A Matter of Sequel

The horror, but...

        Sequels. In the world of animation, rarely is it a good idea to make a sequel to a film. Animated films aren't set up to be franchises, and while in some cases it works really well, Kung Fu Panda, Toy Story, Ice Age, for the most part it's purely a cash grab. The worst offender has to be that of the DisneyToon studios making poorly made sequels to hit films purely to make a cheap buck. The Walt Disney Animation Studios has only produced 4 sequels in all their 52 films, however the Disney corporation created the DisneyToon Studio to produce many a sequel, around a total of 35, to the Walt Disney Animation Studio's successful films. 

     Out of DreamWorks Animation's 25 films, 8 are sequels and out of Blue Sky Studios 7 films, 3 are sequels. Sequels are something that Pixar had only done once in the form of Toy Story 2, but there schedule is now becoming littered with them. The Toy Story Trilogy is amazing and I love every film, but a Toy Story 4 is absolutely unnecessary and would purely be to cash in on the billion dollar revenue the 3rd film pulled in. Similar to Ice Age 4, which was one of the worst animated films of the year, cashed in on the third film being so successful! Did it work? Yes, but a crappy film that tarnishes the franchise and the company. So what's more important, money or quality? 

     Now I understand that it is very hard for a company to survive financially so bringing in a lot of money to keep them a float isn't a bad thing, you have to do what you have to do. But was Blue Sky in such a bad situation that they had to force a fourth Ice Age out just to bring in almost a billion dollars? Or is that just 20th Century Fox telling them they have to make it because that's all the corporate heads care about? What about when a studio genuinely has a good idea for a sequel, is that appropriate? I think that is such a delicate situation, because you have to ask yourself as a film maker, "Why does this story need to be told with these characters?". Sequels tend to pose the question, "What can we make these characters do next?", and that is not putting the most important thing first, the story. 

...not as bad as this.

     In the case of DisneyToon Studios 35 sequels, it was purely for money and searching for what they could do with already established popular characters. The same thing happened with Shrek. The first movie? Great! The second one? Still great! The third one? I had to take a break halfway through I was so bored. I didn't even go see the fourth because it was ridiculous! There comes a time when you have to know when to quit. All 35 of those Disney sequels could disappear and I wouldn't particularly miss any of them. Did some of them turn out really well? Yes, they did. Were 30 disappointments worth it? No. 

     Now I know I was hatting on Ice Age 4 a little to harshly, it wasn't that bad, but it is a great example of pushing a franchise to far. DreamWorks Animation has a similar problem with sequels as they do churning out films. It's not a race! Why aren't they taking there time on these films? Two a year is plenty, three is down right unbearable. Not only does the quality of the films go down, but you feel like you are on an overload of DreamWorks and it almost becomes cluttered. This has kind of been a random jumble of thoughts on sequels but I needed to update the blog and the whole subject of sequels has been bugging me! I hope you enjoyed this post, let me know what you think below! And whoever thinks a bunch of sequels is a good idea? "You fired!!!"