Disney Sequels…Not So Bad
Posted in Discussion on April 12th, 2007 by megamoze |
Aladdin 3. Cinderella 3. The Lion King 2. Peter Pan 2. I know this is blasphemy to many, particularly purist animation artists and fans. But I’m here to defend these films for a couple of reasons.
First let me say that there is some validity to the idea that our time as artists is better spent on totally original stories, or at least newish adaptations of books, fairy tales, and songs that haven’t been animated before. I’m well aware of Walt’s old quote as well but even Pixar did Toy Story 2 and Steven Spielberg produced Fievel Goes West plus about eighteen Land Before Times. And yet there still seems to me a double-standard between animation and live action. And in live action there is no unspoken stigma at ALL over sequels. Audiences love them.
And that brings me to my other point. What we do, we do for audiences. Film is a uniquely commercial art form. It is driven by the market and always has been. That’s not to say that there should be no integrity whatever in our medium, but that integrity is always subject to financial concerns. If you produce a sequel and audiences gobble it up in droves, then who is to say that you were wrong for giving it to them?
Second, animated films keep animators working. And to their credit, Disney has really upped the game on the quality of these direct-to-DVD titles. Some of them look nearly as good as the features. I for one am a big fan of The Lion King 1 1/2. And aren’t working animators usually a good thing? These films are less expensive, so the studios are more likely to make them. And unlike the collapse of 2D feature animation because of bloated budgets, the studios can make these films with much less risk.
I think Aladdin 2 was a bad start, but I’m happy to see the studios starting to take these films more seriously, and I think we as animation fans should too.
