Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:50:40 GMT

Somehow I find it hard to sympathize with the poor employees of Buena Vista. I know it's their job to make crapquels, but for all the money they make, the Disney name is that much more diluted. You can't blame Lasseter for wanting to make a new Disney animated film the event that it used to be.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:53:02 GMT

Where I have no problems with Disney creating additional stories for their properties, they just need to make sure that they give them the respect that they deserve. The animation in Cinderella III at some points looked very sub-par. Almost a type of 2D CG animation. Which may very well be what it is. Although the prospect of seeing Lady Tremaine "go over the edge" and chew through the scenery might actually be rather amusing. At least the preview made it look that way!

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 02:32:37 GMT

So, basically, the word is: "RELAX...John hates them, too." :)

And remember how we talked about the Three Categories of Disney Sequels, particularly Type A, the "Copyright Extension" sequel?
Thanks to Congress, they don't -have- to make any more of those. But, with Bambi II, Disney's found that they can still come in useful as ancillary marketing tools for pumping onto shelves in time to sell the classics. (And vice versa, now that the Platinum "Peter Pan"'s been rushed up to sell Tinkerbell)--And, now that they've gotten the hang of it, they're now (or were) trying to use sequels to sell "forgotten" titles like Fox & the Hound, and, well...Ron Miller animateds just don't get MORE forgotten than "Aristocats".
(And yes, you'd have to go to Paris or Tokyo to find Marie still mentioned, as well as Bernard & Bianca from "The Rescuers".)

Cinderella III, though...Is it an "apology" for C2 (once we all bought it for our daughters and found out it was just an unsold TV pilot), or is it also a wrapup Finale-Sequel, a la "Leroy & Stitch"?
Little Mermaid 3 looks barely half-finished, but seems to be the same thing--Can't come out and -say- that the bloom's off the rose for the first sequel, but, nudge nudge, wink-wink, and hey, it did sell some copies.

Oh, and:
===
But as the studio begins to scrap the bottom of the barrel (At least when it comes to the titles that Disney still has in its film vault that have yet to receive major DVD releases) and is forced to release "Special Editions" of lesser titles like 1973's animated "Robin Hood" ...
===
That's not desperation: They're still smarting from the "Limited Edition" days, and wonder why they didn't leap for those 2-disks when they had the chance, now that they're the top sellers--
The first release of Dumbo was the first of the "modern" 1-disk Gold editions that hit upon the idea of extras, commentary and bonus material, etc.--and later earned its official bells-and-whistles upgrade--but that leaves a good half-dozen titles still exiled to the "bare-bones" days...And yes, Robin was one of them:
Has it occurred to them yet that we still don't have a Pinocchio: Special Edition?...Don't worry, it will. :)
(Although I've still got shelf-space reserved for a SE-upgraded "Hercules", also one of the pre-"Dumbo" bare-bones Gold pioneers.)

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 04:14:06 GMT

Unless -- of course -- Disney's actual theatrical releases start tanking at the box office. If that starts to happen, look for those new high standards that Lasseter just set in place to quickly get abandoned.
====
Oh, of COURSE....
So, hopefully, it's not that we're saying "Lasseter is bringing a new direction to the animation studios--But, just watch, it probably won't work anyway, he'll be exiled out of decision-making, and serves him right for thinking he owned things."
(It's that little twelve-step, every day...We just can't help taking a little nip out of the bottle, yielding to temptation and slipping back, can we?) ;)

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 06:42:39 GMT

Amid Amidi just posted an excellent link to the new York Times article that says-exactly what I have been violently ranting about;that be the audiences/ toon fans are sick and tired of 'furry talking animals in CG *** like dizny has been forcing on the fans for decades.They want somthing different,yet they have no idea where to look.
Thanks to the blind-arrogant animation execs and their idiot polocies of corptate gate keepers rejecting anyone with a new fresh origional concept,the trend continues,except this time the times article hits the nail on the head.the toon goons need to get off their chickenshit-talking animal animated -redundant asses.
toon fans want other than talking animals,like rats-chickens-cows bears etc. what the times says is better than i can say and am frankly tired of blasting the big toon goons,but my concept deserves the right to be seen,so check out the article and realize that talents are out there waiting to give animation a new path and fans can see new characters,never before seen.
Do ya think ; just one dizny exec. will read this and contact me for more info? Nothing happened three years ago, when amid amidi published in his blast site,an article about my concept with graphics.Add insult to injury,because in the same web page were steve jobs article,with mine, sandwiched between a disney article, and still,never a whisper of interest.
I challange anyone to denie my concept is not completly origional,with characters-concept never before seen.
The story idea is called "LIFE ON MARZ" and you can see it at www.sito.org as dale mc farlane aka dawk or google me as simply; DAWK
I have the story line samples on sito, with dozens of characters + backgrounds-designed and ready to be animated,with some technicals needed to be ironed out and this is NOT CG created!
check out 'MAD MA ON MARZ" as it sums up the story line for animation and judge for yourself the origional-new ideas-characters.
cheerz from DAWK

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 07:12:06 GMT

I really can't understand why so manny people hammer on Robin Hood, The Aristocats and The Fox and the Hound. To me, they're MUCH more amusing then Beauty and the Beast or The LIttle Mermaid.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 08:47:57 GMT

I think that the "lesser" classics are just as good as the more "popular" films. I'm still waiting for a 2-disc "The Black Cauldron" DVD...you can't get much "lesser" than that! (FYI- "TBC" is mentioned in the documentary on "TLM" DVD)
I'm not afraid to say that I own all the sequels. I haven't watched all of them, but I have them all...I like to see what the characters do next. No, they're not as good as the originals, but it's fun to go back to that world in a new story. "Cinderella III" looks pretty interesting to me. It seems to be pretty much based on the Cruise Line show (not that I've seen that).

I wonder if, many years down the road, when most of the films have sequels, Dumbo will have a sequel. "Mickey's Once Upon a Christmas" was traditionally animated, while "Mickey's Twice Upon a Christmas" was CGI. Other than those, I can't think of any other sequels of Disney 2D movies that were CGI (Tink's movie I don't consider to be a sequel).

Will "Robin Hood" be a 2-disc set? I'm hoping so; I'd like to see a making-of feature. The majority of Disney's 2-disc sets are still lacking. Even the new "The Little Mermaid" Platinum Edition seemed to be lacking some bonus material; besides not finishing the art galleries yet, I went through the whole disc fairly quickly. "TLM" could have included the documentary from I think it was The Disney Channel from when the movie came out (I still have the copy that my parents taped off the TV), and "B&tB" could have included any of its docs (The Disney Channel,
VH1).

I'm wondering if the video format of the future (be it Blue Ray or something else) will see rereleases of Disney films with even more bonus content. And I'm not talking about the Disney Channel Circle of Stars).

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:32:23 GMT

I don't like these sequels...plain and simple. I've got to admit that I have a bookshelf full of them, hoping that someday one of them will be good. It hasn't happened yet. Their re-sale value on eBay or Amazon isn't even worth the effort to try and resell. Seeing sub-par animation and hearing different character voices somehow softens the impact of the original for me. I understand that the "younger" population doesn't notice or realize the differences, and that's the target audience.

I think Lasseter's approach is on-spot.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:04:10 GMT

Actually, I'd disagree that the younger population doesn't notice the different voices or crummier animation. I noticed right off the bat how bad those direct-to-video sequels were (the first I can remember is "Return of Jafar"), and I was always a kid who could notice the voice was wrong, unless it was just a very, very good imitation. An even better example is the old Little Mermaid TV series. I watched it, but I was very aware that the quality didn't match the movie, and it was a shame. I also wondered why the heck Ariel was a mermaid again. (Likewise, I hated that the Beast was a beast again in the Beauty and the Beast sequels.)

So, some kids notice. But it doesn't seem so bad to buy into that stuff when you're little, when you don't realize it's ruining the brand, and that's where the brainwashing begins. :P

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:18:54 GMT

I for one kind of like "Robin Hood" - or at least the concept behind it. Re-casting the classic characters as animals worked pretty well IMO. But the film lacked real menace from the villians - they were all buffoons. Still, I'd be interested in a GOOD sequel on that one. There are classic stories and characters from the original Robin Hood tales that were unused in the movie - like Sir Guy of Gisborne - and it'd be cool to see a post-Prince John story. Perhaps King Richard, who regained the throne after returning from the Crusades, is in danger because the Prince is plotting an overthrow. Could have "Lion King" overtones. Anyway I think a good "Robin Hood" sequel would rock.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:31:25 GMT

gigglesock said:
I for one kind of like "Robin Hood" - or at least the concept behind it. Re-casting the classic characters as animals worked pretty well IMO. But the film lacked real menace from the villians - they were all buffoons.

That's one thing that makes the movie more fun! Prince John and Sir Hiss are bumbling blockheads, and it's funny! Prince John is so pathetic, and, on the one hand, that makes us like him more, but, on the other hand, it makes us want King Richard to come back more. Just defending this great movie!

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:13:25 GMT

Even though most of these sequels are not very well done, they do bring ENORMOUS amounts of money to the Disney Company.
I know that most of you can care less, but The Walt Disney Company is in the business to make money. And a few million in profit from a cheapquel can provide extra money available for less profitable enterprises. The profit from a cheapquel could make up for the loss of a traditional animated movie that doesn't do as well at the box office or is extra money that WDI can spend on a future attraction, etc, etc, etc.
Disney can't spend the money unless the have it.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:36:26 GMT

Robin Hood may not be a perfect film, but it is fun to watch. A sequel would have been great, but only if it could have been animated by the same artists. There is nothing more traumatitic to an animation fan than to suffer through even one of these cubic zirconium editions. Why anyone would want to watch a poorly-scripted, poorly-paced retread featuring classic characters redrawn by third rate draftsmen and animated on the other side of the world by animators that don't even speak the language or understand acting, is beyond me.

These sequels make me sick to my stomach, their existance only aided in the decline of quality storytelling in the feature films, and the thought that there are people out there who defend these abominations (usually Disney shills who don't care about the quality as much as they want to retain their cushy jobs) makes never want to see another non Pixar animated film from Disney for the rest of my days.

I'm glad they are finally putting an end to the pointless sequels. Now I wish they could go back in time and prevent films like Little Mermaid II and Return to Never Land from ever happening.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:50:35 GMT

gigglesock said: "But the film lacked real menace from the villians - they were all buffoons."

Echoing blackcauldron's comment, I'm glad they did it the way they did. They sacrificed the epic adventure for kind of a romp, but not every Disney movie can be nor should be an epic. Those who favor Robin Hood as one of the best Disney movies, and there are a few, do so because of how refreshingly light-hearted it is.

I've heard the "every movie is only as good as it's villain" theory, and it's probably true in a way - the stronger the villain, the greater the impact of the victory. But if you follow that same formula with every movie, in a sense, you get a formula movie.

Not to mention, Peter Ustinov's Prince John was the most entertaining part of the show.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:25:21 GMT

gigglesock said:
"I for one kind of like 'Robin Hood' - or at least the concept behind it. Re-casting the classic characters as animals worked pretty well IMO. But the film lacked real menace from the villians - they were all buffoons."
----
And if you're wondering why Disney's medieval England seems so, well, -countryfied-, with Roger Miller songs and a Pat Buttram sherriff, well, Jim's got the historical answer for that, too:
http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2005/03/17/562.aspx

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 15:23:58 GMT

Child: "Oh Wow Look! Disney Pictures Presents Tinkerbell's Ticking Crocodile Handbag DVD. Can I get it? please, please, please ?"

Adult's thought process: Let's see for $14.99, we get the kid instantly happy - no tantrums - and at home I'll get a free hour out of this thing. I don't know what it is, but I won't be accussed of being a bad parent if I buy something from Disney. The kid really seems to want it. $14.99? OK, sold.

These tapes aren't designed to be timeless examples of classic animation, just a babysitter for 72 minutes. The pencil pusher rationale is that if Disney wasn't producing them, other companies would be making money off characters that Disney Co has spent money promoting for decades. The pencil pushers never take into account how much of a hit the Disney name takes in regards to quality.

It sounds great to theorize that if the company makes more money selling these cheapquels, they can build new attractions. Unfortunately, when production of the cheapquels was at it's height, money spent on park maintenance and new attractions was at a minimum. Money from the cheapquels primarily benefits the execs and the large stockholders, and maybe some overseas animators.

The cheapqels have played a large role in disassociating the Disney name from quality. If you suggest this you're told you just don't understand business - look at the millions the company made. If that same company can make the multimillion dollar blunders of payouts to Katz and Ovitz, Go dot com, the Family Channel, etc etc and just keep chugging along, then they can probably do without the money they make off of "Cinderella 13 - The Clock Strikes Back!"

It would be great if the company would re-adapt the original business model - that quality sells. Pixar has shown it still works in the new millenium. The general public knows smoking, fast food, and Disney cheapquels are not good for you or your kids - they're just a quick fix. I don't see anyone enacting legislation to limit the amount of Disney cheapquels though - so you have to vote at the cash register. When the cheapqels stop selling, they will disappear as if by light magic.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:23:11 GMT

I don't mind the DVD Premieres in principal, but I think, like many things during the Eisner regime, Disney milked them too much and produced too many crappy, unneccesary ones. Some movies just don't need a sequel. Others, however, lend themselves to sequels very well. Remember, Toy Story 2 started out as a D2DVD sequel. But it also started with a good story.

I can see sequels to Robin Hood and The Aristocats, but Disney glutted the market so much over the last ten or more years, they tarnished their own brand. Just like when they showed Millionaire five nights a week. They killed their own golden goose.

They could also plan ahead a little better. Keep the D2DVD sequels in mind when they develop new projects. If something would work well that way, plan for it from the start, rather than shoehorn it in later, such as having the villain's sister show up in Part II. Think about Star Wars (IV, V, and VI -- the good ones). Then think about Indiana Jones and James Bond -- same characters, totally different adventure. It can be done and done well (Rescuers Down Under). Just needs some more work, that's all. And the effort is worth it.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:40:00 GMT

I think Lasseter's new policy is best for Disney. The saturation of sequels has cheapened the value of the Disney name. Disney who once was a fine steak house has now become a mere McDonalds, billions and billions served. Its not just the sequels but the recent fare of feature animation. The quality of some of the feature animation has been no better than the sequels lately (Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, Chicken Little, etc). Like Lasseter says it all has to be about the story. Cutting back on productions and concentrating on quality will benefit the Disney brand greatly.

Now if there is a GOOD story that would work with a sequel I'm all for it. Rescuers II wasn't half bad in my book. We all loved Toy Story II. I wouldn't ban a sequel just for the fact that its a sequel. I think I even herd rumors of Monster's Inc. receiving a sequel treatment as well as a new on-again, off-again, on-again Toy Story III.

Bottom line, let the imagineers, producers and writers run the Disney ship instead of the marketeers and accountants dictating the direction it should sail. The marketeer needs to market a great idea, not force the production of an idea (Tinker Bell movie anyone?). Accountants need to stop cutting ideas from the imagineers and start counting the money coming in if the imagineers were let loose.

Creativity will equal business!

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:06:06 GMT

curmudgeon said:
"Adult's thought process: Let's see for $14.99, we get the kid instantly happy - no tantrums - and at home I'll get a free hour out of this thing. I don't know what it is, but I won't be accussed of being a bad parent if I buy something from Disney.
"It sounds great to theorize that if the company makes more money selling these cheapquels, they can build new attractions. Unfortunately, when production of the cheapquels was at it's height, money spent on park maintenance and new attractions was at a minimum. Money from the cheapquels primarily benefits the execs and the large stockholders, and maybe some overseas animators. "
---
And, again, in case you were wondering, this IS the specific explanation for "Bambi II" and "Fox & the Hound 2":
Parents may remember some classics and not others, but they've gotten used to buying -any- new direct-video sequel sight unseen, just for franchise and babysitter value, the minute it hits Wal-Mart shelves, just on the basis of how much their kids liked the last one.
Now, kids today might not remember Bambi and Thumper. They might not remember Dumbo. No child in the Western HEMISPHERE remembers Tod & Copper...But, that won't stop a parent from buying the sequels, if they're saturated and marketed aggressively enough at the right mainstream outlets.

And, Disney hopes, if kids accidentally get hooked on the "cheap" version courtesy of their undiscerning parents, say, there's -another- story about Bambi, Thumper, Dumbo, Tod and/or Copper you might want to buy...
(And that you probably wouldn't have under your own power if they were on shelves all by their lonesomes.)

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:52:47 GMT

I like to think of Disney Toon Studios as being like the immature younger brother to Disney Feature Animation. And as that younger brother, it has been out on a long drinking binge producing all of these awful cheapquels with nobody there to rein it in (and even encouraged by the equally irresponsible Uncle Mikey, now thankfully no longer an influence). Now that John Lasseter has taken the helm, Disney Toon has been cut off, and is now experiencing a painful hangover. Probably just as well to let it upchuck "Cinderella III" and "Little Mermaid III" to purge itself of whatever pent up toxins remain in its system. Then it can begin the long road to recovery, eventually producing entertaining featurettes with new stories and characters perhaps adapted from previously untapped, shorter literary works, ideally positioned for future DVD releases. Here's to a quick rehabilitation with help from Mr. Lasseter!

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:11:31 GMT

Cinderella 3's plot is the same as one of the Disney Cruise shows.

I think the sequels do present a risk to the company's brand reputation in the long run, but if stronger and more adventurous scripts were completed first it would be better. Peter Pan and Hunchback didn't have the same plot, so why should their sequels? And then there's the sequels like Mermaid 2 where the heroes grew up to make the same mistakes as their parents. Ok, so the budget of Belleville Rendez-vous was the same as the development on the scrapped DTV Hercules 2. I think the reduced production costs should be used to make movies that couldn't be greenlit on feature budgets. I mean, most of Mulan 2 was awful but the idea of Mushu conspiring against Mulan was an interesting one. So push those elements, push the characters... I grew up on the Disney Afternoon and to this day, I like seeing characters beyond one movie... It's just a matter of making it interesting and appropriate to the characters.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:40:48 GMT

These Sequels are nothing but an
embarassment to the Disney Company.
They should have spent the money on the Special Edition DVDs.

Am I the only person who loved the Rescuers?

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:55:41 GMT

Note to DAWK:

If you insist on referring to Disney by the rather denigrating term, "Dizny", chances are pretty good that you won't even get your foot in the door. Out of curiosity I decided to take a look at the samples of your "Life on Mars" and I can honestly tell you that, though it may be unique looking as you claim, it is hardly conducive to what Disney does or is likely to ever do. I would suggest that you find a smaller studio to help you bring your concept to the screen. Disney has a long tradition producing films in their tried and true style. It is somewhat naive to believe they would drop that in favour of what you are offering.

I also do not agree that the talking animals concept should be abandoned altogether either. The difference is the way in which this current glut of CG films is executing that theme. All of these recent films suffer from an inane jokey approach. Disney's classic features usually explored the animal's world through their eyes, such as in "Lady and the Tramp", "Bambi", even the somewhat more cartoonish "The Jungle Book" and "The Aristocats". Regardless of whether the overall tone was dramatic like the former or more humourous like the latter, there was still a sincerity to the storytelling, in which the humour was derived from characterization: the way characters reacted to the situations they found themselves in. There was little if any humourous "shtick" in the dialogue, as all of the humour was shown through the visuals.

The problem today is that all of these CG films (as well as Disney's later traditional entries, such as "Home on the Range", "Emperor's New Groove", etc.) have been written up as scripts first by sitcom-type writers who try to put all of the humour into the dialogue instead of allowing the visuals to carry it. The result is the ironic, cynical, jokey crap that ends up killing any potential for emotional involvement with the audience. A few weeks ago I was in a video store where they had "The Wild" playing on the monitors. I watched a few minutes of it and found it pretty awful in terms of bland, lifeless character design, but also, after turning away to peruse the DVDs on the shelves, I found that just listening to the dialogue was pretty painful in itself. There was such a sitcom quality to it that I could not begin to empathize with the character's plight. That, and not the fact it was "talking animals" is what killed it for me. Animated films should be developed visually through storyboards. Only a rudimentary script should be provided to get the ball rolling - dialogue should be written to support the evolving plot developed through the visuals and not vice-versa.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:10:21 GMT

note to: ponsonby Britt
Thankx-much for the genuine intrest in what i had posted about new concepts.You are right about a 'smaller studio' but I would prefer to form my own crew and studio,so that the EDUCATIONAL aspects of my concept are NOT discarded by money -greedy toon executives,bent on commercialising every toon production..This IS about earths' natural history,told through rocks from the earth.Had you viewed-read some of the other images with comments,you will find out why my concept is so unique,because mars is mostly rocks-gems-minerals-geology and MY characters are made from these materials! This a NEW toon character ART FORM and not CG generated.It is all there for anyone to read on my sito page,so that the guilty parties whom have been destroying animation for decades can realize that they are NOT the least bit intrested in any educational aspect of animation,nor willing to allow this in their almost monoply of a distribution network.
Firstly,I would never do ANY...business with DIZNEY,because they have already screwed up for decades,with what the New York Times artcle so clearly reveals.Mark Morford of the chronicle also wrote a similar blast on big animation,like the times .
If only steve Jobs would have kept separate,then we would still have a studio that is far from the 'dizney brand' style of endless furry talking animals.
Lastly,I have exhibited my concept,for years,printed on t shirts and life size posters,and art images for galleries with great excitement from toon fans who said things like this: 'DAWK,YOU SHOULD TAKE THESE SHIRTS OVER TO THE CHICO STATE CAMPUS,SINCE STUDENTS ARE STARVED FOR SOMTHING NEW ,LIKE YOUR CHARACTERS'.
This was a chico state student who saw my characters printed on my shirt and was simply telling me the reality on media trends.
another college student working as a grocery checker, in Havasu AZ freaked out when i was about to have my items checked,and said;' I KNOW WHAT THAT FACE IS MADE FROM !! i AM TAKING AN EARTH NATURAL HISTORY CLASS,WOW THATS REALLY COOL!!" I sold him a shirt,and have sold thousands of these-enough to (now) see them come walking down the street.
You see,a little knowledge can go a long ways,when a toon concept about MARZ...is educational/entertaining. cheerz from DAWK

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:44:27 GMT

How anything educational can come from someone that misuses the alphabet so blatantly is beyond me...

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:34:36 GMT

BrerArtist said: "Now I wish they could go back in time and prevent films like Little Mermaid II and Return to Never Land from ever happening."

While I agree, wholeheartedly about the questionable value of "Little Mermaid II", I must argue for the integrity of "Return To Neverland".

I am quite aware of the hit-or-miss quality of the sequels. Sometimes it's the quality of the artwork. Sometimes it's the story, or the score. But I don't think that RTN strikes out in any of these departments. The artwork is nearly feature quality, the story and characters are strong, and it boasts one of the strongest scores of all the sequels. Plus, by re-examining the story, they were even able to tie in some "Pan" legacy that Disney himself dropped - clapping to bring Tink back to life.

I think we desire to dismiss the sequels, as a whole, because they do represent commercialism and corporate veracity at its very worst, at times. But, some of the sequels are good pieces of storytelling. "B&B Enchanted Christmas" left friends and I wondering why they did not release it to theatres. "Lady & The Tramp, Scamp's Big Adventure" is a beautiful extension of a story, that left the door open with the advent of the puppies. If you recall, there was a successful comics magazine that chronicled the adventures of the main puppy character, long before the direct-to-video feature.

And while the "101 Dalmatians" sequel's script felt a little forced at times, I was amazed at how well the artists recreated the original "xeroxography" look of the first film. The committment to the artistic legacy of the original, as well as the character profiles were upheld.

Yes, I think we need less "Hunchback II" (God, did that one suck, or what?!), but I think Lasseter has hit the nail on the head. If you have a strong story, with great characters, a wonderful score, etc. - go for it. Tell your story, even if it extends an existing world.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 04:51:04 GMT

Weep not for the Buena Vista artists. There's plenty of Disney material to use as fodder for the "not so classic" animation folks. Scrooge McDuck, Goofy, et al have already had pretty successful "made for VHS" runs without devaluing the Classics with mediocre (or worse) sequels.

Dawk: Checked your stuff. The designs are interesting, but the question every cable animation executive will want answered is if you can create a screenplay with sufficient profanity/scatological references. I don't think you'll have to worry about those mean old money grubbing executives, as they'll love the "educational" aspects to garner critical acclaim and thereby validate what would otherwise be considered utter fecal sluge.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:52:47 GMT

RogerRmjet, I agree with what you said. Especially, "Disney glutted the market so much over the last ten or more years, they tarnished their own brand. Just like when they showed Millionaire five nights a week. They killed their own golden goose."

DerekJ, must you be so negative? "Now, kids today might not remember Bambi and Thumper. They might not remember Dumbo. No child in the Western HEMISPHERE remembers Tod & Copper..." - that's not true. Some parents do show older Disney films to their children. I'm sure we're not the only ones who grew up on classic Disney. When I have kids, they'll know who Tod and Copper are, and not just from the sequel.

Tomoyo said: "
... I grew up on the Disney Afternoon and to this day, I like seeing characters beyond one movie... It's just a matter of making it interesting and appropriate to the characters. "
That's a great statement. I agree completely.

Diz Wiz said: "Am I the only person who loved the Rescuers?" No, i love the original and the sequel.

Nitemuse2 said: "I think we desire to dismiss the sequels, as a whole, because they do represent commercialism and corporate veracity at its very worst, at times. But, some of the sequels are good pieces of storytelling." My thoughts exactly! Some people haven't even seen the sequels and are too quick to say that they're crappy. If you don't think about them as feature animated classics, you won't be as disappointed; the animation isn't normally anywhere near as good as the feature classics, but some of the stories are nice (as Nitemuse2 said). I like the fact that Quasimodo had a lady friend, for example. Esmeralda broke his heart, but, in the end, it all turned out okay.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:28:33 GMT

Nitemuze2: I'm sorry but I have to respond. Peter Pan was one of best films To come out of the Disney studios after WWII. The animation is fist rate, character relationships are well thought out and well incorporated into the script. Comedy relief characters are genuinely funny, especially the crocodile, whose absence in the inane sequel was sorely missed. Smee, who was such an important part of the first film, barely appears in the sequel at all (while Hook on his own makes for an impressive villian, combined with Smee, and with Thomas and Johnston's fabulous animation, he becomes half of of a very entertaing comedy duo; Hook spends most of the sequel acting solo, and in a couple of scenes the animation is just painfully BAD.)

While I'm NOT inplying that they should have just repeated everything from the first film, they made a big mistake by jettisoning all the elements that made the first film work. As for the things they added, World War II? The book was written in 1906- Wendy would have been about 53 years old. The giant squid/octopus whatever is no replacement for the crocodile (which is a significant part of the story) Walt also made the right decision to leave out the part where Peter asks the audience to clap for Tinkerbell. That came from the stage production, not the book.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:48:47 GMT

I wanted to thank DerekJ for the link to the article from last year...I've been trying to catch up on all of the old ones, but sometimes there are ones I miss or don't remember. That's why I have to ask now...did Jim ever come back to the story about repurposed scenes in BatB? I don't have the critical eye that others do, and now I'm wondering where those old scenes are inserted. Thanks all!

A special "No nudes is good news" edition of Why For

Jim Hill — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:19:26 GMT

<i>Jim Hill's back with even more answers to your Disney-related questions. This time around, Jim talks about how Disney Consumer Products tries to influence the films that the studio makes, why you weren't able to spy any naughty bits in "Mulan"

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:13:59 GMT

Aside from the fact that some of the Disney execs STILL hasn't seen the light, this is the kind of news I like to hear. The synopsis for Cinderella 3 would make Walt Disney s**t himself with rage.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:57:53 GMT

"Even though most of these sequels are not very well done, they do bring ENORMOUS amounts of money to the Disney Company."

And Disney getting into the drug, prostitution, and gambling industries would also bring them enormous sums of money, but we're not likely to see that. Money does not justify the great harm the Cheapquels did to the Disney brand name in the late 90's and throughout this decade. Jim says they're "enormously popular". Wrong. The films these cheapquels are based on are enormously popular, and the cheapquels exploit that goodwill. How can a DTV cheapquel film be "enormously popular" when everyone in the country who buys it, is buying it blind, never having seen the movie? People see the famous characters on the cover and the title indicating a sequel to a great popular movie, and they buy it. That doesn't mean the cheapquel is good or popular. It means people are buying crap because that crap is a sequel to something great.

And can anyone else practically feel Jim Hill drooling at the notion, hope, and dream that John Lasseter fail at Disney?

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 15:05:28 GMT

I'm torn on this issue ... on one hand, I totally agree that these movies are sub-standard and dillute the Disney brand, along with their reputation for quality.

But at the same time, I have to remind myself who the target audience for these films is. It's not us ... grumpy adults who long for "the way things used to be" and who harrass and harrangue over every perceived staining of the Walt Disney legacy. It's little kids and, I gotta tell ya, mine loves these movies. In fact, in many cases she likes the sequel as much if not more than the original!

Now admittedly, she's only 4, so things like the voices and the lower quality animation escape her. But she loves getting the chance to see some of her favorite characters in new settings and situations. She doesn't care about the other stuff.

I'm not sure that's an excuse or a validation of these films, but when you combine the fact that they make a ton of money with the fact that kids love them, is it really so bad? And I hate to point this out, but I saw four or five people in this thread who bashed the films on one hand, but admitted to owning them all. If you don't like them, don't support them! You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth.

What I'd be more interested in seeing is if Lassiter could work with the animators to get them to produce QUALITY sequels. I disagree that there is anything inherently wrong with sequels (some of my favorite movies are sequels ... Indy's Lost Crusade, Back to the Future 3, Return of the Jedi, etc.), but for every one of those films there's a Jaws 2 lurking out there. Disney just needs to make sure they create more of the former and less of the latter.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 15:50:25 GMT

Also a rather revealing point:
- Plot of Cinderella 3:
Lady Tremaine is jealous of Cinderella's success, and uses the magic wand to turn back time so that Cinderella fails and her own daughters marry the prince.
- Plot of next December's "Santa Clause 3":
Jack Frost is jealous of Scott/Santa's success, and uses the "Escape Clause" to turn back time so that he becomes the next Santa instead of Scott.

(Disney works in Bulk: There's no plot that they can't get at least two videos and one feature out of in a single stretch.) :)

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:11:17 GMT

"I'm torn on this issue ... on one hand, I totally agree that these movies are sub-standard and dillute the Disney brand, along with their reputation for quality. But at the same time, I have to remind myself who the target audience for these films is [are]. It's not us ... grumpy adults who long for "the way things used to be" and who harrass and harrangue over every perceived staining of the Walt Disney legacy. It's little kids and, I gotta tell ya, mine loves these movies."

Walt Disney never made animated features for little kids. NEVER. You don't understand that, you don't understand Disney. If modern Disney wants to shill out low-budget crap to kids, they can do it without exploiting the work of far greater artists. If someone were to make a "Citizen Kane 2: Journey Back to Xanadu", pitched to children and made on the cheap, the entire film world would be outraged. What the heck is wrong with people when the same thing happens to Cinderella and Bambi? Bambi is a milestone in cinema, a seminal event in the history animation. Making a cheapquel to Bambi in which the characters sing and dance and the whole thing is pitched to toddlers is horrific in my eyes.

And when Walt wanted to make something for little kids, like the Mickey Mouse Club, he gave them the greatest kids show ever made. He didn't give them schlock and mediocrity. Are you saying kids deserve medicority? Your kids can eat all the mediocrity they want to. Shovel it right down their throat. My kids? They aren't coming near any of the cheapquels, and if they do, I'm going to tell them exactly why those "films" (using the term loosely) aren't worthy of their attention.

"In fact, in many cases she likes the sequel as much if not more than the original!
Now admittedly, she's only 4, so things like the voices and the lower quality animation escape her. But she loves getting the chance to see some of her favorite characters in new settings and situations."

Since the cheapquels are aimed at toddlers, this doesn't surprise me.

"She doesn't care about the other stuff."

Nor do you. Be honest.

"I'm not sure that's an excuse or a validation of these films, but when you combine the fact that they make a ton of money with the fact that kids love them, is it really so bad?"

Let's try this hypothetical on for size. You make a family movie. It has dark edges and actually frightens very young children. Critics herald it as a step forward in the art form, and caution parents not to show it to the very young. You yourslef make it known in express terms how you don't want to make a sequel to it. You even say this film is your favorite movie.

You die. Ownership of your movie passes to another group. They want to exploit your work like a corporation hungrily strip-mininign a mountainside. They sell your movie repeatedly, and all you other movies, then run out of titles to sell. Answer? Making sequels to your work! Except this time, to maximize sales, they strip all the dark edges. They make sure your movie is made for toddlers, and is as entertaining for very children as possible. Your advances in art? Your stated rule against sequels? Who cares? There's money to be made here.

While you spin in your grave, the new owners pander to the worst stereotypes about your movie, make a piece of crap aimed at kids, violating everything your body of work ever stood for, and because your work was so good, this garbage sells on video.

Is that so bad?

Are you kidding?

"And I hate to point this out, but I saw four or five people in this thread who bashed the films on one hand, but admitted to owning them all. If you don't like them, don't support them! You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth."

I wouldn't TOUCH them, much less own them. But I suppose by your logic, if you own them, then you have no choice but to defend them.

"What I'd be more interested in seeing is if Lassiter could work with the animators to get them to produce QUALITY sequels. I disagree that there is anything inherently wrong with sequels (some of my favorite movies are sequels ... Indy's Lost Crusade, Back to the Future 3, Return of the Jedi, etc.), but for every one of those films there's a Jaws 2 lurking out there. Disney just needs to make sure they create more of the former and less of the latter."

How about none of the former and none of the latter, and spend their efforts on NEW ideas, NEW characters, NEW stories, and making great animated features for the cinema again?

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:39:44 GMT

Well said, Aunt Eye Bias.

I'm not against the idea of sequels in themselves. But what makes this all so annoying is how with Disney, they're making sequels just for the sake of making sequels, in the process ignoring a philosophical code of quality that had been upkept for decades.

And such film proposals as Fraidy Cat have been rejected, because the executives couldn't figure out how they were going to make endless sequels and spin-offs from that. The people who are doing this should not even be working at Disney.

And judging from some of the comments, it's the general priority of "assessing the possibilities of sequels and follow-ups to an original film" that's pissing me off.

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:39:45 GMT

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

Jim Hill — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 03:24:53 GMT

If it's all about money... Sequels as they have been made so far are trading in the years, money and effort spent on quality animation to make a quick buck. Now, the older and more hardcore fans are free to ignore these sequels and spent money elsewhere. That's not the problem. The problem is a generation of parents and children regularly buying DVDs that promise greater quality than is delivered. It's a danger to the brand and future earnings, should the public end up associating every Disney release as a poorly made sequel. It's a matter of thinking in the long term, not just annual reports. I think it's also about not producing footage until the boards/script/whatnot are approved. After all, a big part of what brought on sequels was feature budgets. It's not that large investments shouldn't be made in order to secure larger rewards, but a tighter ship is going to reduce interference. There has to be planning and contigency allowances and, above all, no advance release dates. It doesn't make the movie any better. Instead of spending money reanimating or even rehauling a whole film (ENG, anyone?) in order to have something in theatres Memorial Day 2009 (more or less a reality when studios jockey for release dates), divide the money among several projects as they start as locked boards. The one that's furtherest along gets animated first, and so on.

Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

A special &quot;No nudes is good news&quot; edition of Why For

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

re: Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

A special "No nudes is good news" edition of Why For