"Cheapquels" -- good or bad?

Jerry Beck has posted a link to an interesting article over at Cartoon Brew: it's an article which takes the unusual position of defending Disney's now-defunct direct-to-DVD sequels. From the article:

Perhaps ticket buyers (i.e., parents) long for a different era of animation. If so, Disney's sequels will do a much better job of reminding them of the animated classics than the slick gagfests in today's theaters. Despite their straight-to-DVD status, there's nothing cheap or knocked-off about the animators' work on these sequels. They have a rich, hand-drawn look that few studios' CG efforts can match.

The readers of Cartoon Brew aren't buying it. RR comments:

A good point is made here. But must we rehash and shove roman numerals onto classics to enjoy this “different era of animation”? I’d rather my children watch the original Bambi one hundred times than the Bambi sequels 1 through 100.

Emily agrees:

What a strange article. I actually saw a couple of the Disney sequels, and they were enjoyable in a certain way - it’s fun to see more 2D Disney animation. However, they are not original. The plots I’ve seen were very contrived and I hate those manipulative moments where you can see them trying so hard to pull at your heartstrings. I don’t think that playing off of the original jokes and plots with a new “twist” is really any more creative than fart jokes. Just think if they put all that animation energy into creating original characters and engaging plots - wouldn’t that be more fun?

And Floyd Norman really agrees:

Oh, please!

Those damn sequels were about nothing else except making easy money. Just be honest and admit it.

The “Old Man” would bitch slap those greedy executives.

The 20 Year Curse?

Semaj has posted posted an interesting observation at the Animation Nation BB:

Why does it seem like somebody or something wants to kill off Disney animation every 20 years?

1940's: WWII causes Disney to put full-narrative films on hold while most of their resources were put into wartime training and propoganda.

The anthology films were minor successes, which kept the studio alive thru near-bankruptcy. Walt Disney takes his next shot at full narratives with Cinderella, wherein the film's failure would've ended the studio for good.

He goes on to state that Disney animation was in trouble in the 1960s, the 1980s, and early in 2000. Mr. Fun replies, skeptical that Disney is even out of trouble at this point:

Today, Disney is more a marketing and distribution company than a creative one. Do I wish it were different? You bet I do. But, business is business, and I doubt things will ever be the same. ... In the old days, creative people ran the studios while the "suits" spent their afternoons in the bar or on the golf course. Today, managers meddle in every detail of production because they feel they have to. Today's films cost millions, and should they fail to deliver, someone's head is gonna roll.

Disney -- No Girls Allowed

Over at the Animation Nation BB, Offbeat posts the somewhat disturbing rejection letter that's been making the rounds in the last little while.



The gist of it basically being that the only animation job that girls are suitable for is as an inker. EustaceScrubb comments:

The most infamous example of that "girls don't work in the animation dept." form letter is the one that was sent to Lillian Friedman who had five years experience as an animator at the Fleischer Studio when she applied to work at Disney, but got that letter in return ! However, around the same time they had hired Retta Scott in the Story Dept. and were training her to be an animator. Go figure ... seems to have been a very arbitrary "rule" .

Straight-to-video no more

At the Animation show forums, Reverend Ned posts the news that Disney will no longer be producing cheapo direct-to-DVD sequels. From the news piece:

"Although the direct-to-DVD sequels - such as "Meet the Robinsons 2," "Chicken Little 2" and "The Aristocats 2" - have generally been very profitable, the new Chief Creative Officer of Walt Disney, John Lasseter, has publicly said the sequels are inferior to the originals and erode the Disney brand."

And of course, people seem happy about this:

"As bad as these cheapquels were, they were still highly lucrative for Disney, so the folks at Wall Street are probably not going to be as enthusiastic about this as we are. However, the fact that Lasseter and Co. were gutsy enough to pull the plug on this speaks volumes about the good times that are ahead."