Disney’s Animation Cash Crop — Direct-to-Video Sequels

Joe Strike looks at Disney’s animation cash crop and 2D home at the studio — direct-to-video sequels.
Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld

Live-action Hollywood has been creating sequels to its hits for years, with mixed results but always with an eye on box office gold. (Or as Mel Brooks succinctly put it, Spaceballs II: The Search for More Money) When it comes to kids and their ability to watch a favorite video ad infinitum, the temptation to sequelize directly to the home video market is irresistible. Universal may have produced two direct-to-video An American Tail sequels and the ongoing Land Before Time franchise, but it was inevitable that the Disney name and its unrivaled library of cartoon titles would make it the dominant DTV player. Now, however, Disney is rising to a new challenge: erasing the “cheapquels” stigma created by some of its earliest DTV releases.

The foundation for Disney’s DTV adventure was set in the mid 1980s when Michael Eisner, Jeffrey Katzenberg and their new management team set out to make the company a major player in original TV animation. At first Disney stayed away from exploiting its classic characters, going instead with shows like the toy-based Wuzzles and candy-inspired Gummi Bears. Then, in 1987, Disney produced its first series for what at the time was a red-hot syndication market. While Duck Tales owed more to Carl Barks’ legendary adventure comics than Donald Duck’s theatrical shorts, the series was a creative and financial success that both Walt and Scrooge McDuck would have been proud of — and it convinced the company to give more of its characters a new life on TV.

The Little Mermaid, the film that revitalized Disney’s feature animation division became a CBS Saturday morning series in 1992. In the meantime, the company had entered the red-hot syndication market in a big way, with a daily two-hour block of original animation known as “The Disney Afternoon.” The Afternoon’s enormous programming appetite (a new series replaced the block’s oldest show every September) led the studio to commission a TV version of its latest theatrical feature, Aladdin — before the film’s release.

Disney assigned Tad Stones and Alan Zaslove to produce the series and shepherd its transition from a self-contained movie to an ongoing series. Stones and Zaslove were already major contributors to the Afternoon — Zaslove was one of the driving forces behind Duck Tales and the two had worked as a team on Chip and Dale’s Rescue Rangers and Darkwing Duck. “It was probably Jeffrey Katzenberg’s idea to turn the movie into a series, or it could’ve been him together with Gary Krisel, the head of the TV animation division,” recalls Stones. “We’d already done shows based on classic Disney characters and the Mermaid series was a success, so it wasn’t a big jump.

“The big problem was that the original movie had a happy ending. If kids want to see more of it, they don’t mean a married Aladdin who lives in a palace — they want to see more of the street rat. They want to see the genie, but he left at the end of the movie — how do we bring him back?”

Genie did return but Robin Williams didn’t. Dan Castellaneta took over the part in both Jafar and the weekly series. “We told Dan not to do a Robin Williams impression,” Stones explains. “He basically split the difference and found a Williams-ish type voice that was gangbusters on its own. Dan’s another comedic genius, and an improvisational genius.

“Now even though the genie was phenomenally popular, I thought the best character in the movie was Gilbert Gottfried’s Iago. He was actually smarter than Jafar — the bird had all the ideas. I thought that would be a great character to have in the series. So we came up with a convoluted story that explained everything and that ended up being The Return of Jafar.

At the time, syndicated half-hour cartoons often premiered with a multi-part story to get kids in the habit of watching the show every day. According to Stones, Disney designed theirs to run as a feature that the stations could promote as a ‘family movie special’ on the Friday night before the series’ premiere. “The fact that it got turned into a video owes a lot to Paul Felix, one of our layout artists who later went onto features as a concept artist and production designer. He was sketching out different ideas for the movie, one of which was a band of thieves galloping across the desert toward this little crack in a mountain, which was their hideout. Alan was really inspired by those sketches and basically had the storyboard person work right off them to capture that feeling.

“The sequence went to [the Disney animation studio in] Australia, and that studio had just gotten a relatively new animator who loved horses. Now there was already some talk about releasing this as a video, even though Jeffrey Katzenberg and supposedly even Michael Eisner were worried about diluting the cachet of Disney animated features. But when we screened this very romantic footage for Jeffrey with Ashman’s Arabian Nights playing under it, he turned around and said ‘Guys, this looking pretty good.’ At the time he was used to features taking years and years, and he was like, ‘How did you pull this off?







Comments


I actually have very strong views on these sequels, I made many points against them on an online petition I created. If you'd like to read my view on the sequels then take a look; http://www.petitiononline.com/ghd8769/petition.html
Austin M (not verified) | Tue, 06/07/2005 - 00:00 | Permalink
I laugh at the comment made in this article that all sequels are made to be theatrical releases. It is clearly evident that these sequels, which tarnish the original story, characters, and the artists that voiced them, are of a much lower quality. Walt would NOT be happy, and neither are all the Disney fans over that age of 6.
damien font (not verified) | Mon, 04/11/2005 - 00:00 | Permalink
Sorry, but Walt vowed he would NEVER do sequels again after he did The Three Little Pigs sequels. He said they ruined the originals and I have to agree. The animation in these straight-to-DVD offerings are 'cartoons' and not the absolutely beautiful animation Walt's company had been known for. All it looks like is a rehashing to just pull in more money. Walt expected perfection and time and time again stressed that the 'story' had to be good first. All this computer animation is fine, but there is nothing like watching a piece of 'artwork' which many Disney movies were. The most wonderful storytelling with the most artistic animation. The Walt Disney Company seems to have forgotten that and it's a crying shame.
Bonnie Bailey (not verified) | Mon, 04/11/2005 - 00:00 | Permalink
I have never been a fan of direct-to-videos and any 'cheapquels' to beloved Disney classics are no exception. It's funny that many animation studios decide to follow the footsteps of Disney's recent trend nowadays rather than risking themselves in producing theatrical movies that may end up losing money (most of the studio executives rely on the strength of merchandise than suggesting new strategical moves to attract viewers to watch original movies. Oh well.). Anyway, expanding the universes that are first introduced in the classic originals is a great idea; after seeing the sequel to Aladdin entitled The Return of Jafar many years ago, I was just truly impressed with the overall quality (as I thought at that time) and was also able to witness the fall (finally!) of the evil vizier (although it ends in a rather disappointed note). That proves that Disney was capable of stretching the border that its original outline has provided. However, my interest in direct-to-videos began to wane as I watched the final installment of the Aladdin trilogy; The King of Thieves is just pure horror, filled with recycled ideas from the first two and not-so-appealing new characters (especially the main villain with claws). And what's with the number 'II' (and sometimes 'III') that keeps appearing at the end of the titles? Personally, I find it really disturbing, thinking that setting names like 'Great Adventures' or 'Going Back To Something' right after the primary titles would attract those who have seen the originals (and ultimately being sussed off for watching a poor 'remake/sequel' of what the Nine Old Men have done and succeeded). Whenever I see an ad of these 'cheapquels' at the beginning of a Disney DVD, I feel like hiding my face under a pillow. One problem in making a 'cheapquel' is the repetition of the elements that have been showcased in every Disney movie you have ever seen. For example, I have seen the Jungle Book 2 and despite its lavish animation (no doubt about that), many of the Disney recycles are obviously seen in many of the overall scenes (the expressions, the body reactions, dialogues). I mean that, c'mon, these stuff won't work anymore, especially when audiences are now seeking for new stuff like a Hayao Miyazaki movie or whatever art movie you can think of! Sometimes, it is best that their adventures should end right at the end of the original movies. And why not? Unfortunately, there are those who hunger for more adventures and some executives decide to make one just to impress the little kids. Fans of the originals, however, are just appalled with what the creators have done to add up new, pointless features that only propel their merchandises skyhigh. Lilo & Stitch is brilliant in its own right but the idea of having a Pokemon-like concept in its later sequels is just really appalling. If I were to make an animated feature based on a classic fairy tale, I would have done it and simply ended the story as it should be. Sometimes, it is best left to the audience to imagine the rest of the story... right inside our minds.
Glen Bosiwang (not verified) | Tue, 03/29/2005 - 01:00 | Permalink

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.