It’s nice to see Steve Jobs taking an active interest in his role on Disney’s board. El Jobso took some time out of his busy schedule in the week before the launch of the iPhone to abolish Disney’s practice of distributing direct-to-DVD sequels (a habit we roundly lambasted back in podcast #18). Steve made his feelings known back in 2003 during a conference call:
“We feel sick about Disney doing sequels,” Jobs said. “If you look at the quality of their sequels … it’s pretty embarrassing.”Okay, it’s not really Mac news, but it’s another data point on the persona of Steve Jobs. Direct-to-DVD sequels made lots of money for Disney, but they’re crap and Jobs values making a good product over making a profitable one (ideally, I’m sure he’d like to do both). Now if only he’d crack open the Disney “vault” once and for all.
(Read on for a Saturday matinee rant.)
In the matter of the DVD sequels, Jobs was backed up by former Pixar exec (now Disney Chief Creative Officer) John Lasseter, whose distaste for sequels is well known, despite the fact that he’s currently working on Toy Story 3. While I don’t share that sentiment across the board—some of the best movies of all time have been sequels: The Empire Strikes Back? Godfather: Part II? Mannequin 2: On the Move?—the current love of milking properties of every last drop of creative moo juice is getting a little bit ridiculous. Here’s just a taste of movies coming out this summer: Spider-Man 3, Ocean’s 13, Harry Potter: The Order of the Phoenix, Live Free and Die Hard, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Shrek 3, Rush Hour 3, The Bourne Ultimatum. I love sequels as much as the next guy, but the problem is usually that most of these movies suck.
So hurrah! No more Bambi II (the rebellious teenage years), Cinderella III (Cinderella v. Mr. T), or Lion King 1 1/2 (I only wish I was making it up). The Little Mermaid III being produced now is the last Disney direct-to-DVD sequel with all future DVDs being “original” ventures, starting with the upcoming Tinkerbell movie.
Wait a second….
[hat tip: Gedeon via Twitter]
But when you make a movie long after the original was done, and with a totally different team ... well every company needs to make money but that's pretty too much of a total greed play. The people that really cared about the original would refuse to do it. Was the original even created with the possibility of a sequel in mind? That's always present nowadays.
Yeah sometimes the sequel can be as good as or surpass the original, but it's pretty rare: Empire Strikes Back, Godfather II, Aliens, Toy Story 2, and Spider-Man 2 are all I can think of. If I know the team would rather do it right or not at all, I trust them. So, Pixar has my blessing for Toy Story 3, but not Disney.
Cool! Something I tweeted was of semi-real value, the Internets are a marvelous series of tubes.
Regarding Disney DVD sequels, I'm with Jobs and Lasseter on this all the way. Although I do have to say that Kronk's New Groove was just about as great as the original. They managed not to screw that one up too bad. Same can't be said for Lion King 1.5
First of all, Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back was the second part of a pre-planned trilogy, not technically a sequel. Episodes 1-3 are sequels (or "prequels" if you prefer) and they support the assertion that sequels suck.
Of course this whole argument is rather misleading. The problem isn't so much the fact that they are sequels as that Disney is pushing out movies by numbers rather than focusing on making a few great movies. Look at Apple: a handful of product lines, swap in a larger hard drive and faster processor every few months, update one or two lines a year (form factor-type shifts). Apple isn't trying to inundate us with products, it is trying to blow our minds with superior quality.
",,,the current love of milking properties of every last drop of creative moo juice is getting a little bit ridiculous. Here's just a taste of movies coming out this summer: Spider-Man 3, Ocean's 13, Harry Potter: The Order of the Phoenix, Live Free and Die Hard, Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Shrek 3, Rush Hour 3, The Bourne Ultimatum."
Some of these examples may be sequels, however some of these we knew would come out years ago. Harry Potter was started with a movie for each book in mind, same for the Bourne films.
Pirates, Fantastic Four and Rush Hour sequels all seem like money squeezing. That doesn't mean I wont see them or enjoy them if they are good.
I just finished reading "Cult of the Mouse" by Henry Caroselli, and he talks about greed and lack of risk taking as it applies to corporations with Disney as the sample company.
What many sequels turn out to be is the safe bet. And while you may win, it hardly ever pays off as well. Hopefully with Lasseter and Jobs Disney will take some new risks and some gems will emerge.
@Dave-O: Kind of splitting hairs there. A sequel is anything that continues a story, characters, or themes, regardless of whether it's pre-planned or not. Empire and Jedi are both sequels—very good sequels, as it happens, but sequels nonetheless. Also, episodes 1-3 were planned out at around the same time, though not made until more than a decade later.
There's nothing inherently wrong with sequels. I'm a huge fan of serialized storytelling in books, movies, and television shows. But clearly there are plenty of examples of sequels made merely to cash in on the success of the original: Pirates of the Caribbean and The Matrix are two perfect examples of movies that stood perfectly well on their own and had no need for one crappy sequel, much less two.
I'm glad to see Jobs take a stand against just churning out sequels, and I hope—though doubt—that other studios will follow Disney's lead. In twenty years I'll probably be watching Casablanca II and Schindler's Second List. Thanks, Hollywood.
The most awfulest thing about the Disney direct-to-DVD sequels is that they were never intended to be good. Their audience was the non-discriminating children of the world and their poor, sucker parents who will buy anything with the Disney name on it. Unfortunately, my family has fallen into that trap a couple of times. My kids demand to see the movies, so we learned to rent them first. Nor harm in that.
The Disney name used to represent very high quality to me, but that changed significantly when they started releasing direct-to-DVD movies (and a few awful theater releases too *cough* Brother Bear *cough*). Kudos to Jobs and Lasseter for insisting on quality above quantity.
Actually Dan, I was repeating the argument from Scream 2.
@Dan, I think we're making the same basic point. Sequels aren't the problem. While Pirates of the Caribbean was intended to be a one-shot, I see no problem with saying we have good characters established in an exciting world. The sequels didn't have to suck (says the guy that still hasn't seen number 3). The Matrix also established a world with possibilities, although I think the story of the Nebuchadnezzar crew was over. Fundamentally there is nothing uncreative about a sequel. You have to establish a plot with conflict, humor, action, and emotion, and you have to make your characters grow.
Ultimately, I think this is a problem of Sturgeon's Law. If 90% of everything is crap and you take the good 10% and make sequels, 90% of the sequels will suck. We can all name a bunch of bad sequels (what, no one has mentioned Ghostbusters 2?) and a few good ones, but we can also name a bunch of bad movies and a relatively few good ones. The curse of the sequel ultimately is the success of the first. The first was so good that the sequel has to meet or beat that mark. It has to be in the top 10%.