No More Disney Direct-To-Video Sequels

Konacha

Member
In the Parks
No
Well, I think this thread is in the wrong place, but anyway.

If this is the end of the sequels I'm all for it. The problem was that the sequels to me only felt like they wanted more money out of the orginal movie. If they made some of the sequels as good or better then the original then sure I'm all for it, but don't do it for EVERYTHING too... for example. I liked Toy Story 2 better then the first one, but that thus far has been the only sequel from Pixar (using it as an example).

Plus all the sequels felt like Disney was money hungery too... I mean, after the crap that Cindrella 2 was... I'm glad those are gone.
 

Brian_B

Member
This is superb news.

Between this, upgrades and enhancements to SSE, HM, and other classic attractions slated to get TLC (SM and JII), the (partial) removal of Leave a Legacy and the promise of the imminent destruction of the ______ (intentionally left blank in order to not incite forum riot), I have never been happier with the company. And to think, it's all thanks to the guys whom I swore at one point I'd never buy a computer from. As steve martin would say, open mouth, insert foot! He used to be a CM, btw.

I think that there will be a time in which folks who are into this kind of thing will look back and pinpoint this occurance as the true beginning of the second disney renaissance. We haven't had experienced quality like this since the good old days.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
I don't mean to rain on everyone's parade, but am I the only one who sees this as a bad thing? The money that could and maybe will be lost because of this is unbelieveable! As ssidiouss said, these videos made millions, if not billions of dollars for the company. I think it's a mistake to close the studio down, and believe instead, they should have made the line between the WFDA (is that around anymore?) and DTS more vissable. They could have easily made quality pictures for the theatre and the less quality pictures for the videos, and could have cashed in on both. In the long run, I think they will regret this.
I see this as a great thing. The movies they produced I believe tarnished the Disney image. In the long run I think this is what needed to be tone to re-establish Disney at the top of the annimation scene, the place they belong. Just because they made money should not be the reason to keep doing them. Disney said when they announced this a month or so ago that they are going to focus on new IPs and not do sequals. So it looks like they wont stop the DTH all together, just not sequals. Disney was once associated with only the highest quality and for me, low quality, try to make a buck movies ruined that. Just my 2cents.
 
So, Tinkerbell project is DONE? Huh. There was a preview most reciently on Peter Pan, don't know of anything since. I don't buy that they would kill it totally. The franchise already has a universe established in the books, rework one of those or something.

Dwarfs movie -- HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Robinsons -- could be a fun franchise, but would a sequel cost too much
Chic Little -- Kids have been hoping for a sequel.

I don't see the problems w/the sequels.

I feel sorry for any 35 year old that buys them for their collection, but the last few have been very high quality. Bambi 2. Brother Bear 2. Ariel 3 may be good too.

For the kids, I'd rather them watch these sequels than the Barbie movies, or especially garbage that actually makes it to theaters like Doogle or Unhappily Ever After. Neither of them had any redeeming quality whatsoever. Well, the Dwarfs from Unhappily were kinda funny.

Tinkerbell isn't a sequel so it's not done with. It's still coming out. It a spin-off. Only sequels are no longer being made. That division has been dismantled and the story people have either been laid off or moved to different areas (that's just how this business goes).

As for Bambi 2 and Brother Bear 2...they were both done in Australia (sp?). Disney had a studio there that managed to turn out the most quality work for all of the sequels that were created. Don't confuse what those artists did with what the artists who work on the theatre based features do. They are completely two seperate divisions and the quality is what seperates them. The only major feature animator that has crossed over was Andreas Deja (Scar, Jafar, Lilo, etc). He chose to work on Bambi 2 because he didn't want to convert to 3D. I don't mean to dis-credit the guys and gals in Australia, because they did do a good job on the films that they did, but if their quality had matched that of the feature animation crew, then they would've been brought to LA. Unfortunately for that crew, that studio was closed down quite a while ago.

Mermaid 3 was being done in India. Shortly after closing the Chinese and Austrailian studios Disney opened one in India. (It's business and they go where things can be made cheaper) Mermaid 3 will come from there and I believe that is where Tinkerbell is coming from as well.

The only American based workers on these sequel projects were story people and storyboard artists. No animation what-so-ever came from the states, it was all done overseas.

I'm happy to see these things finished. They left a black eye on the animation industry as a whole and especially with Disney. What they did was show the general public how crappy animated films can be if made with little budget. Just watch Hunchback 2, Tarzan and Jane or any of the Aladdin sequels for perfect examples of that...if you don't believe me....throw in the originals and then watch the sequels and tell me that they have the same quality.....ugh. I did watch the Aladdin ones and wasn't happy, I forced myself through most of Hunchback and then gave up...I fast forwarded through almost all of Tarzan and Jane waiting for the art to get better (it didn't).

So I'm thrilled to see these things going away.
 

Enigma

Account Suspended
But instead of living in the world of conjecture and wistful thinking, I live in the world of the now and facts... As it stands, as an intelligent person, and a Disney stockholder, I am seeing my investment diminish in value.. By rights, and as a stockholder, I have to wonder if this is such a good idea, because the sequels did provide a good profit for a negligible expenditure.

But don't you think the same amount of profit, potentially even more, could be made off of original content? A movie like "Rapunzel" or "The Princess and the Frog" is almost certain to make more money than say "little mermaid 3" or "Return to neverland"

Its the same reason shrek 3, pirates 3, and spider man 3 didn't do as well as the studios hoped. Theres always goign to be that crowd of people that will keep seeing the same thing over and over but in general, audiances want something new!
 

Enderikari

Well-Known Member
But don't you think the same amount of profit, potentially even more, could be made off of original content? A movie like "Rapunzel" or "The Princess and the Frog" is almost certain to make more money than say "little mermaid 3" or "Return to neverland"

Its the same reason shrek 3, pirates 3, and spider man 3 didn't do as well as the studios hoped. Theres always goign to be that crowd of people that will keep seeing the same thing over and over but in general, audiances want something new!

Right, except, since the direct-to-DVD sequels are produced by a different animation department, its not like Disney has to make a choice between having the sequels or having Rapunzel... They are a big company and can do both.

I am not saying that oppurtunity costs don't matter, but in very simple economic terms, the sequels were inexpensive to produce, and brought in more money than they cost to make... Thus, profit... and I believe Jimbo said it best when he stated
That Jimbo Dude with a decent head on his shoulders said:
I feel sorry for any 35 year old that buys them for their collection, but the last few have been very high quality. Bambi 2. Brother Bear 2. Ariel 3 may be good too.

For the kids, I'd rather them watch these sequels than the Barbie movies, or especially garbage that actually makes it to theaters like Doogle or Unhappily Ever After.
 

DisneyDefenders

Active Member
No changing the past

Unfortunately, the damage has already been done to great classics like Cinderella, The Jungle Book, Lady and the Tamp, The Fox and the Hound, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, The Hunchback Of Notre Dame, Mulan, and Tarzan. :cry:
 

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
I'm torn...

As Enderikari posted, there goes my stock value... but as a Disney fan, YAY!

Ehh.. screwit. My stock will recover. Good riddance to crappy DVD's. Thank god that overall my portfolio is doing well :lookaroun
 

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
I honestly don't think it's possible for a person to truly be a fan of a company they own more than a minimal amount and continually monitor its progress.

Another thing... who in their 20's pegs their entire retirement on the success or failure of one stock?!!?!?!?! Diversify! Heaven forbid Disney were to go belly up... there goes your money :)

Although in all fairness, I am assuming that you have a very diverse portfolio which will carry you all the way from the "dying my hair pitch black to hide the gray" phase to the "ooops.. I pooped myself" phase :) Make sure the pretty señoritas at the nursing home don't steal your Disney stock certificates... :lol:
 

Computer Magic

Well-Known Member
I found this article from Motley Fool.....I like their viewpoint:

Killin' the Villain at Disney

By Rick Aristotle Munarriz June 25, 2007

Ding-dong, the glitch is dead. In a move that is long overdue, Disney (NYSE: DIS) is axing its model of producing low-budget direct-to-DVD sequels of its animated classics. In a DisneyToon studio shake-up that is no doubt influenced by last year's infusion of Pixar's craftsmen, Little Mermaid III will be the last of these home video titles.

Thank God!

Sure, the releases were lucrative, but I would argue that it cost Disney far more than it made. Don't believe me? Hear me out.

Finding failure in success
Yes, I remember hearing former CEO Michael Eisner explain how Return of Jafar, the wildly popular direct-to-video Aladdin follow-up that kicked off the home video sequel practice, proved to be more profitable than Disney's Pretty Woman live action hit four years earlier.

Return of Jafar wasn't bad. The sequel was a near-term financial success, even without the contribution of Aladdin voice star Robin Williams. But looking back, it was a costly mistake. It was the beginning of the end of Disney's force as the golden standard in animation.

Disney mistook beginner's luck with market vindication, when all it was really doing was scribbling an epic on cocktail napkins before the marketplace sobered up. Maybe that was the key in prodding Disney deeper -- and cheaper -- into rushed releases with substandard storyboards, mediocre animation quality, and penny-pinching sacrifices.

Some critics argue that it was the emergence of computer-rendered eye candy being put out by Pixar and DreamWorks Animation (NYSE: DWA) that made Disney mortal, but this was never a battle of programmed pixels over ink and paint. Disney just got sloppy, settling for less and assuming that its dwindling audience would stomach anything it shoved down its throat.
It didn't work out that way. There was no amnesiac magic in the pixie dust. Parents eventually got tired of snapping up cut-rate sequels. Kids who grew up on the stuff no longer had a reason to trust the Disney brand.

When Disney did strike cinematic gold on this side of the millennium -- as in Lilo & Stitch or to a lesser extent with Chicken Little -- it was the exception to the writedown rule. Exploiting classics squeezed Disney dry of its heritage, imagination and fan base.

Another renaissance afoot
Not all of the direct-to-video sequels were dreadful, but since when did Disney settle for anything less than the best? Just to make sure that I'm not being overly subjective here, I went to Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX) to check viewer ratings. Home video sequels to iconic masterpieces like The Lion King, Cinderella, Peter Pan, and Bambi all have lower Netflix subscriber ratings than the originals. And just so we're clear here, this isn't dozens of movie buffs participating in a straw poll. We're talking about the collective opinion of hundreds of thousands of reviewers on most of these entries.

If you thought that killing Bambi's mother was an unpopular move back in 1942, what can you make of killing off Bambi -- the franchise itself -- 64 years later with Bambi II?

Ink it over
It's no surprise to find the Pixar leaders who have been charged with restoring Disney's glory in animation are moving to dismantle the direct-to-video brand thinners.

They have been vocal critics of sequels in general, even after the success of their own Toy Story 2. Still, that was a project that Disney originally envisioned as a home video release. Pixar's commitment to getting it done right was enough to bump it up to a theatrical release with all the trimmings.
Disney and Pixar also butted heads on the prospects of Toy Story 3, now set to hit a multiplex near you in three years.

So sequels aren't necessarily the problem. Done right, The Godfather, X-Men, and Spider-Man can have spectacular second installments that push endearing characters into more lasting relationships with popcorn-munching fans. And that's not just me talking. I'm going by healthy follow-up ratings on Netflix for those three franchises.

And obviously this isn't only about box office receipts and eventual DVD sales that suffer if the credibility is as spotty as 102 Dalmatians. Between digital downloads through Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) and licensees like toy maker Mattel (NYSE: MAT) and video game publisher THQ (Nasdaq: THQI), the difference between blockbuster and franchise-snuffing crop duster is as wide as the divide between feast and famine.

Am I exaggerating? You tell me. Remember that $7.4 billion purchase of Pixar? Do you think it would have been necessary if the non-Pixar animation being put out by Disney was still the handiwork of a respected market leader? Of course not. That's a dear price to pay for Disney's mistake of squandering its hilltop vista by playing it cheap, quick, and stupid.
Those Pixar chaps know what they're doing. So farewell, Cinderella III. The shoe never quite fit.

Disney, Netflix, and DreamWorks Animation are active recommendations for Motley Fool Stock Advisor newsletter subscribers. You don't need a direct-to-portfolio tip, but you can get a free 30-day trial subscription to the service today.

Longtime Fool contributor Rick Munarriz can usually be found at Walt Disney World. He's the one wearing the "Bob Iger Fan Club" T-shirt. He does own shares in Disney, Netflix, and DreamWorks Animation. He is also part of the Rule Breakers newsletter research team, seeking out tomorrow's ultimate growth stocks a day early. The Fool has a disclosure policy.
 

SWatsi

Member
Good riddance. And I hope that the Tinkerbell movie is never released. Please please please..

I think I will celebrate by burning a VHS copy of Cinderella II.
 
Tinkerbell is still coming....it's a spin-off, not a sequel (otherwise it'd be Peter Pan 3). I wouldn't worry too much about this one though (except for the talking Tinkerbell...I do worry about that), it'll be pretty popular I think for young girls.

As for Mickey Mouse, they will always manage to put out a cartoon about him every ten million years or so. Mickeys cartoons are really just stand alone stories that don't involve already knowing who or what he is before seeing it. I'm sure the new animated shorts division is working on stories for new Mickey cartoons. If I remember correctly, the last actual animated short for Mickey was Runaway Brain. I don't necessarily consider the X-Mas specials over the past couple years to count as shorts, being that they were feature length and a short generally doesn't surpass more than 15 -17 minutes.

Actually....I don't know what I consider them at all. I do consider A Christmas Carol, Prince and the Pauper and even the Three Mousekeeters (sp?) as viable Mickey cartoons....but not the other stuff. Hmmmm.
 

the-reason14

Well-Known Member
Im surprised to see the Tinkerbell movie go under, I thought it was a stupid concept, but they sure adveritsed it in several dvds. Some of the sequals were good, but overall? No.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom