DVDizzy Forum

June 22, 2007, 6:23PM
Disney to Stop Animated DVD-Only Sequels


By GARY GENTILE AP Business Writer
© 2007 The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES — In a major strategy shift, the Walt Disney Co. said it will stop making lucrative direct-to-DVD sequels of such classic animated films as "Cinderella," a move that reflects the growing influence of former Pixar Animation executives John Lasseter and Steve Jobs, who once called the films "embarrassing."

The change comes with a shake-up at the company's DisneyToon Studios, including the removal of longtime president Sharon Morrill, who will continue with the company in another capacity, Disney said Friday.

DisneyToon Studios will become part of Walt Disney Feature Animation and report directly to Animation President Ed Catmull and Lasseter, who assumed roles there after Disney bought Pixar Animation Studio last year for $7.4 billion in stock.

That deal made Jobs, the former Pixar CEO who also runs Apple Inc., into Disney's largest shareholder and got him a spot on Disney's board.

DisneyToon will now only produce original DVD films, including the upcoming film starring the fairy Tinkerbell. "Little Mermaid III," currently in production, will be the last DVD sequel released.

Disney has been a leader in the direct-to-DVD category, selling millions of copies of such films as "Lion King 1 1/2" and "Bambi II."

Although those DVDs were moneymakers for the studio, Disney purists scoffed, including Lasseter and Jobs.

In a 2003 conference call with financial analysts, Jobs said how much he hated the DVD sequels.

"We feel sick about Disney doing sequels," Jobs said. "If you look at the quality of their sequels ... it's pretty embarrassing."

When Disney bought Pixar, it put former Pixar president Catmull and Lasseter in charge of its own animation efforts. Lasseter has made no secret of his disdain for sequels in general, although he is working on "Toy Story 3," scheduled to hit theaters in 2010.

Disney shares fell 5 cents to $34.14 Friday.

REALLY old news but thanks anyway.

Maybe they will finally start releasing sequels of their past and present animated films on the big screen. Huzzahs are in order!

NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah well... a few of those sequels were a lot more entertaining and "original" than half of John Lasseter's films....

Mmm, yeah, totally agree. But yeah some of them sucked. Return to Neverland was good though. And Lady and the Tramp 2. Oh and by the way, I love your signature Poody! It's really good, nice contrast between the upcoming princesses of new Disney movies. Nice piccies, good work.
-James

A whopping majority of those sequels sucked only added to the public's perception that Disney is pretty much for the kiddy market. I agree with Jobs' statement and am glad to see 'em go away for good. Feel like producing a sequel? Make it worthy of the silver screen, not just my living room.

Disney-Fan wrote:A whopping majority of those sequels sucked only added to the public's perception that Disney is pretty much for the kiddy market. I agree with Jobs' statement and am glad to see 'em go away for good. Feel like producing a sequel? Make it worthy of the silver screen, not just my living room.

I agree 100%. Now, I will admit that I have not seen many of the Disney sequels, but, there is a very good reason for that. I read the synopsis and reviews online and I don't end up watching them because they sound rediculous or they completely ignore things that happened in the original movie. There is nothing wrong with a good sequel here and there, but it should be good enough to be in theaters. If Walt were to see some of these direct to video releases, he would probably be rolling in his grave.

I fail to see what's the big difference between a sequel (like say, Return to Never Land*) and an original film (like The Tinkerbell Movie).

Will somebody please enlighten me? Being as both use established Disney characters?

* "Never Land" spelt as two words just for Luke. He gets worked up about the incorrect spelling. Shame I couldn't be bothered to check Tinkerbell for Renata though!

2099net wrote:I fail to see what's the big difference between a sequel (like say, Return to Never Land*) and an original film (like The Tinkerbell Movie).

Will somebody please enlighten me? Being as both use established Disney characters?

Because if it's a sequel it has to be immediately labelled crap regardless of whether anyone's even watched it or not, but calling it an original gives lee-way for people to like it without my mobbed and called a sequel-loving freak.

Thank God they are no longer making awful (not to mention pointless) sequels to classic Disney movies.

[sarcastic] Darn, I was hoping for Sleeping Beauty 2: The Princess Takes a nap or "the search for more money"[end sarcasm]

Sad to say, I admit to buying Cinderella II and III, 101 Dalmations 2, Lady and the Tramp II (though I got that has a gift, actually) and Mulan 2 on DVD. At the time of Cinderella II's release, the Platinum hadn't been released, sooooooo.......and well, I've got to wait til March '08 for a 101 Dalmations Platinum.

They should consider this, though: those DTV movies, no matter how bad they were, were in 2D animation. They should go back and get more 2D movies done along with some CGI type movies (like Meet the Robinsons).

Escapay wrote:KHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNN!!!!!

I vote you award yourself a WIST

great now we can get bad and horribly animated films in theaters. since we're talking about sequels i got a question: do sequels to parody films parody the original in any way?

Disney-Fan wrote:A whopping majority of those sequels sucked only added to the public's perception that Disney is pretty much for the kiddy market. I agree with Jobs' statement and am glad to see 'em go away for good.

Sorry, but that's a fairly ridiculous statement for several reasons:

1. If the public truely hated them so much, why do people keep buying them?

2. Trust me, the DTVs are not what caused people to believe Disney is a "kiddy market". That is the just talk of ignorant and dumb teenagers(and sadly some adults) who just want to "fit in" or "be cool" which has been happening before DTVs.

3. If you want to truely blame something for such a claim, Playhouse Disney and the Princess line are better targets.

I agree with Netty that I don't see the difference between a sequel and an "original" film. How is the Tinkerbell movie so much different from a Peter Pan III?

Every time this news gets announced, I find it hard to have much positive or negative thoughts as nothing is really changing.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:1. If the public truely hated them so much, why do people keep buying them?

2. Trust me, the DTVs are not what caused people to believe Disney is a "kiddy market". That is the just talk of ignorant and dumb teenagers(and sadly some adults) who just want to "fit in" or "be cool" which has been happening before DTVs.

3. If you want to truely blame something for such a claim, Playhouse Disney and the Princess line are better targets.

1. Never said the public hates them. People keep buying 'em for the toddlers at home that love 'em.

2. Maybe so, but trust me when I say, I've talked to people about the sequels. During a time, for example, when only Little Mermaid II was in print, people based their perception on the original movie based on the quality of the second. 'Cause it's a sequel, so it must have some resemblance, right? We all know how wrong that statement is, yet sadly people assumed that the originals offered the same kind of turd the sequels did. So, you see, people's beliefs that Disney is for the 3-years-under market has only been justified based on those pieces of horse crap. I did say "added" to the perception, didn't I?

3. Very true, but then again this thread isn't about those lines, is it?

Nooo there needs to a least one more Cinderella sequel she needst o have a kid.

Fantasmic wrote:This also means the end of Disney Princess Enchanted Tales, to which I give a: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! That series was going to be a good way to get new stories featuring some of the lesser-spotlighted Princesses, such as Snow White and Aurora. To some this may seem like blasphemy, but to me? I see it as a way the characters live on. Maybe it's just because I'm the type of guy who still goes and sees the characters when many my age stopped doing that a few years ago, but I love to see, meet, and get more stories with the characters, and the Princesses (although I'm a little embarrassed to admit it) represent the best that Disney has to offer. And although sequels or new stories will never meet the standards set by the originals, as long as the originals are kept available, why complain? As long as they do the best with what they can for a DTV (as they have been lately), that's fine by me.

No, don't say that! Lasseter did the darned right thing in cancelling the Enchanted Tales series. It's a actually a bit disappointing that even Sleeping Beauty will now have been tampered with TV animation style.

Enchanted Tales looks soppy and aimed directly at 3-year old girls not yet fit of following a certain bright purple gay dinosaur on his daily "adventures". I don't really want people to associate Aurora, from the lavish Sleeping Beauty universe, with stuff like Barney and teaching children morals through kindness. Yuck! Don't make me barf! Leave that stuff to our happy purple Dinosaur! Or maybe Pooh ... even though I think it's idiotic of Disney market the latter as pre-school, but what can you do?

Who of you are willing to see Aurora sing "Once Upon A Dream of Kindness"? Or experience Jasmine warble through various sickening verses of "Be Kind to the Whole World"? How about having Maleficent croon through a new song called "Forgive and Forget"?