Phillip raises some intresting points regarding 'ongoing series' (which for this post I will consider filmed sequels part of an 'ongoing series').
In my last year of high-school one of our English Literature assignments was to write an essay on 'ongoing' series of books - even taking into account everything from short stories (such as Sherlock Holmes).
We were told to take into account the formula's of the stories, the depiction of the reoccuring characters and the style of the writing overall (if the stories were written by the same person). After we handed in our essays be had a class discussion for a couple of lessons.
Our conclusion was (and something that we were obviously guided towards by our teacher) that
any long running series of stories becomes a self-parody (to a certain extent).
Let's take an example close to my heart. Sherlock Holmes.
The later Sherlock Holmes stories - while not being parody as such, I would argue - certainly use the familiarity of the characters to take shortcuts when describing their motivations, actions and experiences. And when you start using dramatic or descriptive shortcuts your are lessening the impact of the writing. You're also reducing the characters or stories to their most recognisable charactaristics and therefore you
are writing charactatures.
The self-parody comes into the equation when you start comparing events or characters to other events or characters. It's a sort of 'nudge, nudge', 'knowing wink' to those in on the 'in-joke' references.
But the same rules don't just apply to literature, they apply to films and tv too. Look at the later Universal Horror Movies of the 1930's and 1940's. Frankenstein's Monster was reduced from the rich, sympathetic character of the original (and Bride of Frankenstein) to a lumbering, brainless monster with no characteristics of his own. (Incidently Bride of Frankenstein is head and shoulders above the - already excellent - original film. Proving that sequels can work). Hunchbacked assistants were included, just because it was expected and the plots became lame runarounds involving brain transplants and the like. Look at M*A*S*H. While the show always kept a high quality of writing and acting - no one can deny that the last few years played to a highly successful formula for most of their episodes.
But while we considered this process was unavoidable, it doesn't have to happen to the same extent. I think J K Rowling is avoiding the trap because she always introduces new concepts and idea's into her novels, and is letting the main characters grow up. I know Harry's new attitude in the latest book has not been popular with some reviewers, but had he stayed the same I think that their would be a chance that by the last book there would be hints of unwanted self-parody.
The X-Files TV series took another route - they explicity began to write parody episodes themselves. They were saying to the audience "we know this is getting a little stupid so let's have some fun". Which meant that when they did return to their conspiracy arc and played it seriously the self-parody elements were downplayed. (Of course they totally mishandled David Duchovny's exit from the series, creating the biggest unintentional parody of all! - but that's another issue)
So far I think the Disney sequels have avoided the self-parody issue sucessfully becuase when it is done, it's sort of what the audience wants anyway. Jungle Book II pushes this to the limits with it's continuous reprises of The Bear Necessities and characters returning for no other reason than "because they were in the original". Both are "short cuts" - cheap ways of involking the original in the audience' mind. Do too many and the audience will revolt.
The Disney sequel flip-flop I keep mentioning may result in sequels that are not that original, but it does provide new outlooks on familar concepts from the original film without including lots of storytelling "short-cuts".
Of course, up until now we've had no Disney sequel trilogy to assess[*] but the Lion King 1 1/2 is coming soon. It will be interesting to see if this manages to invoke it's own storytelling or resorts to using "short-cuts" to the two other films. The fact that it's set during the original Lion King makes me think it will include more "short cuts" than most other Disney sequels - and therefore could reduce everything and everyone to their basic, most recognisable concepts.
But none of this affects the originals. Nobody would suggest the early Sherlock Holmes stories are worse because of the gradual decline in writing of the last few. Nobody would suggest that the early M*A*S*H episodes were worse because the later years tended to stick to a winning formula. Nobody would suggest that the Original Planet of the Apes movie was not a classic of cinema because the series gradually creatively flushed itself down the toilet.
It's just the way of sequels - some manage to avoid most of the dangers because the creators are aware of them. (That's why in the Emperor's Newer Groove thread my idea's for a sequel state that it should not include any animal transformations.) Some don't. But if you don't like how the sequels are progressing then you just stop buying or paying to see them.
As for quality of animation - sure it's disappointing when the animation doesn't match up to the originals. But animation is only one of the reasons I like watching animated movies in the first place. I can enjoy something like "The Powerpuff Girls Movie" or "The Wild Thornberrys Movie" as much as certain Disney films because the quality of the animation is only one of the things that attracts me to these films and television shows in the first place.
[*] Note: I'm not including the Aladdin films or Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World as 'proper' Disney sequels as the Aladdin sequels are clearly based more on the TV cartoon series than the film, and Belle's Magical World seems to be based on a (unreleased) TV series too.
[**] Ooops. I've just realised we've had 3 films from Winne the Pooh - Many Adventures, Tigger's and Piglet's.
