Hmm, it's an interesting debate.

I mean, I'm not in favor of "whoring out" the classic Disney films all the time, but some the sequels are actually good, Return of Jafar comes to mind.

Rant alert - spoilers ahead

Poor Sharon - she was only following orders. Now where else have I heard that in the history books?

That's the kicker though - she's not even that good at following orders. After reaching out to Lasseter (to be politically correct and try to save her job), she didn't change the film as per his instructions. She continued production on the version that wasn't working - behind Lasseter's back. That should be enough to get her fired, not reassigned.

An interesting review of the problems can be found:

http://www.o-meon.com/pages/news&features/n&f_2007/n&f_02-27-07.htm

Starting with a product (princess or fairies junk) and reverse-engineering a movie from those products is what you get when your executives are "managing by spreadsheets."  It doesn't stimulate creativity or future success.

She's not even a fan of animation - she outsources to the cheapest bidder, and doesn't listen to people with actual animation experience.  Why is she even on the lot?

Oh that's right - she's made billions of dollars for the company. Isn't this the same company that routinely fires talented animators and imagineers that directly create the characters and rides that actually do make the company billions of dollars? I had no idea she was a one woman show. Set her up with a suite at the Red Roof Inn and let her make her masterpieces. They will be suitable for viewing in the conference room there.

Rant over

My avatar is courtesy of Google Images

Disney's getting their dignity back.

Well, at least she still has a job at the company. But I think "effectively closing" DisneyToon Studios, or at least the direct-to-dvd-division, is one of the few things Lasseter/Catmull get right. It seriously has damaged the image and prestige of Disney films, and well, considering "Meet the Robinsons" has flopped (in my mind), it shows. Oh, of course, the movie itself wasn't all that neither, but people who don't know the background information of it all, just don't know when they're watching a feature animation (damn Lass/Cat for changing the name) or cheap direct-to-dvd-film.

What I don't get is why they're not closing DisneyToon Studios? They're resuming with current projects, okay, but what after that? What will be their function in the company?

Call me idealist.... but maybe people will start taking their kids to theaters again.

I think for the most part Lasseter and Catmulls decisions as of late rock.

I couldn't be happier about this news. All of these stupid video sequels may in fact be what caused the premature demise of the traditional animation to begin with. Here's hoping that The Frog Princess" (or whatever they are going to call it) will bring it back.

I also don't think the animated features should be made into Saturday morning cartoons... but I feel more forgiving in this area than I do with the other.

I know I am minority here ... but my only gripe with Lasseter may be in the over promotion of Pixar at the theme parks. While I love Pixar ..... They still just don't feel 100% to me like "Walt Disney" ... I don't know why. Pixar is simply ... Pixar.  

I'm thinking that based on what I have been reading this week... maybe the Rat will change my opinion in this area.

Now if PIXAR would just bring back and make a sequel to PETES DRAGON .... That would be heaven. Imagine PIXARS first live action / animated masterpiece.... a new tale featuring Elliot.

Man ... if only I were working at the Mouse house ...

These direct to video sequels are what turned me off of Disney for quite a while. They were just poor re-hashes of usually good stories. This was not the Disney I grew up with and loved. Props to John and Ed and Bob for continuing to clean house. In a sense, this seems to be an "evolved" form of rebirth, similar to when Eisner and Wells came in (although this seems to be better than the former). Heres to hoping for better quality product, in both movies/animation and theme park attractions!

There were a few DTV's that I liked. The animation was getting increasingly better too, but honestly, overall I think this is a very good thing. Disney shouldn't resort to second best and thats what they were doing by rehashing stories with animation on a tight budget. Return to the glory days, make your movies an event that all have to witness. Great move on their behalf.

I do agree with Rluke, though. I don't really like how many Pixar attractions are going into the Disney parks. I read one interview that said "Ratatouille" is the first animated movie made with adults in mind first. And therein lies the problem for me: Disney movies are about appealing to the child at heart, it doesn't matter if you're 8 or 80. Of course thats cliche, but there is something Disney captures that Pixar isn't able to. I like Pixar and a number of their films, but I don't want them to oversaturate the theme parks.

If you wanna make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs. If you want to make the company great again then of course there's going to have to be layoffs and isn't this type of decision the type of thing that Iger paid 7 billion dollars for anyway? In my mind the DTV sequels have been the single most damaging element within Disney's demise over the past decade and I'm so happy that the division responsible has been clamped down.

I fully support any decisions Iger, Lasseter and Catmull make because so far they seem to be doing everything right.

I have mixed feelings on this. On a personal level, I certainy cheer the demise of the DTV films. I wouldn't argue one bit that they cheapened the Disney name and undercut some interest in the "real" animated features.

But on the other hand, my daughter really enjoys a lot of the DTV movies. In fact, she prefers some of the sequels to the originals. And I know all the animation purists here will rip my head off for saying this, but I'm going to say it anyway ... shouldn't these films be focused on the kids?

I guess I can't help but feel that there might have been some happy medium to this whole thing ...

a fabulous, fabulous thing!!!

not the removal of of Sharon.  Just the end of the cheapquils!

In the long run, this is a good thing.  

While I enjoyed some of the straight to video sequels, (Bambi 2 and Lion King 1 1/2 come to mind as the best of them) there were some of them that were both unnecessary and downright lame.  

However, does this mean we won't get something like the simply wonderful and funny Three Musketeers again?  That's what they should do.  Original and new content with the "fab five" characters that is for both kids and adults.  Not the cheapquel which, quality wise can run the gamut of really great to well, crap...

There actually were some decent sequels in there. Those seem to be found primarily at the beginning and end of the sequel frenzy. Aladdin's "sequel" didn't have II/2, and it was done to lead into the series, which I watched faithfully. They can have their uses and kids love spinoffs. I think a lot of grief could have been avoided if, instead of doing official sequels with a "2," they had just released new stories on tape. We can undestand a lower-budget little spinoff cartoon; those had been done before, if I recall correctly. However, that "2" just puts such a damer on things, as it forces us to recognize it as an official continuation of the canon and hold it to higher standards and inevitably by disappointed. I mean, how can you not say "Bambi II" and feel dirty? Of course, if it had been titled "Bambi and the Great Prince" it might feel different.

So, actually, I think the Disney Princess Enchanted Tales would have been a good way of going about doing this sort of thing: They're little extra stories released as such and not as sequels. They're short, easy to swallow, and better accepted than a full-blown movie that bills itself as an official continuation. The bad sequels take some half-baked idea and make bland full movies surrounding it. Perhaps Scamp's Adventure would have been more if it had just been a little half-hour bit about an energetic puppy. This way, I theorize, you wouldn't have to worry that much about plot, you could release as many as you wanted to cash in on the fans while not offending so many people.

Either way, it's the end of an age I won't miss.

(Was it Lasseter who decided that the fairies in that Tinkerbell movie would be completely different from the ones in the books and the Disney Fairies line? I find that a very bad choice that would throw the children into the Fairies line off and possibly alienate it from the franchise it's supposed to cash in on. Besides, I rather like the characters illustrated in the books)

Oh, mark this week down in Disney history!!!  Who can't be happy that these poorly written, poorly animated, and poorly scored direct to DVD suckquills are no longer going to confuse the non-Disenyfiles in WalMart.  I'm so glad to see that the brand "Disney" will no longer be associated with low quality.  It's so good to see that the Eisner era continues to be paved over.

I'm actually kinda happy.

Sure, some of the DTVs weren't all that bad, but you know what they say about bad apples ruining a bunch. (By that I mean there were far more rubbish ones than good) Here's to hoping we'll get more quality work in the future from this division.

I say "good riddance!"

The only sequel I thought was any good was Cinderella III - it at least had an interesting story. The rest were indeed "dreck to video".

As for the Fairies line, while I think it's a great idea, I can only feel the greatest sense of relief that the DVD titles - for now - are on hold. I saw a trailer for the Tinkerbell movie on a DVD I rented recently and it was *awful*. I don't know why it is, but 2D-animated "Disney dust" looks so much better than CGI-generated "Disney dust". And that was the least of that trailer's problems. Tinkerbell looked like a zombie. If the Fairies line is revived, I pray it's done in 2D - and 2D that's created IN THIS COUNTRY would be pretty damn nice too. I am sick of American cartoons being animated in a foreign country. I know all about the economics, but I no longer care. I bet people would be willing to shell out extra bucks for a DVD toon that's animated by Americans. Enough, enough! It's time for the outsourcing to stop!

I think the mistake is in ending them completely, rather than making each one justify thier existance.  Sure, a lot of them are awful and a lot of them are useless rehashes.  But some are excellent (King of Thieves, Lion King 1 1/2).  We all know Toy Story 2 began as a straight-to-video film.  If TS2 could turn out that well, who's to say how good Disney sequels could be if given the proper care and attention.

And that's always been the problem.  Not that the *idea* of a sequel is bad, it's that the sequels themselves were bad.  Give the projects to people who care and you'll get good stuff.  I, for one, am sorry that they're just shutting down, rather than building up.  A lot of these characters are fun and I like to see more from them, as long as it's worthwhile.

I will agree with birball in saying that it is the "2/II" thing that's the problem.  By putting a number on it, you immediately elevate it in your mind to the original (or drag the original down).  Spin-off films are fine if done well and if they stand on their own, not trying to be an equal of the original.

I'm sure this news makes a lot of Disneyphiles happy.  I just see it as potential being thrown away for the sake of an unatainable notion of purity.

I'm not going to be shedding many tears for Disney getting out of the cheapquel business. I don't have a problem with sequels per se, but sequels for the sake of putting more dreck on the video shelves purely for the benefit of undemanding 5-year-olds is something Disney shouldn't be involved in.

If the story's strong enough and the interest in making a good movie is there, WDAS should be prefectly capable of making a decent sequel - and it shouldn't necessarily cost $100 million plus to do.

I wouldn't get my hopes on outsourcing of animation going away, gigglesock - at Disney or anywhere else. Unfortunately, sending good jobs overseas is SOP for American business these days...

Good bye, and good riddance!

Now all that's left to do is destroy all records and copies of the sequels, and erase everybody's memories of their existence! :D

YAY! Great news for Disney!

Thanks!

Great article.

Perhaps a good "why for", that is somewhat related, is why didn't Disney finish the Dumbo follow-up CGI movie that was advertised in the Dumbo DVDs.

While I did enjoy a few of the DTV sequels (Brother Bear II, Return of Jafar) as a whole I would burn them all in effigy if I could. They cheapened the Disney legacy of consistent quality. I will not, and will never own one. This is welcome news. Here's to them all being locked in the Disney Vault forever along with Frozen Walt, the version of  Song of the South Walt only showed at parties and Jim Henson (who just wouldn't sell...)

My feeling all along is, YES home video is a huge market...sure, make content for home video....but make ORIGINAL CONTENT.  Is it really that hard?  My god we might have to pay people to come up with a new idea.  The thing I *liked* about the Tinkerbell-fairies idea is that, other than Tinkerbell, it would be all new characters.  THAT is what Disney Toon Studios should have been doing...creating original content for home video...create a new franchise instead of trying to milk one out of Cinderella.. They could even revisit older TV properties...a Gargoyles DVD feature or DuckTales.... which sounds like they are going to do, sort of, with the Playhouse Disney stuff...

WDWacky said:

"And I know all the animation purists here will rip my head off for saying this, but I'm going to say it anyway ... shouldn't these films be focused on the kids?"

The short answer to that question is no.

Here's why.  

Children, for the most part, are an undiscriminating audience.  They'll watch practically anything that's bright and cheerful.  (How else to explain children's television these days?)  They're an easy sell when it comes to animated movies; they may or may not end up liking the movie, but they'll watch practically anything once.  It seems to be exceptionally easy to churn out movies that children will at least want to see, thereby pocketing billions and billions of dollars and yet managing to produce almost nothing of any artistic merit.  From that standpoint, the argument could very easily be made that the job of a studio that makes children's movies ought, indeed, be to stay focused on the kids.

However, that's not what the words "A Walt Disney Production" stand for, at least not in a historical sense.  Disney himself ALWAYS said that his films were being made not for children, but for ALL ages.  For the most part, the company he created carried on that tradition after he passed away.  That's one of the things that give the best Disney movies a distinctive feeling: they are both ageless and timeless.  Thanks to that, titles like "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" and "Mary Poppins" (to name but two) can still earn tremendous amounts of money decades after their release.  Adults who loved those movies as children will buy them for themselves, or for their children, or for someone else's children.  How many people do we think are going to like "The Little Mermaid II" enough that they'll buy themselves a copy seventy years from now?

Does anybody honestly think that ANY of the DisneyToons movies will manage to stick around for the better part of a century, earning buckets of money for the studio all the while?  There are obviously a lot of dollars to be made with that business in the short run, but I doubt that any of the titles will have much value in the long run, and when you produce movies of limited quality just to milk dollars out of parents, you're neglecting to consider the long-term prospects.  So no, I don't think focusing on the kids is a good idea at all, and I definitely don't think it ought to be the business of Walt Disney Productions.

The real question to be answered is whether Lasseter is right that the DisneyToons productions cheapen the movies they are sequelizing.  In some cases, he's possibly wrong.  Some of Disney's animated features, while not exactly obscure, are probably in need of a boost to keep them relevant.  Things like "The Aristocats" and "The Fox and the Hound," for example.  In those cases, DTV sequels might actually help enhance the long-term prospects of the originals.  But "Cinderella"?  "Peter Pan"?  Are you kidding me?  Re-release, merchandising, and theme park promotion will handily get the job done of keeping those films popular with children for generations to come.  Why spend $30 million dollars or more on an inferior knock-off when you're already got the property, and have been profiting off of it for ages already?

The wise choice seems obvious.  Take the $30 mil for that project, combine it with the same amounts that you would have devoted to three or four similar projects, and put it all together.  Then, turn it over to your industry-leading story development department and trust in them to create a new property that people will still be enjoying in 2083.

Sure, it's a gamble, but it's a gamble that sticks very closely to the way Walt Disney did things.  And if it wasn't for the way Walt Disney did things, this is a discussion nobody would be having in the first place.

I don't doubt that there will be shareholders who are very upset over the DisneyToons decision.  However, it has proven to be very true that the closer the company stays to the ideals and visions of its founder, the more successful it is.  John Lasseter seems to understand that, and I hope he is able to keep up the good work.

Lasseter and Catmull seem to have the Disney legacy in their thoughts all of the time, and that's something that Disney hasn't been clear about since before Eisner.  This is a great idea, but more original productions wouldn't hurt.  Not more princesses and musicals, but carefully thought out films with substance.  

It would have been great to have Lasseter's notes to help projects like Treasure Planet, or Atlantis (the latter having fathered the least-wanted DVD sequel in Disney's history in my opinion).  

Bryant Burnette said:

"The short answer to that question is no.

Here's why.

Children, for the most part, are an undiscriminating audience."

I don't disagree with that, but I guess I sort of see the feature films as being the "Walt films" and the DTV stuff more as just fluff entertainment.

I honestly think there's a place for both if they're both done right.

Oh, if only this had happened five years earlier.

WDWacky said, in reference to the "traditional" features vs. the DisneyToons features:

"I honestly think there's a place for both if they're both done right."

I'll agree with that.  But as far as I can tell, the direct-to-video features were never really done right.  I only watched a few, granted . . . but they seemed to be of mediocre quality at best animation-wise, and poor quality at best story-wise.

In my opinion, producing features like that can only cheapen the Disney name.  And cheapening the Disney name can, over time, only cheapen shareholders' wallets.

But if the direct-to-video sequels were "done right," then sure, there'd be no reason on Earth for them not to continue.

I think it's poetic justice when one of these execs gets shown the door, or at least is relocated to somewhere that they'll do less harm. The Disney "cheapquels" have been pretty much universally reviled by longtime Disney fans and have certainly hurt the Studio's image in the long term. Good riddance to them and all who championed them during Eisner's "Reign of Error".

As for DisneyToon Studio, I say it's worth keeping around but with a drastically different mandate. In my opinion DisneyToon should concentrate on reviving short cartoons featuring Mickey and the gang. Better than that, however, would be to develop the types of one-off short subjects that Disney used to do so well, like "Lambert the Sheepish Lion", "Ben and Me" and "Windwagon Smith", etc. There is lots of potential in creating new short subjects that would not warrant a feature-length film. Put them out theatrically with a feature film initially, then put three or four together on a DVD, or combine one along with a selection of pre-existing cartoons with a similar theme (as they did several years ago with the "John Henry" short.) As it is, Disney still has not put "Lorenzo" out on DVD, so there's already one in the can just waiting for a release!

In short, I applaud this decision by John Lasseter. Real Disney Animation fans everywhere should be rejoicing this move towards getting the Studio back on track!

"I bet people would be willing to shell out extra bucks for a DVD toon that's animated by Americans. "

I bet not.  Audiences have no idea where something is animated, and they don't care as long as the content is good.  Outsourcing animation is nothing new, it's been going on for decades.

"Does anybody honestly think that ANY of the DisneyToons movies will manage to stick around for the better part of a century, earning buckets of money for the studio all the while?"

I think the Aladdin sequels, the Lion King sequels, even the Beauty and the Beast films will be regularly trotted out because they are good enough (or notable enough) to deserve it.  I think 'Kronk's New Groove' will remain a staple on The Disney Channel because it is a fun production in its own right.  

So, yes, I think some of them will.  The good will survive and the crap will be forgotten.  Just like the original features.

I'm glad to see it go.  While there were occasional moments when a spark of creativity displayed itself in some of the DisneyToons work, those direct-to-dvd releases were mostly the work of calculating executives who were short sighted enough to grab for the faster/easier dollars at the expense of a sustainable future.  The demise of the division and its management was inevitable.  The only question that knowledgeable people had was, "Why did it take so long for this to happen"?   It was the strength of the Disney name that kept everything afloat.  It's like that horrible canned soup with Wolfgang Puck's name on it.  It tastes nothing like what he himself would cook, but nobody will admit it until they've consumed several Costco-sized cases of it.  Was it wrong to force Sharon out?  Ummmmm, no.  She was not merely "following orders".  She was, in fact, giving more orders than she followed.  And she created the culture of mediocrity that existed in the division by "forcing out" anyone who challenged that culture.

Personalities and agendas aside, I think the Golden Years of Disney were like the first 2 Spider-Man films.  They made you wonder with excitement and awe.

Then they made part 3 and, well, the rest is high-grossing low quality history.

I'd say Disney Toon did better than Spider-Man 3.  But hey, I know people that love Imus, too.

About time. Can't tell you how glad I am to see this happen.

<em>“I won't even begin to get into the fairy fart jokes or the strong lesbian tones of the original story.”</em>

Getting rid of Morill is just one more stake driven into Count Eisner's blood sucking legacy. The Pixar deal is beginning to look like a huge bargain.

I am glad they are dumping direct-to-video- sequels.

Jim, I know some of the readers might rip you if you even get near this subject again, but I'm quite interested in what Wall Street's reaction to this is. As entertainment and animation fans, this is certainly a step in the right direction for quality. But for investors, how would they react to the news that Disney is suddenly cutting themselves out of a HIGHLY profitable business? To them, I think it would only be justified if the dilution of Disney animation is reversed, and the box office returns of feature-length films make up for the loss of DTV products.

I think they were about done with this "era" anyway.... there wasn't much left to milk. It just looked more and more like "milking" the more of these things came out.

Although .... you have to say one thing ... at least the content of these features were more wholesome than the stuff being put out by other studios and the cable networks. This is be the only draw back. So the issue isn't the amount of content... they better keep producing something.

I think the shorts are a great idea ... I think creating original and new TV content is a good idea. I think trying to revive the classic Mickey toon's is a great idea. I do think the Tinkerbell movie is a good idea. ... Just like the Goofy Movie, Duck Tails the movie etc.... These were good "kids" movies.

And I believe that some Disney movie classics deserve to be revisited from time to time on the big screen. For instance .... the Rescuers Down Under.... a great adventure movie and better than the first one in my opinion. Return to Neverland... not so good... but at least a full blown movie and not a video sequel.

And there is room for more..... like PETS DRAGON for instance. This movie is one of my favorite movies of all time ... I was 8 when I saw it...  and it needs a modern day sequel .. or prequel.  It also needs a broadway production. Thats just my opinion.

It looks like Jim got this one mostly correct. He just missed the part about DisneyToon Studios getting rolled into Disney's Animation Studios:

http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSWEN893820070622

This is a step in the right direction. Go, Lasseter!

I see that the first reply in the comments cites "Return of Jafar" as one of the examples of a good DTV sequel.  Well, it's interesting that this was the title they chose.  When I was little, I got really excited when I read in Disney Adventures that there was going to be an Aladdin sequel.  I remember wondering how they would bring Jafar back, or even the Genie.  Then the movie came out and I watched it.

The animation was horrendous.  The story and songs had nothing on the original.  Even the Genie's presence made no sense.  He had those golden cuffs around his wrists that had disappeared at the end of the first movie, and Robin Williams wasn't doing the voice.  I was too young to admit to myself what an unbelievable disappointment this movie was, but I will never forget the feeling of precious childhood memories being shattered before my eyes.  I am glad that we are finally seeing what I can only pray is the definitive end of this "cheapquel" era where bits of our childhood magic are whored out for cash.

Cheers,

Diego

In terms of outsourcing, it's a matter of budgets. Filmation's He-Man series, primarily animated in the US, was one of the more expensive shows on the air at the time- full of rotoscopes, long pans and stock animation.

Disney opened an Indian tv house not long after closing one in Japan.

Nickelodeon's Avatar show is outsourced but timining is left to the tv animation house and it looks amazing- almost theatrical quality.

It's about time this took place.  It is unfortunate for Morrill, but this kinda stuff happens all the time.  But the sequels had to go!  I cringe everytime I see one of those previews - the poorly drawn backgrounds, over-saturated colors and slap-dash representation of classic characters.  The sequels were painful and damaging to the Disney brand, legacy and original source material.  Good riddance!

The changes will be short-lived and sequels will return.  Why?  Because dropping them will hurt the bottom line.  Disney is a corporation with shareholders that demand a return.  The sequels brought in a lot of money and Disney will not be able to ignore that.  The sequels capitalized on established characters that people had already been introduced to and had a connection to.  That is difficult to do with new characters and do inexpensively.

That does not excuse creating poor quality sequels.  As evidenced by examples provided here, there have been sequels that many liked due to good story and good animation.  It can be done, so why not do it?  The kids like them.  They like seeing the characters they love return with new stories.

Dropping the Direct to Video sequels entirely is an error that will not be allowed to continue for too long, returning under new (and hopefully better) direction.