Welcome to Jim Hill Media - Entertainment News : Theme Parks Movies Television
Home » Editor In Chief » Jim Hill » Buena Vista Home Entertainment starts to get out of the unnecessary sequel business

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

Featured ContentEditor In Chief
Blog Posts Last Post
Jim Hill 2127 Yesterday
Press Releases Press releases received in our In Box 742 16 May 2013
Orlando Fun Tickets
Disney Tickets From the Largest Store in Orlando
JHM's Exclusive Ticket Provider
Pixie Vacations
Tailored Disney Vacations and Disney Cruises at the lowest prices.
Las Vegas Deals
from Entertainment Benefits Group
JHM's Exclusive ticket provider
Magic Strollers
Strollers with parent cup holder & rain cover
Delivered right to your resort

Jim Hill

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

Rate This
3 Oct 2006 9:00 PM
  • Comments 39

I got this e-mail from Jessica L. yesterday:

Jim,

I'm confused. I picked up a copy of the Platinum Edition of "The Little Mermaid" at the store today.


Copyright 2006 Disney Enterprises

But when I put this disc in my DVD player, I not only saw an ad for "The Little Mermaid III" ...


Copyright 2008 Disney Enterprises

(Where -- for some reason -- Ariel becomes a mermaid again. And she & Flounder sneak into ...


Copyright 2008 Disney Enterprises

... this undersea nightclub. Where they then watch Sebastian sing that old Harry Belafonte song,"Jump in the Line")


Copyright 2006 Disney Enterprises

as well as an ad for "Cinderella III: A Twist in Time" ...


Copyright 2006 Disney Enterprises

(Which showed Lady Tremaine getting her hands on the Fairy Godmother's wand.


Copyright 2007 Disney Enterprises

And -- after she turns Cinderella's savior to stone -- the evil stepmother then undoes the original film's happy ending. Turning Cinderella back into a scullery maid, making Prince Charming fall out of love with her)


Copyright 2007 Disney Enterprises

Plus there was this ad for "Enchanted Tales," which is supposedly the first disc in a brand-new series of Disney Princess DVDs. According to the preview, this DVD will feature all-new stories starring the characters from "Sleeping Beauty"  and "Beauty & the Beast."


Copyright 2006 Disney Enterprises

I thought that  now that John Lasseter is in charge of Disney Feature Animation that the Walt Disney Company was going to stop making movies like this? Unnecessary sequels that the studio only produced out in order to make more money? 

To be fair, Jessica ... Both ""Cinderella III: A Twist in Time"  & "The Little Mermaid III" are projects that actually predate Lasseter's taking up the reins at Disney. And given that these video premieres were deliberately created in order to support the $3-billion-a-year "Disney Princess" franchise ... Well, in spite of what John once said to "Fortune" magazine about how horrible it felt to have Disney producing "Toy Story III" without any input from Pixar ...

"These were the people who put out 'Cinderella II.' (At Pixar), we believe that the only reason to do a sequel is if you have a great story, period. It's not 'Let's just keep cranking it out.' "

... There was just no way in hell that John was going to be allowed to shut these two particular projects down.

But as for "home premieres" that aren't tied to any Disney franchises ... After "Fox and the Hound 2" debuts in December ... 


Copyright 2006 Disney Enterprises

...  the Mouse House is supposedly getting out of the sequel business for a while.

Which isn't making the folks over at Buena Vista Home Entertainment very happy. They (of all people at Disney) know how truly popular these pictures are with the public. Take -- for example -- "Brother Bear 2." Which was one of the best-selling DVDs in the country for the month of September.


Copyright 2006 Disney Enterprises

Millions of units of that DVD-only film were sold last month, making the Mouse a ton of money.

But because John Lasseter thinks that it's essential that Disney get out of the unnecessary sequel business (So that the public will then begin associating the Disney name with quality storytelling once more), production of "can't miss" projects like a sequel to the studio's 1970 release, "The Aristocats" ...


Copyright 2000 Disney Enterprises

... had to be shut down.

It was the loss of this project that was a particular heartbreaker at Disney Toon Studios. Given how popular Marie (I.E. Duchess' daughter in the original "Aristocats" film) is with guests at the Tokyo Disneyland and Hong Kong Disneyland resorts ...


Photo courtesy of Google Images

... it was felt that a DVD that was built around this particular kitty was sure to do well.

And indeed, even though Buena Vista Home Entertainment is no longer moving forward with production of "Aristocats 2" ... Well, that hasn''t stopped other arms of the Walt Disney Company from trying to cash in on this cute kitten. Take -- for example -- the "Disney's Marie" book that Disney Press just released last month.


Copyright 2006 Disney Press

But look, it's not like Disney Studios hasn't ever canceled a sequel before. I mean, how many of you remember "Dumbo II"?


Copyright 2001 Disney Enterprises

Which Buena Vista Home Entertainment heavily hyped as "Coming Soon !" as part of its October 2001 release of the 60th anniversary release of "Dumbo." That project was eventually abandoned because Disney Toon Studios reportedly couldn't find a way to replicate the characters from this 1941 film in the CG format. Which is what David Stainton, the then-head of Disney's entire animation operation, was insisting upon.

So -- for at least the forseeable future -- the Mouse Factory is out of the unnecessary sequel business. 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" ...


Copyright 2006 Disney Enterprises

... the money that the company used to make off of home premieres like "Bambi II" and "Tarzan II" is going to start looking awfully good.

Mind you, it's not like Buena Vista Home Entertainment is entirely getting out of the video premiere business. Next Fall, we'll see the release of "The Tinker Bell Movie" ...


Copyright 2007 Disney Enterprises

Which will be the first of four new DVDs that the company is producing in order to support its new "Disney Fairies" franchise. Even the 2-disc special edition of "Peter Pan" that Disney will be releasing in March of next year ...


Copyright 2007 Disney Enterprises

... is deliberately being positioned so that this Platinum Edition DVD can then serve as a promotional vehicle for "Tinker Bell and the Ring of Belief."


Copyright 2007 Disney Enterprises

Anyway ... To answer your question, Jessica ... Yes, with the exception of these new DVD productions that will directly support the "Disney Princess" & "Disney Fairies" product lines, the Mouse is getting out of the unnecessary sequel business.

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.

As all those unnecessary sequels suddenly start becoming necessary again in order to boost the company's bottom line. 

Your thoughts?

, , , ,
Blog - Post Feedback Form
Your comment has been posted.   Close
Thank you, your comment requires moderation so it may take a while to appear.   Close
Leave a Comment
  • * Please enter your name
  • * Please enter a comment
  • Post
Comments
  • 4 Oct 2006 11:23 AM
    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.
  • 4 Oct 2006 12:23 PM
    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.
  • 4 Oct 2006 12:40 PM
    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!

  • 4 Oct 2006 2:06 PM
    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.)
  • 4 Oct 2006 2:52 PM
    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!
  • 4 Oct 2006 3:11 PM
    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.
  • 4 Oct 2006 3:40 PM
    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?

  • 4 Oct 2006 4:55 PM
    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.
  • 4 Oct 2006 6:10 PM
    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
       
  • 4 Oct 2006 7:44 PM
    How anything educational can come from someone that misuses the alphabet so blatantly is beyond me...
  • 4 Oct 2006 8:34 PM
    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.
  • 5 Oct 2006 12:51 AM
    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.
  • 5 Oct 2006 7:52 AM
    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.



  • 5 Oct 2006 8:28 AM
    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.
  • 5 Oct 2006 11:48 AM
    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!
Page 2 of 3 (39 items) 123