Sunday, December 07, 2003
Rearranging The World: After Happily Ever AfterThe Trouble with Disney.
Today's rant: Disney movies. This is a topic I'm well versed in. I can sing a dozen Disney songs perfectly in pitch with no waffling over words. I can sing the entire Lion King set list and can even sing back up vocals for them. I'm fluent in talking dog, cat, mouse and talking farm animals and beavers. I can regale you with the escapades of anthropomorphism and when I have a child, will probably plagiarize Disney stories for bedtime tales. I'm bad.
So what's the problem then? Let us look at the recent economic downturn of the Disney Corporation. Has anyone else noticed this? You would if you were a stock-holder. I'm not. If I was, I would have bailed the minute Pocahontas 2 came out. That's where it began I think. Actually, if the economic downturn of Disney followed a standard negative parabola, Pocahontas 2 would be at the point (1, -1). (see, math isn't all bad!) If you really wanted the vertex, I'd be inclined to tell you it was when Pocahontas 1 came out. Oh yes. We'll start there.
With the release of Pocahontas, the American masses were introduced to the reality behind Disney. Very few of their stories are original. Finding Nemo is original. The Lion King, while based upon Hamlet . . . still fairly original. ok, theRescuers and the Rescuers 2. Lady and the Tramp? Possibly original, but not by much. Pretty much all others with a few varying exceptions are taken from other places. With Pocahontas though, the public was forced to see what had been in front of them for so long: the Disney Co. taking stories from other places. Now for the most part, it wasn't a problem because Americans are too caught up in their own suffering to read and if you ask the average 12 year old, they're not going to know that Cinderella came from the Grimm Brothers, and chances are, Snow White was *invented* by Disney, not the other way around. But every child learns about Pocahontas in school. And most who saw it in theaters probably recognized that the story wasn't quite the same that they learned in school, but still technically all fairly recognizable. So here was an example of Disney taking a story idea from actual past events! And then people could no longer deny it. Because suddenly, Hercules was coming out. And Mulan. And the Hunchback of Notre Dame was a much more prominent figure in the literary classics than the Little Mermaid ever was (I don't care what you say,Victor Hugoovershadows Disney at every turn). I'm not saying Pocahontas wasn't a great movie. It was. And Mulan is one of my favorites. I'm also a big fan of Hercules (if my dad let me watch cartoons and animated movies at home, I'd probably own it). But I'm just saying that this was the big sign: the beginning of the end. This was the high point before the downfall of Disney, the corporate giant.
Only recently, they came out with a great hit that was a fresh new look and a new story; The Emperor's New Groove. Fabulous movie. Eye-catching color scheme, great humor, and a drawing stylejust a little unique from the others. But then, that was it. And we're heading into Category number 2. Which is? Number 2. Or. The Sequel.
I'd rather stab myself with a dull pencil than describe this goryand cruel turn from the norm. It hurts so much to even recognize that this has happened. If we look at The Lion King as the height and beauty of the glory days of Disney, then we can certainly draw a connection between Lion King 2 and slow, drawn-out decay and death of all that is new and beautiful within Disney. No one will ever accuse George Lucas for his use of sequels. At least his are epic and worth the film they're run on. Disney though? No go. It's a pretty obvious thing to see when movies are airing on the Disney Channel before their predecessors ever evenmake it to the small-screen. That's certainly what triggered today's rant. Yesterday evening, Lady and the Tramp 2 was on the Disney Channel. I vaguely remember The Little Mermaid 2 being there 2 months ago. It's awful that Disney is so out of creative ideas or places to get stories that they're reverting to sequelization of EVERYTHING. The Rescuers was quite possibly the first Disney movie that had a sequel. That was fine. The Rescuers Down Under was breathtaking in its imagery and plot, and was a fresh outlook on the situation of poaching. Then came Aladdin, who had not 1, but 2 sequels. And a TV Series. I guess that's really where it began, but most people didn't recognize it for the earth-shattering event that it was until number 3 came out. Probably because the Little Mermaid and Alice in Wonderland had TV series first (even though AinW was live-action). But truly, I suppose in all fairness, Aladdin 3 was the beginning of the end for Disney. Oh yes, like teetering on the top of a dangerous roller-coaster, about to go over the edge, not quite ready for the plunge. And then the sequel flood hit. Disney was big on sequels before even the summer of '03. Therewere 2 sequels for the Beauty and the Beast, a sequel for 101 Dalmatians, The Little Mermaid, Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp, The Jungle Book, Peter Pan, the Aristocats, The Lion King, Atlantis, and countless others. And pretty much every sequel listed here was a flop. Most went straight to video. That should tell you something. Perhaps the thinking behind this was that if they produced enough movieswith a 2 added onto the end, they could make the same revenue as if they produced 1 or 2blockbusters, and that sequelswould be far easier because everyone knew the original story, so less marketing. Uh-huh. ok.
I don't watch Disney Sequelsunless I happen to catch it on TV or someone else is showing it. I don't own any Disney Sequels with the exception of The Rescuers Down Under and Fantasia 2000 (also extremely worthy of praise). This is how I managed to actually see Lady and the Tramp 2 and The Little Mermaid 2. If it weren't for the Disney Channel’s frantic efforts to reassert their claim of the younger crowd, I would never betelling you any of this. I'd be ranting about shampoo or chap stick. Isn't it funny how life works out?
But there are more coming, didn't you know? Mulan is one of those exceptional movies that gets 2 sequels. By 2006, There will be a Mulan 2 and a Mulan 3. How does that make you feel? By the end of 2004, The Lion King will also have 2 sequels ( The Lion King 1.5, and the Lion King 2 which has already come out). Also by 2006, there will be a third Rescuer's Movie out (I'm not at all as thrilled as I would be), Oliver and Company 2, Hercules 2, and a new installment of Fantasia (Fantasia 2006, which I'm a bit more thrilled about). Also coming possibly in 2012 0r 2013, The Lady of the Lake which seems could very possibly be a sequel to the old Classic "The Sword and the Stone". I know, I know, 2013?!?! That's like flying cars future and stuff. ok, maybe not flying cars, but hopefully electric cars.
The important question is whether any of these sequels is worth your time. No. None of these are worth your precious time. Ok, except for Fantasia 2006, and possibly Rescuers 3, (but be careful with the latter, because I'm doubting it severely). My father would argue that once you pass the age of 12, you shouldn't watch animated movies at all. I disagree, but I have to say that Disney can't handle Sequels for their life, and you can't expect the ones in the futures to be any exception. My father would also argue that few companies can pull off sequels. He's one to point out that George Lucas is getting sappy and sloppy in his old age and that Star Wars 1 and 2 (the real 1 and 2, not 4 and 5) absolutely sucked in the worst way possible (to put it lightly and succinctly). He liked X2 (how could you not?!?). And he likes every James Bond movie to ever come out, but pretty much everything else is spared the accepting opinion. Even one of my favorite sequels, Jewel of the Nile gets a head shake. I have to agree there. It's pretty darn cheesy, but still . . . it's not on the same level as Disney sequels. That's a good thing. So he pretty much doesn't like animated movies, and he doesn't like sequels, which means his views on the recent Disney turnouts are probably way harsher than my own (if you can believe it). His belief is that there is no way an animated sequel can be enjoyed in anyway. There's just no way to do it, no way to produce them and make them bearable. That's where we diverge.
I've already expressed my fascinated horror with Disney's ineptitude for sequels, but this doesn't mean it can't be done. Far from it, one people has mastered it. The Japanese. The idea behind sequels is not to go overboard with them and not to spout off a whole bunch of the same thing. Wait until you have a story to tell and then give a sequel. Don't look at it as "darn, we're not making enough money. We need a quick and easy way to generate a few million that won't take too long. Screw coming up with new characters and sets!" The Japanese extended sequels to TV series! No, Americans don't do that. Don't argue. Americans do spin-offs. Japanese do sequels. Look at Tenchi! They've got what, 4, 5 series? Every season was like an alternate universe! It's not a spin-off. The characters and their traitsare all there, but they meet each other in different ways, they're different ages, they have different jobs, and have different love interests. That's how you mix it up, Disney. Use your sequels sparingly please.
I'm going to take a moment to point out the obvious. Bear with me. Disney movies are all fairly similar. Girl/boy is oppressed by society or family. Girl/boy longs for a way out. Girl/boy sees unattainable boy/girl.By some ironic twist of fate/magic girl/boy comes tomarry and live happily ever after with boy/girl and all evil forces that stood in the way to perfect happiness have been dissolved/destroyed.
Very fewDisney stories don't follow this format. The Jungle Book doesn't. The Sword in the Stone doesn't. Atlantis doesn't (well, not exactly) The Rescuers has the first part and the happily ever after, but there's not exactly romance in child abuse.But in general, the format works. You know what I'mtalking about, right?
So we can plainly see that The Aristocats and the Lady and the Tramp, and Tarzan, and Cinderella, andHercules, and the Lion King, and Lady and the Tramp 2, and The Little Mermaid, and Snow White, and all the others . . . well they're all the same. The Aristocats is the Lady and the Tramp exactly, except in cat form. That and the female love interest already has kids (who don't have a father!?!? Disney! My gods, what messages we're sending to young children! A cat with bastard children!?!? Never!). Otherwise, the same. Lady and the Tramp just waited for kids until after the guy was on a leash, Aristocats ended up as a stepfather (I suppose) who adopted the kids as his own. Sometimes the story is accelerated and all the action happens after happily ever after (yeah, huh?). That's where 101 Dalmations comes from. The bachelors have both been happily married, and there's not a cloud on the horizon, and suddenly everyone's world is shattered. We still manage somehow to get to that house in the country and happily ever after. How does that happen? Is real life at all like that? Mostly, no. It's too bad, really, I could live in a world like that. Unless, you know, I was one of the townspeople in one of those quaint little French countryside villages. There are a lot of those in Disney movies.
Now we take a different turn. Where are all these awful ideas coming from?
Urgh. I don't want to answer that. But I will. Let's see. The same people who drew the Little Mermaid, drew the sequel a decade later. "What's the problem?" you say, "They had a hit before, same people, you get a hit again!" But that's not how it works, hon. You need fresh people with fresh ideas. This is why Fantasia 2000 was so gosh darn appealing. Their team of animators changes for every sequence, so you get a large variety of visual styles and concepts. But where's the root of the problem? Someone decided to keep all the people from the original classics. You'd probably be willing to say Roy Disney, Walt's nephew, named in the will after his death for the company to be passed on to. But that's where you'd be wrong. Few people are aware that just this week, there was a massive shift in power in the Disney Corporation, in name, if not in actual fact. I know you're trying to shoot me weird looks over the computer. It doesn't work like that. Roy Disney gave up his titles and roles and relinquished control of Disney just this week. Michael Eisner, who was supposed to be Disney's 2nd in command has actually had control for a long time and was making a lot of the executive decisions. Disney apparently grew tired of having Eisner holding the reins and left Disney, saying that the company was in the process of atrophy and that its tired ideas wouldn't last much longer. Disney recognized that Eisner was just using him as a figurehead and Eisner was making all the important decisions anyway. Disney is no longer owned by a Disney. How does that make you feel? I'm not warm and fuzzy, are you? This borders on funny to me. This is so against everything that Disney stands for in the movies. Disney movies are about getting along, teamwork and recognizing individuals. Disney is about the good-guys winning. Eisner is the power-hungry Scar of the Lion King. This is the Alternate Universe sequel, in which Simba leaves and never comes back. The pride is run out by the hyenas (20th Century Fox, Warner Bros., Dreamworks, and the crazy Hyena, Ed/Nickelodeon {who'd never survive if it weren't for the other Hyenas}), and all the Lions die, leaving a myth in their place; the mega-corporation who had 5-year-olds eating out of their hands. How the mighty have fallen.
Will Disney Co.'sname bechangedto Eisner? Probably not. People won't recognize the name, which is where Roy gets a little bit of revenge, possibly. And yet, still, it all seems so unfair. I long for the days of Disney PS (pre-sequel).I will end this extensively long rant with a list of animated movies and whose ideas they were originally (ie: where the heck they came from or were based off of). PS forever!