"That's one thing I've never believed in, is sequels to things. I've never believed in doing sequels. I didn't want to waste the time I had doing the sequel. I'd rather be using that time I had doing something new and different... they wanted me to make more (films) with the dwarfs in it, and I said no... and it worked out." -Walt Disney
(From a 1961 interview with Peter Martin)
7 comments:
Pixar was all about "No sequels" at one time. Then it was, "No sequels unless there's a good script." Now it's, "No sequels unless it's Cars because, hey, you try to resist a boatload of cash that Disney dumps on your doorstep."
I'm hearing rumors of a Monsters Inc. 2. Christ.
Well, the sequel to Toy Story was really the Toy Story film they'd originally wanted to make, but couldn't because the Toys needed a better introduction first.
Actually, come to think of it, just how many films back then actually had sequels? Even The Marx Brothers, while maintaining Character (their well-known identity) never actually were the same "character" from one film to the next. Rufus Firefly, Professor Wagstaff, etc.
The other big blockbusters of the time (e.g., Gone with the Wind) I don't recall having sequels either, until some tv-movie exec (gee? add TV to the mix and suddenly a sequel HAS to happen) decided on it.
Really, it was only the Saturday Morning serials, the ones Lucas was trying to recreate in Star Wars and Indiana Jones, that worked like that. Disney was never really in that market until much later, by which time (20,000 Leagues), they got too expensive to produce and the market was getting eaten up by Saturday morning television.
There were LOTS of sequels in the old days. Remember the Sherlock Holmes movies? How about the Thin Man movies? They just didn't call them "Sherlock Holmes 2". Personally, i think Cars 2 is a really stupid idea. If you're going to make a sequel, make of of The Incredibles. I am looking forward to Toy Story 3 though.
Ooooh, how novel! Complaining about the proliferation of sequels. Also a lot of fun (and an indication of highly developed and discerning taste): whining about remakes, films based on TV series, airline food and "kids today".
Want to see some great stuff and appear truly engaged? Judge the work on the work, not the book by it's cover.
Kids today...
Whoops, an Internet genius arrived to set us all straight. Discussion over!
@ Ron
"Want to see some great stuff and appear truly engaged? Judge the work on the work, not the book by it's cover."
I'm actually animating on a sequel. And while it's fun and it will make money, if I ran the place I wouldn't have chosen to make the film.
Some things are best just left alone. It's more of an integrity issue. Some works (not all), be it films/books/art, are just so unique that to follow them up with something, despite how good the work or story, just ends up diluting the original.
To me Walt was always striving for that caliber of work. And therefor never felt the need to revisit it.
Post a Comment