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.

Blinkoff underscores DisneyToons’ commitment to 2D animation. “Elliot and I we were animators on Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King — we started in 2D and we have a certain responsibility to it.” Contrary to the popular belief in the animation world,” Bour adds, “Disney has not given up on hand-drawn animated movies.”

Bour seems well aware of the sequels’ need to explore new territory. “When we were first coming into this division we felt that films like Pocahontas II and Hunchback II were kind of going through the motions. Sharon has a great vision and she pushes us to do things that are more interesting and more creative; we really strive to create different kinds of sequels — not just ‘this happens exactly after the last movie. The only way this division is going to stay successful is to give the audience something that makes them want to continue buying these kinds of videos’.” Or as Blinkoff puts it, “We stand on the shoulders of the first one and make something fresh and new.”

Even so, he points out that “the biggest animated film of all time was a sequel: Shrek 2. People think of sequels and they roll their eyes, but every Star Wars fan will tell you that The Empire Strikes Back was a better movie. So even though you’re making a sequel, the new things you’re doing will make all the difference.”

Other ideas in development at DisneyToon Studios include a non-TV pilot Cinderella III (built around the stepmother using the fairy godmother’s magic wand to turn back time) and a rumored plan to free Mickey Mouse from his corporate icon status with an “edgy” yet true-to-his-roots CGI update. An announced, promoted on video and then-shelved Dumbo II from longtime DisneyToon producer Jeannine Roussel may still see the light of day. “There were story issues,” she explains. “We hit a little bump with it so we put it back in the oven to bake a little longer until we feel like it’s ready.

“I’ve been faced with a lot of those ethical challenges — of taking a classic like Lady and the Tramp or The Lion King,” Roussel continued. “There’s a weight and gravity to making a sequel to those kind of pictures. I don’t want to use the word tiptoeing, but you approach a project like a Bambi or Dumbo sequel with a certain amount of reverence.”

A Roussel project currently in production is guaranteed to generate a good deal of interest (and in all likelihood, no small amount of skepticism) — a Peter Pan inbetween-quel exploring Tinkerbell’s adventures in ‘Pixie Hollow’ with an assortment of fairy girlfriends. Whether or not Tink’s own story captures the original movie’s spirit while taking it in a new direction will, like any other Disney DTV sequel, remain a mystery until the disc is spinning away inside your DVD player.

Joe Strike is a NYC-based writer/producer with a background in TV promotion and a lifelong interest in animation. He is writing a children’s novel.







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.
five - one =
Solve this math question and enter the solution with digits. E.g. for "two plus four = ?" enter "6".