The Return of Jafar and cheapquels

[DisneyChris]

Oh my god, what are you guys all talking about? Listen to 2099net, he is a very wise man. Really, just read his posts and think about it! All of his points are totally true, and you guys are just blind to see that. Joining forces against the sequels (and do NOT call them cheapquels!) isn't really going to help anything.

Well... we have all different views. There's no point of saying 'what are you all talking about?!'. We have to respect others' point of views. That's what discussion is all about.

I don't really despise sequels, but as PatrickVD had said, the company should be thinking of brand new ideas, not just doing spin-offs or sequels of material previously produced. I don't mean not doing a single sequel, but the problem is Disney is making way too much (and bad quality too).

I really think EVERY sequel should be given a chance untill it is released and proved that it is bad (in personal opinion). So I really hate people calling sequels like "Tarzan II" bad, you didn't even see it yet!

I agree with you, we don't know if a film is good or not until the release of it, but the problem is now the no. of bad DTV sequels are more than the no. of good DTV sequels, so there is no quality guarantee - and that's why so many people don't like it. But if Disney put a lot of money and effort to a sequel, not just giving it a MovieToons or DTV treatment, people wouldn't criticise it as much.

[2099net]

Lot's has been covered here, since I last contributed.

I find it strange most people on this board who despise the sequels seem to like the TV animations. It does seem strange - on the whole the TV animation is poor quality, plus a lot take characters from animated movies as the premise.

I saw the Little Mermaid cartoon again the other weekend, and it really is shockingly bad. The opening is a melody of the popular tunes from the movie, characters from the film (especially Sabastian) are just turned into one-dimensional foils, and Ursula, the "big bad" of the film pops up almost every week, this destroying her as a creditible threat that the movie presented. Plus each story has a moral blatently forced down the viewers throat at the end. Yet, some people who hate the Little Mermaid II not only like the cartoon series, but would like to see it released on DVD.

There's also a thead about campaigning to get The Three Musketeers released in cinemas on this board, despite it being a MovieToons film and despite the fact nobody has seen it yet. So opinions seem to be all over the place on DTVs and from where I'm sitting it seems the strongest opinions are about the sequels, which makes me think that most the the opinions are emotional rather then reasoned. I wonder if Return to Never Land would get more respect if, like The Rescuers Down Under it was made by WDFA. (Incidently, are you all aware that The Rescuers Down Under was mainly made as a test for the CAPS system, and had a significantly lower budget than the films made before it or after it? I was in effect a "Cheapquel", made simply to test the technology while still having something to release to get their money back. It's one of the reasons a sequel was actually made. And, you are aware that once CAPS was installed and okayed a significant number of employees in the ink and trace and colouring departments were literally sacked overnight?)

I'm not saying The Little Mermaid II was a perfect movie. In fact, I would only just rate it above average. But what has harmed the reputation of The Little Mermaid, and indeed Disney animated films in general more? A single one-off DTV product (which was always marketed as a DTV) that turned out to have some new characters and situations, or the 65 episodes of lower quality animation, shallow infantile stories, character dumbing down and forced rehashing of concepts, music and characters in the animated series? And yet I've never, ever seen a post on this forum along the lines of "Destroy all TV series. Down with Eisner. TV Series suck" despite having to wade through at least one or two anti-sequel posts or threads each week.

I used to think, like many here still do, that the release of sequels was hurting Disney Box Office, but I no longer do. The simple fact is the DTVs are generally selling in greater numbers each release. The fact is, if the public were getting tired, or turned off by sequels they just wouldn't sell. And no, it's not marketing. Coke spent a fortune on marketing "new Coke" but it still failed. You can't market what the public doesn't want.

You know, Walt is dead. We don't know what Walt would do. When TV came, Walt did jump on the bandwagon (despite earlier comments that he wouldn't). Walt also let his animated films be shown on TV too (despite comments after making first making TV programmes that he wouldn't).
And when Walt made TV programmes he used cheap(er) animation (although still done in house) and he used established Disney characters to draw the audience. Home Video didn't exist when Walt was alive. Would he do DTV productions? Personally I think he would have. Would he have done sequels to earlier films? Perhaps not, but I think films like The Three Musketeers wouldn't be out of the question starring Mickey, Donald and Goofy. After all, Walt basically hired out his studio to make commercial films using his characters (as seen in the Mickey Mouse in Living Color DVDs). (Incidently can you imagine the outrage that would be released on this board if Eisner announced a series of Mickey Mouse cartoons promoting McDonalds or Pepsi? Yet Walt already did this.) Why not make DTVs starring them of mid-to-high quality animation?

What is happening today happened when Walt was in charge of Disney - all of the Disneyland and Mickey Mouse Club TV shows promoted other Disney ventures. Walt was making lower budget television programmes but passing them off as theatrical product overseas. Walt was making cheap(er) animation at Disney. Walt edited episodes from Davy Crocket together and released them as movies. Walt was not infallible. He was a human being who walked the line between business and quality. Yet people always forget this when discussing Walt and Walt's way.

As for sequels - it wasn't economically viable to make decent quality animation in those days, for cost and turnaround reasons. The only cartoons on TV were either old theatrical shorts or new limited animation programmes like Yogi Bear or The Flintstones. The Flintstones was a highly rated, primetime sit-com, but it still only ever was made using limited animation. It just wasn't possible to make substainable TV animation in the 60's economically. If it was, would we have seen sequels or TV series using characters from movies? We don't know, but it's interesting that the medium at the time that was economical to create stories for, and would reach and appeal to a wide range of children did have sequels and on-going adventures starring animated film characters. I'm talking of course about comics, which were sometimes published in their multiple millions in the 50's and early 60's, so their exposure was pehaps as great as a TV series is today.

[swray1024]

I agree completely with the Little Mermaid comment above. I saw that tv show this weekend, and it was pretty bad. That wouldn't make me want to go buy the movie if i hadn't seen it.

[DisneyChris]

I saw the Little Mermaid cartoon again the other weekend, and it really is shockingly bad ... Yet, some people who hate the Little Mermaid II not only like the cartoon series, but would like to see it released on DVD ... But what has harmed the reputation of The Little Mermaid, and indeed Disney animated films in general more? A single one-off DTV product (which was always marketed as a DTV) that turned out to have some new characters and situations, or the 65 episodes of lower quality animation, shallow infantile stories, character dumbing down and forced rehashing of concepts, music and characters in the animated series? And yet I've never, ever seen a post on this forum along the lines of "Destroy all TV series. Down with Eisner. TV Series suck" despite having to wade through at least one or two anti-sequel posts or threads each week.

Really, this is a matter of taste. Although I admit that I didn't like the TV series, I think major fans of The Little Mermaid think TV series aren't a big deal and they didn't care if it was good or not but an actual sequel of the original film that was bad affected them more significantly. The same thing occurs with The Lion King's Timon & Pumbaa.

[AwallaceUNC]

I have chosen to ignore the rest of them and I treat them like the Apocrypha.

Wow, that was funny!

Getting back to ROJ, I haven't seen it in a long time, but I remember REALLY liking it (save for Genie's voice) when I was little. FilmMkr made a good point that I think got buried... it's more likely that the TV series came from the movie, not vice-versa, and that it was originally intended to be a DTTV, not a DTV.

Then there was the debate- everyone has strong views on this continually-arising issue of sequel-making. These views need to be respected.

I agree with 2099Net that Disney's Peter Pan isn't a very strong movie, though it's nostalgia and characters have made it a classic, even if the story's presentation isn't the best. I love the story of Peter Pan, though, and other films have done a great job with it. (The play is wonderful, too). Disney has to be given props for the pioneering efforts it took with the film, though... making Peter a boy, giving Tinkerbell a face instead of simply using a moving ball of light. These were firsts in film that are taken for granted now.

I liked RTN overall, and it's in the upper echelon of Disney sequels. However, it was too reminiscent of Hook (and not nearly as well-done, for obvious reasons) to win me over.

When TV came, Walt did jump on the bandwagon (despite earlier comments that he wouldn't).

I think it was more a pioneering effort than a bandwagon jump. When other film production units were shying away from TV, he saw potential. Your point isn't lost on me, though.

And when Walt made TV programmes he used cheap(er) animation (although still done in house) and he used established Disney characters to draw the audience.

Let me just say for the record, that I've never had a problem with using established characters as an enticement, if done in good taste (Walt's was). I think this is a tad misleading, though. This is also the same man who spent the money to film the Davy Crockett shows in color before color TV was around, because he saw future potential.

Would he do DTV productions? Personally I think he would have. Would he have done sequels to earlier films? Perhaps not, but I think films like The Three Musketeers wouldn't be out of the question starring Mickey, Donald and Goofy.

I entirely agree. Most sequels- no (save for perhaps a few like Alice that have pre-exisiting sequel story lines, or complete originals from Disney). Non-sequel DTVs- yes. And those, I have no problem with. They are judged on their artistic merit just like any theatrically-released film.

-Aaron

[Jake Lipson]

No, no, no. I've heard this confirmed by a Disney rep in an article a long time ago (which I unfortunately lost the link to.) The Return of Jafar WAS originally intended to be the first story arc for the series, and then they looked at it and thought "Hey, you know, these few episodes work really well together, let's make them a movie." So, they got mashed together (and not very well, let me assure you) and released to video in its present form. I watched it just a little bit ago today, actulally, and you can tell several points where it would have broken off for a commercial or for a "to-be-continued" at the end of the half hour time slot.

When they edited together those episodes, they just used the episode that would have come next chronologically as the debut episode. There's even shades of proof -- in its first season, the show's theme song montage used some footage that ended up being from Return of Jafar. Wonder why it got in there if it was from the movie first? They usually won't use actulal footage from the movie in the TV series spinoff theme song....

[FilmMkr]

I'm the one who originally made the point about ROJ being planned as a CBS special btw

Anyway, I just wrote a paper on this fall semester so that's how I know, and I looked around and I happen to still have my source.

It's on the entertainment weekly website, so you'll need to be a subscriber or an aol user to click on this link [or happen to have the old issue laying around] It's an article talking about how King of Thieves made more money than Independence Day, and the marketing push for the DTV.

WISH FULLFILLMENT [08/23/96]
http://tinyurl.com/2x5a2

<snip>
Why push so hard to build up a direct-to-video title? Perhaps because Disney's home-video future may depend on it. The studio has now hawked virtually all its theatrical animated chestnuts, from Snow White to Pocahontas, at least once on video. And though the company limits availability to stoke demand, future reissues could bring diminishing returns. But fate smiled on Disney when Tad Stones, a producer-director in its TV animation division, suggested turning the planned TV special Return of Jafar into a VHS premiere -- and struck gold. ''Direct-to-video was where you dumped things,'' says Stones, who also helmed King of Thieves. ''Nobody expected that kind of interest.''
<snip>


As for parts where you could tell there were supposed to be commercial breaks, most made for tv movies on network television have commercial breaks, so that doesn't necessarily mean that they were episodes stitched together and that it wasn't planned as a special.
About the footage being used in the credits of the first season, it makes sense. They were made by the same facilities so the footage is essentially the same and would mesh well.

Here is a review of the film, maybe this is what your referring to?

THE RETURN OF JAFAR [05/20/94]
http://tinyurl.com/357zz

<snip>Little of that money seems to have been invested in Jafar, which was stitched together mainly by the studio's TV animation facilities in Australia and Japan. In fact, though it's billed as a made-for-video project, it looks exactly like the Aladdin series already running on Disney's pay-cable channel and headed for CBS and syndication this fall.
<snip>

This is all the reviewers opinion though, not fact.

Edited to say: If you guys want me to post the whole articles just let me know.

[Jake Lipson]

Well, you do make intelligent arguments, I'll give you that much, and it does sound like a possibility. Even so, I swear I read an article that said exactly that it was originally intended to be part of the series, but unfortunately I found this in the Animated Movies database, which is of course gone now, so I can't find it.

In any case, I *am* pretty sure that RoJ is meant to be a prelude to the series in some form, and that they're connected. Wheather or not it originated as part of the series, its storyline is shaped with the idea of setting up the series in mind. It's very much the same as Disney later did with Buzz Lightyear of Star Command: The Adventure Begins and Stitch! The Movie. Your article also suprises me in saying that the series was on air before RoJ hit shelves, because it so obviously takes place before the series (the presence of Iago and Geenie in the series is evidence of this, since if the series took place first Geenie would be on his trip around the world and Iago would still be stuck in the lamp.) I'd think (though I'm not quite sure memorywise, truthfully) that Disney would have liked to get it out there to launch the series and spur renewed intrest before going on air with that.

In fact, IMDb seems to agree with me on that part, at least. According to them, the series debuted on September 4, 1994 in the UK and September 5, 1994 in the USA, which would have given them ample time to roll out RoJ on tape and give it its time in the spotlight, whetting the public's appitite for the series and making sure everyone had had a chance to see it before the show took its bow, as it sets up several things, such as Geenie and Iago's return as well as the new character of Abis Mahl, his backstory, motives, etc., which are nesssary background for the series as he is a recurring villian there.

Oh yeah, and I'd really like to see the whole article, if you'd be kind enough to post it. Thanks!

[AwallaceUNC]

I'm the one who originally made the point about ROJ being planned as a CBS special btw

OMG, you're right. I'm so sorry. I just looked at the avatar, not the name. You both have Beast avatars, so I got them mixed up. I edited my post to fix it.

-Aaron