If the scripts are good.  No problem for me.

As long as they make a compelling story and put the right people in to produc, direct, write and act there is no problem with making a franchise.

I simply don't want anymore "cheapquels" as Lasseter would say.  But if a story works and lends itself to a sequel... go right ahead.

Well franchises are nothing new.  Studios are *always* looking for a potiential new franchise; not really sure why we should be surprised.  Up until recently Disney didn't have anything franchise worthy.  Way back in the early 90s they had high hopes that The Rocketeer would be their Indiana Jones and well...it didn't.

If sequels are done right you can have a successful franchise.....so the word to Disney...make good movies..

I love sequels.  Or at least, the idea of sequels.  The desire to find out what happens next in a beloved story is profound.  It kept Scheherazade alive.  Heck, it's even kept some studios alive (for Warner Bros. 7 of their top 10 have been franchise pics, 14 of their top 20).  So is it f'ed up for Disney to get aggressive with franchising?  The Pollyanna in me would dodge the question and say that it's encouraging that Disney has properties worth franchising.  My hope is that Disney will balance these safe bets with more adventurous, challenging projects (like Bridge to Terabithia).

*shrug*

I thought they didn't want sequels anymore, or less at least! So what do you get? 6 Pirates movies, 6 Narnia pix....

I want fresh, cool, creative ideas!

Like imagineerwarrior, I don't mind if the scripts are strong. But also if some of this energy is used into finding the NEXT big thing (which can then be franchised!).

I'd hate for the next few years to be one of strong sequels and nothing else. New stories need to be explored to, or where else will the future franchises come from?

Mentioning the "Country Bears" sequel that never was makes me want a JHM article (or series!) on some movies that never were...

I love "High School Musical".  I had been really looking forward to the movie before it debuted, and I love it just as much now.  I'm sure I'll like the sequel, but I'm just not looking forward to it as much as I did the first.  And, in my mind, I see a gym decorated with Halloween decorations for the third film...why must it be Halloween-themed and theatrical?  That makes no sense to me.  I have mixed feelings about the Zac Efron quote.  I'm not surprised: he's what, 19 years old, and millions of tweens adore him.  He wants to be a serious actor, and yet he signed on for HSM not knowing what he got himself in for.  I'm sure he's getting paid nicely, but I guess he cares more about his credibility than the money, which shows a lot about his character.  I say that Gabriella can do better than Troy.  

I'm totally overanalyziing HSM.  That's the tween in me coming out, I tell ya! (But I'm really almost 22.)

As for "Pirates", I say cool down after the third one, and release a nifty box set with more extras than we've ever seen before.  Work on "Narnia", and, if they're going to, "National Treasure".  Then, after we've waited a while, maybe then give us more "Pirates".  Absence does make the heart grow fonder.

I agree with everyone else- it's the stories that matter the most.  Captain Jack Sparrow is such a great character- so, what I'm also saying is that we need great characters, too.  

I'm excited for "Enchanted", but, really, they're working on a sequel over 8 months before the movie even comes out?  I'm hoping it does really well- I can't wait to see it.  If the sequel is necessary in furtheriing along the story (will the first not end with a 'Happily Ever After'?), then I say bring it on, as long as it has more traditional animation.

I'm mixed on sequels and franchises.  15 years ago, it seemed like teh most-sure fire way to feel the rest of the Disney machine.   Had a Dick Tracy or a Rocketeer, ahem, taken off then it seemed like more films would be made, attractions would be built, and the franchise would be evergreen.

But I don't know if "evergreen" exists that way.  Look at the Universal Studios parks...they have grabbed hold of some pretty successful franchises that have had multiple sequels, the Back to the Future, Men in Black, the Terminators.  But how evergreen are these attractions?   Honestly, I walk around Uni and see some of these and I'm like, wow, that takes me back.

Once these films fall off the radar, once they are not being refreshed with sequels or being featured as the hot film on USA or ABC, they cool pretty quickly.  Its a nasty backlash.

I'm... dubious. I'm worried that Disney is doing the whole watered down DTV sequels thing again only now with live action movies. Which is understandable because Disney is having quite a few live action successes lately, but I don't think they should b counting their chickens before they hatch.

I think they should focus on developing a lot more live actio films before they start exhausting the few they own. The Narnia ones I have no problem with because there are seven books in the series any way and I'm presuming Disney plans on adapting all of them. But a second Pirates trilogy? I'm sure it would be a huge success but would it actually be any good? Remember how the Star Wars prequels ruined the franchise for millions?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely against creating sequels. I just believe that a sequel should be made for the story, not a story made for a sequel.

IMO, "franchise" is just another corporate buzzword for, "We really don't know what the hell we're doing, so we'll just keep grinding out the same tripe as long as people will keep choking it down."

This, to me, is exactly like what Disney tried with Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and Lilo and Stitch ... they tried to do so much with these "franchises" that people backlashed and got sick of them.

Sequels are okay if they're sequels made to long-lasting, compelling films in which people care deeply about the characters and the storylines. Things like High School Musical are a fad ... a quickly fading trend ... by the time you can get a sequel out the kids who were into it have grown up and don't care about it anymore and the next generation of kids has moved on to something else.

Hollywood today, Disney included, is populated with way too many corporate types who are far too concerned about "franchises" and "branding" and all that corporate mumbo jumbo that amounts to nothing more than, "How can we spend the list amount of money while still milking the most amount of profits out of our products?"

Originality is dead. Everything that comes along today is a carbon copy of something someone has already done ... we're bombarded with remakes of old movies or T.V. shows, sequels to films that weren't that great in the first place, and copycats of stuff that has been successful for other studios. How many reality shows are we gonna get on T.V.? Or crime dramas? Or doctor shows?

Hollywood is stagnating because it's been taken over by suits. THAT'S why they're losing money ... not because of DVD's or piracy or whatever else they're blaming. It's because they've driven prices through the roof all the while driving quality of entertainment through the floor.

Blech ...

Sometimes, things just need to be let alone.

Yes, if a script is strong, I see no problem in a sequel... Toy Story 2 is currently coming to mind.  However, I feel the constant promotion of brands undermines the beauty of the original: for example, the Pirates and Princesses are EVERYWHERE in anything Disney-related, to the point where I'm nausiated at the words themselves.  The Disney Princess line has moved those dressed-up heroines so far from their original personalities and charm that they are unrecognizable [did anyone else read that New York Times study that girls age 2-6 did not understand the Cinderella movie because they were confused that Cinderella was not in her famous, blue dress through its entirety?]

Me, I'd rather see the millions of dollars being used to spread existing characters so thin being put towards a new set of characters.  From a business point of view, it also makes sense - in stead of 1-2 rides you can create from characters from a single movie franschise, you can now create 3-5 rides from the money you are saving on sequels.

I think that ultimately, I am reminded of Henry James' novel "The Turn of the Screw", which ended on a cliffhanger.  While I have heard many that just want to hear the ending - see what happens to the characters - James himself has said that had he written any more or less, the vision he created would be destroyed.

I guess it comes down to....

Disney Fairies = GOOD.  The books enrich and expand the characters.

Disney Princesses = BAD.  The characters become bland and move away from their original selves.  They no longer have a purpose [since was Belle happy with being subserviant?]

.... but that's just me.

Well, the "Narnia" films are really part of a series, not sequels. And the main prob with the series IMO is that after "Prince Caspian", two of the four kids drop out of the stories. Then after "Dawn Treader", the other two drop out and two new kids take over. I'm not sure how moviegoers will react to that.

IMO, there is one potential franchise that Disney is totally missing...Kingdom Hearts. The games are frickin' great, and I can totally see a huge movie franchise arising from them. Why Disney isn't (apparently) considering this is a mystery to me. Jim, have you heard anything about Disney expanding on Kingdom Hearts?

WDWacky shoots ....he scores !

Suits reading spreadsheets love franchises, since they can justify budgets. If a suit goes out on a limb and supports a new idea, and it doesn't hit the numbers projected by an analyst/psychic, the suits can be in trouble. Suits rarely get in trouble for approving Titanic II. "Well it should have been a slam dunk - must be marketing's fault."

The other dynamic that has changed is expected profits from sequels. Once upon a time, sequels were successful if they hit 60-75% of the original's box office. With videos and dvd's coming out 3-4 months after theatrical release (used to be around a year or more), people can get the dvd, meet the characters, and by the time the sequel rolls around the audience is even bigger than it was for the original. The Austin Powers series woke the current round of suits up to this new phenomenon.

Marketing guys love it too, since they don't have to work as hard. Which is easier ? Explaining how Ratatouille will be an entertaining fun movie about cuddly rats that the whole family will enjoy, or just saying "Johnny Depp's back as a pirate."

Ironically, the company used to be able to successfully market any film, just by slapping "Walt Disney Presents" in front of the title. Thanks to the spreadsheet loving, creativity-impaired, cheapquel-promoting suits, those days are long gone.

Brands are for cattle.

Disney's corporate boardrooms are filled with those with the herd mentality.

Bottoms up, gentlemen...

Chronicles of Narnia is a franchise and should be as the series of books lends itself to several sequels.  National Treasure may lend itself to sequels, but lets see how number 2 goes first.  The first movie was a suprising hit.  Can they do it again?  Snow Buddies?  Give me a break.  I guess if it makes money for the studio to make other GOOD movies then whatever.  My family has no interest in it at all.  

As far as Pirates goes I don't know if another triology would go over too well.  It may be an overkill.  If they can make the story great and bring some fresh new ideas and some new main characters in then it may work.

I agree with most of the posters in that it's all about the story. If there is a compelling story to tell, then who cares. No one was complaining about a 3rd movie for Lord of the Rings because it was a compelling story.

I think that beyond 3 or 4 movies, it starts to get old (with the exception of successful book series, Narina, Harry Potter, etc).

But since we are talking about sequels, WHERE THE HECK IS TRON 2.0!!!!!!!!!!

aeva said:

" ... I feel the constant promotion of brands undermines the beauty of the original: for example, the Pirates and Princesses are EVERYWHERE in anything Disney-related, to the point where I'm nausiated at the words themselves. "

Exactly ... I could have used this example in my post just as easily as I did Millionaire and Stitch. Why do they have to run every successful franchise into the ground?? Haven't they ever heard of "less is more"?

It's gotta so bad, I've taken to referring to Disney theme parks as "The Three P's" ... It's either Pirates, Princesses, or Pixar.

And while we're at it, whatever happened to, "You can't top pigs with pigs!"???

Pirates - Personally I believe Jack Sparrow is such an amazing caracter that I think he can take on another trilogy. Will & Elizabeth might not be able to, but Jack Sparrow, he's a heck of a great character, and if sayings are true, Johny Depp is content with playing him on further in the series, which is awesome!

National Treasure - If they can keep Nicolas Cage and almost all the original cast for the second one, and then introduce heck of new characters and good plot. Then I think yes, it could probably withstand a 3 or a 4 for a series of films.

Narnia - This is a series, not a franchise. I hope they keep getting made by Andrew Adamson, because he's made the first film, which started it all. It was good.

Enchanted - It's a little bit of a stretch to say their already looking in to making a sequel to this, I mean, they haven't even seen how the first is going to do in theatres! I doubt they will, but if they do. Hopefully it will be a good story, because if its looking crappy, I'm confident that John Lasseter will step in and say a sequel would injure Disney's Feature Animation, which in fact would be very true. So truth be told, if Lasseter is fine with it, and its a good sequel film worth making. Then so be it.

Let's remember that Disney keeps making this film for mostly money. But truth be told, these characters and settings and stories are just so amazing that they can continue being made. I mean, you can't make a good sequel out of "The Pacifier" or movies like that. I mean, these are big epic movies, which deserve to keep being made, made well ofcourse. So if most of the people are on. Let's hope they keep making pirates & finding treasures, and i'm mostly looking forward for the last book of Narnia! the movie will be awesome!

I have an idea for Pirates 4: Instead of a movie, how about replacing all of the

older AA figures in the attraction with new ones. I don't mean new characters. I mean new machinery under the same masks and costumes that we all know and love. The reasoning is that now that there are new figures in there, the older and slower ones really stand out in my mind. Disney could promote it as "Pirates 4, The Ride" and they won't get all that "Walt wouldn't have done that" comments.

Pirates - I know it might be heresy to some, but I'd love to see a new pirates trilogy withought Jack Sparrow. Although he is a great character, I think he'll have run his course by the third movie. At World's End seems to set up the world of pirates, and I can imagine a new trilogy with a new ship and a new crew. The magical world has aready been established, and I think that series of trilogies that are each creatively different within that world could be really successful. It would also keep them from running great characters into the ground and would keep the material fresh.

Narnia - This was always designed to be a franchise and the books should all get made.

National Treasure - As long as the stories are fresh I don't blame them for franchising. Teh first one definitely lent itself to sequels

Hmmm, if they put good, original and exciting stories into the franchises, then I'm all for it!! But don't just produce sequels 'cause it produces more money. You should have something to say or something to build further with the sequel.

"Pirates - I know it might be heresy to some, but I'd love to see a new pirates trilogy withought Jack Sparrow. Although he is a great character, I think he'll have run his course by the third movie. At World's End seems to set up the world of pirates, and I can imagine a new trilogy with a new ship and a new crew. The magical world has aready been established, and I think that series of trilogies that are each creatively different within that world could be really successful. It would also keep them from running great characters into the ground and would keep the material fresh."

I think that will totally kill the whole franchise. Pirates without Jack Sparrow?! Jack Sparrow = Pirates = Jack Parrow = Pirates = .. etc!!

And while we're at it, whatever happened to, "You can't top pigs with pigs!"???

And yet he made a sequel short to the 3 Little Pigs ;)  I think what he meant was that you can't keep doing the same thing over and over and expect people to buy it.  People seem to use that quote as a tear against sequels.  

Great characters...different stories...make great sequels.    The problem with many a sequel is that they are rehashes of the original...with more of what audiences liked in the first...more explosions...more comedy....less character development...less actually story.

The James Bond franchise has been around forever...there are hits and misses to be sure....if Disney can do another 3 Pirates movies that are interesting and fun.. then why not?  they'd be crazy not to....

Wow, Disney, home of the "Son of Flubber," "Herbie" and "The Computer Wore Shoes" is considering making sequels?  Who'd a thunk?

If they're not putting the cart before the horse  and come up with decent stories to tell using the characters, why not?  I guess it's this sudden bizzarre notion of trilogy-itis that puts me off.  Since when is every story fodder for 3 movies?  Get this movie done and worry about the next one later.

JoeHaro07 said: "because if its looking crappy, I'm confident that John Lasseter will step in and say a sequel would injure Disney's Feature Animation, which in fact would be very true."

An important point here:  Feature Animation is NOT affliated with "Enchanted" and therefore, may or may not be involved with any possible sequels. As it currently stands, Lasseter doesn't have anymore say in Enchanted's future than he'd have a say in (yet another) Pirate sequel.

I agree with most of the ideas tossed around on here... namely - don't count your chickens before they're hatched. I have no problem with sequels that were made because someone had an idea and a story to tell... not that some exec wanted an easy cash cow. I know that in the end it's all about dollars and cents to the studios but there must be better, more profitable ways, of making a good film without just slapping a 'II' at the end of a movie title.

I'd be curious to know how many sequels have been made and then see the numbers on how many failed, broke even, or were a success. My guess is the latter would be far outnumbered by the previous two catagories.

(sigh) I do miss the days of original ideas and movies and RIDES!

But I raise my glass to Tron 2.0!!!!

I think the trilogy strategy harkens back to the old studio system where resources (talent, sets, costumes, props, etc.) were spread out over multiple projects. It's just that we're in what I'll call the Google Era of movies. Studios are nervous that ticket buyers won't go unless it's something familiar, so we get things like Aeon Flux and the romantic comedy about the *real* Mrs. Robinson. Of course, the former bombed, dunno about the latter... but it comes down to this: Studios are nervous about financing something that the public is unfamiliar with, particularly the higher the budget is. The trick is to make things with this familiar hook and totally mess with it- like Depp did in POTC. I'm not so concerned about whether or not an exec decides there should be more installments but who they get to actually make the thing. I love how POTC was made into a movie and I appreciate that at least its first sequel wasn't more of the same- outside of continuing the adventures of its characters. I like seeing characters grow outside of one story, as long as it's not a rehash and it's done well.

Sequels = bad

Franchise = James Bond, Star Trek, Marx Brothers

Others are right: give me a good movie, and I'll enjoy it.  Give me a stinker, and I'll complain about "those darn sequels"!

I currently have a love/hate relationship with sequals of any sort.  I love to see new stories about favorite characters or worlds, but I hate to just sit around and wait for the next part, not knowing if it's going to be good or bad.  And sometimes, sequals are announced but it takes years to make or sometimes they are even cancelled, so that's disappointing too.  I guess you could say that I like sequals overall, as long as they are excellent and faithful to the original story, and that there isn't too long of a wait in between, to see the true ending of the story.

From the sounds of this article, it does seem that Disney is getting extremely sequal happy right now.  I find it a bit silly that they are planning multiple sequals without seeing first if a sequal does any good at theaters.  Now, if these sequals continue the story without just being fluff added on to the end of the first story, then that can be pretty understandable.

I am no fan of the Disney Princess garbage they keep spewing out.  Though, I do enjoy on occasion some of the better sequals based off the Princesses, and of course the original movies, on a whole though, the Disney Princesses have gotten out of hand.  The merchandise is sometimes downright bizarre.

As for Narnia, I'm looking forward to seeing all the books made into movies.  I have been a longtime fan of the books, and every so often go back and reread them.

I agree completely with gigglesock about the Kingdom Hearts deal.  I am a huge fan of the Kingdom Hearts games (some could even say I'm a bit obsessed ;) ) and I enjoy reading the mangas based off them, even if they're not completely accurate to the games.  I would love to see a movie or something big based off Kingdom Hearts, as long as it was excellent and both Disney and Square Enix worked on it together.  It'd be a true disappointment to have a bad Kingdom Hearts film.

"HalFlanagan: An important point here:  Feature Animation is NOT affliated with "Enchanted" and therefore, may or may not be involved with any possible sequels. As it currently stands, Lasseter doesn't have anymore say in Enchanted's future than he'd have a say in (yet another) Pirate sequel."

Hmm, that is a fact. I have to admit. But if Disney were to create a sequel for "Enchanted" in which NO ANIMATION was used, then it couldn't be connected of some sort. The truth is, that you have to admit, while the scenes for "Enchanted" might be made at James Baxter Animation, the simple truth is, that many will not credit James Baxter Animation, the simple people which watch Disney Princess movies will credit Disney's Feature Animation. which indeed could lead to some sort of a waning of the Disney feature animation.

Anything with Disney in it, with animation would go back to Feature animation, it might hvae not been there, but many will assume it was made there, and therefore, they won't care to look up how enchanted was made, but assume that disney does crappy animated movies and such. so even though it might have not been made there, many will still assume that it was made from the same animation studio.

Yes, I agree that many people -- even those one would expect to know better -- will erroneously assume that Feature Animation is responsible for the animation in the film.

My point is that the film is not in FA's control and, therefore, the choice of whether to make a sequel or not is out of their hands.

How absolutely ridiculous the situation at Disney has become. Disney Feature Animation NOT doing the animated scenes for "Enchanted?! I mean no disrespect to James Baxter, who is a phenomenal artist, but why would the Disney Studio go outside to have something done that they used to be the leaders in producing themselves? If the climate at Disney under Eisner had not become so poisonous towards artists and driving them away, I would think that James Baxter would still be there today helping to create the wondrous animation the Studio is renowned for.

As for Disney execs already planning on a sequel to "Enchanted", that just makes me cringe. Whether or not the film is a success at the box-office, (and I suspect it will be, just because there has always been an audience for great traditional Disney animation,) I find it arrogant of Studio execs to assume that there is still more story to be told once the first film concludes. If there isn't any justifiable reason for the story to continue, then undoubtedly we will see another of the infamous and unneccessary rehashes that we've come to associate with the Eisner era. Honestly, I had such high hopes for Disney getting back on the right track with Bob Iger at the helm. With recent developments, I'm not so sure we've left the Eisner era behind after all...

Hey wberkhout,

You talkes about 6 Naria films?  There are 7 books so it's not like they'll have to make up stories to create sequels.  Let's just hope they write good scripts and film quality movies and we'll all go see them and not really care that they are sequels.

If the story is compelling, the characters interesting and the acting believable I don't care if they make 24 of something...

I'm not so sure they're doing all 7 Narnia books. I mean, they've already skipped 2 books in the chronology.

Technically, they haven't skipped ANY books in the Narnia series.  They appear to be pursuing the films from a published standpoint, not the chronological order of  the stories.  LTWW was followed by Prince Caspian, then by The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.  If they stick to the published order, that means Horse and His Boy and The Magician's Nephew would be next.

If the next two make the nearly $800 million worldwide that the first one did, you can bet they'll get all of them made.

And out of all the things mentioned here, these are the only ones that are worthwhile.  Not a single one of these stories is a stinker, and they aren't sequels, they're actual chapters one big story--much like LOTR.  I mean, can someone really call The Two Towers or The Return of the King "sequels" to The Fellowship of the Ring?

Same idea here...and if they do it right (much like they did with the first film), they are guaranteed to make money.  But to make sequels just for the sake of sequels...that is when you get crap.  Give the people crap that is familiar and they'll buy it (how else can you explain the sucess of restaurants like Applebee's or tv shows like Two & a Half Men?)...but you lose a lot of integrity in the process.

Films that come from books make sense to continue. Narnia is Disney's Harry Potter. But Disney is historically bad at sequels. Why must they beat everything to death? High School Musical? Who watches that thing? Franchise away I know my money is safe from that one.

Some stories finish and need to stay finished. Otherwise it is more like vomit than a second course!

Pirates - I thought that one of the leading plot points of the current "Pirates of the Caribbean" trilogy, namely in the sequel, was that the reign of pirating on the seas was coming to an end, that the world was becoming a more civilized place without room for people like Jack Sparrow and Barbossa. So now they want to make a sequel trilogy? Where are the pirates going to have room to go? Is there going to be some sort of pirate rebellion where we end up with an alternate universe where the world is overrun with pirates instead of domineering world powers? Really I think it would be smarter to leap back in time before the first trilogy, make new compelling characters, and then set it on the eastern hemisphere. It's actually historically accurate that there were more pirates in eastern waters around Asia, Australia, and India than in the Caribbean and the Mediterranian. At least THAT's something different.

Enchanted - I just laughed when I heard about that one. I mean, that's the kind of stuff we Disney fans joke about...sequels being planned almost a year before the actual movie is released and evaluated.

National Treasure - There's a difference between unexpected box office success and a cultural explosion...in fact, line up National Treasure next to Pirates and you'll see what I mean....Although I'm personally hoping that Nicholas Cage will tell us that there's some hidden code in Washington's wooden teeth. XD

Narnia - Whatever, they bought the rights to a book series. In my mind that's not exactly the same thing as predicting for National Treasures or six Pirate movies. Hopefully they'll adapt the movies in a way that's tasteful and true to the essence of the original books.

I don't know why, but it just keeps amazing me, this poor planning. Everyone knows that Disney is currently treading on thin ice what with it's new regime change (although, to be fair, Disney's always been on thin ice with something or someone). I know it's typical for the company to make bold risks that challenge the public view, because that's what made the Company great in the first place. However, the risks they're taking at this point aren't challenging anything, they're submitting to a mindset that has run exponentially more rampant since the 60's and the very early start of the sequel craze. The ideas I've read about in this article horrified me, and yet I still found myself able to laugh...only because most of it sounded too ridiculous to be true.

free myspace graphics layouts codes