So after four installments looking at 40+ theatrical film franchises (a sequel, a remake, or both), what conclusions can be drawn? Disney sequels – brilliant marketing or bumbling moviemaking?
WWWT
One of the yardsticks that could be used to measure the success of the Disney sequels/remakes is Walt himself. As in, “What Would Walt Think?” Clearly, given the history of “The Three Little Pigs,” he *did* have a sense of giving an audience what it wanted and was willing to pay for.
Walt approved of three film franchises during his tenure as Mousetro: those revolving around Davy Crockett, Ned Brainerd, and Merlin Jones.
It’s easy to understand the green-lighting of the Crockett and Jones films. Both were television shows, essentially repackaged for the movies. And both were hits. For Crockett, all that was required for a theatrical run was some re-sequencing and bridging narration. For Jones, it was more an assembly project than a scripting/filming/producing one, much the same thinking as went into theatrical releases for “Johnny Tremain” and “Dr Syn, Alias the Scarecrow.” Walt took the path of least resistance, leveraging work that had already been completed by the Studio.
With “Absent Minded Professor”/”Son of Flubber,” Walt found a way to rather quickly and efficiently put some more product on the market, especially while studio resources were busy elsewhere. The “major” output of the early 1960s (“The Sword in the Stone,” “Mary Poppins,” etc.) took considerable resources, whereas a quickie pair of comedies like the Fred MacMurray outings was easy to get on film.
In addition, it’s not too hard to think that Walt got that trademark twinkle in his eye over the chance to do some inventive and laugh-out-loud special effects. A flying Tin Lizzie is one thing, but for the chance to convincingly capture on film the tossing of a football player 90-some yards may have been too much for him to resist.
Walt-Worthy Sequels
Some of the more modern franchises would clearly have delighted Walt. He had designed “Fantasia” to be reissued and reconstituted, so it’s not hard to imagine him thoroughly enjoying the 2002 edition, impressed mightily by the advances in computer and sound technology.
As an expert storyman, it’s not hard to think of him adoring the “Toy Story” films, which John Lasseter went to
| Advertiser
|
great lengths to ensure had not only humor but heart. Further, the respective “TS1″/”TS2” budgets ensured no deterioration in the look of the films — and in some instances enabled an improvement with the sequel, especially with its rendering of human characters. Also, the core voice actors were brought back en masse to reprise their roles, a vital ingredient.
The special-effects wizardry enabled by computers would probably cause him to gaze admiringly at the “Shrunk the Kids” and “Parent Trap” installments, if for nothing else than how convincingly it all came off. His reaction to the “Roger Rabbit” would have been interesting to note; would he have celebrated the chance for his characters to interact so convincingly with the real world, or would he have balked at the inclusion of so many rivals?
His Midwestern sensibilities might have gotten in the way of some of the live-action remakes. For instance, it is tough to imagine Walt enjoying the pierced and thonged Jamie Lee Curtis in the “Freaky Friday” re-do. But maybe the roars of audience laughter would have proved a soothing balm.
On the DTV Front
When Walt re-did the Pigs animated shorts, reluctant though he may have been to go ahead, he sought the same level of quality, he looked for a similarly tight story, he vetted the script for film-worthy gags, he rehired his voice actors — all attentive details that the Studio has seemingly forgotten in its animated-feature-to-DTV-knockoff carousel.
Starting in the late-1990s, the tenor of the sequels shifted. The driving force seemed to devolve from “continue a worthwhile story by recreating some of the magic of the original” to “dump the product on the market as fast and as cheaply as possible.” Backgrounds became flat, character animations became clunky, music scores were one-offs from the award-winning sounds of their predecessors. And if a star wasn’t interested or available in recreating a role? Find someone else to mimic.
They were not only killing the goose that laid the golden egg, they were shaking her upside down for every nickel that could fall from her pocket first.
Perhaps the nadir of these DTV cartoons came in the mid-quels. Disney animated films that were lock-tight finished, front to back, left no room for continuation. But that didn’t mean, the crafty marketers snickered, that a writer couldn’t shoehorn a story *into* the existing plot. What did the Dwarves do all day at work in the mines? How did Mary Poppins spend her every other Wednesday off? From a philosophy of “There’s always room for more” sprang such stretched storylines as Belle prepping her first Christmas in the Beast’s castle and Tarzan growing up — all the more egregious because he “grew up” in the *original,* too.
If a sequence isn’t important enough to include the first time, what was Disney thinking in assuming we’d be interested (and willing to shell out $14 or more) a *second* time?
The bright spot in this — if there is one at all — may be with “Lion King 1½ ,” where the studio learned (hopefully) that a completely new approach to a sequel — one that pays homage, yes, but that also takes the story in a direction *other* than What Happened Next — can produce a good result.
Continuances Continued
Sadly, the DTV knockoff trend doesn’t seem to be abating anytime soon. In 2005, we can look forward to “Kronk’s New Groove,” in which the lovable lunkhead from “The Emperor’s New Groove” tries to impress his dear ol’ dad.
2006 is bringing the mid-quel “Bambi II,” and despite some gorgeous backgrounds seen in a preview to the “Bambi” DVD, it’s again a case of telling us what we already know: Once Bambi’s mother was shot, he grew to adulthood in the forest. More nature-themed material is coming in the form of “Brother Bear II” in 2006.
The year after, hold onto your glass slippers for “Cinderella III” and “The Tinker Bell Movie.”
In limbo is “Dumbo II,” which was hyped on the 60th anniversary DVD of the 1941 original. It was put into production with a 2002 proposed delivery date, later shelved (owing to some botched CG tests, apparently), and is rumored to have been brought back to life. The loss of Joe Grant, the Disney Legend who worked on the original and was doing some storyboarding and scripting for “DII,” may have given the studio pause about moving ahead. Considering the thin story line — Dumbo and friends get lost in a big city, only to use pluck and bravery to return home — maybe that’s a good thing.
I’d conclude with a shot at asking Disney to answer our burning desires and ‘fess up about what Mulan’s horse, Kahn, does on weekends, but I don’t want to plant any ideas.