I mean...just how exactly is a film perfect because it was made how Walt wanted it to be made? Doesn't every filmmaker make the film how they want to (well, if they're a big-enough filmmaker to get final cut privileges)? Would that then mean that every DreamWorks Animation film is a perfect Katzenberg film since Katzenberg approved of how it was made? After all, he's the head of DreamWorks Animation Studios and has a say in how they make their films.

What about Joss Whedon? Is every Joss Whedon television series the perfect Whedon television series because Whedon made it?

I can go on, inserting any name or situation that comes to mind. Is an UltimateDisney.com review by Luke the perfect UltimateDisney.com review simply because Luke runs the site? What about reviews by Kelvin Cedeno or Aaron Wallace? Are they perfect too because Luke edited them before putting them up?

It's all very intriguing how the idea of perfection functions in your mind.

Escapy, what was offensive about 3 Little Pigs that made Walt edit it?

When the Wolf tries to break into the brick house, he uses a Jewish Peddler's disguise. It was considered offensive, and in the 1940s, they changed it to a Fuller Brush man.



(first cap from UD's Silly Symphonies review, second cap is from youtube)

albert

[2099net]

As for sequels - surely the package films are "sequels" in all but name?

Make Mine Music and Melody time may not carry any characters over, but structurally they are the same. Meanwhile, Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros do. Either pairing could have a 2 after it. Make Mine Music 2 or Saludos Amigos 2. Such a naming convention would work, and nobody here would think ill of it or that something was wrong.

I don't really see why sequels have a bad name. There's loads of highly regarded works of literature which are sequels or series.

And let's not forget, Children's literature has a long tradition of sequels or series - from Baum's Oz books to Twain's Tom Sawyer/Huckleberry Finn tales; from Alcott's Little Women/Little Men to Beatrix Potter's short stories.

In fact, don't forget at least two of Disney's animated films made by Walt Disney are based on sequels - Peter Pan and Alice In Wonderland. Arguably, stories like Snow White and Cinderella could also be classed as sort of sequels at they rely on original works re-worked.

The original story Bambi which was made into a film had a sequel written (Bambi's Children) and of course The Sword in the Stone was based on a whole series of books.

As were later Disney films without Walt's involvement. Robin Hood, Winnie The Pooh, The Black Cauldron, The Rescuers, The Great Mouse Detective and Tarzan are all based on a series of stories.

So how can sequels or series be automatically bad?

There's a certain snobbery about the Disney animated classic sequels that most people have which I just don't like. There is nothing inherently wrong with sequels as a concept. I also don't subscribe to this "only the original creators can work on the sequel" which seems to be a "get out of jail free card" when describing the Pixar sequel[s].

Why? Did Walt Disney respect the original works when he made his animated films? Famously, he instructed those working on The Jungle Book to ignore the original text.

If we were around in the early 1960's would we be demanding Dodie Smith had full creative control on 101 Dalmatians? Because, she had little or maybe no input into the film. Would we be demanding input from Hans Christian Anderson's estate during the making of The Little Mermaid had we been around in the 1980's. Did anyone at all demand input from William Joyce when Meet the Robinsons was being made? No. In fact, I seem to remember some people demanding input from John Lasseter rather than the original author.

So why should it be different for sequels? Why should the original creators have to work on them? Why can't these iconic Disney characters and situations be viewed from a new perspective, just like Walt did with the iconic characters in fairy tales?

The Sequels have, on the whole been cheaper than the animated classics we see on the big screen. But the 1990's and beyond are a totally different entertainment environment than the 1950's and 1960's. As is Disney. Disney is a huge, multinational corporation which consumes money daily. It's got to make money in vast quantities just to survive. It's too much of a gamble just to rely on a single animated film each year.

But you know what, as long as its done with competence, I don't mind the cheaper animation. Are we living in a world where people only think anything is of any value if its had millions upon millions of dollars invested into it? If so, its a very sad world to live in. True, not all of the sequels were animated with competence, but the vast majority were, especially the latter ones.

So that just leaves the actual stories. And again, yes, some of these have been abysmal. I can't pretend other wise. But others have been good. In fact, I'd happily state now I find both Return to Never Land and Jungle Book 2 better than the originals if you simply consider the scripts (in both instances, the originals are way to episodic and random).

I'm very disappointed Disney have stopped the "traditional" animated sequels. Especially as their "product" (as that's how most of the snobs see it) were getting better and better.

As to some of the choices of films to be sequels being a poor choice (often people bemoan the continuation of a "happily ever after" ending) how are any of those choices different to Aladdin? I lot of people here seem to list the Aladdin sequels as some of the best (how, I don't know - the animation on Return of Jafar is distinctly worse than around 80% of the other sequels).

Is it just that people here remember viewing the Aladdin sequels when they were young? All the excitement and joy of seeing well-loved characters once more in an all-new adventure? If so, why are they so keen to stop this generation of children from having the same thrill?

[Lazario]

If direct to video movies were good... How could anyone be against them?

[Rudy Matt]

The studio has survived 40+ years without his input.

The company has survived 40+ years because of the incredible achievements of the man who created it. Where would the company be without Disneyland, WDW, his animated films, his live action films, and ultimately -- the brand name he established over decades of quality entertainment. His work was so strong, the company that bears his name has survived his death. The stewards of that company betrayed the leacy given to them by degrading that brand name with the cheapquels.

Look, far more distressing than just making a low-budget sequel to one of Walt's films was the market decision to lowball these films to toddlers. I think that's what has rubbed many of us the wrong way...Walt Disney did not make films for children, he made movies for everybody. The "cheapquels" are kidvid -- they are squarely aimed at and intended for children. So you now have an entire generation growing up that now equates "Disney Animation" with Barney and Teletubbies, you have an entire generation that sees the Disney company as an entity that believes the animation doesn't have to be "that good", the story doesn't have to be "that strong" -- is it any wonder that the mantle of the best animation studio on Earth has passed from Disney to PIXAR?

The damage these cheapquels have done to the Disney brand name is incalculable. Short of a highly publicized ritual burning of the original negatives of these films, it's going to take a long, long, time to heal the wounds on the brand name.

[2099net]

The studio has survived 40+ years without his input.

The company has survived 40+ years because of the incredible achievements of the man who created it. Where would the company be without Disneyland, WDW, his animated films, his live action films, and ultimately -- the brand name he established over decades of quality entertainment.

I don't quite see the point. 20th Century Fox has survived without William Fox and MGM has survived without Louis B. Mayer. Both of these people were highly influential at the dawn of cinema, as were the Laemmle's at Universal (which has survived through many different ownerships).

True both Fox and MGM (and more or less any other studio) is part of a huge media corporation these days, but Disney almost had the same fate fall upon it. Ironically it was Eisner who held the wolves at bay and ironically, Disney itself is now a huge media corporation as a result.

There's no point in arguing what Walt would or would not do today, because nobody can prove one way or another. You cannot compare Disney in 1960 to Disney today. Ownership is different, corporate roles and management is different. Disney is primarily owned by shareholders, most of which themselves are vast corporate monoliths, these days.

It's far from the days when a single man could declare he would make a full-length animated movie, or a giant amusement park to everyone else's bemusement, amusement and mockery.

You may as well say, "Would Henry Ford have pulled half the stunts Ford has pulled in the last 4 decades?"

[Rudy Matt]

The studio has survived 40+ years without his input.

The company has survived 40+ years because of the incredible achievements of the man who created it. Where would the company be without Disneyland, WDW, his animated films, his live action films, and ultimately -- the brand name he established over decades of quality entertainment.

I don't quite see the point. 20th Century Fox has survived without William Fox and MGM has survived without Louis B. Mayer. Both of these people were highly influential at the dawn of cinema, as were the Laemmle's at Universal (which has survived through many different ownerships).

True both Fox and MGM (and more or less any other studio) is part of a huge media corporation these days, but Disney almost had the same fate fall upon it. Ironically it was Eisner who held the wolves at bay and ironically, Disney itself is now a huge media corporation as a result.

There's no point in arguing what Walt would or would not do today, because nobody can prove one way or another. You cannot compare Disney in 1960 to Disney today. Ownership is different, corporate roles and management is different. Disney is primarily owned by shareholders, most of which themselves are vast corporate monoliths, these days.

It's far from the days when a single man could declare he would make a full-length animated movie, or a giant amusement park to everyone else's bemusement, amusement and mockery.

You may as well say, "Would Henry Ford have pulled half the stunts Ford has pulled in the last 4 decades?"

All that has been done since Walt's passing has been like hanging new ornaments on a tree. Some of those new ornaments have been beautiful, some not so. But Walt raised the tree. To say "the studio has survived 40 years without his input" is not only wrong, it is insulting.

[2099net]

All that has been done since Walt's passing has been like hanging new ornaments on a tree. Some of those new ornaments have been beautiful, some not so. But Walt raised the tree. To say "the studio has survived 40 years without his input" is not only wrong, it is insulting.

I don't think that's true at all. Look at the past decade and a half of animated movies (both from WDFA and Pixar) they're incredibly varied and diverse. Are we to pigeon-hole them simply because they were animated?

Likewise, Disney now owns ESPN and ABC - huge successful businesses in their own right which have nothing to do with Walt, Walt's storytelling or Walt's imagination.

While if you look at evidence of Walt's behaviour when he was alive it would appear adult live action was Walt's ultimate goal, its only post Walt that Disney has made such films - including films seemingly against everything Walt would actually want any of his films to be like Pulp Fiction and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

Disney is more than "Disney".

[Lazario]

While if you look at evidence of Walt's behaviour when he was alive it would appear adult live action was Walt's ultimate goal, its only post Walt that Disney has made such films - including films seemingly against everything Walt would actually want any of his films to be like Pulp Fiction and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

Disney just made money off of those movies. The real minds behind those projects were the Weinsteins. Disney did not make those movies. Not at all. Maybe they put some money into Miramax. But not for each individual project. At least not for several years.

Same goes when, before Disney, they were co-owned by Paramount. They just split home video rights / profits. Paramount didn't make their movies, nor supply any of their budget money.

Miramax wasn't like Touchstone, where Disney from what I hear literally gave birth to that company.