Walt Disney The Sequelizer

[Woody13]

I often see posts by various Disney fans that complain about the many sequels and the direct to DVD releases made by the company in recent years. Often, these same fans will point out that Walt himself would not approve of such conduct, if he was still here. They point out that Walt had a great distain for sequels and that he seldom, if ever made sequels.

A good example is the 1932 short cartoon, "The Three Little Pigs". That cartoon became an international hit and the song, "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf" became a big hit as well. Disney made three sequels, "The Big Bad Wolf, "The Three Little Wolves", and "The Practical Pig". Of course, none of the sequels had the same gigantic impact of the original and Walt lamented, "You can't top pigs with pigs". This quote is often used by Disney fans to point out that Walt really disliked sequels.

As an example, here's a quote directly from www.savedisney.com written by Merlin Jones:

"Of course, it had always been promised that sequels to Walt's own classic features would never be done, especially in low-budget animation (honoring Walt's oath that "You can't top pigs with pigs." -- a nod to the relative failure of the Three Little Pigs follow-ups he had been convinced to produce). Walt had made a point of never making sequels to his own major films, preferring to do something new with his time and money (only live-action features were ever sequelized in Walt's lifetime, such as Davy Crockett and the River Pirates, Son of Flubber, Savage Sam and The Monkey's Uncle)."

What Merlin Jones says above is true, to a point. What he fails to mention is that the majority of the Disney major films were in a constant state of re-release so they never had to do any sequels. Snow White, for example, premiered in 1937 and was re-released 8 times (1944, 1952, 1958, 1967, 1975, 1983, 1987 and 1993) until it was released on video in 1994. The other Disney feature films were also re-released in the same manner. With the advent of VCR home video and DVD, movie re-releases became a part of history.

While Walt was still alive, he was a sequel making machine! The best example of this is the Davy Crockett series. It was a huge success. Every five year old child in the country had a -skin cap! The merchandizing went threw the roof on old Davy! Disney only made three (hour long) television shows of Davy Crockett during the first season (1954-55) and Walt made the mistake of killing Davy off in the final episode. So, to rake in some more money, Disney made two more Davy Crockett television shows the next season, based upon the legend of Davy Crockett. Of course, they also had a smash hit song called, "The Legend of Davy Crockett" that stayed on the charts for 16 weeks!

Then Disney took the 4th and the 5th television episodes and recut them for a movie release in July, 1956! If Eisner attempted that today, he'd be shot!

Well, after the Davy Crockett phase, Disney attempted to recapture the synergy (read "sequel") with our good friend Zorro in 1957 and it worked very well. Zorro was very popular and made a ton of money for the studio. Zorro was a Mexican southern California Robin Hood based in the old west. A frontier avenger just like good old Davy!

Then in 1960 and 1961, Disney attempted to repeat the magic with a Daniel Boone television series:

1. 12/4/60 The Warrior's Path
2. 12/11/60 ...And Chase The Buffalo
3. 3/12/61 The Wilderness Road
4. 3/19/61 The Promised Land


It was a flop but it paid the bills. However, the point is if Walt or Roy thought they could make some money, they would.

 

[barnum42]

My issue with the sequels is not that they aresequels, but that most of them are badly animated, cheap looking with little thought to plot or character. Of the ones I have seen Lion King 1.5 / 3 is the only decent flick.

 

[SpectroMan]

I totally agree with both of you. When there was money to be made, Walt and Roy would do it, but it was never at the expense of the artistry of animation. (I know Woody13 we have had a long discussion about Walt's doings as art, but just go with me right now.)
All of his sequels were at the same quality as the originals. This is the major flaw of the new sequals. They have poor craftsmanship.

I have nothing against sequals except for this.

 

[DarkMeasures]

I should point out though that Walt Disney absolutly hated making sequels. He only did so due to pressure from others inside the company.

 

[prberk]

I think that it is true that Walt Disney did not like to do many sequels in general. He liked new ideas. But I do think that he entertained sequels that were worthy of merit, or continued the story. Case in point was "Fantasia," which he considered to be the first in an unfinished and evolving series.

He also approved of taking good ideas and expanding on them, or improving them. (Like when he took "The gy Dog" as a teleplay for the Disneyland TV series and upgraded it to a feature film, followed by similar movies with similar casts, "The Absent-Minded Professor" and its direct sequel, "Son of Flubber.")

That was the key: could the story or characters be expanded or be worthy of expansion in the feature film arena, where your reputation was most guarded. The quality mattered, and even in TV. This is the same reason that Pixar (who doesn't go the cheap sequel or TV route) is better regarded today than Disney, and why their films automatically open well (the way Disney's used to, just 12 years ago...).

So, sequels are O.K., but only sparingly and worthy.

 

[prberk]

And, by the way, I still think that re-releases of the best classics are worthwhile for "big screen" fun. That was evidenced by "Star Wars" in 1997, and earlier by "Gone With the Wind," during the mid-nineties (when it was "remastered").

Marketed right, rereleases do very well and give a new generation to see the films on the big screen, with an audience.... and cost very little (only distribution and marketing).

I suggest that they re-release "Old Yeller," "Mary Poppins," "Snow White," and "Beauty and the Beast," and perhaps others, every seven to ten years, as they used to, during Spring Break or other times....

 

[Woody13]

After the release of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the seven dwarfs were so popular that Disney was besieged with requests for a sequel to Snow White. Walt was more than happy to make dwarf sequels! The dwarfs were seen again in four short films, The Standard Parade (1939), The Seven Wise Dwarfs (1941), All Together (1942), and the Winged Scourge (1943).

These films were done on the cheap to rake in some cash. Walt, the sequelizer, strikes again!

 

[Halfling418]

that's completely different. they appeared on tv shows...not a tv full length feature movie.

now, sequels are made years and years and years after the origional. they don't even have a similiar look.

a couple of the sequels--released to theaters--worked with their predecessors. (Toy Story 2 and the Rescuer's Down Under)

the sequels also nowadays claim to be as good as the originals--that's ridiculous

furthermore, how can we make a sequal to bambi and cinderella when walt was alive for the first ones, but not today? when i see the direct to video ones, it seems a completely different dimension

i understand it makes money---but why not use mickey for origional stories to be released to video/DVD? those frankly looked more appealing.

 

[CaliSurfer182]

I don't think my problem with these 2's and 3's is the fact that they are sequels. I think it bothers me more that they are direct-to-video releases. To me that makes them look like they are a "straight make money off the people through the use of a name" enterprise. I guess I just fall into the category of people that think direct-to-video movies are inferior to box-office movies.